[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20966-20968]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  NASA

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am going to speak about the 
management of one of the most exciting little agencies in the Federal 
Government, NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
  The Senator from North Dakota has just put his finger on a number of 
problems with regard to our national economy, a subject that I 
addressed yesterday. I compliment him for his comments, his insight 
into the multiplicity of problems that are facing our country at this 
time. There is much to be done.
  I would like to focus today on a particular part of the Federal 
Government, of which I have some credentials to offer some suggestions. 
If we don't pay attention to the direction the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration is headed, we are going to get off on a wrong 
track and there are going to be some mistakes made. They can be 
mistakes everyone in this country would regret.
  I shared with the administrator of NASA my hope for his success. He 
came through our Commerce Committee. We had both private and public 
meetings. We had a lengthy hearing for his confirmation. We will 
continue to have hearings.
  I have suggested to the administrator that it appears the White House 
and the Office of Management and Budget are going to be unwilling to 
offer to NASA a budget that would increase its buying power. Its 
basically $15 billion budget in current-year spending is basically the 
same as it was 10 years ago. This is a little agency that has achieved 
so much and its achievements are the embodiment of the hopes and dreams 
of Americans as we fulfill our role as adventurers and explorers--a 
characteristic of the American people that we never want to give up. If 
we do, we will be a second-rate nation.
  This country was founded by explorers. This country was expanded by 
explorers and adventurers. Then the frontier was westward. Now the 
frontier is upward. And here on Earth the frontier is inward.
  We never want to give up that adventure because we will not fulfill 
the destiny that is resident in the hearts of all Americans, that we 
want to be adventurers and explorers.
  But, in this Senator's opinion, NASA is not going to be able to 
fulfill that role and achieve that destiny if we keep starving NASA. 
NASA cannot do that in the year 2003 on a budget that was the same 
budget in fiscal year 1991--12 years ago. So if the White House and the 
Office of Management and Budget continue to starve NASA of its funds, 
there has to be some kind of relief.
  I have suggested to the administrator a $5 billion item in the 
national budget over the next 5 years that is for the development of 
technologies of a follow-on to the space shuttle.
  The space shuttle originally was going to be extending its lifetime 
to about the year 2007. Then it was extended to 2012. Now the word out 
of NASA is that the present fleet of four orbiters is going to continue 
so that we will have assured access to space for humankind through the 
year 2020.
  It is a reliable vehicle. We have the best space team in the world. 
We have the finest launch team in the world at the Kennedy Space 
Center. But we can't continue to operate safely with the continued 
starving of NASA funds by the administration.
  I have suggested to the Administrator that one aspect he should look 
at as a program is development of new technologies for a new kind of 
vehicle, a reusable vehicle, that would be scheduled to go after the 
year 2020.
  That is also an item that is of considerable interest to the 
Department of Defense. The DOD, being flush with money, could fund 
that, with NASA having the management of that research, which it does 
so well and, therefore, give some relief in the NASA budget so that 
what was left over could be applied to what was necessary; that is, 
safety upgrades on the space shuttle.
  So there is no question that we are doing everything possible to have 
that space transportation system be as safe as possible even though we 
know it is risky business. When you defy the laws

[[Page 20967]]

of gravity, when you go at mach 25, when you circle the globe in 90 
minutes, when you come through 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit of searing heat 
on reentry, it is risky business. So we cannot afford to do anything 
less than upgrade all of the things that we have in the pipeline for 
the shuttle safety upgrades.
  At the same time, our Nation is in the midst of building the largest 
engineering accomplishment of all time. We are building a space 
station. It is a multinational effort. By the time it is completed, it 
will weigh 1 million pounds, it will have an acre of solar panels, it 
will measure the length of a football field, it will have a pressurized 
volume equal to two jumbo jets, and it will orbit at 220 nautical miles 
above the Earth.
  We already have an international space station in orbit. What is up 
there already is an extraordinary accomplishment. It is the largest 
cooperative scientific program in history. It is drawing on the 
resources and the scientific expertise of our own Nation along with the 
expertise of 15 other countries.
  This project is an exciting gateway to the new frontiers in human 
space exploration--meeting the deep-seated need of humans throughout 
history to explore the unknown, to understand their world and their 
universe, and to apply that knowledge to the benefit of all here on 
Earth. The International Space Station will sustain U.S. leadership in 
exploration in and the use of outer space which has inspired a 
generation of Americans and people throughout the world.
  I suddenly had a flashback. I was a lieutenant in the Army. I was on 
leave at the time we were launching to go to the Moon. I was in Eastern 
Europe approaching Belgrade, Yugoslavia. I went to the U.S. Embassy 
right at the time of launch, and I asked them if they had for this Army 
lieutenant the opportunity to watch it on television. They did not. I 
said: What would you recommend? They said: It will be carried live by 
the BBC on radio. Go outside of Belgrade to that series of hills and 
stick up the antenna of your shortwave radio and tune into the BBC.
  My fellow companions--those two young Americans with me, my best 
friends today--and I went out there. And the BBC cut into NASA Control 
at the time of launch of Apollo 11. There were three Americans in 
Yugoslavia out there cheering as that rocket rose into the heavens.
  That is the kind of excitement that has been generated across the 
Earth by the stunning accomplishments of America's space program. Now 
we are on the cusp of having another stunning accomplishment of 
breakthroughs in scientific exploration on the International Space 
Station. That station will provide a stunning opportunity to enhance 
U.S. economic competitiveness by creating new commercial enterprises 
while serving as a virtual classroom in space to advance scientific 
education for teachers and students alike.
  Most importantly, the station will be a unique world-class laboratory 
by providing an international platform for advances in science and 
technology. In this laboratory of the heavens, we will conduct research 
in tissue growth, looking at the causes of cancers and potential 
medical treatments. Our Nation's biochemists will investigate new drugs 
and develop a whole new understanding of the building blocks of life.
  Using the microgravity environment of space--that is near zero G--our 
industries will be able to develop new advanced materials that may lead 
to stronger, lighter metals and more powerful computer chips.
  The station will also house experiments in combustion science that 
could lead to reduced emissions from powerplants and automobiles, 
saving consumers billions of dollars. But that is only if we complete 
the space station.
  Last year, we found that the international program had real cost 
overruns and management problems. There is no question that we 
absolutely have to complete the project because it is an investment in 
our future and the legacy we will leave to our children's children. Why 
else are we building it, other than to make a difference in their 
lives?
  Yet this administration chose to fund some of the station's cost 
overruns without adding more money to NASA's budget, and requiring cuts 
to many other critical programs, including the delay of the safety 
upgrades on the space shuttle which gives us the access to and from the 
International Space Station.
  Instead of funding the space station sufficiently to fulfill its 
potential, this administration proposed curtailing the space station 
program to a skeletal configuration called ``Core Complete.'' Instead 
of maintaining a full-time crew of six or seven astronauts to be on 
board the station at all times, Core Complete, the skeletal completion 
would provide for only three crew members.
  You cannot do science on the space station with just three crew 
members because it takes more than two crew members to tend to the care 
and the feeding of the station, and that leaves less than one person to 
conduct the research on board.
  So I have been quite afraid that these cuts would endanger the future 
of the International Space Station. Apparently, there are other people 
who feel that way, too, because there is a report just released and it 
concludes this is exactly what has happened: The future of the station 
itself is now in jeopardy. That is according to that report. In March, 
the administration charged an independent task force, made up of Nobel 
laureates and world-class scientists and engineers, to review, assess, 
and help define NASA's biological and physical research priorities.
  Just over a month ago, this group, known as the Research Maximization 
and Prioritization Task Force, or ReMaP, completed their review of the 
space station's science programs. The results were not good.
  This distinguished group concluded that the Core Complete 
configuration and the shuttle flight rate mandated by this 
administration would severely restrict the station's research 
productivity--a finding confirmed by NASA's own analyses.
  A year and a half has now passed since this administration destroyed 
the space station's research budget, by cutting the crew size on the 
International Space Station from seven to three, and eliminating the 
U.S. crew rescue vehicle and the crew's living space known as the 
``habitation module.''
  In addition, the study, the ReMaP study, concluded that if 
enhancements beyond the Core Complete are not anticipated, then NASA 
should ``cease to characterize the Space Station as a science-driven 
program.'' Listen to this conclusion: We should ``cease to characterize 
the Space Station as a science-driven program.''
  What happened to the world-class laboratory? Where is our 
international science and technology platform? What about tissue growth 
research, and curing cancer, and all the other innovative medical 
treatments?
  What about the new drugs and the building blocks of life? How are we 
going to develop advanced materials and more powerful computer chips? 
What happened to environmental research in combustion science and 
reducing our emissions and energy use?
  With only a skeletal space station, gone are these and many other 
potential discoveries that we have been awaiting.
  NASA has a proven track record in supporting scientific research that 
makes a difference here on Earth. Let me give you a couple examples.
  I want to give some other examples of where NASA has such a proven 
track record in supporting scientific research.
  For example: a laminar air flow technique. It is used in NASA clean 
rooms for contamination-free assembly of space equipment. It is now 
being used--get this--at tollbooths on bridges and turnpikes to 
decrease the toll collector's inhalation of exhaust fumes. Straight out 
of NASA.
  I will give you another example: an advanced ultrasound skin damage 
assessment instrument. Using NASA ultrasound technology, it enables 
immediate assessment of burn damage

[[Page 20968]]

depth, improving patient treatment, and it may save many lives in 
serious burn cases.
  I will give you another example: a remotely operated, emergency 
response robot. It was first developed by NASA. It reduces human injury 
levels by performing hazardous tasks that would otherwise be handled by 
humans.
  Another example: a custom-made suit, derived from space suits. It 
circulates coolant through tubes to lower a patient's body temperature, 
producing dramatic improvement of symptoms of multiple sclerosis, 
cerebral palsy, spina bifida, and other conditions.
  Here is another: a self-righting life raft, originally developed for 
the Apollo program, which was to the moon, where we landed the 
astronauts back in the water. It fully inflates in 12 seconds, and it 
protects lives during extremely adverse weather conditions with self-
righting and gravity compensation features.
  How about this one? A new digital imaging breast biopsy system images 
breast tissue more clearly and more efficiently. This nonsurgical 
system--using technology originally developed by NASA for the Hubble 
Space Telescope--is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, 
scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical 
biopsies.
  And finally, a flywheel energy storage system. It is derived from two 
NASA-sponsored energy storage studies. It is a chemical-free, 
mechanical battery that harnesses the energy of a rapidly spinning 
wheel, and it stores it as electricity with 50 times the capacity of a 
lead-acid battery. This system is especially useful in electric 
vehicles, something that we are trying to perfect to help us ween 
ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil.
  And these are just a few examples.
  But I say again about this administration's plan for the space 
station: The Core Complete or the skeletal structure--not fleshed out--
simply taunts the research community, telling them that an orbiting 
laboratory is there but fails to provide them with real and significant 
opportunity to use it.
  The tag line NASA uses for the International Space Station program 
says: ``It's about life on Earth.'' That is the tag line. But is there 
going to be life in space?
  This Core Complete concept of the NASA administration falls so short 
of expectations that our Nation's leading scientists refuse to call it 
a science program.
  And under the administration's plan, our ever-shrinking space station 
will waste both time and money over the long run while failing to 
realize the unique potential of this international research facility.
  This administration--I am talking about OMB; I am talking about the 
White House, and I am talking about the administration in NASA--needs 
to stop pretending that Core Complete is a viable or a desirable goal 
for our country or our space-faring international partners.
  It is neither. Core Complete is the minimum configuration needed for 
the U.S. to say it has completed a space station, but that is just it--
it is the minimum. We can fix this by returning to the original plan. 
Let's go back to building a fully capable research laboratory. Let's go 
back to a crew size capable of maintaining the station and conducting a 
robust research agenda. Let's realize the full potential of this 
laboratory of the heavens. We must realize the station's full 
potential. Let's expand the crew size and broaden our research 
capabilities on board.
  Let's develop a crew rescue vehicle so that we don't have to rely on 
the Soviet vehicle that can only take three, so that we can get seven 
astronauts on board to do the research, so in the case of a 
catastrophic failure that we have a rescue vehicle, a lifeboat that can 
evacuate the seven crew members. And let's recommit to furthering 
humankind's understanding of the building blocks of life, recommit to 
developing advanced materials, reducing fuel emissions, and finding a 
cure for cancer.
  To this administration, I respectfully say, but I very strongly say, 
we best recommit this Nation to building a fully capable International 
Space Station. We have delayed long enough. The Nation awaits. There is 
not an American, there is not a school child whose eyes do not light up 
when told of the adventures and the successes of America's space 
program. We need to continue with a great vision.
  Right now, we can continue by building out the space station so it 
can fulfill its scientific research mission.
  I see my colleague from Montana. I had the privilege of going in the 
summer to Montana, and lo and behold, Tribal Industries in his State of 
Montana, built and conducted by the tribes on tribal lands, were doing 
great things that are direct spinoffs from America's space program. 
They had some interest in having me out there to talk to them about 
some of the successes of the space program. It is just another example 
of how all of these space accomplishments have spun off into 
businesses, this Senator, who has had such a great privilege of being a 
part of the space program, found when I went to the northern part of 
Montana, near Flat Iron Lake, near Big Fork.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Florida. The 
tribe he is referring to is the Salish Kooteenai Tribe in northwestern 
Montana. That tribe, along with a couple others in Montana, is proudly 
doing great work with defense contracts and NASA contracts. The Senator 
is exactly right. This is a program that is almost all-encompassing for 
almost the entire country. There are so many different States. We are 
particularly proud in Montana because of the Native Americans who work 
at it. It is good work. It is top quality work. I appreciate the 
Senator coming to Montana, visiting the Salish Kooteenai, seeing their 
good work. I am sure it adds more meaning and context to the Senator's 
experience in the space program and even new meaning to the Senator's 
experience of the space program. We are happy to be able to help in 
that regard.

                          ____________________