[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22745-22746]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
                        2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 1654, which is the 
NASA authorization conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1654) to authorize appropriations for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2000, 
     2001, and 2002, and for other purposes, having met, after 
     full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do 
     recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by 
     all of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.)
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 12, 2000.)
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1654 which 
authorizes appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration for fiscal years 2000 to 2002.
  We have taken a long road to reach this point. I particularly want to 
thank my fellow conferees, Senators McCain, Frist, Stevens, and Breaux. 
You and your staffs have worked in a professional, bipartisan manner to 
get this bill done. Congratulations.
  In the past year alone, we have heard of great successes at NASA--
launch of the first element of the International Space Station, 
discoveries about the nature of our universe by our new Chandra X-Ray 
Observatory, the discovery of evidence to show liquid water on Mars. 
However, NASA has also seen some chinks in its armor with the failure 
of the Mars Climate Orbiter and the Mars Polar Lander and subsequent 
questions about the ``faster, better, cheaper'' mission concept. I note 
that Section 301 of the bill requires an independent cost analysis of 
missions that are projected to cost more than $150 million so that we 
do not operate under unrealistic budget constraints that have been 
blamed, in part, for these losses.
  It seems that NASA is at a bit of a crossroads both in trying to 
operate more efficiently without losing its effectiveness and in 
looking forward to the day when the International Space Station will be 
complete. So you see, this is the perfect time for an authorization 
bill like this one to help lay down a road map for the agency.
  Specifically, H.R. 1654 authorizes $13.6 billion for NASA in FY 2000, 
$14.2 billion in FY 2001, and $14.6 billion in FY 2002. These are at or 
above the requested level. The conference report highlights some 
priorities within NASA's accounts. I want to make it very clear for the 
record, though--this is an authorization bill. None of this money in 
any of these accounts can be spent until appropriated. The VA-HUD 
appropriations law will have the final say on spending, and that is as 
it should be.
  Senator McCain and Senator Breaux, I am sure, will summarize the 
major provisions of this legislation. I would like to discuss, briefly, 
why the conferees did what we did in a few places.
  The bill imposes a cap on the total development cost of the 
International Space Station and related Space Shuttle launch costs. 
While I am no supporter of the International Space Station, I support 
the cap as a way of imposing a program that until recently was bleeding 
more and more red ink every day.
  Nonetheless, I am concerned about the safety of the Shuttle, the 
Station, and our astronauts. As soon as NASA expressed concerns about 
safety, we immediately listened to their concerns and accommodated them 
without putting a hole in the cap that you could fly the Shuttle 
through.
  Section 324 of the bill alters the provisions of the Space Act 
relating to insurance, indemnification, and cross waivers for 
experimental launch vehicles. Current law provides broad authority for 
the Administrator of NASA to indemnify the developers of experimental 
launch vehicles. As you may know, the parallel authority under FAA's 
licensing authority for operational vehicles sunsets periodically. H.R. 
1654 places a sunset on the authority for experimental vehicles to 
allow us to review its use. The bill also does not allow reciprocal 
waivers of liability in a case where a loss results from the willful 
misconduct of a party to such waiver.
  I am pleased we could include section 322 which would prohibit the 
licensing of the U.S. launch of a payload containing advertising which 
would be visible to the naked eye from space. It also encourages the 
President to seek agreements with other nations to do the same. I, for 
one, do not believe that advertisements should compete for space in the 
sky with constellations, meteor showers, and planets.
  The conferees have authorized $25 million in FY 2001 and 2002 for the 
Commercial Remote Sensing Program's data purchases. I hope that such 
funding would be used to assist local and state government users 
acquire and use remote sensing data in their operations.
  The conferees have worked with the Administration to resolve several 
complicated policy issues. We did not come to the exact place the 
Administration wanted us to be. Nonetheless, I think we have come to 
provisions which satisfy the Administration's bottom line. Does the 
Administration love the bill? Of course not--what agency likes 
oversight, likes an authorization bill, especially if that agency has 
been operating in the absence of authorization since FY 1993. 
Nonetheless, I think we have done a good job. This is a bill the 
President can and should sign.
  We resolve the Administration's concerns regarding onerous provisions 
relating to Russian involvement in the Space Station program by making 
them country-neutral and forward-looking. The bill keeps the Space 
Station Commercial Demonstration Program in law, albeit for a shorter 
authorization period. H.R. 1654 will allow NASA to lease an inflatable 
habitation module or ``Trans-HAB.'' The bill does not terminate the 
Triana satellite program. And, as I mentioned before, the bill accounts 
for safety-related concerns about the cap provision.
  Unfortunately, we could not include some meritorious provisions which 
were transmitted to the Hill with NASA's FY 2001 budget submission. I 
would be happy to work in the next Congress with NASA on a policy bill 
which meets these needs.
  Finally, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee once again. 
When our negotiations with the House threatened to dissolve, he stood 
firm on the need for a bipartisan NASA bill

[[Page 22746]]

this year. I speak for all of the conferees when I congratulate him for 
putting together this bill. While it is not perfect, I support H.R. 
1654 and hope that the Senate will adopt the conference report.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report 
on H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization bill. First, I thank Chairman 
McCain and the other Senate conferees. We have come to a bi-partisan 
agreement after many months of conference and now we have the 
opportunity to pass a NASA Authorization bill for the first time since 
fiscal year 1993.
  As you know, NASA is one of the agencies of government that captures 
the spirit of the American people. Who can fail to be awed by the 
liftoff of a Space Shuttle, a walk in space, or the discovery of water 
on Mars? Because NASA is such a treasure, it is important that we in 
Congress exercise our duty to oversee and authorize its programs.
  And that is just what this conference report does. H.R. 1654 would 
authorize funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
at the appropriated level of $13.6 billion in FY 2000. It provides 
$14.2 billion in FY 2001 and $14.6 billion in FY 2002, slightly more 
than the President's requested level.
  The bill fully funds the Space Shuttle program, the International 
Space Station, and the Space Launch Initiative. It provides 
authorizations above the requested levels for the Space Grant College 
program, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, 
EPSCoR, and NASA's research into aircraft noise reduction and cleaner, 
more energy-efficient aircraft engine technology--research that can 
improve the quality of life of Americans who live near airports.
  When we were nearing the finish line with this bill, the 
Administration contacted us about several key concerns they had with 
the bill. We have resolved their concerns, and now I would like to run 
through these issues: our interaction with International Space Station 
partners, commercialization of the Space Station, Trans-Hab, Shuttle 
Safety, and Triana.
  International partners and the space station: We successfully altered 
House-proposed lauguage which was overly punitive. The provision 
contained in H.R. 1654 encourages NASA to provide for equitable use of 
the Space Station by seeking reduction in utilization rights (like crew 
allocation) for International Partners that willfully violate any of 
their commitments to the program.
  Space station commercialization: The conferees agreed to leave in 
place the Space Station Commercial Development program and did not 
agree to the House's proposal to eliminate the program. We did, 
however, shorten the period of time for which the program is authorized 
from 2004 to 2002. The program will be up for reauthorization at the 
same time that NASA itself is due for reauthorization.
  Trans-hab: NASA has considered replacing the ``hard'' habitation 
module for the Space Station with an inflatable ``Trans-Hab.'' The 
House had sought to prohibit NASA from using its funds to develop an 
inflatable habitation module. The conference agreement clarifies that 
NASA is permitted to lease or use a commercially-developed Trans-Hab. 
It is my understanding that NASA is currently evaluating a very serious 
commercial proposal for an inflatable space structure capable of 
accommodating humans in space, and this language should allow them to 
participate in such an agreement.
  Shuttle safety: The Administration was concerned that the Senate-
passed cost cap on the International Space Station and Shuttle flights 
to assemble the Station might send the wrong message about Shuttle and 
Station crew safety. That concern sent up a red flag to the conferees--
no cost limitation proposed in this legislation should make NASA 
hesitate for one moment in launching the Shuttle if a life was at 
stake. No one wants to jeopardize the life and safety of the crew of 
the Space Station. We inserted language to ensure that the cap would 
not apply to costs incurred to ensure or enhance the safety or 
reliability of the Space Shuttle and another provision to allow the 
Administrator to use monies provided beyond the cap to improve safety 
or to launch a shuttle to protect the Station and its crew.
  Triana: Finally, the House agreed to take out its provision to 
terminate the Triana program. Triana will be the world's first Earth-
observing mission to L1, the gravitational mid-point between the sun 
and the Earth. From this vantage point, the satellite has a continuous 
view of the Sun-lit portion of the Earth. Over 90 percent of the 
instrument development has already taken place, and we've already spent 
about $40 million.
  NASA highlighted several legislative provisions which they feel would 
be beneficial, yet are not included in the bill. While I would not 
support all of those provisions, I am disappointed we could not include 
some of the provisions that represent their greatest needs in this 
Conference Report.
  I would also like to highlight a few of H.R. 1654's other major 
provisions. The Conference Report imposes a $25.0 billion cost cap for 
International Space Station development and a $17.7 billion cost cap 
for Space Shuttle launch costs in connection with Station assembly. The 
cap would not apply to operations, research, or crew return activities 
after the Station is complete. An additional contingency fund of $5 
billion for Station development and $3.5 billion for Space Shuttle is 
authorized to provide flexibility in case of an emergency or other 
unusual circumstance.
  As you know, I am a strong supporter of the International Space 
Station Program. The Space Shuttle Discovery is currently on the 100th 
Space Shuttle mission, putting cargo and other items in place so that 
the Station is ready to be occupied by its permanent crew next month.
  The cap on Station development in the bill does not seek to alter or 
impede that program in any way. It merely seeks to limit the 
development costs so we stick to the plan and put a fully-operational 
Space Station on orbit in a timely manner.
  The bill also directs NASA, after Congressional review of their plan, 
to establish a non-governmental organization (NGO) to manage Space 
Station research and commercial activities upon completion of the 
Station. I understand that some members are concerned about this 
provision. I will simply note: (1) NASA is already in the process of 
evaluating and establishing an NGO to manage station research; and (2) 
our bill allows Congress nearly 4 months to react to NASA's proposal 
before it can be implemented. If we don't like what they come back 
with, we can tell them not to do it.
  H.R. 1654 represents the culmination of several years of hard work, 
and it is a good piece of legislation. I don't like every provision in 
the bill, but it represents a fine compromise--and one it looked like 
we might never reach. Again, I would like to thank Chairman McCain and 
Senator Frist for their hard work and to thank our staffs, in 
particular Floyd DesChamps, Elizabeth Prostic, and Jean Toal Eisen.
  I urge the swift adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the conference 
report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
and any statements relating to the report be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________