[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 4670]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               BETTER SCRUTINY OF NATIONAL SPACE PROGRAM

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 25, 2003

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, everyone in the nation 
was deeply touched by the terrible tragedy involving the recent loss of 
seven astronauts aboard the Columbia Space Shuttle. As in the case of 
the Challenger Shuttle explosion 17 years ago, Congress must become 
deeply involved in reviewing the causes of this accident. That review, 
as our former colleague and highly respected expert on the space 
program, Tim Roemer reminds us, must be an independent study. Far too 
much--in money, in effort and in lives--is invested in the manned space 
program for us to fail to undertake a thorough and fully credible 
review, including whether or not congressional funding decisions might 
have affected the adequacy of the resources devoted to shuttle safety.
  Congressman Roemer offered sound advice to the Gehman Commission that 
is charged with investigating the Columbia tragedy in a recent column 
published in Roll Call, which I am submitting to the Record.
  The article follows:

                NASA Panel Needs To Find Real Solutions

                            (By Tim Roemer)

       After the Challenger space shuttle exploded on takeoff in 
     1986, the prominent physicist Richard Feynman dramatically 
     conducted an experiment visually linking the cause and effect 
     for all to understand. He carefully dipped the rubber O-rings 
     into a glass of ice water to replicate what had happened when 
     they hardened, cracked and, consequently, malfunctioned. An 
     independent panel, known as the Rogers Commission, generally 
     concluded that NASA officials and contractors were largely at 
     fault. The report went on to list poor communications with 
     management, sacrificing standards to remain within the 
     budget, and not paying enough attention to hazards and 
     warnings.
       Now, 17 years later, the Columbia has disintegrated upon 
     re-entry. We cannot merely round up the usual cast of 
     suspects, appoint the same names to an investigation board 
     and point the finger at the predictable target. It is too 
     important to understand how this happened, with decisions led 
     us there and how to fix it.
       Whatever the final conclusion, the newly appointed Gehman 
     Commission tasked with discovering the cause should be loaded 
     with independent and aggressive individuals willing to 
     challenge Congressional budgeting decisions and oversight 
     performance. Everything should be on the table.
       The commission should have begun its investigation 10 years 
     before last month's takeoff of Columbia. On June 23, 1993, 
     Congress voted 216-215 to authorize $13 billion for space 
     station costs over the next decade. While Members of 
     Congress, the administration and especially NASA recognize 
     that the space station was experiencing significant design 
     glitches, cost overruns and scheduling delays, they also knew 
     that more money would eventually be needed in the overall 
     NASA budget. But the overall NASA budget level would decline 
     in real dollars over the next 10 years. The space station 
     overruns multiplied.
       Something had to give. The overall NASA budget went from 
     $14.36 billion in 1993 to $14.9 billion in 2002. However, 
     this declining budget in real dollars included an increase in 
     2002 for securing the NASA facilities from terrorist threats 
     after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. What happened during this 
     same period to the space shuttle budget? In 1994, the budget 
     for the shuttle was $3.8 billion. It was cut each year for 
     eight years by more than $500 million. In 1997, $200 million 
     was moved from the ``shuttle account'' to the ``space station 
     account'' by NASA with Congress' approval. Meanwhile, the 
     space station budget grew to $2.4 billion and then went down 
     to $2.1 billion. Due to NASA's many alternations in 
     accounting during this 10-year period, it is exptemely 
     difficult to calculate precise figures for many of these 
     programs. The commission should get a detailed and thorough 
     explanation on how much was spent and where the money went.
       By 1996, a single prime contractor took over the shuttle 
     operations. The ``USA'' on the astronauts' uniforms now stood 
     for ``United Space Alliance,'' a collaboration of private-
     sector companies. Did Congress object? Approve? Ring the 
     alarm bells? I was a member of one of the responsible 
     committees, and we didn't do enough.
       The Gehman Commission should analyze the role of Congress 
     in many of these important decisions. In the end, Congress 
     may or may not be part of the problem. But it can be part of 
     the solution.
       The House and Senate space oversight committees have a 
     historic opportunity to conduct 18 months of comprehensive 
     oversight hearings over the remaining 108th Congress. They 
     should produce a comprehensive and long-range report 
     detailing general options for a pared down space station, a 
     plan for robotic space exploration even beyond Mars, a robust 
     replacement shuttle, a bigger and better Hubble telescope, 
     and a vision for human space travel using nuclear propulsion 
     technology. And they must propose an affordable and 
     sustainable budget without sacrificing the viability of one 
     program for the benefit of another.
       This would be like the phoenix rising from earth, a 
     testimony and living memorial to the seven Columbia 
     astronauts. Together, their spirits and earthly remains would 
     break ``the surly bonds of earth.''

                          ____________________