[House Report 104-210]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-210
_______________________________________________________________________


 
         INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995

                                _______


 July  28, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. Walker, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                     MINORITY AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                                  and

  THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE MARKUPS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
           SPACE AND AERONAUTICS AND THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                        [To accompany H.R. 1601]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
1601) to authorize appropriations to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration to develop, assemble, and operate the 
International Space Station, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.
                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Amendment........................................................2
 II. Summary..........................................................4
          Background and need for legislation....................     4
          Purpose of the bill....................................     8
          Relationship to the fiscal year 1996 budget request for 
              NASA...............................................     8
III. Committee actions...............................................10
 IV. Explanation of H.R. 1601 as reported............................12
          Full Program Authorization.............................    12
          Miscellaneous Provisions...............................    12
  V. Sectional Analysis of H.R. 1601, as reported....................13
 VI. Committee Views.................................................14
          The International Space Station........................    14
          Full Program Authorization.............................    17
          Miscellaneous Provisions...............................    18
VII. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................20
VIII.Effects of legislation on inflation.............................21

 IX. Oversight Findings and Recommendations..........................21
  X. Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported...........21
 XI. Committee Recommendation........................................22
XII. Minority and Additional Views...................................23
XIII.Proceedings of Subcommittee markup of H.R. 1601.................31

XIV. Proceedings of Committee markup of H.R. 1601, as amended.......108
                              I. Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:
  

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``International Space Station 
Authorization Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  The Congress finds that--
          (1) the development, assembly, and operation of the 
        International Space Station is in the national interest of the 
        United States;
          (2) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has 
        restructured and redesigned the International Space Station, 
        consolidated contract responsibility, and achieved program 
        management, control, and stability;
          (3) the significant involvement by private ventures in 
        marketing and using, competitively servicing, and commercially 
        augmenting the operational capabilities of the International 
        Space Station during its assembly and operational phases will 
        lower costs and increase benefits to the international 
        partners;
          (4) further rescoping or redesigns of the International Space 
        Station will lead to costly delays, increase costs to its 
        international partners, discourage commercial involvement, and 
        weaken the international space partnership necessary for future 
        space projects;
          (5) total program costs for development, assembly, and 
        initial operations have been identified and capped to ensure 
        financial discipline and maintain program schedule milestones;
          (6) in order to contain costs, mission planning and 
        engineering functions of the National Space Transportation 
        System (Space Shuttle) program should be coordinated with the 
        Space Station Program Office;
          (7) complete program authorizations for large development 
        programs promote program stability, reduce the potential for 
        cost growth, and provide necessary assurance to international 
        partners and commercial participants; and
          (8) the International Space Station represents an important 
        component of an adequately funded civil space program which 
        balances human space flight with science, aeronautics, and 
        technology.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  For the purposes of this Act--
          (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and
          (2) the term ``cost threat'' means a potential change to the 
        program baseline documented as a potential cost by the Space 
        Station Program Office.

SEC. 4. SPACE STATION COMPLETE PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.

  (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Except as provided in 
subsection (b), there are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for the period encompassing fiscal 
year 1996 and all subsequent fiscal years not to exceed 
$13,141,000,000, to remain available until expended, for complete 
development and assembly of, and to provide for initial operations, 
through fiscal year 2002, of, the International Space Station. Not more 
than $2,121,000,000 may be appropriated for any one fiscal year.
  (b) Certification and Report.--None of the funds authorized under 
subsection (a) may be appropriated for any fiscal year unless, within 
60 days after the submission of the President's budget request for that 
fiscal year, the Administrator--
          (1) certifies to the Congress that--
                  (A) the program reserves available for such fiscal 
                year exceed the total of all cost threats known at the 
                time of certification;
                  (B) the Administrator does not foresee delays in the 
                International Space Station's development or assembly, 
                including any delays relating to agreements between the 
                United States and its international partners; and
                  (C) the International Space Station can be fully 
                developed and assembled without requiring further 
                authorization of appropriations beyond amounts 
                authorized under subsection (a); or
          (2) submits to the Congress a report which describes--
                  (A) the circumstances which prevent a certification 
                under paragraph (1);
                  (B) remedial actions undertaken or to be undertaken 
                with respect to such circumstances;
                  (C) the effects of such circumstances on the 
                development and assembly of the International Space 
                Station; and
                  (D) the justification for proceeding with the 
                program, if appropriate.
If the Administrator submits a report under paragraph (2), such report 
shall include any comments relating thereto submitted to the 
Administrator by any involved party.
  (c) Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory.--The Administrator is authorized to 
exercise an option to purchase, for not more than $35,000,000, the 
Clear Lake Development Facility, containing the Sonny Carter Training 
Facility and the approximately 13.7 acre parcel of land on which it is 
located, using funds authorized by this Act.

SEC. 5. COORDINATION WITH SPACE SHUTTLE.

  The Administrator shall--
          (1) coordinate the engineering functions of the Space Shuttle 
        program with the Space Station Program Office to minimize 
        overlapping activities; and
          (2) in the interest of safety and the successful integration 
        of human spacecraft development with human spaceflight 
        operations, maintain at one lead center the complementary 
        capabilities of human spacecraft engineering and astronaut 
        training.

SEC. 6. COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPACE STATION.

  (a) Policy.--The Congress declares that a priority goal of 
constructing the International Space Station is the economic 
development of Earth orbital space. The Congress further declares that 
the use of free market principles in operating, allocating the use of, 
and adding capabilities to the Space Station, and the resulting fullest 
possible engagement of commercial providers and participation of 
commercial users, will reduce Space Station operational costs for all 
partners and the Federal Government's share of the United States burden 
to fund operations.
  (b) Report.--The Administrator shall deliver to the Congress, within 
60 days after the submission of the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 1997, a market study that examines the role of commercial 
ventures which could supply, use, service, or augment the International 
Space Station, the specific policies and initiatives the Administrator 
is advancing to encourage these commercial opportunities, the cost 
savings to be realized by the international partnership from applying 
commercial approaches to cost-shared operations, and the cost 
reimbursements to the United States Federal Government from commercial 
users of the Space Station.
SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

  It is the sense of Congress that the ``cost incentive fee'' single 
prime contract negotiated by the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration for the International Space Station, and the 
consolidation of programmatic and financial accountability into a 
single Space Station Program Office, are two examples of reforms for 
the reinvention of all National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
programs that should be applied as widely and as quickly as possible 
throughout the Nation's civil space program.
SEC. 8. SPACE STATION ACCOUNTING REPORT.

  Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually 
thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a report 
with a complete annual accounting of all costs of the space station, 
including cash and other payments to Russia.
                              II. Summary

                background and need for the legislation

    Since 1984, the United States has led the effort to design, 
develop, construct, and operate an international basic research 
laboratory in low Earth orbit, conventionally referred to as a 
space station. As first proposed, Space Station Freedom would 
cost $8 billion (in fiscal year 1984 dollars) and be 
permanently occupied in 1996. During the 1985-1993 time frame, 
the space station program was rescoped and redefined no less 
than six times. The development funding for the new space 
station program, notionally named ``Alpha,'' is projected to 
cost $17.4 billion between fiscal year 1994 and when it will be 
permanently occupied in 2002. H.R. 1601 authorizes 
appropriations for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 to complete 
the ``Alpha'' international space station program.

Prior redesigns

    The history of space station restructurings and 
redefinitions is instructive to the purpose of H.R. 1601, a 
full-program authorization for the international space station. 
The first major redesign in 1985 was triggered by reconsidering 
the mission requirements for space station science. The second 
major redesign was triggered in late 1986 over concern about 
the safety of astronaut crews both during construction and 
operations, including the potential risk posed to crews during 
a stand-down in the space shuttle fleet. By the time of the 
third major redesign, Congressionally mandated fiscal 
constraints led to a two-phase design, reducing near-term cost 
projections while increasing total cost to complete. In 1989, 
the fourth redesign was again triggered by cost constraints 
versus projected cost growth in the program. The fifth redesign 
was a Congressionally mandated redesign intended to contain 
cost growth and address a variety of science prioritization 
issues. The sixth, most ambitious, and last redesign was 
initiated solely by the Administration in 1993.

Alpha station

    During the 1993 redesign effort, the space station Freedom 
program was entirely shelved while NASA directed three design 
teams to propose fundamentally different and competing design 
concepts for evaluation by an independent committee to advise 
the President on the selection of a new space station program. 
The President chose to pursue an option that used a substantial 
portion of the Space Station Freedom's hardware components, and 
that could enable significant participation by the Russian 
Space Agency. The new ``Alpha'' design is not considered 
radically different from the Freedom program; however, the 
aggregation of programmatic and financial management into a 
single prime contract under a cost incentive fee, together with 
a single program management office having programmatic and 
financial control, are fundamentally different.

Program management

    During 1994, NASA proceeded to develop preliminary designs 
and cost estimates for the new international space station, 
basing its work on the established Space Station Freedom 
components and flight-proven Russian hardware assets. Also 
during 1994, NASA negotiated with the Russian Space Agency a 
$400 million fixed-price contract for data products, hardware, 
and services to accomplish joint space operations leading to 
the co-development of the space station. Funds for this 
contract are authorized separately from the International Space 
Station, as part of the NASA budget. In 1994, NASA negotiated 
and signed its single prime contract with the Boeing Company.

Status of international agreements

    Other significant agreements must be reached during 
calendar year 1995: A Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Russian and U.S. space agencies; Memoranda of Understanding 
between the U.S. and the other international partner space 
agencies in Japan, Europe, and Canada; and an Intergovernmental 
Agreement among all the partner nations, to be based largely on 
agreements reached in the technical Memoranda of Understanding. 
These agreements are overdue for a variety of reasons. The 
general form of a cost-sharing arrangement will be agreed to by 
the partners at the conclusion of the Intergovernmental 
Agreement. The formulation of such an agreement depends first 
on the development of cost-sharing arrangements which, is 
dependent on the functional design's technical assumptions 
(e.g., consumption rates for consumable resources), and second, 
the division of functional responsibilities between partners. 
These assignments, utilization shares and the level of hardware 
contributions to be provided are presently under negotiation 
between the Russian Space Agency and NASA.

Merger of U.S.-Russian space operations

    From an operational point of view, the meshing of the U.S. 
and Russian piloted space programs has proven a success. 
Beginning in 1994, U.S. and Russian astronaut crews were 
exchanged for cross-training and launch aboard each others' 
spacecraft. In February 1994, Russian cosmonaut Serge Krikalev 
was the first Russian to fly aboard the Space Shuttle. In 
February 1995, cosmonaut Vladimir Titov, flew aboard the Space 
Shuttle on a rendezvous mission to the current Russian space 
station, Mir. In March 1995, U.S. astronaut Norman Thagard was 
launched from Baikonur, Kazakhstan aboard the Russian crew 
vehicle, Soyuz TM, to the Mir for an approximately 90 day stay. 
Most recently, in June 1995, the U.S. space shuttle Atlantis 
was launched to Mir for the first docking of a space shuttle 
and an orbiting space station, and two Russian cosmonauts, 
Anotoly Soloyev and Nicolai Budarin assumed occupancy. Having 
conducted jointly sponsored biomedical and microgravity 
research on Mir, astronaut Thagard and two Russian cosmonauts, 
Vladimir Dezhurov and Gennady Strekalov, were returned to 
Earth.

Program assembly sequence

    The first element of the International Space Station, a 
Russian-made, U.S.-purchased Functional Control Block, (an FGB 
tug, capable of providing thrust to periodically reboost the 
station to maintain orbit), is scheduled for launch from 
Kazakhstan on a Russian Proton Heavy Launch Vehicle in November 
1997. The final launch in the sequence, which outfits the U.S. 
habitation module, is scheduled for June 2002. This point is 
described by NASA as ``assembly complete,'' and is the point to 
which authorization is provided by this legislation.
    The entire launch assembly sequence at the time of 
Committee consideration is as follows:

                       ISS ASSEMBLY SEQUENCE REV A                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Planned Launch                                                         
      Date             Flight                Delivered Elements         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/97...........  1 A/R...........  FGB (Launched on PROTON launcher)   
12/97...........  2A..............  Node 1 (2 Storage racks), PMA1, PMA2
4/98............  1R..............  Service Module                      
5/98............  2R..............  Soyuz \1\                           
6/98............  3R..............  Universal Docking Module (UDM)      
6/98............  3A..............  Zl truss, CMGs, Ku-band, S-band     
                                     Equipment, PMA3, EVAS (Spacelab    
                                     Pallet)                            
7/98............  4R..............  Docking Compartment (DC)            
8/98............  4R.1............  Service Module Solar Array          
                                     Augmentation, Cargo Boom (on       
                                     Progress)                          
9/98............  4A..............  P6, PV Array (4 battery sets) /     
                                     EATCS radiators, S-band Equipment  
11/98...........  5R..............  SPP-1 w/gyrodynes, radiator         
11/98...........  5A..............  Lab (4 Lab Sys racks)               
12/98...........  6A..............  7 Lab Sys racks (on MPLM), UHF,     
                                     SSRMS (on Spacelab Pallet) \2\     
2/99............  6R..............  SPP-2 w/integrated thrusters        
2/99............  6RUF-1..........  ISPRs 1 Storage rack (on MPLM), 2 PV
                                     battery sets (Spacelab pallet)     
3/99............  7A..............  Airlock, HP gas (on Spacelab Pallet)
Phase 2 Complete                                                        
5/99............  8A..............  SO, MT, GPS, Umbilicals, A/L Spur   
5/99............  7R..............  SPP Solar Arrays (4)                
7/99............  UF-2............  ISPRs, 2 Storage Racks (on MPLM),   
                                     MBS                                
8/99............  9A..............  S1 (3 rads), TCS, CETA (1), S-band  
9/99*...........  7R.1............  SPP Solar Arrays (4)                
10/99...........  1OA.............  Node 2 (4 DDCU racks), Cupola       
11/99...........  11A.............  P1 (3 rads), TCS, CETA (1), UHF     
11/99*..........  8R..............  Research Module #1 (RM-1)           
1/00............  12A.............  P3/4, PV Array (4 battery sets), 2  
                                     ULCAS                              
2/00............  9R..............  Docking & Stowage Module (DSM)      
2/00............  1J/A............  JEM ELM PS (5 JEM Sys, 2 ISPR, I    
                                     Storage racks), SPDM, P5 w/        
                                     radiator OSE                       
3/00............  1J..............  JEM PM (3 JEM Sys racks), JEM RMS   
6/00............  1OR.............  Research Module #2 (RM-2)           
7/00............  UF-3............  ISPRs, I Storage Rack (on MPLM) 1 02
                                     tank (on ULC)                      
8/00............  13A.............  S3/4, PV Array (4 battery sets), 4  
                                     PAS                                
2/01............  UF-4............  2 ULCs with attached payloads, Port 
                                     MT/CETA rails, Centrifuge Umb, 1 02
                                     tank                               
3/01............  2J/A............  JEM EF, ELM-ES, 4 PV battery sets   
                                     (on ULC)                           
6/01............  2E..............  1 U.S. Storage, 7 JEM racks, 7 ISPRs
                                     (on MPLM)                          
8/01............  14A.............  Centrifuge, S5                      
9/01............  1E..............  APM (3 Sys, 5 ISPR racks) (launched 
                                     on Ariane launcher)                
11/01...........  UF-5............  ISPRS, 1 Storage Rack (on MPLM)     
1/02............  15A.............  S6, PV Array (4 battery sets), Stbd 
                                     MT/CETA rails                      
2/02............  16A.............  Hab (6 Hab racks)                   
2/02............  11R.............  Life Support Module (LSM)           
3/02............  13R.............  Research Module #3 (RM-3)           
4/02............  UF-6............  ISPRs (an MPLM), 1 02 tank (on ULC) 
5/02............  17A.............  1 Lab Sys, 8 Hab Sys racks (on      
                                     MPLM), 2 PV battery sets (on ULC)  
6/02............  18A.............  CTV #1 (Launch Vehicle TBD)         
6/02............  19A.............  3 Hab Sys, 11 U.S. Storage racks (on
                                     MPLM) \3\                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 3 Person Permanent lnternational Human Presence Capability.         
\2\ Microgravity Capability.                                            
\3\ 6 Person Permanent International Human Presence Capability.         
Additional Progress resupply and Soyuz changeout flights are not listed.
*Flight Sequence order subject to power generation capability. 6/27/95  
  4:27 PM                                                               

Research capabilities

    The International Space Station is designed to serve a wide 
range of commercial and scientific users. The design provides 
for seven pressurized laboratories, including a U.S. Lab, U.S. 
Centrifuge and Centrifuge Accommodation Module, three Russian 
Research Modules, the Japanese Experiment Module, and the 
European Space Agency Columbus Orbital Facility. At least 33 
International Standard Payload Racks, (self-contained 
experiment work stations), will be contained in these 
facilities. The total pressurized volume will be 46,200 cubic 
feet, roughly equivalent to the cabin space of a Boeing 747 
airliner. The electrical system will provide research 
activities with a lifetime average of 30 kilowatts of power; 
total lifetime average power will be 92 kilowatts. A 2.5 meter 
centrifuge is included to provide artificial gravity during 
biomedical experiments on live animal specimens and plants. 
Planned crew capacity provides for up to six permanent 
occupants.
    In addition to pressurized laboratory space, the Japanese 
contribution includes an exposed payload facility, and the 
primary U.S. truss structure will provide accommodations for 
additional exposed experiments and earth observation payloads. 
To facilitate the use of these exterior ``lab'' areas, Canada 
and Japan will provide remotely manipulated robotic arms. The 
Canadian arm will also be necessary for assisting astronaut 
crews with assembly of the Space Station.

Manufacturing and test

    Elements of the space station are being produced by prime 
contractors ahead of schedule, as measured by the weights of 
elements produced to date. At the end of the first quarter of 
calendar year 1995, 48,200 pounds of hardware had been 
produced; 19,900 pounds were scheduled to be completed by this 
time.1 The pace at which hardware has been produced, 
however, does not rule out the possibility of other delays that 
could adversely impact the program. At the time of 
consideration, for example, the Committee learned that a weld 
process for the first U.S.-made element, Node-1, failed and had 
to be modified. Thus, while the pounds of hardware were 
produced ahead of schedule, a delay of one month resulted from 
welding these masses together. The program recovered from this 
setback under the severe fiscal constraints of the budget and 
reduced the potential schedule impact from four months to one. 
The availability of contingency funds to apply to future 
problems, like the node weld, has been an ongoing concern to 
the Committee.
    \1\ NASA Space Station Program Office, ``ISSA Total Hardware; U.S. 
Weights'' from a briefing given to Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics Professional Staff, June 29, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Budget performance

    The Space Station Program Office, working closely with the 
single prime contractor, Boeing, has developed cost containment 
strategies in order to meet program schedule milestones under 
the annual program cap of $2.12 billion. In Fiscal Year 1994, 
the program was able to under-run the budget cap by $259 
million in addition to anticipated carryovers. Fiscal Year 1995 
cost reductions are being sought to improve anticipated 
carryovers and provide reserves in excess of known cost threats 
in Fiscal Year 1996. Should these efforts fail to produce 
savings to carry over, given the annual funding cap, a 
potential cost overrun in Fiscal Year 1996 would have to be 
dealt with in one of two ways, either by deferring activity to 
a future year, or elimination of program content.

                          purpose of the bill

    To authorize appropriations not to exceed $13,141,000,000 
for all fiscal years beginning in fiscal year 1996 for complete 
development, construction and initial operations of the 
international space station.

        relationship to the fiscal year 1996 nasa budget request

    The amounts authorized by this bill include line items 
contained in the Human Space Flight and Science, Aeronautics 
and Technology appropriations accounts for NASA. For fiscal 
year 1996, the line item amounts assumed authorized by H.R. 
1601 are divided between appropriations accounts as follows:


    In this instance, the amount assumed authorized to be 
appropriated for the International Space Station in Fiscal Year 
1996 is $2,114,800,000. The remaining activities in the Human 
Space Flight and Science, Aeronautics and Technology accounts 
are not authorized by this Act.

                         III. Committee Actions

    H.R. 1601 was introduced by Representative Robert S. Walker 
on May 10, 1995. The bill was referred solely to the Committee 
on Science. Within the Committee, referral was made to the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
    The Committee on Science has held three authorization 
hearings in the 104th Congress, First Session: on January 6, 
1995; February 13, 1995; and on March 16, 1995. At each of 
these hearings, testimony was given by a variety of witnesses 
on the overall budget and proposed actions of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, beginning in Fiscal Year 
1996. All testimony indicated that the space station program is 
on track.
    The Committee has conducted rigorous oversight of the space 
station program since first proposed by the President in 1984. 
Most recently, in 1993 and in 1994, from the termination of 
Space Station Freedom through the redesign process and 
transition to the international space station, the Committee 
conducted extensive public hearings on the new space station 
design and the redesign process itself. On June 8, 1993, the 
Subcommittee on Space held a hearing to fully review each of 
the redesigns then under consideration, and during 1994, 
conducted a series of hearings to address the role of Russia as 
an international partner in the new program. In addition, the 
Committee performed three major oversight investigations of the 
space station's new partnership with the Russian space program, 
including a Committee visit to the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the 
Kazakh Federal Republic.
    The Committee staff is routinely briefed on the space 
station program's status by the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the Russian Space Agency, the European Space 
Agency, the National Space Development Agency of Japan, the 
Canadian Space Agency, other space agency partners, program 
contractors and subcontractors, and independent advisory 
groups, including the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, the 
Space Studies Board of the National Research Council, the 
President's Advisory Panel on Space Station, the National 
Academy of Public Administration, the General Accounting 
Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Office of 
Technology Assessment, and others. On February 16, 1995, 
Members of the Subcommittee and their staffs attended a NASA 
program review of the International Space Station program.
    The Committee has authorized appropriations for the 
international space station each year since proposed in 1984, 
and the House of Representatives has consistently approved NASA 
budgets containing full funding of the space station. On June 
29, 1994, the House voted 278 yeas to 155 nays to fully fund 
the International Space Station through September 30, 1995.

                       subcommittee consideration

    The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics met for 
consideration of H.R. 1601 on June 7, 1995. The Subcommittee 
amended and then favorably recommended H.R. 1601 to the 
Committee on Science by voice vote. Amendments adopted by the 
Subcommittee included the following:
    Expressing the Policy of Congress that NASA expand 
commercial use and commercial operational arrangements for the 
International Space Station, and requiring the Administrator to 
submit a market study within 60 days after submission of the 
President's Budget for Fiscal Year 1997.
    Adding to the ``Findings'' section that the International 
Space Station represents an important component of an 
adequately funded and balanced civil space program.
    Amending the Report requirement (triggered when a 
certification is not met) to include any comments from any 
involved third party.
    Expressing the Sense of Congress that NASA's cost-incentive 
fee, single prime contract, and the consolidation of financial 
and programmatic management into a single program office, are 
reforms that NASA should apply throughout the civil space 
program.
    Requiring the Administrator to certify that no delays are 
foreseen relating to agreements between the United States and 
its international partners.
    Requiring the Administrator to provide complete annual 
reports to Congress on all costs of the space station, 
including cash and other payments to Russia.
    Authorizing the Administrator to exercise an option to 
purchase for not more than $35 million, and under the terms of 
a lease agreement previously entered into by NASA, the Sonny 
Carter Training Facility (Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory).
    An amendment in the nature of a substitute to terminate the 
space station program was offered and defeated by a recorded 
vote of 3 yeas to 18 nays. Another amendment that would not 
allow funds to be obligated for the Station program in the 
event appropriations for NASA fell below $14 billion annually 
was withdrawn by the author during debate on the amendment.

                        committee consideration

    The full Committee on Science met June 28, 1995, for 
consideration of H.R. 1601 as amended by the Subcommittee on 
Space and Aeronautics on June 7, 1995. The Committee, by voice 
vote, approved H.R. 1601 with one amendment. That amendment 
clarified the amendment adopted in the Subcommittee to purchase 
the Sonny Carter Training Facility. The Committee then voted to 
favorably report H.R. 1601, as amended, to the House for 
consideration, 34 yeas to 8 nays.
    An amendment in the nature of a substitute to terminate the 
space station program was again offered and defeated by a 
recorded vote of 11 yeas to 33 nays. Another amendment was 
offered that would authorize the space station on a multi-year 
basis if overall authorizations for NASA were at the level 
requested by the President for fiscal years 1996-2000, or if 
the Administrator certifies that a balanced space and 
aeronautics program is maintained in the event the overall NASA 
authorization falls below the President's request. The 
amendment failed 11 yeas to 30 nays.

               IV. Explanation of H.R. 1601, As Reported

    The amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the 
Committee is presented at the beginning of this report.

                       full program authorization

    Section 4 of the amendment provides a full-program 
authorization for the International Space Station. A full-
program authorization is appropriate for this program since it 
represents a major national asset to be produced under a single 
prime contract over several years. Funding stability and 
predictability are deemed essential to successfully execute the 
present design for the International Space Station, which was 
designed to a specific cost level, including annual caps, 
during calendar years 1993 and 1994. A total cost of 
$13,141,000,000, as estimated by NASA, will provide for the 
complete development and assembly of the International Space 
Station, including funds to pay for initial operations of the 
spacecraft, from Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 2002. 
This section also stipulates that not more than $2,121,000,000 
may be appropriated for any one fiscal year.
    The authorization provided by Section 4 of the amendment is 
contingent upon the International Space Station meeting its 
budgetary, schedule, and technical commitments. It requires the 
Administrator of NASA to annually certify in writing, within 60 
days of submission of the President's budget request for each 
year, that program reserves exceed known cost threats, that no 
delays are foreseen in execution of the program plan and that 
the Space Station can be fully developed and assembled to 
achieve planned capability specifications without requiring 
further authorization of appropriations. If the Administrator 
is unable to make the certification required by this section, 
the Administrator would be required to submit a report to 
Congress that describes the circumstances that prevent a 
certification, remedial actions to be taken in order to correct 
these circumstances, the impact of the circumstances on 
development and assembly of the International Space Station, 
and the justification for proceeding, if appropriate. In the 
event such a report is submitted in lieu of certification, the 
Administrator shall include additional comments, if submitted 
within the 60 day period, from any involved party.
    Section 4 also authorizes NASA to exercise its option to 
purchase, under the terms of a lease previously entered into, 
the Clear Lake Development Facility containing the Sonny Carter 
Training Facility and approximately 13.7 acres of land. The 
funding for this neutral buoyancy laboratory is carried as part 
of the International Space Station program, and does not 
increase the total authorization provided for by the bill.

                        miscellaneous provisions

    Section 5 of the amendment requires the NASA Administrator 
to coordinate the engineering functions of the Space Shuttle 
program with that of the Space Station Program Office, and to 
maintain human spacecraft engineering and astronaut training 
functions at one lead center.
    Section 6 of the amendment sets forth the economic 
development of Earth orbital space as a priority goal of the 
International Space Station. This section requires the 
Administrator to provide a market study for commercializing the 
Space Station and to encourage commercial use of the facility, 
as well as commercial space services in the operation of the 
Space Station.
    Section 7 of the amendment expresses the Sense of Congress 
that the Space Station's single-prime, cost incentive fee 
contract, and its single program office are reforms that NASA 
should implement widely.
    Section 8 requires a full, annual cost-accounting report on 
the International Space Station program, including funds 
transferred to Russia.

              V. Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1601

                      as reported by the committee

    A bill to authorize appropriations to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop, assemble and 
operate the International Space Station.

Section 1.--Short title

    Section 1 designates this Act as the ``International Space 
Station Authorization Act of 1995''.

Section 2.--Findings

    Section 2 contains eight findings setting forth the general 
basis for the authorization contained in the Act.

Section 3.--Definitions

    Section 3 defines terms that are used in the Act.

Section 4.--Space Station complete program authorization

    Section 4 provides $13,141,000,000 for the International 
Space Station to complete development and assembly, and to 
provide for initial operations through 2002. The section 
requires that not more than $2,121,000,000 be appropriated for 
any one fiscal year. This section also requires the 
Administrator of NASA to certify each year, within 60 days of 
submission of the President's budget request that program 
reserves exceed cost threats, no delays are foreseen, including 
delays relating to agreements between the U.S. and its 
international partners, and that the Space Station can be fully 
developed and assembled without requiring further authorization 
of appropriations.
    If the Administrator is unable to make this certification, 
the Administrator must submit a report to Congress describing: 
the circumstances that prevent a certification, remedial 
actions to be undertaken, the effects of such circumstances on 
development and assembly of the International Space Station, 
and the justification for proceeding, if appropriate. The 
Administrator is also required to include in the report the 
comments of any involved party.
    The Administrator is authorized to exercise an option to 
purchase, for not more than $35,000,000, the Clear Lake 
Development facility, containing the Sonny Carter Training 
Facility and the approximately 13.7 acre parcel of land upon 
which it is located, using funds authorized by this Act.

Section 5.--Coordination with Space Shuttle

    Section 5 requires the Administrator to coordinate the 
engineering functions of the Space Shuttle program with the 
Space Station Program Office and to maintain human spacecraft 
engineering and astronaut training at one lead center.

Section 6.--Commercialization of Space Station

    Section 6 states that a priority goal of constructing the 
International Space Station is the economic development of 
Earth orbital space. The section requires the Administrator to 
submit a market study that examines commercialization 
opportunities and steps necessary to develop them within 60 
days after submission of the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 1997.

Section 7.--Sense of Congress

    Section 7 expresses the Sense of Congress that cost 
incentive fee single prime contracts, and the consolidation of 
program management and financial accountability into single 
program offices, are reforms that should be applied as widely 
and quickly as possible throughout the civil space program.

Section 8.--Space Station accounting report

    Section 8 requires the Administrator to transmit, within 
one year of enactment and annually thereafter, to Congress a 
report with a complete annual accounting of all costs of the 
space station, including cash and other payments to Russia.
                          VI. Committee Views

                   a. the international space station

The future of human exploration

    The International Space Station is the single most 
important program of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. Upon its success depends the current American 
space exploration effort, and arguably, the entire human 
pioneering spirit. The Committee observes that only the United 
States and the Russian Federation today possess the capacity to 
routinely send people to Earth orbital space and return them 
safely. In an effort to maximize this extraordinary capacity, 
and achieve a result greater than the sum of their parts, both 
nations have now pledged their human spaceflight capabilities 
to jointly develop the International Space Station. This 
decision has the profound ancillary effect of tying each 
others' human spaceflight programs to a single development 
project.
    Although the Apollo lunar expedition was the most 
astonishing technological achievement of mankind, against the 
demonstrated, sustained ability of humans to live and work in 
space and the vast distances of our solar system, Apollo can 
only be considered the starting point for continued interaction 
between humans and their universe. However, should development 
of the Space Station fail, neither nation is likely to pursue 
human planetary exploration. Given the budgetary environment 
facing the governments of Earth today, such a partnership may 
be the only way for any nation to build as highly complex, 
technologically challenging, expensive spacecraft as a space 
station.
    The International Space Station is the destination upon 
which many nations have focussed development of their human 
space transportation modes, just as Earth's Moon was the focus 
for development of the Saturn V rocket. Absent the Space 
Station, the Committee believes that human space transportation 
systems, including the Shuttle, the Russian Soyuz-TM, and 
future systems being contemplated by Japan and Europe, would 
shortly be terminated in the wake of the Station's 
cancellation.
    In spite of this danger, neither the U.S. nor Russia has 
demonstrated the sustained fiscal support of their governments 
to undertake development of a fully capable space station 
without collaborating with each other. The U.S. has spent in 
excess of $10 billion since 1985 developing the Station with 
its traditional allies, Europe, Japan and Canada. But the 
program was continuously changed and reduced in response to a 
shifting set of fiscal and technical demands. The Russian 
Federation, since before the breakup of the Soviet Union, had 
plans to modernize their existing Mir space station, but could 
not execute them for lack of political priority within the 
changing polity of their government.

The international partnership

    The Committee believes the International Space Station 
partnership, originally begun by the U.S. with the European 
Space Agency, the National Space Development Agency of Japan, 
and the Canadian Space Agency, provides a lasting framework for 
conducting large-scale science programs. The Intergovernmental 
Agreement negotiated by the original partners and signed in 
1988 is the basis on which each partner has developed their 
respective contributions to the Space Station. The Committee 
recognizes the difficulty facing the partners now to 
renegotiate the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement as a 
result of the U.S. decision to invite the Russian Federation to 
join the International Space Station. Every effort should be 
taken by NASA to conclude these negotiations and return the 
partnership to an operational mode, under the terms of a new, 
mutually beneficial Intergovernmental Agreement.
    The Committee considers the decision of the United States 
to expand the original space station partnership to include 
Russia to be of singular importance. The geopolitical 
ramification of working with America's former adversary on a 
technically complex and entirely interdependent endeavor 
signals that, despite historic competition between the human 
spaceflight programs of the U.S. and Russia, a yet more 
compelling rationale for continuing human spaceflight is the 
joint development of space infrastructure for cooperative, 
expanded exploration. Such an integrated, technically 
challenging endeavor de facto assumes that the broad U.S.-
Russian relationship will continue to evolve positively, as it 
has since the collapse of the Communist Party and the Soviet 
Union in 1991. Consequently, the ultimate success of the 
partnership with Russia, at both its technical and economic 
levels, depends on continued political and foreign policy 
success.
    The Committee notes, however, the imperfect nature of the 
partnership with Russia. The use of the International Space 
Station to leverage explicit short-term foreign policy aims, 
specifically tying Russian participation in the Space Station 
to its renegotiation of missile technology sales agreements 
with India, risks drawing the merits of the Space Station 
program into the realpolitik of the moment. Two consequences 
can be observed. Russia's continued participation in the Space 
Station, therefore, implies U.S. approval or at least 
acceptance of Russian arms control and proliferation efforts, 
whether deserved or not. Second, it hinders U.S. leverage to 
apply separate, independent sanctions against arms control and 
proliferation misbehavior by Russia, since imposing such 
sanctions could risk the Space Station's development. While the 
initial justification for opening the Space Station partnership 
to Russia included proliferation behavior incentives, the 
Committee views continuing or repeating this kind of linkage 
between scientific cooperation and international security 
issues with caution, since it undercuts the inherent value of 
the scientific research itself and of scientific cooperation.
    The Committee believes the national security interests of 
the United States have been advanced through the Space Station 
partnership with Russia. The stabilization of Russia's space 
production base through direct U.S. procurement of Russian 
space technology, particularly under the terms of NASA's $400 
million contract with the Russian Space Agency,2 has 
elevated the importance of Russian civil space activity and 
created a positive demand for scarce Russian government 
resources.
    \2\ Under the contract, U.S. funds are not transferred to Russia 
until delivery of contracted goods and services takes place. The 
majority of these products are necessary for the U.S. to make technical 
decisions with respect to joint development of the Space Station. 
Hardware purchased under the contract is being used to accomplish the 
U.S. responsibilities under the joint development agreement which 
includes the Shuttle-Mir docking missions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to spurring the development of a civil space 
program in Russia to compete with the military sector, the 
Committee sees the seeds for Russian aerospace privatization 
being planted by the direct engagement of U.S. and Russian 
aerospace firms in fulfilling the NASA contract and through 
executing the joint Space Station program. The stability of the 
broader economy of Russia, and in particular, the Space 
Station's partnership, has been and will continue to be 
improved by increasing the direct interactions between Russian 
and U.S. aerospace production firms, and by having as little 
government-to-government interference or assistance as 
feasible.

An international space research institute

    The International Space Station represents the largest, 
most capable, microgravity research facility ever developed. 
The Committee views the basic research mission of the space 
station as the primary ``user'' of the spacecraft asset, and 
recognizes the importance of adequately funding a wide range of 
scientific research programs to fully exploit its capabilities. 
Understanding physiological changes to the human body occurring 
in weightlessness is essential to planning long-duration human 
planetary exploration missions. Meanwhile, fundamental 
biomedical research, essential to understanding cellular 
processes that may lead to cures or therapies for presently 
incurable diseases, can be accelerated in a microgravity 
environment. The markedly different behavior of cells in the 
microgravity environment enables researchers to test 
interactions and make observations otherwise impossible under 
the influence of Earth's gravitational field. Earth-based 
gravitational biology has advanced to the point where 
researchers having routine and continuous access to a 
microgravity laboratory can use such an asset productively. The 
Committee will continue to work for adequate funding and 
cooperative research opportunities to ensure full use of this 
valuable space laboratory by biomedical and life sciences 
researchers.
    The other vital research community who will use the space 
station laboratory asset consists of basic materials 
scientists. Materials that can only be developed in the absence 
of gravity, for a wide variety of scientific and commercial 
purposes, require a microgravity environment that is more 
stable than that required to perform biomedical research.
    Accordingly, the Committee believes that coordination 
between the two kinds of basic research to be performed on the 
International Space Station, and coordination of utilization 
and assembly flights is essential to preserving the optimum 
microgravity environment for materials processing research.

                     b. full-program authorization

Credibility, stability, and performance

    In order to provide the necessary leadership for the 
future, the Committee has chosen to authorize the entire amount 
required to complete development, construction and to begin 
operations of the International Space Station on a multi-year 
basis. This is due to past experience with NASA's space station 
development programs which has shown annual funding and annual 
authorizations undermine the credibility of the United States 
as an international partner, undermine the stability of the 
program's technical design, and reduce the performance of the 
program to control costs and meet schedule commitments.
    The Committee does not consider its full-program 
authorization to be a ``blank check;'' the annual caps are 
explicit in the bill, and total program costs shall not exceed 
the sum of all program budget years. Moreover, the 
authorization provided ceases to be effective in the event the 
Administrator cannot certify the program is on schedule and on 
budget, as provided for in Section 4.

Program oversight

    In the event the required certification cannot be made 
within 60 days of submission of the President's Budget 
estimates for a fiscal year, the Administrator must instead 
report to Congress on the circumstances that prevent a 
certification. The Committee strongly rejects the notion, 
however remote, that a ``loop-hole'' between the certification 
and report requirements allow the Administrator to unilaterally 
deauthorize the Space Station by failing to either certify or 
report. In the unexpected instance where neither a 
certification nor a report is forwarded within 60 days of the 
budget estimate, the Committee believes it would then determine 
for itself, using its powers of oversight, the circumstances 
that prevented a certification from being made.
    In no case, whether certified annually or not, does the 
Committee intend to reduce or limit its oversight activities 
with respect to this most important international space 
program. The Committee believes the only burden the bill 
removes from the program management and the Administrator is 
the burden of indecision and uncertainty caused by the annual 
budget process. The certification provisions of the bill put 
the burden on NASA management to achieve the program advertised 
to Congress, and effectively freezes the program's advertised 
design and locks in the promised capabilities so they cannot be 
a continuing variable in the cost versus schedule burden.

                        c. additional provisions

Relationship to Space Shuttle Program Office

    Section 5 of the amendment requires the NASA Administrator 
to coordinate the engineering functions of the Space Shuttle 
Program Office with that of the Space Station Program Office, 
and to maintain human spacecraft engineering and astronaut 
training functions at one lead center. As NASA continues 
efforts to combine functions and restructure the field center 
system, the Committee is concerned about the Space Station 
program suffering from ineffectiveness, inefficiency or lack of 
coordination as a result of the restructuring process. Given 
the rigorous scheduling requirements of the assembly sequence, 
the cap on budget resources, and the matrix of functions 
supporting the Space Station Program Office, the transfer or 
redistribution of human spacecraft engineering and astronaut 
training activities away from the Space Station Program Office 
would be unwise. Accordingly the Committee directs the 
Administrator to retain the human spacecraft engineering and 
astronaut training functions at one lead center. As the Space 
Station program confronts operational planning and utilization 
issues, it will only increase its dependence on the 
interactions between astronaut crew training and spacecraft 
engineering functions.

Economic development of Earth orbital space

    Section 6 of the amendment declares that the construction 
and operation of the Space Station should promote private 
sector economic development of Earth orbital space. This 
section requires the Administrator to provide a market study 
for commercializing the Space Station and to encourage 
commercial use of the facility, as well as commercial space 
services in the operation of the Space Station.
    The Committee strongly believes that human spaceflight 
activity must ultimately evolve from its present infancy in the 
cradle of national governments to grow stronger and more 
independent of appropriated funds over time. Taking the long 
view, the Committee believes the International Space Station is 
capable not only of serving national research needs, but 
represents the creation of a new economic zone in Earth's 
orbit. As such, the International Space Station becomes a 
community in space, however small, which nevertheless has 
inherently economic characteristics. The International Space 
Station partnership must conclude cost-sharing and utilization 
agreements, and the Committee notes with pleasure the economic 
posturing between partners to determine their appropriate 
shares. However, if the experience of living and working in 
space is to be a permanent one, arguments over which country's 
appropriated funds will be spent in whose country, quid pro 
quo, will ultimately eliminate the opportunity for individual 
free people to live and work in space freely.
    Therefore, the Committee directs NASA to begin a process 
that will open the Space Station's ``economic opportunity'' 
directly to private firms and thereby develop a capitalist 
enclave in space. There are at least two basic lines of 
business affecting the Space Station that belong to the private 
sector. First, resupply, logistics, and other routine 
operational tasks, as presently contemplated by the 
international partners, will be allocated among their 
respective industrial capabilities. For that part which is 
allocated to the U.S., at least, the Committee believes NASA 
should openly contract for the services required, and not build 
additional government-owned space infrastructure to meet those 
needs. The Space Station ``economy'' has numerous niche markets 
that will need to be served, from the supply of soft drinks and 
videocassette movies, to the hauling of propellants and 
batteries, to the removal of trash and laundry services. At the 
present time, NASA and its other government partners, 
contemplate sharing these markets between government space 
bureaucracies. The Committee believes such a mistake can easily 
be avoided and directs ``privatization'' be aggressively and 
broadly pursued.
    The second business line involves commercial companies 
having direct access to produce goods and perform services in 
space, on the International Space Station, or in other space 
vehicles of their choosing. The U.S. utilization share of the 
Space Station's research capacity will be allocated according 
to NASA guidelines and procedures. It is not clear to the 
Committee, what amount, if any, of the Space Station's 
resources are ``reserved for,'' let alone ``reserved by,'' 
private commercial research, production, or manufacturing. Nor 
is it clear that a pricing system has been determined whereby 
private commercial users can determine the cost-benefit of the 
microgravity resource, and thereby choose whether or not to 
employ a less expensive microgravity resource.
    The market study required by this section is intended to 
make clear the wide range of economic opportunities for U.S. 
commercial firms' interaction with the International Space 
Station community. It is vital to the future of expanding human 
civilization into space that the first steps be taken using 
free market principles. Like the early days of Colonial 
America, the International Space Station will depend initially 
on the ``crown'' of partner governments to provide funding for 
sustained activity. If, however, the human species is to 
prosper and flourish in space, it cannot remain dependent on 
the generosity of politicians on Earth any more than the 
Colonists could long depend on the kindness of King George.

Single prime contract and program office

    Section 7 of the amendment expresses the Sense of Congress 
that the Space Station's single-prime, cost incentive fee 
contract, and its single program office are reforms that NASA 
should implement widely. The Committee believes the use of a 
single prime contract with a cost target and incentive fee is 
the key to keeping the International Space Station program on 
schedule, to technical and capability specification, and within 
its budgetary caps. Under the Space Station Freedom program, 
prime contracts were distributed not through program 
management, but through NASA field centers. The result was a 
failure to hold costs and achieve program milestones. The 
single program office, which now holds sole management 
discretion and control over contractor resources applied to the 
program through the single prime contractor, is not beholden to 
any objective except execution of the program. Previously, 
field center space station managers were accountable for 
program accomplishments through the filter of the center 
director, and not necessarily by the program's needs and 
objectives.
    For the future reinvention and restructuring of NASA, these 
two reforms hold great promise. The Committee believes that the 
space shuttle is another NASA program which could benefit 
greatly from the application of these management concepts. 
Most, if not all, systemwide, NASA programs should begin 
transitioning to a single-prime, lead center model.

             VII. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 10, 1995.
Hon. Robert S. Walker,
Chairman, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate H.R. 1601, the 
International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995.
    Enacting H.R. 1601 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply 
to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure:

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    1. Bill number: H.R. 1601.
    2. Bill title: International Space Station Authorization 
Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Science on June 28, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: H.R. 1601 would authorize the 
appropriation of a total of $13.1 billion over the period from 
1996 through 2002 for the International Space Station Program 
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
under certain conditions. The bill would limit the amount 
authorized in any one fiscal year at $2,121 million and make 
would make each year's funding contingent upon findings 
regarding the program's financial reserves, schedule, cost, and 
related factors. H.R. 1601 also would authorize NASA to 
purchase the land and facilities associated with the Neutral 
Buoyancy Laboratory using funds provided for the Space Station.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming 
appropriation of the amounts authorized, H.R. 1601 would result 
in discretionary spending totalling $9.5 billion over the 1996-
2000 period and another $3.7 billion after 2000. The estimated 
authorization levels shown in the following table are based on 
information provided by NASA regarding the agency's current 
budget projections for the Space Station. The outlay estimates 
are based on the projected funding for the two NASA accounts 
that support Space Station activities, Human Space Flight and 
Science, Aeronautics and Technology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated                                                               
 authorization                                                          
 level...........      2,115      2,121      2,098      2,107      1,950
Estimated outlays      1,307      1,963      2,103      2,102      2,004
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 250.
    6. Comparison with spending under current law: In 1995, 
$2.1 billion was appropriated for the International Space 
Station, of which $1.9 billion was provided in the Human Space 
Flight account for developing the Space Station and $0.2 
billion in the Science, Aeronautics and Technology account for 
developing payloads and conducting research related to the 
project.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
    9. Estimate comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Kathleen Gramp
    12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

               VIII. Effects of Legislation on Inflation

    In accordance with rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, this legislation is assumed to 
have no inflationary effect on prices and costs in the 
operation of the national economy.

               IX. Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of Rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no 
oversight findings.

        X. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    If enacted, this bill would make no change in existing law.
                      XI. Committee Recommendation

    A quorum being present, the bill was ordered reported 34 
yeas to 8 nays, on June 28, 1995 by a recorded vote of the 
Committee, and recommends its enactment.
                   XII. Minority and Additional Views

                              ----------                              


                             MINORITY VIEW

    We strongly support the Space Station program. It will 
provide the necessary underpinning for future human space 
exploration, it will serve as a unique engineering and 
scientific research facility on orbit, and it will be a highly 
visible symbol of the benefits of international cooperation in 
the post-Cold War world. In sum, the Space Station is an 
important component of a balanced U.S. civil space program.
    However, maintenance of a balanced space program is by no 
means assured if the Republican budget proposals for NASA are 
enacted. Those proposals would cut more then $3 billion over 
five years from the levels contained in the President's five-
year funding plan. These cuts would be in addition to the 
thirty percent reduction in NASA's planned funding that has 
already occurred since FY 1993. Such additional cuts would 
render NASA's recent major restructuring activity moot and 
inevitably lead to another series of destabilizing 
reorganizations as well as to significant program cuts and 
cancellations. Only the Space Station would be exempt from cuts 
under the Republican approach.
    We believe it is not sensible to remove the Space Station 
from annual Congressional review while every other NASA program 
is a candidate for potentially devastating funding cuts. It is 
precisely the need to ensure that the space program preserves a 
meaningful balance between human spaceflight, science, 
aeronautics, and technology that makes it inappropriate to 
forgo Congressional review of NASA's single largest development 
program. Indeed, in the current and anticipated budgetary 
environment it becomes critical to exercise comprehensive 
oversight of all of NASA's activities to ensure that mission 
success, cost-effectiveness, and safety are not negatively 
compromised as budgets are cut. In the regard, the paucity of 
oversight hearings and lack of an overall NASA authorization 
bill to date in the 104th Congress have made Congress's 
oversight task more difficult.
    The premise behind H.R. 1601--that the Space Station should 
receive a full, multiyear authorization while the rest of 
NASA's programs become budgetary afterthoughts--is not only 
unwise, but also is ultimately self-defeating. Major cuts to 
NASA's other vital activities in science, aeronautics, and 
technology will over time inevitably lead to an unraveling of 
political support for the Space Station.
                                   George E. Brown, Jr.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   John Tanner,
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Ralph M. Hall.
                                   Pete Geren.
                                   James A. Traficant, Jr.
                ADDITIONAL VIEWS SUBMITTED BY MR. ROEMER

    This is unfortunate legislation. It is a bill that has not 
had any hearings or substantive discussion by members of this 
committee. The program deserves such deliberation because of 
vast differences in this years fiscal climate from previous 
years, and the continued questions and concerns about the U.S.-
Russian partnership.
    My own opposition to the space station is well known, as is 
the position of most of the station supporters. What is not 
well-known is the status of the program. Members of this 
committee have not had any opportunity to discuss a number of 
problems in the space station program. These include Boeing's 
inability to come to terms with its major subcontractors: 
Lockheed Martin, Rockwell and McDonnell Douglas. They also 
include the uncertain status of the Russian government, the 
Russian economy and Russia's refusal to moderate foreign 
policies that the U.S. finds objectionable.
    Two hearings held by this panel very early in this session 
were useful for setting policy for our space program. But these 
meetings were held immediately after huge cuts were announced 
in the space program by the Administration, and long before 
drastically larger cuts were adopted by the House in the 
Kasich-Walker budget. These cuts have had a dramatic impact on 
the future of the space program in this country, yet this panel 
has had no discussions of the policy implications of these 
cuts.
    Considering a full authorization of the space station at 
full funding in light of the future of the overall NASA budget 
is neither prudent nor productive. By passing this legislation, 
this subcommittee will have missed an important and necessary 
opportunity to set future space policy, and I will urge my 
colleagues to defeat this measure on the floor so that we can 
spend the necessary time and effort in determining which 
projects at NASA should be funded, and at what levels we can 
achieve in the current budget environment.
    The General Accounting Office recently released a study 
proving that costs to design, launch and operate the space 
station will be about $94 billion. Although NASA has made 
considerable progress in defining milestones and meeting 
schedule and budget requirements, the GAO warns that there are 
severe programmatic risks. The three most notable are:
          Extremely weak reserves;
          Exorbitant expectations of the shuttle program in 
        support of the station; and
          the lead contractor's (Boeing) inability to complete 
        contract negotiations with the subcontractors.
    There are very low reserves for FY 1996 and 1997, raising 
questions about whether NASA can meet the $2.1 billion annual 
cap. Taking into consideration the number of programs that have 
a high probability of costs increases, reserves for FY 96 are 
about. 3%, and for FY 1997 are about 5.3%. Many funding 
requirements for future efforts are not well defined, placing 
future reserves in immediate peril, further evidence that the 
entire program lives on an unacceptable margin.
    Additionally, NASA's contract with Boeing for $5.6 billion 
has an escape clause that allows the value to increase should 
Boeing be unable to negotiate target deals with subcontractors. 
Cost reductions in the shuttle program increase the risk that 
NASA cannot meet the ambitious shuttle schedule on which 
station construction is dependent.
    All of this evidence points to continued weakness in the 
space station plan and continues to raise constant and 
legitimate questions about the real cost of the station. This 
bill moves forward regardless of the continued, real and urgent 
warnings that the scope is unwieldy, that safety is a pressing 
issue, that cost expectations are wildly unrealistic, and that 
scientific expectations continue to be minimal.
    For these and many other reasons, this bill is bad policy, 
bad use of precious resources, and bad science. I again urge my 
colleagues on the Science Committee and in the House to oppose 
this legislation and the space station program.
                                                        Tim Roemer.
                          House of Representatives,
                           Office of the Democratic Leader,
                                     Washington, DC, July 27, 1995.
    Dear Democratic Colleague: Attached is a monthly schedule 
for the months of September, October and November. Please note 
the monthly calendars include weekly scheduling information as 
we have received it from the Republican Leadership. We will be 
passing on updated information concerning the monthly schedules 
to you as we receive it.
    I hope this is helpful to you as you plan for the upcoming 
months.
            Sincerely,
                                       Richard A. Gephardt,
                                                 Democratic Leader.






         XIII. Proceedings of Subcommittee Markup of H.R. 1601

                              ----------                                
        




    SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP--H.R. 1601, THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION 
                       AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 1995

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                              Committee on Science,
                     Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee convened at 2:18 p.m. in Room 2318 of the 
Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable James F. 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Calvert, Weldon, 
Stockman, Seastrand, Tiahrt, Hilleary, Rohrabacher, Salmon, 
Davis, Largent, Foley, Walker, Hall, Roemer, Cramer, Barcia, 
Harman, Jackson Lee, Hastings, Ward, Luther and Brown.
    Also Present: Shana Dale, Staff Director, JuliAnna Potter, 
Legislative Assistant, Eric Sterner, Designee for Chairman 
Sensenbrenner, Nicholas Fuhrman, Senior Professional Staff, 
William Buckey, Professional Staff, Brandon Adams, Clerk.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Subcommittee will be in order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Chair calls up the bill H.R. 1601, 
the International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995. 
Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open 
for amendment as any point. Also without objection, the Chair 
will be given authority to declare recesses at any time during 
consideration of this legislation. Is there any objection?
    [No response.]
    Hearing none, so ordered.
    [The bill H.R. 1601 follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair now moves to strike the last 
word for an opening statement.
    Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today the 
Subcommittee meets to consider H.R. 1601, a bill providing full 
program authorization for the International Space Station. It 
may be worth noting since the Subcommittee had scheduled a 
markup of this bill last month that two kinds of disagreements 
occur among Members of Congress on an issue like the Space 
Station, qualitative ones and tactical ones. As a preface to 
our session today I would like to make a few brief 
observations.
    Today's is not a choice about legislative tactics. Rather, 
it is the choice between two futures in space for America, one 
with our citizens actively engaged in the conquest of space or 
one where Americans resign from the challenge. As NASA 
struggles to restructure itself around key enterprises having 
clear missions for distinct customers, I don't need to remind 
my colleagues what happens to a Space Shuttle or any crew-
carrying space vehicle with no place to go.
    But, H.R. 1601 is an example of how a piece of legislation 
can have a positive dynamic effect on the execution of a 
project. This bill serves the interest building the 
International Space Station, not only by funding it or by 
imposing policies to improve it, but by the mere fact that we 
are proposing a full program, finish-the-job commitment, 
exactly at a time when it is needed.
    The international space partnership that has been assembled 
under American leadership to build the Space Station is today 
negotiating their respective roles and responsibilities in the 
form of both intergovernmental agreements and memoranda of 
understanding. The uncertainty of the American commitment to 
fully fund this project because it puts the U.S. at somewhat of 
a disadvantage because its partners are rightfully hedging 
against Congress cancelling the program. I would set before the 
Committee the notion that if you want to improve this program 
qualitatively, improve its partnership with other nations, 
improve the contributions that will be made by others to the 
Station, this legislation is the appropriate tactic.
    A full-program authorization is not a blank check. NASA 
must stay within the total and annual caps for the 
authorization for it to remain valid. NASA must certify that it 
is on time and on budget for the authority to remain valid. I 
believe that tactically this legislation poses the right 
questions and provides the clear expectations for completion 
and will result in a qualitatively better program.
    In the event that NASA is unable to certify that the 
program is on track, it will report to the Committee and we 
will be faced again with a single-year decision of whether to 
proceed or not. We are not losing our direction to take 
corrective actions with the program by passing this bill. 
Instead, we are saying to NASA if you keep your promises, we'll 
keep ours.
    Next I would like to submit the wisdom of a full-program 
authorization as necessary now to encourage the European Space 
Agency and its member nations to firmly commit its resources to 
their program contributions. For two years, while the Space 
Station was redesigned a sixth time, ESA and Canada actively 
reconsidered their commitment to proceed. It is important for 
these partners, who have invested close to $3 billion of their 
own taxpayers' money, that Congress be as clear as humanly 
possible as to its intent to proceed before placing additional 
sums at risk.
    Tactical disagreement between supporters of the Space 
Station is natural to expect, even when the Subcommittee has 
consistently led the fight for the Space Station year in and 
year out. For instance, some people could argue that a full-
program authorization is too risky a measure because it means 
authorizing the total sum of $13.141 billion to complete the 
project when many Members have just recently voted for a 
balanced budget. To this I would point out that the House-
passed Budget Resolution assumed full funding of the Space 
Station through completion.
    To the tacticians on the Subcommittee a full-program 
authorization poses a political risk of failing to win final 
passage of this bill versus buying the Station one year at a 
time. Unfortunately, I believe we are past the time for making 
excuses for our decision. Today the issue will be put before 
the Subcommittee. Here is the Space Station. Do you want it or 
not? While many may construe their responsibility here to 
include wargaming the strategy for final passage, the record 
will not construe this vote any other way.
    I look forward to this markup, our first small step for the 
Subcommittee, and a giant leap for the International Space 
Station.
    And now I'll recognize the gentleman from Texas for an 
opening statement.
    [The opening statement of Subcommittee Chairman 
Sensenbrenner follows:]




    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I of course thank you for your good 
opening statement and for your leadership and for the time that 
you put on this bill.
    As you know, and the rest of the Committee, the 
Subcommittee knows, I've long been a strong supporter of the 
Space Station, and I remain a strong supporter. We will have 
some differences as we go along, perhaps tactical and I could 
be right or wrong, either. I'm kind of like the guy that 
ignored the impossible but cooperated with the inevitable. I 
know where the votes are and I know what's going to finally 
happen, but I'm going to be of great support to you as you move 
this bill through. We're going to have some differences, but I 
think you would have more respect for me if I told you exactly 
how I felt about the bill.
    I think that the Space Station is a very important part of 
America's space program and it's going to return many benefits 
to our citizens day in and day out. For example, the medical 
research conducted in the Space Station is likely to lead to 
important medical advances back here on earth, and we both 
heard testimony from many of the leaders of this country as to 
the benefits of the Space Station and I don't have to sell you 
on that.
    However, I have to say that I'm not completely comfortable 
with the strategy of bringing a multiyear Space Station 
authorization bill to the floor in the current budgetary 
environment. We have folks that look at that and they'll see 
that large amount. The bill is a very tempting target for those 
that are arguing deficit reduction, and I think it's going to 
be difficult for a number of Members to argue that the Space 
Station alone is to be exempt from scrutiny over the next seven 
years while all the other programs have to take cuts. It's 
going to be a hard thing to sell. Perhaps we're able to sell 
it. I hope so and I'm going to try to help you sell it.
    As a Space Station supporter it's a vote that I would 
prefer did not take place, especially since there doesn't 
appear to be any indication that the Senate, or I don't see any 
indication that the Senate is planning to move such a multiyear 
authorization. Perhaps you know more about that than I do, and 
I hope you do. I hope that the Leadership can give us a good 
count on votes before we take this to the floor.
    I also have a problem with the substance of the bill 
itself. Whether deliberately or inadvertently the bill gives 
the White House and gives the NASA Administrator the unilateral 
power to cancel the Space Station simply by being late or by 
not supplying a report to Congress, and that's on page 3 of the 
bill beginning on line 19.
    Now all of us should remember that at the outset of the 
Clinton Administration the position towards the Space Station 
was very equivocal, and proponents such as myself found it 
necessary to work on the Administration and try to convince the 
Administration that this was a valuable program. We even had to 
vote on this program on the floor in the absence of a clear-cut 
position of support from the Administration, and this bills 
says that we're entirely ceding that decision to future 
Administrators and to future Presidents who are the 
Administration.
    It really boils down to a question I think of Congressional 
prerogatives and this bill takes choices away from Congress and 
gives them to the Executive Branch. I think that's a bad 
policy. I don't think that's your intent, and I urge you to 
look at that between this hearing and the next hearing. The 
bill also makes the Station hostage to a whole host of 
reporting and certification criteria that could end up killing 
the program.
    Truthfully I've voted often for this program when frankly I 
knew there were probably technical and financial problems with 
the program. It's a natural characteristic of a program that's 
as ambitious as the Space Program. Again I think Congress 
should have the option of making that decision itself and not 
turning it over to the bean counters. I believe it would be a 
matter of interpretation of whether the Station even passes 
these tests unequivocally today.
    Rather than offer an amendment now, which I'm not going to 
do, I hope we can work together to address these serious 
defects in the bill before it's considered at Full Committee.
    And having said all this, I want to acknowledge the good 
intentions of the Chair and the good intentions of the authors 
of this bill, and I join them in wanting to see a strong signal 
of Congressional support for this program once and for all. I 
think the test of Congressional support will be to achieve the 
same bipartisan 120-plus margin we had last year. I hope that 
we can bring a bill to the floor that can achieve that goal, 
and I thank you.
    [The opening statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Does anybody else wish to strike the last word to make an 
opening statement before we go to the amendment process?
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman--
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Roemer. I would yield to the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you very much--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Brown. --Mr. Roemer for your courtesy. My statement is 
of not sufficient importance to justify usurping your time, but 
since you offered it I'll take it.
    Mr. Roemer. You are going to agree with me, aren't you.
    [Laughter.]
    If you're not, I will reclaim my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I would admonish the gentleman from 
Indiana that the rules prohibit impugning the motives of 
another Member.
    [Laughter.]
    The gentleman from California is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I likewise respect and admire the 
work that you have done in connection with this legislation, 
not only on this bill, but in prior years, and you have been an 
exemplary Chairman during the period of the year that we have 
already gone through.
    I would ask unanimous consent to insert a longer opening 
statement in the record, and I'll be as brief as possible.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The opening statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Brown. I am a long-time supporter of the Space Station, 
but not an unequivocal or under any circumstances supporter, 
and I'm in the position at the present time of having serious 
qualms, some of which have been expressed by Mr. Hall, the 
Ranking Minority Member, in connection with what the future 
holds for this program.
    I want to call to the attention of the Subcommittee, and I 
will ask that this be inserted in the record, that NASA itself 
has said that it concurs with the premise of H.R. 1601 as 
introduced, that complete program authorization for large-
development programs promote program stability, reduce the 
potential for cost growth and provide the necessary assurance 
to international partners. That's the position which I have 
taken in the past and I continue to take it.
    Further on, however, NASA states as follows: that NASA 
supports the concept of stable multiyear commitments to funding 
for the Space Station program. And this next statement is 
underlined: in the context of an overall stable, balanced NASA 
multiyear budget at or near the level assumed in the 
President's FY-1996 budget. Unfortunately, we have no assurance 
that that condition for NASA's support will be met, and we have 
to look at the overall prospects for NASA's budget over the 
next seven years in order to analyze it.
    My opinion at this point is that the drastic cuts proposed 
in the House Budget Resolution, which will bring us far below 
what could be considered a stable, balanced NASA multiyear 
budget, will preclude the successful completion of the Space 
Station in a very real political sense. It will gradually erode 
the support for the Space Program amongst major constituencies, 
the science constituencies, the aeronautical research 
constituency, the global warming constituency and others which 
see their programs being sacrificed to maintain the Space 
Station.
    Until I have some feel that we have a realistic outyear 
budget for NASA as a whole, which protects at some minimum 
level those programs, I'm afraid that I can't support this 
multiyear proposal.
    I note that one of our Members, Ms. Jackson Lee, will 
propose an amendment which would indicate this need for a 
stable multiyear program. I intend to support that amendment 
and, if it passes, I will support the bill. If it doesn't pass, 
however, I'm going to have to reserve judgment and probably 
vote against the bill on final passage.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from California yield 
briefly?
    Mr. Brown. Certainly.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Would he please send us a copy of the 
letter that he received from NASA because they didn't bother 
sending that to the Majority.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, that was not a letter. This is a 
statement of NASA views with respect to H.R. 1601, and it's a 
draft statement. I would merely request that this draft be 
inserted in the record.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, and I now have seen 
this for the first time.
    [The draft statement follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana--
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. --is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you for recognizing me. I will say that 
apart from my opposition to the Space Station, which we will 
get into obviously in the amendment process, I want to talk 
just very briefly about doing a multiyear authorization and the 
implications and consequences both for taxpayers, but also for 
this Committee, the importance of this authorizing Committee.
    I find myself agreeing with many of the things that Mr. 
Hall and Mr. Brown have articulated very well. There are a 
number of compelling reasons why we should not do a multiyear 
authorization no matter how you feel about supporting or 
opposing a Space Station project. The history of the Space 
Station is the single best reason to continue to stay the 
course to make this program accountable to Congress as the 
oversight body.
    We are sent here to be the watchdog of the taxpayers' 
money, and whether you vote for my amendment today or tomorrow 
or never, it is very important as an authorizing body to 
continue to see through the hearing process, through the 
oversight process, through visiting the NASA centers and doing 
the homework that Congress is supposed to do that this program 
is being accountable.
    Secondly, I would say that the Space Station program has 
experienced a host of overruns. I will go over this when I 
introduce my amendment, but there is a program that started in 
1984 that was supposed to cost $8 billion, $8 billion that was 
supposed to be completed last year. We're now looking at a 
start-to-finish cost of $72 billion - $72 billion, and I think 
our constituents would be very interested in hearing as we 
contemplate some very difficult cuts in our budget, whether 
we're looking at Medicare cuts, whether we're looking at 
cutting drug-free schools, whether we're looking at cutting 
farm programs.
    Why are we sacrificing the ability to oversee how we spend 
$13 billion for the next seven years and then commit yourself 
to the $72 billion overall when so many of these other programs 
are not only not off budget and out of sight, they're going to 
be cut, drastically cut back? So I think we should continue to 
perform our role in the oversight function.
    I would also argue, Mr. Chairman, and I've had this comment 
from the highest sources at NASA, that efforts to cut the Space 
Station have resulted in billions of dollars in savings to the 
taxpayer. Now if we want to sacrifice and punt on our ability 
to oversee this program and try to get NASA back on track to 
the glory days of the Apollo Program where we're not 
sacrificing conquering space, but where we're insisting that 
the Space Station does not conquer the space budget, we need to 
continue to make sure that there is a fair and equitable 
distribution of resources in the NASA budget.
    I am a strong adamant supporter of NASA, but not the Space 
Station, and I think the Space Station is the single, biggest 
cannibal within the Space Program, and I will make that 
argument when we bring up the amendment.
    I would also submit, Mr. Chairman, for the record a number 
of questions that I think are brought up doing a multiyear 
authorization from questions such as: is there any 
parliamentary precedent for taking away an authorization 
through statutory certification conditions, as is done in this 
bill? Would the parliamentarian uphold the premise that there 
is no statutory authorization if a certification condition is 
violated? Also, do you believe the Space Station is currently 
in compliance with all of the certification requirements?
    Thirdly, the bill as written only authorizes overall Space 
Station funding. The funds to develop the scientific payloads 
that will fly on the Station are separately authorized. Is 
there anything in the bill that would prevent the Space Station 
Program from covering cost growth in Station hardware by rating 
scientific payload funds? And, lastly, what is the markup 
scheduled for the rest of the NASA authorization?
    I would submit those in writing and hopefully get some 
answers back from the Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Roemer. I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The questions to be submitted by Mr. Roemer follow:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you 
for the bill that you bring before us today. In my view, those 
who support NASA need to be in favor of this bill. Without this 
Space Station proposal I believe we will get to the point that 
we will have no Space Station, and without a Space Station 
Program there is no Manned Space Program, and without a Manned 
Space Program there is no NASA.
    I think we need to make it very clear that this is in line 
with what we have been told for a number of years is the proper 
course to take when you are doing big science and big 
engineering projects, and that is to assure stability in those 
programs by giving them multiyear authorizations.
    Your course in all of this is, in my view, the right course 
because if we achieve stability in the program exactly the 
complaints just listed by Mr. Roemer will be somewhat, if not 
completely, mitigated. The fact is that all those cost overruns 
he talked about largely came about as a result of delay of 
schedule and as a result of rescoping and restructuring the 
Station Program every few months. If we can get some stability 
in the program and some assurance that it's going to go through 
as presently configured, it allows us to save the money over 
the long haul and assures that we will get there.
    Now I understand the concern about Congressional oversight, 
but there is nothing in a multiyear authorization that stops 
Congress from doing its legitimate oversight role. There will 
be the need for annual certifications within this process. 
Congress can certainly come back at any time and look at the 
Station Program and ask that it justify what they're doing. We 
give up nothing by going to a multiyear authorization. We also 
will continue to appropriate money for these programs on an 
annual basis. The fact is we give up nothing in terms of that 
appropriations process when we issue a multiyear proposal.
    So, in my view, this helps us by giving the program 
stability and then also giving assurance to international 
partners who need some assurance. Our international partners 
are becoming increasingly suspicious that we are an unreliable 
science partner.
    By issuing this multiyear proposal on the Space Station I 
think our international partners are vastly reassured. In fact 
I've talked to some of them who have come through town in 
recent weeks and they have said that specifically. As a matter 
of fact, they were thrilled with the idea that we were going to 
go ahead and do a multiyear authorization. They thought this 
was exactly the kind of signal that they needed, that we 
intended to proceed ahead to completion.
    So this is a good bill and it is one that deserves the 
support of this Committee, and I congratulate you for bringing 
it before us.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    If there are no further Members seeking to strike the last 
word, we will now begin consideration of amendments. Members 
have on their desks an amendment roster that has been prepared 
by the staff. It is the Chair's intention to call up the 
amendments in the order in which they appear on the roster.
    [The amendment roster follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Indiana rise?
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment and, 
without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed 
with.
    The Clerk. The amendment offered by Mr. Roemer.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Hearing none, so ordered.
    The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for five minutes 
in support of the amendment.
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Obviously this is a very, very important matter to NASA, to 
our constituencies and I think to taxpayers throughout the 
country.
    We're talking not just about what this amendment says. The 
amendment simply states in Section 1: the Space Station Project 
is hereby cancelled. We're not just talking about $2 billion 
that this amendment would cancel and thereby put toward the 
deficit, but we're talking about $72 billion in total cost from 
start to finish that this project will cost or will have costed 
the American taxpayer.
    Now why do I offer the amendment today and what are the 
reasons? Why do I think NASA and taxpayers and our science 
program will benefit if this amendment eventually succeeds?
    First of all, the history of the Space Station itself I 
think is one of the best reasons for cancelling the Space 
Station. This project stated in 1984. It was a dream of 
President Reagan, it would cost $8 billion, it would do eight 
scientific missions and it would be finished in 10 years.
    Today in 1995 we have spent nearly $12 billion, $4 billion 
over the projected cost of completion. The missions have gone 
from eight scientific missions to maybe, maybe one and a half, 
and we will probably be finished not by 1994 or '95 or '96, but 
maybe the year 2002. That is not a terribly good track record 
even when you look at risky scientific ventures. Whether it be 
the Superconducting Supercollider or Space Station, this is not 
a great track record by any stretch of the imagination, $72 
billion start-to-finish cost.
    Secondly, as the Chairman pointed out, he put this in terms 
of a challenge to conquer space, or will it be the Space 
Station that conquers us and eliminates the rest of the Space 
Program.
    One of the biggest threats to the Space Program is not the 
Roemer amendment. It's not the stability of funding year by 
year by year. The funding for NASA according to the Republican 
budget is going to go down to a $11 billion. Here is a budget 
that was $20 billion in the late 1980s. Now it's going to be 
down to $11 billion by the year 2000 or 2001. Other programs 
are not going to be able to flourish and return the science and 
gain the data and do the great science that we've been able to 
achieve through the years in NASA. We are seeing more and more 
costs shifting away from science programs towards the Space 
Station as the Space Station takes up a larger percentage of 
the available NASA funding.
    I would also argue thirdly that the deficit is even a 
bigger problem today. Now I salute those that have voted for 
balancing the budget. I voted for a constitution amendment to 
balance the budget, I have voted for a host of cuts, and I 
think we need to proceed in that fashion toward a balanced 
budget by the year 2002.
    But put this project up against some of the other tough 
votes that we're going to cast in the next year and a half. Put 
it up against Medicare for senior citizens, put it up against 
drug-free schools for our children, put it up against education 
funding. We are going to have to cut many of these important 
programs. We shouldn't cut some of them. Some of them are going 
to be eliminated, and some of them are going to be debated on 
the House floor, but certainly the argument for $72 billion in 
a Space Station. It's overbudget and its scientific missions 
have gone from 8 to one and a half. I don't think that's in the 
cards for the taxpayer and for us to continue to support this 
kind of project.
    Mr. Walker argued that international partners will get out 
of this program if we don't have some kind of stability. If I 
were the Russians I would be so excited. If we take away our 
certification requirements, and if the U.S. comes up with a 
seven-year authorization and the U.S. is sending $400 million a 
year to Russia, they would be delighted.
    So I would argue--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Roemer. I would ask unanimous consent for one 
additional minute.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Roemer. I would argue for these three reasons, the 
history of the Space Program, the overall budget of multiyear 
coming down very, very quickly and unfairly on other programs, 
the deficits and the cuts in other programs in addition to the 
Russians' participation, that we need to make them accountable. 
We do not need to shift money abroad at this time to buy their 
partnership. All those reasons are compelling ones to get rid 
of the Space Station at this point and save the NASA program.
    Marie Antoinette in terms of history said let them eat 
cake. I think what NASA is saying to the rest of the Space 
Program is let them eat crumbs. There are not going to be fair 
dollars left to support the great, worthy science programs that 
NASA is conducting and returning good technology and spinoffs 
and dollars if we continue to pour this kind of money into this 
Space Station.
    And I thank the Chairman for the additional minute.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has once again 
expired.
    The Chair rises in opposition to the Roemer amendment and 
recognizes himself for five minutes.
    The amendment that is offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
is his regular amendment to cancel the Space Station. He's 
entitled to his viewpoint. The result of the adoption of his 
amendment is that America will abandon its leadership in space. 
America will abandon the scientific research that NASA has 
driven since its founding in 1957. There will be a Space 
Station built. It will be built by the Europeans, it will be 
built by the Russians and it will be built by the Japanese, and 
our scientists will have to go lease space on it. That's not 
the type of legacy I want to leave to future generations.
    The gentleman from Indiana is correct in that there have 
been cost overruns in the Space Station project in the past. 
Some of those cost overruns were as a result of redesigns 
mandated by Congress, not by this Committee, but by the 
Appropriations Committee. Other cost overruns came about as a 
result redesigns mandated by NASA, and in the case of 1993 by 
the President of the United States himself.
    What this bill does is provide the mechanism to make sure 
that the Space Station is done on time and on budget. NASA 
Administrator Goldin has said that the Space Station will be 
finished on time and on budget, and this Committee intends to 
hold Mr. Goldin to those promises. And actually the tools that 
are provided in this multiyear authorization will mandate to 
NASA what is not mandated now in terms of preventing cost 
overruns from happening in the future.
    I want to make two more points. Passing the Roemer 
amendment is not deficit reduction, nor is passing the Roemer 
amendment a guarantee that any of the funds saved by cancelling 
the Space Station will be spent on NASA's science program. We 
all know that the way the Budget Act works is that each 
Subcommittee gets an allocation of funds. They can change the 
mix of the funds from what was assumed in the Budget 
Resolution, but they cannot exceed the caps of the allocation 
that the Subcommittee has been given.
    Spending less money on NASA means that we'll be spending 
more money on HUD and on VA programs. I don't think that that's 
a wise investment in the future. The technology that NASA does, 
whether it's in the Space Station or in some of its other 
programs, improved the quality of life for this generation and 
future generations. That can't be said for money being spent on 
public housing programs and on some of the programs of the 
Veterans Administration.
    I would urge the Members of this Committee to reject the 
Roemer amendment, to continue our vision in the future, and I 
would urge them not to heed the words of Marie Antoinette, as 
the gentleman from Indiana does, but to heed the words of John 
F. Kennedy who set out a vision that made America first in 
space.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Hall. I thank the Chairman, and I certainly agree with 
everything he said. It comes as no surprise I'm sure to my 
friend, Mr. Roemer, that I oppose, strongly oppose his 
amendment. While I give Mr. Roemer some credit for persistence, 
I think Congress has responded to his amendment numerous times 
in the past, and the answer has always been the same, no to the 
Roemer amendment and yes to the Space Station, and I wonder why 
that occurs.
    I guess the reason is that there is not a person in this 
room and there is not a person that will read the abstract of 
our testimony here today that's not affected by the Space 
Station and wouldn't be affected by lack of a Space Station 
when one of six are attacked by the deadly effects of cancer 
and while we have people wasting away in cancer wards with no 
hope for the future.
    Their only hope is a Space Station, and I refer to the 
testimony that has appeared before this board, before this 
Committee, Dr. Michael DeBakey, world renowned, who came and 
gave us his time, and he said many health problems that affect 
the aged, bone density loss, breakdowns in immune response, 
changes in the cardiovascular system also affect the very young 
and very health astronauts once they're in weightlessness.
    A Space Station provides a facility unavailable on earth to 
observe these processes and develop countermeasures that could 
be applicable to the aged and to the feeble as well as to 
astronauts. Such advances could in turn potentially lower 
future health costs and it goes on and on.
    So I think I'm as fiscally conservative a Member as you'll 
find in this Congress, I hope I am, and I certainly have tried 
to hold NASA's feet to the fire over the cost of its programs, 
but the Space Station is not just a cost. It's an investment. 
It's investment in the future of this country. It's an 
investment in the study of why a young girl has to hit herself 
in the leg every morning got diabetes with a needle. It's an 
investment for all of the dreaded diseases that stalk the young 
and the aged alike.
    I think we can't afford to go to the American people and 
say we've just cancelled your Space Station, we've just killed 
your Space Station. I can't imagine that it would happen if 
that should occur here. I don't think it's going to, but we 
have to know that we have a worthy adversary, that we have a 
young man and a gentleman, Mr. Roemer, who believes in what 
he's doing and what he says. I just think he's so wrong on this 
that I think the American people certainly will understand 
that.
    I will yield back my time. I may want to ask for more time 
at a later time, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Is there further debate on the amendment?
    The gentleman from Florida.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I wish to go on the opposite side.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. That's fine, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Weldon, 
is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise to strike the last word. I, too, speak out in 
opposition to the Roemer amendment.
    As many people know, I'm a student of the Bible, and one of 
my favorite scriptures in the Bible is a verse that reads: 
without a vision the people will perish. Our nation was settled 
by pioneers, and the Space Station I believe is a continuation 
of the pioneering spirit that has made our nation the great 
nation that it is today.
    I've been a fan and student of the Space Program ever since 
I was a young child. I remember reading way back when I was 9 
and 10 years old about the Station being an integral part of 
the further development of the U.S. Manned Space Program, and I 
believe that this particular bill is an excellent way for us to 
demonstrate our commitment to not only fulfilling that vision, 
that goal that President Reagan had as well as the NASA 
officials had way back in the 1960s, but that we're willing to 
demonstrate that we do not want to reargue this issue year in 
and year out, but demonstrate to the American people and to our 
international partners that we are not going to redebate this 
issue over and over again, but that we're going to commit 
ourselves to the ongoing funding of the program and the 
completion of it.
    I believe that this is a very trimmed down Space Station 
that is lean and mean and efficient and that will get the kind 
of research done that we need, and I would encourage all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against the 
Roemer amendment and to support this bill.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move 
to strike the last word.
    Let me acknowledge the consistency, as my colleagues have 
already done, of my colleague, Mr. Roemer, for his continuing 
concern about the Space Station. Let me also the join in with 
my colleague and Ranking Member from Texas in his eloquence on 
this issue.
    For some years we have looked with stars in our eyes at the 
potential, if you will, of space exploration and what one would 
discover from those opportunities, and albeit we come now at a 
time when we must juxtapose the great needs of this nation and 
the cry from Americans about the control of our budget and more 
efficient ways.
    I have not yet heard one American, one bright-eyed school 
child or maybe that waitress in a restaurant or that bus driver 
cry out to stop us from claiming our rightful birth's position 
of a leader on the issues of space and technology and medical 
research. In all of my encounters with the public when they 
begin to cry out for fiscal responsibility there is a sense of 
pride and a sense of excitement about the men and women who 
have gone on to space and to be able to come back and tell them 
about the great exploits, not only for personal or self-
aggrandizement, but really for what can be done, not for 
America, but for the world.
    So I know we have to make some sacrifices, and we've got to 
be able to have dollars to do economic development and build 
more housing. I happen to think that there is certainly a great 
merit in making sure that welfare works for all Americans, 
welfare reform works, so that we can do a better job of serving 
all of America. But any time I go and debate these issues I've 
not heard one of those who may be impacted by such legislation 
argue against the excitement and the value of America leading 
out in space.
    So I think the Space Station sets the tone for what we 
would like to be as Americans, that we can in fact accomplish 
our dreams, and we can in fact as we are accomplishing our 
dreams at the same time make valuable contributions to life.
    Ranking Member Hall was eloquent on the suffering that goes 
on medically and that in fact we're not playing with toys when 
we go into space. We're actually trying to solve health 
problems of this nation and more particularly of the world 
community.
    So I would simply with respect argue to have my colleagues 
not support this amendment for it is far more reaching than we 
might expect on this day today in what we might do. It 
certainly has the impact I believe of setting the tone for what 
we would like to be as a nation in the 21st Century, but more 
importantly it has a great part of making this a healthier 
world community for what it does in science and in medicine, 
and I support the Space Station in its efficiencies, but 
certainly in keeping it for those reasons.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stockman, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Stockman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would just like to point out that someone who is 
intimately close to it, and my wife work on Space Station and 
watching those people down at NASA go through the contortions 
or every year probably watching us, and there are no cameras 
here, but watching the votes every time on the floor of the 
House, that if anything we're doing, we're sending them through 
dispirit cycles up and down waiting to know whether they're 
going to have families that are going to be fed or whatever.
    And I just praise the Chairman for taking a bold step and 
stepping out and saying that we're going to approve this 
program for seven years. Quite frankly, throughout history you 
look at technology and whenever a country starts to forego 
their technology it precipitates the fall of the nation, 
whether through the Bronze Age or through the Roman period.
    I for one think that we need to keep pressing for research 
and development in space, and I'm proud to say that I oppose 
the Roemer amendment. Thank you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Hastings, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Roemer amendment. I've had a lot of fun on this Committee in 
dealing with my colleague from Indiana, and just to add a 
moment of levity, I thought that when Orlando Magic vanquished 
the Pacers that we might not hear further from him.
    [Laughter.]
    But in light of the fact that that doesn't seem to settle 
the issue, the fact remains that the potential for 
international cooperation in this arena is worth the investment 
in and of itself. In my view we're on the verge of major 
advances in space, and the Space Station is an integral part of 
those advances.
    Toward that end I would put a simple question. Why then 
would we take a giant leap backward for human kind when with a 
little bit of prioritizing and with all of the common sense and 
understanding that this Committee, the total Committee and this 
body has that we could continue to take giant leaps forward.
    I thank the Chair and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    If there is no further discussion, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Roemer.
    So many as are in favor please indicate by saying Aye.
    [Chorus of Ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Those opposed, No.
    [Chorus of Noes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The ``Noes'' appear to have it.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote will be ordered.
    The Clerk will call the roll. Those in favor of the 
amendment will indicate by saying Aye, and those opposed will 
indicate by saying No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes No.
    Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes No.
    Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes No.
    Mr. Stockman.
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stockman votes No.
    Mrs. Seastrand.
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Seastrand votes No.
    Mr. Tiahrt.
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tiahrt votes No.
    Mr. Hilleary.
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hilleary votes No.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes No.
    Mr. Salmon.
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Salmon votes No.
    Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis votes No.
    Mr. Largent.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Walker.
    Mr. Walker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker votes No.
    Mr. Foley.
    Mr. Foley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Foley votes No.
    Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes No.
    Mr. Traficant.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Roemer.
    Mr. Roemer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Roemer votes Yes.
    Mr. Cramer.
    Mr. Cramer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cramer votes No.
    Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes No.
    Ms. Harman.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes No.
    Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. Hastings. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings votes No.
    Mr. Ward.
    Mr. Ward. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ward votes Yes.
    Mr. Luther.
    Mr. Luther. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Luther votes Yes.
    Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown votes No.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Are there any Members who have not been 
recorded or who wish to change their votes?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. On the roll call vote, Mr. Chairman, the Yeas 
are 18 and the Nays are 3.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I believe the Clerk is confused.
    [Laughter.]
    The Clerk will try again.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. On this vote the Nays 
are 18 and the Yeas are 3.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. That's much better.
    [Laughter.]
    The amendment is not agreed to.
    Next on the amendment roster is an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the 
gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This should be a 
noncontroversial amendment.
    Today the Subcommittee is taking a giant leap for America's 
future in space by authorizing the continued development and 
assembly of the International Space Station to its completion.
    I am proposing that we take another bold step as well, and 
that's toward an economic future in space, and on earth, by 
maximizing the private sector's opportunities to use, help, 
operate and even add to the capabilities of the Space Station.
    When the American pioneers settled our last frontier, the 
government would establish a small fort which then attracted 
farm settlers, a trading post, and eventually inhabitants of a 
new town. The key point is that the government only had to pay 
for the fort, but the nation got a whole new city.
    That's my vision, Mr. Chairman, as well as Chairman 
Walker's vision for the International Space Station.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from California 
yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I will.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair is prepared to accept this 
amendment and wishes to make a point.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. And that is that there has been a 
legitimate concern about the operational cost of the Space 
Station once it is completed. The adoption of the amendment of 
the gentleman from California will mean that the private sector 
will be chipping in a lot more to defray the operational costs 
of the Space Station. I think that that's a good idea. This is 
an amendment that is in the taxpayer's best interest. It is 
also an amendment that will allow the Space Station to be 
utilized in its best possible manner.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and reclaiming my 
time. I appreciate those words of support, and I believe if we 
actually move forward with an eye towards creating commercial 
activity in space we will achieve both substantial savings and 
operating costs, as you just stated, as well as a dramatically 
higher level of scientific and industrial research.
    Specifically my amendment declares the importance of the 
commercial use and operation of the Space Station and then 
requires NASA to report back to Subcommittee on its plans for 
encouraging these commercial activities.
    My fellow Members, we heard Mr. Goldin testify in February 
that he, too, wants to move NASA away from operating space 
systems and towards researching new space technologies. My 
amendment is a step in that direction, and I understand that 
Mr. Goldin supports this step. So I ask for its bipartisan 
support.
    And one last note in terms of the Space Station in general. 
We are embarking on an incredible endeavor. It's a giant, 
really a giant step, and I hate to use that cliche, for mankind 
because what we do now is perhaps bigger than that step that 
was made in the moon so many years ago by Neil Armstrong. We 
are involving ourselves in an engineering and scientific 
project that will enable man to utilize space and eventually 
utilize space for commercial and for purposes other than just 
governmental purposes.
    This step, the Space Station, should be something that will 
generate benefits, and it will generate benefits that we can't 
even visualize today, and that's why some of the arguments by 
Mr. Roemer, and I respect his intelligence and I respect his 
desire to be frugal with the taxpayers' money. I think there 
are benefits that we can't see from this program. For example, 
if the Space Station is there, just in the matter of servicing 
the Space Station and the commercial projects aboard and near 
by the Space Station will add a great of momentum to the 
creation of a new type of system for getting into space.
    And those of you know that I am deeply involved with trying 
to develop a new rocket system that will bring down the cost of 
getting into orbit while having a Space Station there and 
commercial enterprises in space will add momentum to that drive 
of human kind to bring down the cost of getting into space. 
That benefit isn't even calculated into our calculations today, 
but in the future you can bet that we will benefit from that 
new part of the formula.
    So I ask for bipartisan support for my amendment. I think 
this is in keeping with the spirit on both sides of the aisle, 
and I offer my support for the Space Station in general.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I thank the 
gentleman from California who is one who in his early service 
to this country wrote many of President Reagan's better 
speeches and has been a very fine Member of this Committee and 
has offered a lot of supportive amendments back over the last 
four or five years, and I applaud his amendment, which I take 
to be the promotion of the commercial development of space.
    The amendment is going to pass, but I would like to talk to 
the gentleman for a moment and point out some areas of concern 
that I have.
    Section 3 talks about the significant involvement by 
private ventures in using the Space Station during its 
assembly. That gives me some concern and it's something that I 
would like for us to visit with before we get to the main 
Committee because as I understand it the assembly of the 
Station is going to be a very challenging and demanding task 
and NASA is working very hard to plan for it now.
    I don't want to risk the success of that assembly task 
after so much taxpayer money has been spent developing the 
Station. It seems to me that the private users could wait until 
it's operational and it would be more feasible, and I would 
like to discuss that with the gentleman before we get to the 
main Committee.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I take it that my colleague wouldn't be 
opposed to it if NASA found that using private contractors or 
the private sector at this stage would actually benefit the 
project.
    Mr. Hall. Well, as you know, I've always listened to NASA, 
but I just haven't always minded them.
    [Laughter.]
    But I thank the gentleman and I yield back my time.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I would be very happy to talk to you at 
any stage of this process.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Is there any further discussion on the Rohrabacher 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Those in favor will signify by saying Aye.
    [Chorus of Ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Opposed, No.
    [Chorus of Noes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The ``Ayes'' appear to have it. The 
``Ayes'' have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    Next on the amendment roster is an amendment proposed by 
the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Harman.
    For what purpose does the gentlewoman rise?
    Ms. Harman. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Ms. Harman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point and the 
gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'll be brief, and I hope that this amendment to the 
findings section will gather unanimous bipartisan support.
    Today we deal with the Space Station, a program I strongly 
support, and I plan to support the Subcommittee's bill. But I 
also think it's important in the findings section of this 
legislation to send a signal that we also support the rest of 
NASA and that other NASA programs in basic science and 
aeronautics need to be in balance, too.
    This is obviously important to my Congressional District in 
the aerospace center of California, but I think it's important 
to the whole country, and I think it is critical that while we 
take this important step today to provide stability for the 
Station we send this additional signal. So on that basis I 
offer this amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Harman. Yes, I will.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. 
We're prepared to accept this amendment.
    Let me state that I wish to address the concerns of the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Brown, the Former Chairman of 
this Committee, that we will be dealing with other areas of the 
NASA budget in the context of authorization legislation later 
on. The fact that this bill deals only with the Space Station 
should not be interpreted by anyone that the Committee is 
turning its back on the science programs and the non-Space 
Station manned programs of NASA. We are in very strong support 
of them.
    Let me also point out that despite the Augustine 
Commission's 1990 recommendation of a 10 percent increase in 
the NASA budget, which neither the Reagan Administration nor 
the Bush Administration nor the Clinton Administration has 
agreed with, this Committee has fought to maintain a good mix 
of science programs and human participation programs and will 
continue to do so even though the President's budget that was 
submitted only provided 17 percent of the total NASA budget for 
the so-called science program.
    The gentlewoman has got a good amendment, and I'm happy to 
accept it.
    Ms. Harman. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for that, and I 
appreciate the statement you just made.
    Just to conclude I would like to comment on another 
subject. I sadly missed the roll call vote on Mr. Roemer's 
amendment by two seconds. Had I been here I would have voted in 
opposition to his amendment, and I applaud the good initiative 
of my colleague from California, Mr. Rohrabacher in offering 
his which I strongly support.
    Thank you. I would ask for whatever kind of vote would fit 
this time schedule on my amendment, and if you're prepared to 
accept it, Mr. Chairman, maybe we don't need a vote.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. If there is no further discussion--
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I would just say with all due 
respect to the gentlelady from California, who I think I agree 
with about 90 percent of the time on issues that come before 
this Committee and come to the floor, the wording in her 
amendment talking about an adequately funded civil space 
program, I think that's one of the concerns that I have with 
the Space Station eating up more and more of the available 
funds that we need for aeronautics, for space science, for 
technology spinoffs and new developments and further language 
which says that we currently balance that.
    I think even the NASA statement that we just were given a 
copy of before this markup started, NASA's views with respect 
to H.R. 1601, they say, and I quote: NASA supports the concept 
of a stable multiyear commitment to funding for the Space 
Station program, and then it underlined in the context of an 
overall, stable, balanced NASA multiyear budget at or near the 
level assumed in the President's FY-96 budget. And even the 
Administrator, Mr. Goldin has said that if the budget goes down 
to $11 billion that it won't be a balanced program and it will 
not continue to adequately fund many of these other very 
important initiatives.
    I would encourage the gentlelady to continue her hard fight 
for these programs that she sees as very, very vital, which I 
strongly support, and would like to work with her on towards 
seeing adequate funding and fair funding put into these 
programs which I think is going to be a very difficult fight 
over the next few years.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Harman.
    So many as are in favor will signify by saying Aye.
    [Chorus of Ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Opposed, No.
    [Chorus of Noes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The ``Ayes'' appear to have it. The 
``Ayes'' have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    There is a vote on the floor of the House. Pursuant to the 
order of the Committee of earlier today, the Chair is prepared 
to declare a recess of 15 minutes to go and vote.
    Before doing so let me urge the Members of the Committee to 
promptly return. We have five more amendments which I think we 
should be able to dispose of fairly quickly if we get back here 
fairly promptly.
    The Chair declares the Committee in recess for 15 minutes.
    [Recess taken for voting from 3:19 to 3:40 p.m.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Subcommittee will be in order.
    Members and guests will take their seats and please stop 
audible conversations and have the inaudible kind.
    Next on the amendment roster is an amendment proposed by 
the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Tiahrt.
    For what reason does the gentleman from Kansas seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Tiahrt. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will read the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the 
gentleman from Kansas is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Chairman, America should be the leader and 
the primary owner of the next industrial revolution which can 
happen in space on the Space Station. The technology developed 
to support the Space Station from the research within the Space 
Station will be foundational for capital opportunities where 
America should be first and defense capability where America 
just be first.
    NASA is making a contract with the American people. They 
are committed to bringing the best Space Station they can 
within the terms of this legislation and of course within the 
budget.
    This bill demands that NASA function on time, on budget and 
under a cap. If after only one year the goal is threatened and 
NASA is not granted certification to go forward, this amendment 
provides for a mechanism for other parties involved with the 
Space Station effort to comment on the reason for the delay. If 
there is a problem we'll get a full report and not a filtered 
report. If this review or the report is going to be diagnostic 
it must be objective. This can be accomplished by allowing a 
full scope of the involved parties to participate. It will be a 
vehicle for their input.
    It's a very simple amendment, straightforward, and without 
further ado I would move the amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Tiahrt. I would be glad to yield.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair is prepared to accept this 
amendment if one question can be answered satisfactorily on the 
record.
    I believe that the adoption of this amendment will help the 
Committee better understand any circumstances that would 
trigger the report provisions of this bill by allowing 
interested third parties to contribute their comments to the 
report of the Administrator. However, the Chair would note that 
this comment period, if adopted, would not relieve the 
Administrator of the within 60 days requirement for the 
certification of the report.
    Is that the gentleman's understanding?
    Mr. Tiahrt. That's my understanding.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Then I am prepared to accept the 
amendment.
    Does anyone else seek recognition?
    [No response.]
    If not, the Chair will put the question. The question is on 
the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. 
Tiahrt.
    All those in favor will signify by saying Aye.
    [Chorus of Ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Opposed, No.
    [No response.]
    The ``Ayes'' appear to have it. The ``Ayes'' have it and 
the amendment is agreed to.
    Next on the amendment roster is another amendment by the 
gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Tiahrt.
    For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
    Mr. Tiahrt. I have another amendment, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will read the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Tiahrt for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Tiahrt. I think that the purpose of Congress is to 
encourage what works. When we see something that has been 
successful we should follow through and put a vehicle in place 
to encourage those branches of the government to function more 
effectively.
    Mr. Goldin reported to this Committee, or to the Full 
Committee that they have worked out many of the problems in the 
Space Station through coming up with a different type of 
contracting. What this amendment does is through a sense of 
Congress encourage NASA to use a cost incentive fee type of 
contracting, which is a financial incentive. It encourages 
contractors to come in under budget, or under cost, and in 
doing so they get a larger incentive fee and thus saving the 
taxpayers money in the long run.
    The second part of this amendment is to encourage them to 
contract program integrators. It's a consolidation of the 
program and financial accountability into a single office. We 
saw problems occur in the B1B program and also in the first 
phase of the Space Station where the government tried to become 
the integrator and tried to bring all the different 
subcontracts together. But by hiring a company which is good at 
this type of work they have been able to solve a lot of the 
problems.
    So this amendment, Mr. Chairman, would tell a sense of 
Congress that we want to encourage NASA to use a cost incentive 
fee contract and also consolidate their efforts into one 
program office.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Kansas yield 
once again?
    Mr. Tiahrt. I'll be glad to yield.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's amendment expresses the 
sense of Congress that the managerial improvements in the way 
NASA is going about building the Space Station, such as the 
cost incentive single prime contract and the use of a single 
program office resident at but not financially dependent on a 
NASA field center, are proving their worth in this program and 
should be used elsewhere in NASA.
    The Chair recognizes that some programs of NASA may not be 
in a position to go to a single prime in their current state of 
development. For example, the reusable launch vehicle program, 
which is a competitive effort, clearly cost incentive fee 
arrangements like that between NASA and Boeing are an excellent 
model for preventing cost overruns and should be applied 
wherever possible, and, therefore, I urge the adoption of the 
amendment.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I share the 
gentleman's belief that we need to try to run our civil space 
program as efficiently as possible.
    He quotes Mr. Goldin, and actually in absence of hearings 
it's a little difficult to say, you know, how widely applicable 
the recommendation in this amendment would be to NASA's other 
programs. But I think the gentleman expresses a sense of 
Congress, a true sense of Congress, a sense of almost all of us 
in Congress, and I applaud the underlying sentiment that NASA 
should do its very best in all of its programs to protect the 
American taxpayer.
    I support the amendment, and yield back my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
    Ms. Harman. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California--
    Ms. Harman. I, too, support the amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. --is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Harman. Thank you. I would like to note at this point 
in the record that I am strongly supportive of the initiatives 
that Mr. Goldin has already taken on both the Station program 
and other actions to reduce NASA's overhead. He made a promise 
to this Committee two and a half years ago that he would act to 
reduce overhead on the Station and other programs by 30 
percent. I think he has achieved those targets and perhaps even 
more, and I would as one Member of this Committee like to send 
a strong signal that he has done what he promised.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Tiahrt.
    Those in favor will signify by saying Aye.
    [Chorus of Ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Those opposed, No.
    [No response.]
    The ``Ayes'' appear to have it. The ``Ayes'' have it and 
the amendment is agreed to.
    Next on the roster of amendments is an amendment proposed 
by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    For what purpose does the gentlewoman seek recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for five 
minutes to strike the last word.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    If I did not make mention of it in my opening remarks that 
I did not have quite the time to make, let me thank you for 
your leadership in this issue and offer, Mr. Chairman, an 
amendment that I have at the desk and make sure that I can have 
by unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be offered 
in lieu of the amendment that's in the packet and to ensure 
that they have the amendment at the desk that has a correction.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the corrected 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee. Page 3 
after line 18 insert the following new subsection [b], Minimum 
Appropriations Requirement. No funds are authorized to be 
appropriated for the International Space Station for fiscal 
year 1996.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee is recognized for five 
minutes.
    [The corrected amendment follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me state my wholehearted support for a Space Station 
and my continued support as a new Member as we continue to 
debate this issue in the weeks or months to come.
    In keeping with that support let me also acknowledge as 
I've said earlier on other occasions the importance of the 
mission that NASA has for not only this nation but as it leads 
out in international space opportunities and operations.
    One of the points that I think is very important as we 
collectively move to make a statement about NASA and the value 
of the Space Station collectively together and as we 
acknowledge the work that is being done by Administrator 
Goldin, particularly his staff and all of the particular 
centers in reducing government, reducing waste and being 
efficient and effective, that one of the debates that we've all 
had over the last months and weeks and I am told those 
individuals who also engaged in this debate in the 103rd 
Congress is the importance of maintaining NASA's mission.
    I thereby offer this amendment that will include a 
budgeting process that NASA, including the Space Station, can 
rely upon over a period of years that would keep their budget 
in a manner where they could direct their mission and their 
policies along a line of consistency. It would also allow us 
vigorously to support the Space Station, but also vigorously to 
support the mission to planet earth, aeronautics, human 
exploration and development of space and space science and 
space technology.
    As I am interacting with members in my district what comes 
to mind even more so than the whole idea of the excitement of 
manned space flights or Space Station is the importance of 
research, particularly as it relates to my universities and 
some of the very important health work or health or medical 
research that is going on in the medical center. That 
partnership is an exciting potential partnership between NASA 
and the medical research entities around our nation.
    I believe that this is both a safe and secure and efficient 
manner in which to fund NASA, and that is to keep it on a flat 
budget line for a period of time in order for it to create its 
mission, but also in order for it to be creative. I would 
engage my colleagues in I hope what would be a supportive 
debate that says that this Committee is reckoning with the 
importance of this particular agency moving into the 21st 
Century.
    And as I've listened to NASA employees and particularly the 
Administrator, they are prepared for belt tightening. I think 
the Administration previously asked them to belt tighten and 
they took them very seriously. There have been some severe cuts 
on this program, and I don't hear anyone arguing about the fact 
that those cuts had to be taken. I do hear them as I visit the 
sites, and particularly as I visited the Johnson Space site, 
the Space Center, of them wondering and asking if they will be 
able to complete the importance of their business under the 
present operating budget and potentially what may occur to them 
in the years to come.
    This particular amendment answers their concerns. It 
challenges them to be efficient and effective, it challenges to 
further reduce wastes, it challenges them to be particularly 
sensitive to opportunities for privatization, but at the same 
time it forcefully commits this nation to the funding of NASA 
along with the Space Station for a period of years in a manner 
which they can comport with.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for your support, the support 
of my colleagues in an amendment that I only call fair game and 
an opportunity to do the job that we've asked them to do and to 
do it safely as well.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    The Chair rises in opposition to the amendment and 
recognizes himself for five minutes.
    I believe that this amendment, while well intentioned in 
trying to get more money for NASA and to try to get NASA to run 
more efficiently, has the exact opposite effect. It ends up 
punting the question on whether the Space Station shall 
continue to the Appropriations Committee and really takes this 
Committee out of the action in terms of determining what the 
proper level of appropriations for the Space Station should be, 
what the proper level of appropriations for the rest of NASA 
should be, as well as providing the oversight that we've heard 
is so necessary and with which I agree.
    Now presently the Administration's request is for $14.2 
billion for NASA for fiscal year 1996. However, in the outyears 
of the budget when the managerial improvements that Mr. Goldin 
has announced take effect, then NASA will go below the $14 
billion figure, and in the President's own budget that happens 
in fiscal year 1997.
    Now the adoption of this amendment will tell NASA that if 
they want to continue building a Space Station they should 
forget about the managerial improvements that the NASA 
Administrator has announced, and we are not going to have a 
NASA, in the words of Mr. Goldin, that is better and cheaper 
and faster, and we're not going to have the incentives to get 
the projects done on time and under budget because NASA knows 
that its major program will end up being stripped if they 
become more efficient and don't need as much money to do the 
job.
    So I would urge opposition to this amendment for both of 
these reasons, and I would hope that the Members would think 
about the consequences of telling NASA that they end up losing 
programs by running their shop more efficiently when we should 
be doing the opposite.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for 
both your concern and what you've offered to us. I would 
vigorously and respectfully oppose or at least disagree with 
one of your statements.
    I think quite to the contrary we would encourage them to be 
inefficient. I simply think that what we would be doing is one 
of the things that we had some agreement on, as my researchers 
indicated, since I frankly admit that I was not here in the 
last Congress, that an even flat budget concept would begin to 
have NASA not only respond to their responsibilities of fiscal 
efficiency, which I don't see any sense that they do not want 
to concur with, but at the same time provide a sense of 
stability for a multiyear budgeting process that would allow 
them to efficiently work with some of the other vital programs, 
and I mentioned them.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well reclaiming my time, with all due 
respect the gentlewoman's rhetoric does not match up with what 
is contained in her amendment which says: no funds are 
authorized to be appropriated for the International Space 
Station for fiscal years '96 through 2000 unless NASA is 
appropriated at least $14 billion.
    Now again I'm not using the Republican Budget Committee's 
numbers. I am using President Clinton and OMB's numbers as that 
when the managerial improvements kick in NASA needs less money 
to do its operations and it goes below the $14 billion in 1997. 
So the way NASA gets to keep operating its Space Station is not 
to meet the goals of managerial improvements that Mr. Goldin 
has laid out and to continuing saying that they need $14 
billion or more for their operations, and then they get a Space 
Station as a bonus, and that's backwards from the way that we 
ought to be doing it.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like to be recognized as well, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I probably shouldn't do this 
because if I speak in favor of this amendment--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Then I'll talk about the Houston Rockets. 
You're right.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Roemer. We're beat up on enough, us poor Indiana 
Pacers. It was tough enough to lose the game.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes to defend the Midwest.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Roemer. I will put my best effort forward, Mr. 
Chairman, and try not to talk too much about basketball, but 
certainly as I move to speak in favor of the gentlelady's 
amendment I'm sure the fireworks will go off because I'm a 
strong opponent of the Space Station, but I don't think that 
this is per se all about the Space Station. This amendment 
would be better terms put your money where your mouth is 
amendment.
    We just passed, although I did not vote for it, the Harman 
amendment. The Harman amendment simply stated the International 
Space Station represents an important component of an 
adequately funded civil space program which balances human 
space flight with science, aeronautics and technology period. 
That's what it says. I agree with the gentlelady from 
California's intent and intend to work with her toward 
achieving a balanced and adequately funded NASA program.
    What the gentlelady from Texas is simply saying is we don't 
achieve an adequately funded program that balances these other 
very important things unless there is a funding level which 
allows us to do that which the gentlelady has put at about $14 
billion.
    Now I think if we talk about the many other programs in 
NASA that I feel very strongly should be supported, many of 
these are at direct risk, not only if the Space Station stays 
in, but if the budget level continues to come down. Whether 
we're talking about the President's budget or the Republican 
budget, it takes funding for NASA down to about $11 billion by 
the end of this century.
    What about aeronautics? We just said that that was 
important in the Harman amendment. Those programs are not going 
to be adequately funded. What about EOS, the Earth Observing 
System? That is in dire jeopardy if this kind of amendment 
doesn't pass. What about Casini or Clementine? We're just 
talking, as Mr. Tiahrt said, about doing things better, cheaper 
and quicker, like Clementine for about $50 million helping us 
plot the lunar landscape on the moon. That's great science and 
it's a great achievement for us. But these things will not be 
able to be achieved unless we have adequate funding in NASA.
    So if we don't have the ability or the courage to cancel 
the Space Station, certainly we should make sure that there is 
enough money within the NASA program to fund some of these 
other important programs, and instead of going the route of 
delaying AXAF and cancelling KRAF and a host of other important 
programs in NASA I would encourage support for the gentlelady's 
amendment.
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania seek recognition?
    Mr. Walker. To oppose the amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Walker. I think the amendment as structured has several 
problems, not the least of which is a structural one. If you 
read the amendment as it was presented to us you would 
literally have to appropriate the $14 million before you could 
come back and get the appropriation for the Space Station. So 
what you would have to have is a $14 million appropriation, and 
then you would have to come back and get appropriated again the 
additional $2.1 billion for the Space Station. Now that means 
that we would have to find $16.1 billion in any given year for 
NASA.
    I just don't think the amendment works in terms of what 
people are saying. Now I mean there may be a desire to try to 
raise the number to those levels, but I don't know how even 
under the President's budget, which is $300 billion out of 
whack by the end of the century, that those numbers work. So I 
have some problems with it.
    Secondly, I think we need to discuss exactly where the 
savings are that we are talking about in the NASA budget 
relative to the funding of the Space Station. It isn't true 
that we fully fund the Space Station under the Republican 
budget that passed the floor, but you need to look at where we 
are in fact funding other programs and not funding.
    First of all, the funding for the Space Shuttle is in line 
with the management reforms that the Administration has already 
announced, and it's the Administration that has announced that 
they're going to save $8 billion as a result of the management 
reforms. We assume those management reforms, and I can't 
imagine anybody would want to not assume those management 
reforms. That in fact may reduce the budget somewhat, but it 
will result in a far more efficient NASA. So even spending 
somewhat less money you have a more efficient NASA. That's 
something it seems to me we all want, and we want the Space 
Station to be prioritized within that.
    Secondly, the gentleman from Indiana mentioned the EOS 
program. I have not found anybody who has come into my office 
in recent weeks who will not tell you that there is some money 
that can be saved in the ground base system for EOS. Now I 
don't know whether it amounts to the total amount. We assume 
$2.7 billion in savings over seven years, but I will tell you 
that that includes revenue that we think will be derived from 
the commercial ports within that Station. So there are a number 
of elements here, but I don't know anybody who thinks that the 
present ground base system is the most efficient one that's 
available. And I think we will hear from the National Academy 
of Sciences in the weeks just ahead that there are revisions 
that could be made there. So there are savings that can be made 
in that program and ought to be made in that program.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Walker. Sure. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Let us also make clear that we're not just 
talking about government money in the future. You know, all of 
these calculations we're talking about are just what the 
government will do, and one of the highest priorities of the 
new gang that has come to Capitol Hill is the fact that we want 
to encourage private enterprise to get involved in just such 
activities--
    Mr. Walker. The gentleman is absolutely correct.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. --so that their contribution is going to 
be not just something that might be on the periphery, but will 
in the future be a major contribution to the efforts we're 
trying to make in this Committee.
    Mr. Walker. The gentleman is absolutely right.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield.
    Mr. Walker. Let me just finish my point, and then I will be 
happy to yield.
    The gentleman mentioned, the gentleman from Indiana also 
mentioned the Clementine program. The fact is the Clementine 
program is a tribute to the microminiaturization revolution 
that is now underway in earth observing systems. There is no 
reason why that can't be applied to the EOS program at some 
point in the future at tremendous cost savings both in terms of 
launch costs, and it may even be that we can piggyback onto 
some commercial satellites in the same vein as the gentleman 
from California just mentioned. There are tremendous savings 
that can be achieved in some of those areas, and we think that 
that ought to be reflected in the ongoing NASA budgets.
    That's where we get our savings. We don't take it out of 
ongoing science programs, and we don't take it out, in major 
ways out of the aeronautics program. In fact the original 
budget did take some of that money out, and we put a billion 
dollars of that money back in before we brought the bill to the 
floor because we are attempting to hold the line on a lot of 
these programs.
    But it seems to me that this amendment then takes us in an 
entire different direction. As the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
pointed out, it says to NASA don't do the efficiencies or you 
lose the Space Station. It says don't look at the EOS program 
in places where we can make the savings or you may lose the 
Space Station, and don't look at the microminiaturization, 
continue to build the big inefficient satellites or you might 
lose the Space Station. That's exactly the wrong signal to be 
sending at the present time, that plus the structural problem 
with the amendment is in fact a problem.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Walker. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for one 
additional minute--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Walker. --so I can yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
thank the gentleman for his words.
    I know the Chairman did not intend to suggest that those of 
us who are debating this with all good intent would be engaged 
in rhetoric. So I wanted to just share with my colleague that 
the intent here is to enhance both NASA and the Space Station, 
and that is of course the first of all priorities.
    I would welcome a technical correction from the gentleman 
or I would like to at this time ask for unanimous consent to 
offer the following words, no funds may be obligated, striking 
``are authorized to be appropriated.'' And if we can have that 
by unanimous consent we can continue the discussion.
    It is my intent of course--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Is there objection to the proposed 
modification of the amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas, 
Mr. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    Hearing none it is so ordered.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I'll conclude by simply saying it was the intent of the 
amendment to interweave, if you will, the value of the Space 
Station and NASA, and as I understand NASA's position they are 
interested in maintaining a stable, continuing budgeting for 
the Space Station along with maintaining the efficiencies that 
they've obligated themselves to do under the President's 
request and under this Congress' request.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania has once again expired.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlelady's 
amendment. I think it's a constructive one that helps alleviate 
the concerns of Members that worry about the Space Station and 
whether or not it's going to be able to compete with the 
funding of other worthy NASA activities. This amendment would 
ensure that the Space Station is fully funded and that the NASA 
budget as funded would be level over the next five years. It's 
I think $400 million less than appropriated for 1995, and it's 
$260 million less than what the White House has recommended for 
FY-96. Actually what we authorize is always subject to action 
by the Appropriations Committee anyway just the same as any 
language that the gentlelady put in could be cured by report 
language.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hall. I do yield.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Just to put on the record what's in the 
President's budget, for fiscal '96 it's $14.260 billion, for 
fiscal '97 $13.896 billion, for fiscal '98 $13.653 billion, for 
fiscal '99 $13.410 billion, and for fiscal 2000 $13.167 
billion.
    Now what this means I believe is that if this amendment was 
adopted we have an automatic cancellation of the Space Station 
after this fiscal year simply using the President's figures 
simply because the President's recommended appropriation, if 
approved by Congress, would be below that.
    Now what means is that all the money that we've spent on 
the Space Station up to date would simply be wasted, and that 
would amount to somewhere between $20- and $22 billion 
automatically done simply because people who love NASA and who 
want a vibrant NASA have drafted an amendment that loves them 
too much and hugs the child to death.
    Mr. Hall. I thank the gentleman and reclaim my time. 
Actually the President's budget is a request. It's not an act 
of Congress. I think, as the Chairman well knows, I'm hoping 
that we wind up with a one-year budget and that way I would be 
addressing just the one year, which would be the $14.260 
billion.
    But reclaiming my time the amendment I think is fiscally 
prudent. It phases overall NASA funding over the next five 
years and it limits it on the top as well as on the bottom. I 
think the Space Program and especially the Space Station, 
they're worth investing in because of all the benefits that 
we've talked about here.
    Overall her amendment strikes a very good balance and I 
intend to support it, and I yield back my time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Stockman. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Stockman, seek recognition?
    Mr. Stockman. I just want to speak in opposition to the 
amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Stockman. I'm sure that my colleague and the gentlelady 
from Texas have the same purpose, but if I understand the way 
the amendment is written, that if we follow the President's 
budget, if we concede to his budget we will automatically 
eliminate the Space Station, and this is exactly what we don't 
want to do. I think it's a mistake to go out here and say, yes, 
we've going to do this and then end up eliminating the Space 
Station, and I just have to point to my colleague from 
Indiana's support of it. I think that speaks volumes, more than 
any other discussion here today.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. I'll yield.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, my neighbor. Let me 
make it very clear that maybe we have caused the conscience of 
the gentleman from Indiana to rise to a new height and a new 
level, but let me suggest that there are others around the 
table who I know that you have great respect for and know where 
our colleague from Texas, Mr. Hall, stands on this issue.
    I don't want it to be unclear. We keep associating it with 
one person's budget versus another. I think what we are here to 
do today is to consistently provide for, one, NASA to complete 
its mission along with the Space Station and for it to be 
efficient. What this offering does is it gives an even playing 
field, if you will, for it to do both of those.
    And if I'm correct in the interpretation, this dollar 
amount incorporates expenditures for a Space Station, and the 
language that was put forth as a technical correction makes it 
more clear that we're not speaking about one versus another. So 
I would not want you to misread that this is not in support of 
the Space Station.
    Mr. Stockman. Let me yield back my time from my colleague. 
Could you just answer me one question yes or no. Do you see 
this, and maybe we can get it from the Committee, if we follow 
through with Clinton's budget does it not cut the Space 
Station?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No, I don't. I mean if you're asking me 
for a yes or no, I think what my amendment does, and that's 
what I'm speaking to, is provide us with an even playing field 
in a budgeting process that includes the efficiencies that have 
already been offered by the Administrator and the centers as 
well as an incorporation of dollars for a Space Station.
    Mr. Stockman. Could we get an opinion on this, because the 
way I read it it reads that if we fall one dollar below $14 
billion we don't fund the Space Station.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman from Texas will yield 
to the Chair. The way the amendment before the Committee 
currently reads is. ``No funds are obligated for the 
International Space Station for fiscal years '96 through 2000 
unless NASA is appropriated at least $14 billion for each 
fiscal year.'' So if it drops below $14 billion, as it will 
beginning in fiscal year 1997, no funds may be obligated for 
the Space Station, and it's as clear as that.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. Yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Just for one sentence. This bill may not 
do it, but what occurs is we have the opportunity to do other 
legislation. So what you're doing is you're applauding NASA for 
its efficiencies and this does not block out the Space Station.
    Mr. Stockman. I respectfully disagree. I mean if I can get 
a different opinion, but it says right here, it says if we 
don't hit $14 billion it will not be appropriated or whatever. 
So I'm confused. If you can point different, please do so.
    Mr. Cramer. Would the gentleman yield to me?
    Mr. Stockman. Yes. My five minutes is probably up by now.
    Mr. Cramer. I want to further this dialogue because I'm 
troubled by the wording of this. I want to support the 
gentlelady's amendment, and I understand what your intent would 
be and I know where you come from. You're from a district like 
mine, and you're almost under any circumstance a Space Station 
supporter. But because this is a multiyear authorization I'm 
afraid by the wording of this amendment that we're hold the 
Space Station hostage to a specific funding level. There is so 
much that we don't know now that could affect that that I don't 
want to reluctantly put the Space Station or you in that 
position. So I'm confused and would like an opinion, if there 
is one to be had, as to whether that's the impact of the 
wording, and I'm even trying to think of some alternate wording 
that would accomplish what I know the gentlelady would like to 
accomplish and I can't do that.
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Cramer. Yes.
    Mr. Hall. Perhaps the gentlelady might want to withdraw 
this because all of us are for what she's trying to do and even 
including the other gentleman from Texas and work on it before 
we get to the big Committee and see if we can't work out words 
that will support what the gentlelady's intent is. I don't 
think she meant unless or until the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration is appropriated at least $14 billion, but 
we can clarify it a little bit if you would consider doing 
that.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Hall, the intent, I think it's clear, 
but I welcome a bipartisan approach to this and certainly my 
colleagues who have been supportive and would like to have this 
further clarified. It is my position as it was designed that it 
be inclusive of the Space Station and that it not be blocking 
of the Space Station.
    Mr. Hall. I know that's your intent and you're of record on 
that.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, and I would be willing to do 
that.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Is the gentlewoman asking unanimous 
consent that her amendment be withdrawn?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, I am at this time and to present it 
before the Full Committee after some more detailed work on it. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Is there any objection to the unanimous 
consent request?
    [No response.]
    Hearing none, so ordered.
    The next amendment that is on the amendment roster is an 
other amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas seek 
recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk, please.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I hope that this will draw 
certainly unanimous support. It is simply to provide that we 
continue to monitor the activities of our international 
partners and ensure that they are keeping in pace with the 
space efforts so that once the Administrator certifies that--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair is prepared to accept this 
amendment. It's a good one, and her amendments ripen with age.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I am delighted with that comment. I've 
just concluded my discussion on that, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 
you for accepting this amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Is there any further discussion on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas?
    [No response.]
    Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
    All those in favor will signify by saying Aye.
    [Chorus of Ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Those opposed say No.
    [No response.]
    The ``Ayes'' have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The next amendment on the amendment 
roster is another amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
Indiana, Mr. Roemer.
    For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
No. 8.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Mr. Roemer.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the 
gentleman from Indiana is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment is very similar to an amendment I offered 
last year that was agreed to by the Committee. Simply put it is 
an accounting report on Space Station expenditures. If we're 
going to spend the type of money that we're looking at in this 
authorization bill of seven years, then certainly the 
Administrator of NASA shall transmit to the Congress a report 
with complete annual accounting of all costs of the Space 
Station, including cash and other payments to Russia. That's 
all we're asking in this report.
    It is not the camel's nose under the tent to try to cancel 
the program or to alter the program. It simply says to our 
taxpayers we want to know what you're doing with the money. We 
are sending $400 million to the Russians out of our NASA budget 
and we should know what they're doing. Recent reports coming 
from the Cosmodrome and Bykenaur and Kazakhstan report mixed 
progress, that we have a great deal of difficulty over there in 
terms of the technology and the condition of the Cosmodrome. We 
want to know what they're spending American tax dollars on. 
That's all we're trying to do with this amendment.
    I would hope that the Chairman would support this 
amendment, as he did last year, and I would maintain the 
balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman has to yield back the 
balance of his time.
    Mr. Roemer. I would yield the balance of my time to the 
Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Florida seek recognition?
    Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the 
amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment to 
the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Would the Clerk please read the 
amendment since it's not distributed yet.
    The Clerk. Strike the last statement of the amendment that 
begins on line 6.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida is recognized 
for five minutes in support of his amendment to the amendment.
    Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman, I recommend my amendment which 
will strike the last sentence of Mr. Roemer's amendment. It is 
my understanding that this will conform the amendment to the 
language that was in last year's legislation.
    I understand the importance of knowing what NASA and our 
international partners are contributing to the Space Station. I 
am not sure if Mr. Roemer's amendment offers the best approach. 
The portion of the amendment requiring NASA to report on 
spending by our international partners would place an enormous 
burden on NASA. If adopted, unforeseen complications with 
regard to collection of this data from our international 
partners could have the potential of jeopardizing the Space 
Station funding.
    Our international partners have difficult accounting 
practices that would make this task extremely burdensome. I 
believe that there are better ways of seeking answers to these 
questions that would not jeopardize the funding, and I cannot 
support Mr. Roemer's amendment without striking this onerous 
provision. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to the 
Roemer amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Florida please 
yield?
    Mr. Weldon. Yes, I would.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I support the gentleman from Florida's 
amendment, and if it is adopted I will support the gentleman 
from Indiana's amendment.
    The difference I think between the Roemer amendment without 
the Weldon amendment and the Roemer amendment with the Weldon 
amendment is the accounting of the expenses of the 
international partners, except Russia.
    The European Space Agency and its member nations, the 
Canadians and the Japanese, are spending their own money to 
build their part of the International Space Station. Frankly I 
don't think it's our business to determine how they spend their 
money and how they account for their money as long as they 
comply with the inter-governmental agreements and the 
memorandums of understanding that the foreign governments and 
in the case in ESA the international agency make with the 
United States Government.
    Russia is different. We are sending money to Russia to 
build part of the International Space Station, and that is our 
money and I think that there should be an adequate accounting 
in that. So where I draw the line is accounting for the money 
that is authorized by this Committee and appropriated by this 
Congress. There I think we have an obligation to make sure that 
the accounting is done properly and done publicly so that we 
can do our oversight.
    But when we start dealing with our countries' taxpayers' 
money and asking NASA to go to these other countries and to get 
these reports and then submit them to Congress for our comment 
and critique, I think we're sticking our nose into something 
that frankly isn't part of our business.
    So I would hope that the Weldon amendment is adopted, and 
again if it is, then I can support the Roemer amendment. If 
it's not, then I would have to oppose it.
    I yield back to the gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Weldon. I thank the Chairman for his support. I would 
also like to add to the debate on this that the Administrator 
has made it quite clear that it would be extremely difficult 
for his agency to comply with this type of amendment without 
the provision that I've included, and I would encourage all my 
colleagues to vote in support of my amendment.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from Florida 
has expired.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from California, Mr 
Brown, seek recognition?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I rise to concur with you in your 
support of the amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for far more 
than five minutes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Brown. Well it won't take five minutes, Mr. Chairman. 
In your usual cogent way I think you've properly analyzed the 
impact of the Roemer amendment, which I'm not that much in 
disagreement with. But as you point out, it would require that 
we enter into the auditing process for the funds of our allies, 
and I'm convinced that that would be resented on the part of 
our allies. It would hamper the cooperation that we hope to 
encourage there, and I therefore feel that Mr. Weldon's 
amendment would improve the amendment considerably and I 
support it in full.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Does anyone else seek recognition?
    The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, certainly I can count the votes, 
especially after the first amendment, and I would concur with 
much of what has been said about some of the language, 
particularly the last four or five words on line 8. The intent 
of the amendment is to concentrate on the auditing of the 
accounts, including cash and other payments to Russia. That is 
the language that we were successful in getting into the bill 
last year, and that is 90 percent of the thrust of this 
language.
    I was, however, concerned in adding the last sentence about 
the contributions of Russia to the U.S. program. Maybe there is 
some way in working with you, Mr. Chairman, and your staff 
between now and Full Committee. We can not address the 
international partners, but just look at ways by which, as you 
articulately stated, the contributions of Russia.
    But I would be happy to accept the gentleman from Florida's 
amendment to strike the last sentence, keep the original Roemer 
language as it appeared last year as well and work on some 
language between now and Full Committee addressing the expenses 
and contributions of Russia if we can. So I would support the 
Weldon amendment to the Roemer amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from Indiana 
has expired.
    The question is on the Weldon amendment to the Roemer 
amendment.
    All those in favor will signify by saying Aye.
    [Chorus of Ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Opposed, No.
    [No response.]
    The ``Ayes'' have it, and the Weldon amendment to the 
Roemer amendment is adopted.
    The question now is on agreeing to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana as amended.
    Those in favor will signify by saying Aye.
    [Chorus of Ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Opposed, No.
    [No response.]
    The ``Ayes'' have it, and the amendment as amended is 
agreed to.
    Next on the roster of amendments is an amendment proposed 
by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stockman.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Stockman. I seek recognition to introduce my amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment offered by Mr. Stockman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stockman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Stockman. This amendment is not a gift to Texas. It has 
already been appropriated. In the last Congress we initiated a 
lease purchase option for the Clear Lake Development Center 
which I visited and it is revenue neutral. In fact they're 
getting it for a relatively cheap cost.
    It was initially built by McDonnell-Douglas Corporation 
anticipating some Space Station work, and when prime 
contractors--it was pulled away from them and the buildings 
stood vacant. So it's saving the government many millions of 
dollars. This is just to facilitate that process, and I ask 
that it be accepted.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Texas yield?
    Mr. Stockman. Yes, I will.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I am prepared to accept the amendment, 
and I consider this as an amendment that is housekeeping in 
nature. The Committee has previously approved the reprogramming 
of previously appropriated funds for the purpose of exercising 
this option. However, the law is clear that NASA cannot acquire 
title to property without a specific authorization from 
Congress. So without this amendment what the Congress has 
already appropriated and the Committee has approved the 
reprogramming cannot be accomplished.
    This doesn't add any more to the cost of the Space Station. 
It is already built in, and if this amendment or similar 
legislation doesn't make it, then NASA would have to build its 
own neutral buoyancy tank and it would cost a lot more than $35 
million.
    So I would hope that the amendment would be adopted.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson 
Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Your last words were just words that I 
would like to emphasize, and that is I think it's important 
that in rising to support this particular amendment that we not 
try to reinvent the wheel. This happens to be an opportunity 
where an existing facility can be utilized for important work, 
and in particular I'm always emphasizing for NASA's mission to 
be done and for jobs to be created. So I support this 
utilization of these dollars for this facility.
    Does anyone else seek recognition?
    Mr. Foley. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Foley is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Foley. A question to the sponsor. This is obviously my 
first time to consider a funding appropriation of real estate 
like this, and obviously it goes to GAO or anyone else to 
ascertain appraisals and land valuations and comparative 
analysis? I mean how does the government determine value on a 
physical plant?
    Mr. Stockman. I can tell you when we visited, and we're 
getting it for less than what they paid for it, much less. It's 
a brand new building. In fact it's only several years, I mean 
two or three years old, and I'm told we're getting it between 
somewhere from 50 cents on the dollar and less.
    Mr. Foley. Well that's information that I would like in the 
future. I mean there are a lot of buildings you can buy in 
Manhattan that are 40 cents on the dollar. So I want to make 
certain, you know, if we're buying real estate we're not 
bailing out somebody else's misery, and certainly if it's good 
value I recognize good value, but there should be some 
documentation to ascertain, you know, what's the real value, 
are we 50 cents on the dollar, 75 cents or is it just an 
opportunity to take somebody else's headache away.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman from Florida will 
yield.
    Mr. Foley. Yes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. That determination was made by the 
Committee at the time it approved the reprogramming, that this 
was a good deal for the government. It's very hard of course to 
do an appraisal because there isn't a market in neutral 
buoyancy tanks.
    [Laughter.]
    There is one that is in this building, and then there is 
another smaller one that's down the street, and that's it, but 
I think the gentleman does make a very good point.
    The point that I would like to make is that whether it was 
a good deal was reviewed both by NASA and by, not only this 
Committee, but the two Appropriations Committees and the 
Authorizing Committee over in the other body.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Roemer. I would just like to concur with the remarks of 
the gentleman from Florida in that this is a very, very narrow 
bill to begin with. It's not a NASA bill, it's a Space Station 
bill, and when we begin to add on particular buildings and 
particular districts I think that it looses some of the focus 
intent on what this Committee is overseeing. This is the NASA 
Space and Science Subcommittee. It's not the Public Works 
Committee, and I would--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Indiana yield?
    Mr. Roemer. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The reason this is here is because the 
law requires that there be an affirmative authorization of 
Congress when NASA acquires title to real property. Without an 
authorization by Congress NASA cannot acquire the title to real 
property anywhere.
    I'm as sensitive as the gentleman from Indiana is on this 
issue, but if one maintains the position that the gentleman 
from Indiana has NASA would not be able to acquire the title to 
real property anywhere unless we changed the law and allowed 
them to do it administratively without coming to Congress, and 
then we lose our oversight responsibility.
    Mr. Roemer. Would the gentleman just yield further?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. It's the gentleman from Indiana's time.
    Mr. Roemer. I would just say that that's why we need a NASA 
authorization bill to discuss these kinds of very important 
questions. It could very well be that Mr. Stockman's building 
is very, very important to a healthy NASA program, that it is a 
good buy and that it will be in the taxpayers' interest, but to 
put it on such a narrowly focused bill as a Space Station bill 
I just don't--
    Mr. Stockman. This is specifically--will the gentleman 
yield?
    Mr. Roemer. I'm just advocating that we do. I would be 
happy to yield to the gentleman. I'm just saying that this is a 
very, very narrow bill and I would much rather be considering 
this is light of a NASA authorization--
    Mr. Stockman. Well I know you're interested in saving 
money. So I'm sure that you wouldn't propose that we build a 
brand new one, and this is specifically for a Space Station.
    Mr. Roemer. No, I would just--reclaiming my time, I would 
just say that I have concerns and I've expressed those.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well if the gentleman from Indiana will 
further yield. Now that we are about done with dealing with the 
Space Station Authorization Bill I look forward to the 
gentleman from Indiana's constructive contributions for the 
rest of the NASA budget.
    Mr. Roemer. I think I've offered those today, Mr. Chairman, 
but I would be happy to work with you on that in the future.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The question is on the adoption of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stockman.
    So many as are in favor will say Aye.
    [Chorus of Ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Opposed, No.
    [No response.]
    The ``Ayes'' have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    That concludes the list of amendments on the roster of 
amendments.
    Are there any further amendments?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Brown. I do not have an additional amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, but I wanted to make some explanatory comments. I had 
intended to support the Jackson Lee amendment as strongly as 
possible, and I regret that I was temporarily taken from the 
room for some other business and did not get a chance to 
adequately express that.
    I have been on this Committee for quite a few years, as 
most of you know, and I have seen the NASA budget decline from 
its peak down to a level which is now approximately 25 percent 
in real purchasing terms of what it was during the late 60s. I 
have very carefully tried to project what will happen if we see 
a continued erosion of that budget over a considerable period 
of years.
    I have a very strong interest in both the Space Station and 
a healthy, well-balanced Space Program, as I think most Members 
of this Committee do, and I don't claim any particular wisdom, 
but I have seen this erosion result in the case of the Space 
Station and its continued redesign, rescheduling and so on, as 
other Members of the Committee are well aware. I've seen 
important science projects cancelled as a result of lack of 
financing, and I've seen other things happen which disturb me 
very greatly.
    And I have come to the conclusion, and I've communicated 
this to anybody willing to listen, including the NASA 
Administrator and the Administration in general, that we have 
just about reached the limit of how much we can continue to cut 
NASA without sacrificing some major programs.
    Now I'm not being partial to continuing any particular 
program, but what I see developing is an unraveling of the 
political support for NASA as we pull out one major program 
after another. Maybe it's a science program and maybe it's an 
earth observing system program and maybe it's the wind tunnels 
or other aeronautical research that we need, but as we begin to 
do that I think we will find that the popular support, the 
political support and the Congressional support for the NASA 
budget will more and more difficult to obtain.
    Now as little as three months ago Mr. Walker indicated that 
he would seek to at least provide inflationary increases for 
NASA, and he can correct me if I'm wrong in that, but he was 
quoted in the Space News to that effect. I think we don't have 
to have inflationary increases. I think, as the Administrator 
does, that we can live with a hard freeze. I think that we can 
pay for the existing programs under a hard freeze through the 
kind of efficiencies that the Administrator is making. But when 
you put on a hard freeze you're saying you have to find ways to 
cut your real costs by at least five percent a year because 
that's about what the effect of inflation in the advanced 
technology area will require you to do.
    It is not a matter of discouraging innovation and increased 
efficiency. It is a matter of requiring that you have at least 
that much. Now I have not the slightest doubt that even though 
the Administrator through his existing program of improvements 
has managed to cut probably 25 percent from the NASA budget 
from the time he took over, but I don't think he can do that at 
the rate of five percent a year indefinitely.
    Therefore I have taken the position that unless I can be 
assured that there is a certain stability to the overall NASA 
budget, and I'm not being picky about exactly what that 
stability is, that in the best interests of NASA I'm going to 
have to personally support a cut of a major program and do it 
now rather than later because you save money that way. As we 
all know, if you continue with a program that's going to be cut 
three years from now for another two years you've just wasted 
two years more investment, and I'm not interested in doing 
that.
    Now I've taken that position, Mr. Chairman, for the last 
year and a half or so, and I think you're all aware of that, 
and it hurts me to do this, but it is my intention to support 
an amendment similar to that of Ms. Jackson Lee at the Full 
Committee, and I would have supported it here in the 
Subcommittee if it had come to the vote, on the grounds that we 
must have that kind of assurance and the Administrator has said 
that we can't take any additional cuts, and I intend to support 
that position as strongly as I can. And I appreciate the 
courtesy of the Chair in allowing me to make my position clear.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Are there any further amendments to the bill?
    [No response.]
    If not, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 
the purpose of offering a motion.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee report 
the bill, H.R. 1601, International Space Station Authorization 
Act of 1995 as amended.
    Furthermore, I move to instruct the staff to prepare the 
Subcommittee report to make technical and conforming 
amendments, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to 
bring the bill before the Full Committee for consideration.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The question is on the motion of the 
gentleman from Texas.
    All those in favor will signify by saying Aye.
    [Chorus of Ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Opposed, No.
    [One No.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. In the opinion of the Chair the ``Ayes'' 
have it. The ``Ayes'' have it and the motion is agreed to.
    Without objection, the bill will be reported in the form of 
a single amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table.
    And, without objection, the Subcommittee is adjourned, and 
the Chair thanks everyone for their patience.
    [The Subcommittee adjourned at 4:40 p.m., subject to the 
call of the Chair.]
     XIV. Proceedings of Committee Markup of H.R. 1601, As Amended

                              ----------                              




   FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP--H.R. 1601, THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION 
                       AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1995

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Committee met at 12:10 p.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn 
House Office Building, the Honorable Robert S. Walker, Chairman 
of the Committee, presiding.
    The Chairman. Good afternoon.
    We will now move on to HR 1601, the International Space 
Station Authorization Act of 1995.
    I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, for subcommittee report on the legislation that 
we--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics reports favorably 
on the bill HR 1601, the International Space Station 
Authorization Act of 1995, and moves its recommendation to the 
Full House.
    Mr. Chairman, the bill that was reported from the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, provides for an 
authorization for the Space Station through assembly complete 
in the year 2002 at the authorized level that NASA has said 
that it can do the job.
    There's going to be a lot of debate on this legislation as 
we consider it here today, as well as on the floor when it 
reaches there, about the Space Station.
    I'd like to make a couple of points.
    First, even if this bill doesn't pass, it appears likely 
that the Appropriations Committee will continue to appropriate 
funds for the Space Station on a year to year basis.
    Thus, passage of this bill is essential if we are to hold 
NASA to their word that they will not have cost overruns for 
the International Space Station, which they've had in the past.
    And this legislation is an essential tool for Congress to 
hold NASA to their word that they can get the Space Station 
done on time and on budget.
    And I think that that is very important.
    This bill goes down and we deal with the Appropriations 
Committee every year from now until the year 2002. That won't 
happen.
    Secondly, I believe that having a permanent authorization 
through assembly complete is essential to allow NASA to be able 
to make the long-term contracts and to secure the long-term 
international commitments that are essential to drive down the 
cost of the Space Station.
    There have been some problems, particularly with the 
Europeans and with the Canadians, relative to them believing 
that we do not have the mindset to complete the Space Station, 
and thus they have been reluctant to commit their taxpayers' 
dollars to do what their governments have previously agreed to 
do.
    Passage of this bill will give a very clear message around 
the world that we are serious in completing the Space Station. 
We're not going to turn our back on the money that we and then 
have already invested in the Space Station and that we are 
looking forward to the operation of the Space Station and the 
type of science that can be done there.
    I particularly appreciate the contributions of the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. The Space Station 
has been a bipartisan activity.
    During the previous three Congresses when he was the 
Chairman and I was the ranking minority member, we worked very 
closely together and that has continued during this 
consideration of this bill.
    So I would urge the Committee to approve it.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    Let me recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, for 
any opening statement that he might have on this piece of 
legislation.
    Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'll be very brief because we have a good bit of work to do 
this afternoon.
    I thank you for this meeting, and I certainly still remain 
a very strong supporter of the Space Station.
    I intend to fight very hard to preserve funding for the 
station in the coming authorization and appropriation fight 
that will obviously take place both here in this Committee and 
on the floor.
    I would just say to the Chairman and to the members of the 
Committee and all who would hear, that no amendment passed or 
any amendment failed is going to lessen my support for the 
Space Station because I believe in it. I believe it's a key to 
the future. I think it's the answer to people who are suffering 
maladies and dilemmas, long hours and days and months of bed 
rest, people who are wasting away in cancer clinics, and I 
can't tell you that we're going to find a cure for these 
dreaded diseases there, but I can tell you that we've not found 
them here on earth, and we might find them in a weightless 
environment.
    I think certainly that it's a gamble that's worth taking 
and it's a gamble that's for the people of this country, it's a 
gamble for people who have no defense to the malady that 
they've been attacked by and I think it's an opportunity to do 
something for children yet unborn.
    As we leave this base and as we leave the jobs that we have 
here, some of us go back to retirement or others go on to other 
public offices or other professions, we can look back over our 
shoulder at this day and say that we passed something that's 
going to benefit unborn generations, it's going to give hope to 
people who have no hope, and I certainly am proud to be a 
member of this Committee and I hope that we follow the vote 
that we did in the subcommittee.
    The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Roemer, fought a good fight 
and he believes what he's saying, but he I think arranged for 
two more votes, other than his own, and I'd like to at least 
let him keep those two votes and get onto the full floor.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. Thank the gentleman from Texas.
    The Chair also has a statement. What I will do is ask 
unanimous consent that my statement be submitted for the record 
at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
    
    
    
    
    The Chairman. And would recognize the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, because I have a position which I 
frequently am called upon to defend, I'd like to proceed to 
read my opening statement.
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Brown. It will be clearer what I'm trying to 
accomplish.
    The subcommittee marked this bill up three weeks ago. At 
that time, I expressed my deep concern over the wisdom of 
attempting to fund the Space Station on a multi-year basis at 
the same time that the republican budget proposals are calling 
for deep destabilizing cuts to the rest of the NASA budget.
    And let me be clear. While I may have tactical reservations 
about proceeding with a multi-year authorization in the current 
environment, my real concern is with the substance of what 
we're doing.
    When we review the budgetary outlook for NASA, the 
situation is troubling.
    In the years 1993 and '94, NASA was directed to reduce its 
five-year budgetary runout by a total of 30 percent. Then the 
Administration directed NASA to reduce the five year runout 
contained in the FY '95 budget by another $4.4 billion for the 
period from '96 to the year 2000.
    I've made no secret of my displeasure with the cuts 
contained in the President's FY '96 request.
    However, the republican's budgetary proposals would cut the 
President's five-year request by another $5 billion and would 
force the Space Agency into yet another restructuring effort, 
almost before the ink is dried on the current set of 
restructuring plans.
    This is not the way to preserve a vital and robust civil 
space program.
    As I stated in the subcommittee markup, I have long been a 
supporter of the Space Station, and that support has been 
evident even in difficult budgetary times. However, I believe 
that it is neither wise nor prudent to remove the Space Station 
from annual Congressional review while every other NASA program 
is on the table for serious funding cuts.
    While I believe the Space Station is an important part of a 
balanced space program, it's by no means the only part about 
which we should be concerned.
    NASA's Space Science, Mission To Planet Earth, Aeronautics 
and Space Technology programs are vital activities that will 
deliver manifold benefits to current and future generations. 
They should not be budgetary afterthoughts.
    There will be an amendment offered by Congresswoman Jackson 
Lee that will predicate the multi-year authorization on the 
authorization of a minimally healthy budget for the rest of 
NASA over the next five years.
    And I strongly support such an amendment.
    Indeed, if we are to be relevant, it is very important that 
the Committee be on record in support of adequate funding for 
NASA's non-station programs before the appropriators meet on 
this subject on the 10th of July.
    Ideally, the vehicle for such a statement would have been a 
comprehensive NASA authorization bill. But we are not doing 
that.
    I believe that the amendment to be offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee provides a reasonable alternative statement of the 
Committee's position.
    However, I consider passage of such an amendment to be just 
the opening salvo in a campaign over the coming weeks to 
achieve a healthy and stable NASA budget, and I hope that my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with me to 
realize that goal.
    And, Mr. Chairman, probably Ms. Jackson Lee will have this 
chart circulated a little bit later, but you'll have before you 
a chart showing what will happen to the NASA budget between now 
and the year 2000, even with her slightly improved figures.
    It continues a steep decline in NASA funding. And that 
steep decline is far more than I would prefer and it's the very 
least that I can vote to support this bill on.
    Mr. Brown. And I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
    
    
    
    
    I would ask the members to proceed with amendments in the 
order of the roster with the exception of the first amendment 
which I understand Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Hall are going to 
offer jointly.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Hall and 
myself, I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. There's an amendment at the desk. The Clerk 
will distribute the amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The amendment that is being considered 
makes a technical change relative to the acquisition by NASA of 
the Clear Lake Development Facility, which is adjacent to the 
Johnson Space Flight Center in Texas.
    The reason that we have to put this affirmatively in an 
authorization bill is because the law requires that before NASA 
can acquire title to property, they must be authorized to do so 
by Congress.
    So this is not something that is a pork barrel type 
operation, it's something that we have required upon ourselves 
to do so that NASA cannot acquire property behind the back of 
the Congress. This is merely technical.
    The subcommittee did approve it, and I would hope that it 
would be adopted.
    The Chairman. If the gentleman will yield to the Chairman, 
it is my understanding that this particular facility is in 
direct support of the Space Station, is that correct?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. That is correct.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    Does the gentleman from Texas, the cosponsor of the 
amendment, have anything further?
    Mr. Hall. Yes. I certainly thank the gentleman for offering 
the amendment and for working with us on the amendment and 
certainly support it.
    The Chairman. Are there further people wishing to discuss 
the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question on 
the amendment.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment would be Mr. Roemer.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I've an amendment at the desk, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
on this amendment.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point 
of order on the amendment.
    The Clerk will distribute the amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    
    
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is in the packet.
    The Chairman. The amendment is in the packet.
    The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I realize that this is a very difficult vote. 
We are at a tough time in our nation's history with a $4.8 
trillion debt, with annual deficits that every single American 
is very concerned about, and we're looking for heroes, we're 
looking for hope, we're looking to achieve our dreams.
    And certainly some things that have happened in the last 
few weeks have given us a great deal of confidence in the 
future.
    We've seen what happened with Captain O'Grady that he was 
alive, that the Marines flew in and recovered him and saved 
him. We had a great deal of hope that he would survive being 
shot down over Bosnia.
    This gives us hope for the future, these kinds of heroes. 
Certainly the successful launching of the Atlantis to dock now 
up in the heavens with the Mir Space Station gives us a great 
deal of hope in a good space program.
    But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see the relevancy, the hope, 
the achievement of dreams in building this Space Station.
    We are elected to make tough choices to address the 
deficit, to prioritize our programs here in America. I do not 
see how we can make this Space Station a priority.
    Why not modify the Mir Station that we're going to be 
docking with to accomplish the mission of understanding and 
studying the effects of gravity on men and women in space.
    The old Space Station might have been worth the billions of 
dollars that Congress would like to spend on this. The old 
Space Station devised in 1984 by President Reagan could do 
eight things. It was going to have a platform to help 
understand environmental problems on earth. It was going to 
have a platform to repair satellites. It was going to be a 
stepping stone to Mars and the Moon.
    It was going to do a host of things. Today, in 1995, it can 
do one and a half of those original eight missions. That is not 
worth the high cost with our debt and our deficits and the 
alarming and precarious situation that faces every American 
taxpayer today.
    Now you might also say, what about our international 
partners? Are we deserting our international partners?
    What about our commitment to international science?
    What commitment have they made to us?
    The Russians have said to us, you purchase our commitment, 
you spend American tax dollars on our commitment to build the 
Space Station.
    We are currently sending the Russians $400 million of U.S. 
taxpayers' money to buy their scientific participation. I don't 
think that's deemed worthwhile in these tough budgetary times.
    The Canadians have downsized their commitment and they may 
actually back out of the Space Station in October or by 1996.
    The Europeans are talking about downscaling their 
commitment.
    What commitment are we making to international science when 
all of our international partners are talking about getting 
out?
    I'd also argue, Mr. Chairman, that this will not accomplish 
many of the high dreams and aspirations that some people say.
    Some people say it's going to find the cure for cancer, the 
cure for Alzheimers.
    Let me read a quote from a very conservative magazine 
published here in the United States, Business Week.
    Business Week says, in their July 3rd, 1995, issue with 
respect to the Space Station finding all these cures for 
diseases, in reality, the Space Station has a better chance of 
finding klingons than finding cures.
    Now, I think that is a pretty accurate description of what 
the Space Station is going to be able to do in the future.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, you might ask what is the cost of 
finding klingons in space? What are we going to spend for this 
huge cost of taxpayer money?
    The most recent GAO report, just issued in June of 1995, I 
have it here in my hands, estimates on page three, not $8 
billion that President Reagan estimated in 1984, not what NASA 
is telling us.
    They say, and I quote, ``we estimate U.S. funding 
requirements for the design, launch, assembly and ten-year 
operation of the International Space Station at almost $94 
billion.'' $94 billion.
    Now many of us came to Washington, D.C. to say whether it's 
corporate welfare, whether it's wasted taxpayers' money whether 
it's cost overruns, we're going to make some tough choices.
    In an ideal environment, I would love to support a Space 
Station, and I will continue to support NASA. This is not an 
ideal environment. This is a project that is way over budget, 
and I would encourage my colleagues to make a tough choice.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The Committee will stand in recess until following this 
series of votes.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The hearing will come to order.
    The debate at the moment is on the Roemer amendment.
    The Chair would recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin who 
has reserved a point of order.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I believe that a point of 
order lies against the Roemer amendment because it violates the 
fundamental purpose test of germaneness. The bill proposes to 
authorize the Space Station. The gentleman from Indiana has 
proposed an amendment to cancel the Space Station, and this 
directly violates Jefferson's Manual.
    While I'm not going to press the point of order, and I'm 
going to withdraw my reservation, because I'd like to see this 
Committee beat this amendment on the merits.
    Now, Mr. Chairman,--
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. --The Roemer amendment is a recurring 
annual ritual in this Committee and it deserves to be rejected 
again.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. There should be no expectation--even 
though it's not germane, it has its rights--there should be no 
expectation that killing the Space Station will save one thin 
dime.
    This year's Space Station savings have already been spent 
by dozens of wishful thinking groups around town, believing 
that their program will benefit if Mr. Roemer is successful.
    I would remind the Committee that when the Superconducting 
Super Collider was killed, we were told that that money would 
be used to reduce the Federal budget deficit. That wasn't the 
case. The money that was to be spent on the SSC dropped into 
the 602[b] allocation of the Appropriations subcommittee that 
had jurisdiction and they went and proceeded and spent it 
anyhow. And the same thing is going to happen if the Space 
Station is killed.
    There are plenty of veterans' programs and plenty of HUD 
programs that will take the $2.1 billion a year that the Space 
Station costs, and I would submit that the Space Station is an 
investment in the future, the HUD programs particularly are an 
investment in the past.
    As everyone knows, NASA's budget for the next five years is 
not just tight, it demands the wholesale restructure and re-
engineering of the civilian space program for this country.
    We're all quite aware of the troubles ahead to make NASA 
meet with a balanced Federal budget. Killing the station will 
not solve one problem. It will only create further problems for 
NASA and for the nation.
    First, without the station, NASA will have to say so long 
to its international partners, and not just for this project, 
but for many, many others. We will have proven that we are an 
unreliable international partner and I don't think that we will 
be able to convince any foreign country in the lifetime of 
anybody in this room to go ahead and make a significant 
investment of their taxpayers' funds in cost-sharing for any 
scientific project after the United States Congress stiffed 
them on the Space Station.
    And it's about $2.5 billion worth of stiffing for the 
Japanese, about $3 billion of stiffing for the European Space 
Agency member nations, and perhaps $500 million of stiffing for 
the Canadians.
    The effect of this betrayal will be felt most sharply in 
the earth-looking environmental programs where we have 
cooperative and cost-sharing arrangements with other 
international partners.
    And if they should back out because they're afraid that 
we're not going to follow through on those programs, the United 
States will have to spend more money for the same science and 
that's money that we don't have.
    Second, without the station, NASA will have to say so long 
to some very nice hardworking people in places like Texas, 
Alabama, California, and Florida. Notice I didn't say 
Wisconsin.
    The problem with NASA's budget, according to Administrator 
Goldin, is that there's too much structure to do the mission. 
Without the station mission, which is NASA's premier mission, 
the structure will not merely be reorganized. I will expect it 
to be cannibalized.
    Third, and by no means last, killing the station will mean 
saying so long to a tradition of accomplishment and achievement 
by Americans working in space.
    Soon after the station is killed, the need to maintain and 
operate the space shuttle will logically fall apart. Taking the 
Space Station away from NASA is like taking the cane away from 
a blind man trying to cross a busy intersection.
    As NASA begins to redefine and redesign itself to cope with 
declining budget, it must thus maintain its focus on a core 
human space mission. Without that focus and without that 
vision, NASA will not be able to change and adapt, and will 
frankly be dismantled.
    And the consequence of that is that America will no longer 
have a civilian space agency to fight for and organize and 
promote civilian space programs.
    We will be abdicating American involvement in space to the 
Pentagon. That's something I don't want to see, and I would 
hope that the members of this Committee would agree, and I urge 
rejection of the amendment.
    The Chairman. Are there other people seeking to be 
recognized?
    The gentleman from Kentucky.
    Mr. Ward. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in support of the 
Roemer amendment. And as I do that, let me say first and 
foremost, I am a strong supporter of our space program. And I 
am disappointed to hear the argument that our space program 
won't exist without the Space Station.
    The example that Mr. Roemer uses of our Captain O'Grady 
being found and rescued is a good example of why the space 
program is vitally important. Our ability to put satellites 
into space, our ability to do things in space, is very 
important.
    But I do not think that it logically follows that we have 
to have a Space Station program to keep the other programs 
going. In fact, to the contrary. It seems to me it would allow 
us to do more of the other things. To make sure that we 
continue to do that well.
    In preparation for this discussion, I drove down--I'm from 
Louisville, so I drove down to Huntsville and took a full day 
and a half to learn more about NASA and to learn more about our 
space program.
    And I came away from that, I came away from that less 
likely to support the Space Station.
    Now that usually doesn't happen when you're given such a 
courteous tour. I was treated very, very nicely by the people 
from NASA and I appreciate that.
    But I did not find any compelling reason, I was not told 
anything specific that we could benefit from except the general 
promise of the possibilities that would exist with weightless 
experimentation.
    The notion that not spending this money, as I've just heard 
the ranking member of the Space Subcommittee suggest, would 
only allow it to be spent on something else, and that it would 
inevitably be spent would be an argument we could use on any of 
the republicans' proposals to cut spending in very important 
and much needed social programs.
    So I think that is simply not an argument that holds water.
    The notion the expense of the Space Station and my exposure 
to it, in touring Huntsville, the single most expensive part 
seemed to be the ability to sustain, the ability to sustain 
people, human beings in space.
    And everything seemed to revolve around keeping people, and 
that seemed to be by far the biggest expense. Not around the 
notion of doing the experiments, because remember there are 
very few things we cannot do in a remote control mode with our 
space program.
    We seem to, in this instance, be wanting to make sure that 
we have the interest and support of the public by putting 
people on it, so that we can have these people to write about 
and to talk about and to see on TV.
    I think that to continue the Space Station in light of the 
cuts that we are making, the cuts that we are enduring, simply 
doesn't make sense.
    When you look at this GAO report, which is June of 1995, it 
is right now, it is contemporary, $94 billion is just too much 
money to spend on a program with no specific and proven 
benefits.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas would be next, then 
the gentleman from--I have several people, but the gentleman 
from New Mexico.
    Mr. Schiff. I'm sorry, I didn't know the Chair had a list 
already. Excuse me.
    The Chairman. Yes, we've got that.
    Mr. Hall from Texas.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I would say to the 
two gentleman who have opposed the Space Station that I 
understand their position and respect their position. I 
disagree with them.
    This is the same amendment that's been offered and soundly 
defeated in the subcommittee and to the Congress on more than 
one occasion.
    It's the same amendment that was offered in past years and 
has been defeated too. It was close one time, it was not close 
the last time we voted on it. It's not a new debate.
    Congress has always supported the Space Station. I think 
they're always going to support the Space Station.
    From Captain O'Grady who's a hero to the American people, 
you know, Space Station technology one can day can spot a 
particular grain of sand in the desert and they could have 
picked him out of that area, and they will be able to one day.
    I think we're not going to say if we have someone down in a 
faraway country to send up a Space Station, let's send up a 
ship and look for him. We need a Space Station to have there 24 
hours a day, every day of the month, every day of the year, 
working for us and doing--this is just part of a fallout of a 
Space Station.
    I think we need to spend money on this station. It is 
expensive, it hurts to spend that much money, but I think it's 
better to spend money and not spend it on old money that's 
already spent.
    We need our own Space Station and it's not a stepping stone 
to Mars, to the gentleman from Indiana, it is though a very 
giant leap toward medical breakthroughs. I think it's a tender 
step toward little children who have cancer, leukemia. I think 
it's a wonderful step towards senior citizens who are wasting 
away in wards with no recollection of the past and very little 
hope for the future unless we have medical breakthroughs like 
this to offer them.
    I would read briefly, if I have the time, a letter directed 
to Chairman Sensenbrenner from the Multiple Sclerosis 
Association of American. John Hudson, who is the Chairman.
    He says, ``We're especially optimistic about a project on 
the station called neurolab, dedicated to neurological 
research. Because MS is a neurological disease, the more we 
know about the brain, the closer we are to understand it and 
overcoming this illness.
    Controlling body temperature is crucial to MS patient's 
health since overheating can cause painful and debilitating 
symptoms. The MSAA has signed a memorandum of understanding 
with NASA to provide information on liquid cooled garments, 
called cool suits, as well as helping to make the present 
technology widely available to patients and utilizing their 
spinoff technology.''
    This is just part of the technology that flows from this. 
It says NASA's cool suit literally has changed the lives of 
some of those suffering from multiple sclerosis.
    So there's much breakthrough, there's much spillover, and I 
just think this is a program that the American people would not 
tolerate to see it closed down, and I hope that we get a--
    Mr. Roemer. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Mr. Roemer. The gentleman from Texas knows that there's 
nobody I respect more on this panel or appreciate their sense 
of humor than the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.
    But the budget that we're going to consider later this week 
cuts the National Institute of Health budget by about $2 
billion over the next seven years, and they're already 
complaining that they can't approve most of their grants, 
approved grants to look at breast cancer and Alzheimers and 
other things.
    And we find it very difficult to justify then spending $94 
billion for this Space Station for those cures that I don't 
think we can discover in space. I think we're going to have a 
tough time finding the money to fund the research on earth.
    Mr. Hall. Reclaiming my time, if I have any time left, I 
think that you just can't put a price tag on the efforts to 
find a cure to the dreaded diseases that we've not found here 
in this environment, that we might find in a weightless 
environment.
    And certainly I respect the gentleman for his beliefs. I 
just respectfully disagree with him on this vote. I believe in 
cutting back on programs, but I don't believe in cutting them 
out.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I'd like to congratulate Mr. Roemer, although 
this is an annual affair, I've already admired Mr. Roemer and 
Mr. Zimmer, when he was here, as well.
    And I believe that the actions that they've taken in their 
opposition and their very thoughtful opposition has actually 
benefitted this program by making sure that those running the 
program are kept honest and have to explain what they're doing, 
and have brought forward and had a program that's been under 
full scrutiny, rather than perhaps had Mr. Roemer and Mr. 
Zimmer not been so responsible and diligent on this issue, we 
might not have had the full information. With that said, I'd 
like to say that Mr. Roemer, the other shoe's going to drop 
now.
    Mr. Roemer. Before you say it, I want to thank you for 
those kind words.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Roemer. I know, the other shoe, it's going to be the 
hatchet that drops now.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. It's just that you're a little, you're 
about ten years too late. And about ten years ago, I probably 
would have listened to your arguments, and I think that your 
arguments would have swayed me ten years ago.
    I think that today, after so much has been committed to 
this project, after so much of not only resources but so much 
of our national prestige and our word internationally has been 
given, that backing out now would actually would be more cost 
than there would be benefit to the course of action that you're 
suggesting.
    Also, one other thing that we're talking about, we're also 
talking about not only the health of people, of individuals, 
but we're talking about the health of industries.
    And in California and throughout the United States, 
aerospace industry is going through a period of transition. And 
if nothing else, the Space Station is serving as a, the word 
conversion, defense conversion is used a lot these days, and 
the fact is that there is some meaning to that word.
    If nothing else, this is the ultimate defense conversion 
project in the sense that aerospace industry can use this and 
is using this in California and elsewhere, as a means to 
transition out of a total dependency on defense contracts.
    So it's worthwhile in a number of ways. There's some pluses 
in a number of ways. And the pluses outweigh the detriments, 
but again ten years ago maybe that wouldn't have been true, but 
today that is true.
    Mr. Roemer. Could I just respond to the gentleman's 
argument?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. Roemer. I would only argue to my colleagues, especially 
the new ones on the panel, that we have spent about $12 billion 
on this Space Station, $4 billion more than President Reagan 
thought would take to complete it. It was supposed to cost $8 
billion. We've spent $12 billion.
    Do we want to throw another $70 or $80 billion after this, 
if the GAO is estimating it's going to cost $94 billion? I hope 
not.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I will yield the rest of my time to Mr. 
Schiff of New Mexico.
    Mr. Schiff. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will 
also be brief.
    First of all, I want to emphasize Congressman Rohrabacher's 
point that ten years ago maybe other decisions should have been 
made. Maybe we should have gone back to the moon first, maybe 
we should have planned to go to Mars. It's all well debatable, 
including the Space Station, but the decision was made.
    And in my judgment, if the Space Station fails, it's an end 
to manned space flights sponsored by the United States. We're 
not going to go back at this point to some other alternative.
    And responding to the criticisms of the program, I would 
point out first, in terms of cost, as Chairman Sensenbrenner 
said, if we kill the Space Station now, no money goes to the 
deficit, nor does it go to the National Institute of Health. It 
goes within the appropriations subcommittee to most likely non-
scientific programs within the jurisdiction of that 
subcommittee.
    And I have no objection to those programs. I support them 
also, but I think this Committee should first of all support 
scientific research and development in terms of the tug of war.
    And finally, I would add that to me, a very important 
aspect of this matter, again said by Mr. Sensenbrenner, is the 
fact that we invited international cooperation, and we've 
received a considerable amount of international cooperation.
    I think we should receive more. I think this should be a 
worldwide effort. But I think that if the United States pulls 
out of the Space Station, after having pulled out of other 
international effort, the Superconducting Super Collider, which 
I supported, even though neither that project nor the Space 
Station generate many jobs in New Mexico, I think we'll lose 
credibility in the international forum in terms of research and 
development. I yield back to the gentleman the time.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And certainly, as a newcomer to this discussion, I am both 
overwhelmed and certainly challenged by Mr. Roemer's remarks 
and position.
    But I would simply say to him that I believe that HUD is in 
fact an investment in the future for it provides housing to 
that young person who will then dream to be part of the Space 
Station and all that it represents.
    I would not want to extinguish the right of that young 
person needing maybe a home today, the right to dream and 
participate in the new economy and the new opportunity for 
America.
    I simply think that when we begin to look at Space Station, 
we can look at the history over the past couple of years 
preceding my coming here, when out of the VA/HUD funding came 
the McKinney Act that housed homeless persons.
    And while we were able to do that, we were also able to 
keep NASA and the Space Station.
    How senseless it would be and how much we would give up on 
the American dream if we cannot guarantee someone the 
opportunity to be housed and then if they were to grow up and 
be educated, the opportunity to fly to the moon and save lives.
    So I appreciate and respect the comments that have been 
made by my colleagues and their concerns about those who would 
not have, and certainly I support many of the agencies that 
they've discussed.
    But Space Station and NASA combined create a new generation 
of jobs and opportunity, and I think our commitment to that is 
important today, as it was yesterday, and tomorrow, and I 
welcome the debate on both of these items, welcome the 
efficiencies that would be required, but I don't want to 
extinguish the dream.
    And so I would ask my colleagues not to support this 
amendment, and let us make NASA and the Space Station as strong 
as it can be for what we would like to see America in the 21st 
century. I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Dave Weldon. I'd like to thank the Chairman, and I'll 
try to keep my comments brief.
    Specifically, I want to address the issue of the GAO study 
that several people have quoted from here.
    In this study, which claims a total overall cost of $94 
billion for station is included the $11 billion that has 
already been spent.
    Much of those funds were spent because of Congressional 
redesigns, as I understand. Additionally, it included the cost 
of the shuttle. Additionally it included all of the life 
science and microgravity research that will probably be done 
anyway on some other vehicle if we do not fund the Space 
Station.
    And, you know, if we were to calculate the costs of our 
plane ticket and include in that the cost of purchasing and 
maintaining every airport in the United States and all the 
research and development dollars that went into developing the 
jet and sophisticated jet engines and radar and radar equipment 
and communications equipment, nobody would fly. But yet we all 
fly because it makes a better world for us today.
    And this GAO study, in my opinion, is a very, very 
defective study. I'd just like to quote one thing that I think 
is worth quoting from this GAO study.
    It says: ``The program has made major progress since last 
year in defining its requirements, meeting its schedule 
milestones and remaining within its annual operating budget.''
    And I think this program needs to be commended. I would 
encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
against the Roemer Amendment and vote in support of final 
passage of this bill.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Ms. Harman.
    Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Roemer, I believe is one of the most able and 
thoughtful members of this Committee, and I always listen when 
he offers amendments, and I often agree with him. Not, however, 
in this instance.
    I would like to say that Mr. Sensenbrenner's explanation of 
opposition to the Roemer Amendment is extremely compelling, 
extremely balanced, and extremely fair. And that he has served, 
I think, in an enormously fair and bipartisan way as the new 
Chairman of the Space Subcommittee on which I serve.
    I agree with everything he said and would note two comments 
I think also bear on this debate.
    One is he talked about undermining international 
participation in some of the non-station programs if we vote no 
on station.
    I'm a strong supporter of basic science and aeronautics 
programs in NASA, and I would like to note that in his 
legislation here, he included a finding that I suggested that 
we support a balanced NASA. So I was pleased to hear him speak 
to that support today.
    Secondly, he talked about the fact that should we cancel 
station, the money spent on it would not go to deficit 
reduction, and numbers of others have said the same thing. I 
agree and I think that's terribly sad, and I would just make a 
pitch one more time for the deficit reduction lock box that 
passed this House by 418 to 5 a few months ago.
    And that we ought to now have, as a permanent amendment to 
our Budget Act, and if not, to the appropriations bill, because 
when we make a cut, our constituents should understand that it 
is in fact a cut.
    In this case, this station design I think reflects the best 
we can do. Mr. Roemer's opposition over the years has helped 
produce a design that is the right design at the right price 
for the right station.
    NASA Administrator Goldin has said that if we have any more 
instability in station design, we will certainly lose it, and I 
agree with him.
    And I just want to conclude by commending him personally 
for all that he has done to streamline NASA, to reduce its 
overhead, to reinvent it, to be a lean agency that can handle, 
at a better, faster, cheaper, on a better, faster, cheaper 
basis, the space science, the space aeronautics and the Space 
Station projects for the future.
    So I strongly support the Sensenbrenner bill. I support a 
balanced NASA, and I would commend Administrator Goldin for 
providing the leadership that we need to build this.
    Mr. Roemer. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Harman. Yes, I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. Roemer. I'd just like to thank her for her nice 
comments and remind her that I am a cosponsor of the Lock Box 
Amendment. And that I would like to see savings go directly to 
the deficit.
    As the gentlelady from California knows, if you cancel the 
Space Station, you save the money. If we can save it in this 
year, I would love to have a lock box amendment attached, if we 
could get the Rules Committee to do that.
    If we can't, we still save money in outyears when you don't 
spend another $70 or $80 billion on the Space Station.
    Ms. Harman. Well, Mr. Roemer, your comments persuade me, as 
I was already persuaded, that you're an enlightened fellow. You 
may be wrong occasionally but generally your views are 
excellent. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hastings?
    Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to join the Tim Roemer mutual admiration society 
along with everybody else.
    Mr. Roemer. I wish this would turn into votes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hastings. I certainly have enjoyed working with Tim and 
teasing with him, but I recognize that as serious as he is, so 
are many of us, and he and I have had on-going banter about the 
Space Station.
    Mr. Hall's salient comments regarding spinoff technology 
are particularly compelling in these arguments. And I hesitate 
to make things personal but sometimes when you put a human face 
on them, they can be better understood.
    And I offer to Mr. Roemer and those that oppose the Space 
Station the following:
    Eighteen months ago, I had quintuple heart bypass surgery 
at Bethesda. I talked with numerous physicians and attendants 
during the course of that time about the technology at Bethesda 
and how it had advanced over the last couple of decades.
    Two physicians, one who was the personal physician for 
former President Bush, that worked on my surgery indicated to 
me that many of the technological advances that they now enjoy 
and helped to save my life were not available but for the fact 
that space exploration provided some of the advances in the 
technology.
    They referred to it as phenomenal and they also look to 
further potential discoveries that will even outstrip the 
advances that they now enjoy.
    In my view as a non-scientist, I look at the work that 
scientists do, whether it's in outer space or whether it's here 
on earth, as them setting goals for themselves that they would 
like to achieve for the benefit of human kind.
    In setting those goals, it does not mean in every instance 
that they're going to reach the goal. But along the way, if 
those of us in this room would but just think for a moment of 
the spinoff technology that has come from space exploration 
that we now take for granted every day of our lives, we can 
only then believe that further exploration might help us to 
survive as the human race.
    It can be that serious. The fact of the matter is, we are 
exhausting the globe in numerous ways. And somewhere along the 
line, many of the discoveries that can be made in space may 
contribute to human kind's survival.
    There were those always who were naysayers when people were 
being adventurous and when people were making furtherance of 
exploratory undertakings. And that has gone on from Columbus to 
Ford to the Wright Brothers, and every other person that 
advanced human kind.
    The same holds true with reference to the Space Station. I 
recognize the extraordinary budget constraints but the fact is 
that we spend money on lesser demonstrated advances for human 
kind, and in this particular instance, in spite of the fact 
that I am parochial as a Floridian with reference to the 
program, I see the potential for so much advancement that will 
benefit human kind until I would feel remiss if I did not fully 
and vigorously support this program. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
    The Chairman. The gentleman has one minute remaining.
    Mr. Hastings. I yield to the gentleman, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his very 
good explanation and I think 52 or 53 years ago, if this 
country and the Congress had sat where we sit today had decided 
it was too expensive to split the atom, for example, we 
probably wouldn't have had the benefit of the CAT scan that was 
done on you and eventually an MRI to decide whether or not you 
needed an procedure, and if so, where, when and how.
    And I think what you're saying is that this is an 
investment in the future, just as it was back during that time 
when they split the atom for other reasons, hopefully to 
achieve a lasting peace.
    But this is additional fallout, and you yourself benefitted 
from it. I've had that same benefit in my family, and I'm 
thankful for it, and I hope that future families have it 
available too.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Doyle?
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Being one of the freshmen on the Committee, I've not had 
the pleasure of participating in the annual ritual to kill the 
Space Station. So I'd like to start at my first year in that 
ritual.
    I'll start by also joining the Tim Roemer fan club but 
unlike some of my colleagues, I'm also going to support his 
amendment.
    I think over a decade ago, when the Space Station was 
started, it held a lot of promise. We had a projected cost of 
$8 billion and it was going to do eight missions. We watched 
that cost go up to $11.4 billion with Freedom. FY '94 we've 
appropriated $2.1 billion another in FY '95, and we're up to 
$15.6 billion spent or appropriated for Space Station now, and 
its missions have gone down from eight to two.
    And I want to join what a lot of other members have said 
too about if we kill Space Station, that it won't save the 
taxpayers any money.
    I know, as one of the freshmen, that there is tremendous 
support on both sides of this aisle amongst the freshmen to get 
a lock box amendment and there's a letter currently being 
circulated, and I think you're going to see a big push in this 
Congress, a bipartisan push, to see that lock box enacted, so 
that when cuts are made, they do go for deficit reduction.
    I have some serious concerns about whether this project can 
actually move forward and be completed. I think the 
international support is shaky at best. The Canadians have 
already tried to bail out of this program and we've convinced 
them to stay, but at great expense to the U.S. taxpayers.
    Our European partners have budget woes of their own, and 
indeed they won't decide until October of this year whether to 
actually participate in the program, where their contribution 
is valued at $9 billion.
    And Canada won't decide until 1997 whether to build their 
final contribution.
    And I think we have some serious concerns about whether the 
Russians are going to be able to meet their commitments with 
Space Station.
    And when you look at the problems that we have with design 
and schedules and cost, and then the GAO report just coming out 
recently and saying that this cost may eventually be $94 
billion to build the Space Station, and look at the downsizing 
mode we're in as a Federal Government, that we're not only 
trying to balance the budget by the year 2002, but we're also 
trying to enact hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts, 
which I do not support, which puts added pressure on our 
budgets, I'm just concerned that we're going to be throwing 
good money after bad, and that this project's never going to 
get off the ground.
    And I think there just comes a time when you have to look 
at all the things working against Space Station and say, in 
spite of the promise that it once held, that now's the time to 
cut our losses.
    So I'm going to support Mr. Roemer's amendment, and I would 
yield back the balance of my time to Mr. Roemer if he wanted to 
make any additional comments.
    Mr. Roemer. I just thank the gentleman for his kind words, 
and I think people are getting tired of hearing my voice, so I 
will yield back the rest of the time to you.
    The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Very briefly, I've only been here a little shy of seven 
months, but I've already learned that Mr. Roemer is a man of 
great integrity and intelligence, and I do appreciate his 
amendment, and it's very consistent with his goals to reduce 
Federal expenditures, and he has made a whole variety of 
efforts in that regard.
    I do not agree with his amendment, but I do honor his 
integrity, as well as that of Mr. Ward and Mr. Doyle, who I 
know very well, as members of the freshmen class.
    I intend to vote for the Space Station for many of the 
reasons outlined by Mr. Hastings and Mr. Hall, and since Mr. 
Rohrabacher and I didn't agree on many things, throughout the 
last several days, also Mr. Rohrabacher's reasoning.
    I would just add that we can add up what we expect from 
this project, but the chances are the benefits are things we 
haven't even thought of, and that was true of the initial space 
program.
    And I would add, that is true of all the scientific 
research that we've engaged in.
    And I heard Mr. Hall's comment. We don't know what the end 
result is going to be by unleashing the finest minds that 
America has, and we'll never know until ten or 20 or 30 years 
from now.
    And so I would urge support of this program and also hope 
that we keep in mind the value to society of the advance of 
knowledge in other arenas in addition to this. I would yield 
back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be quick as well.
    Mr. Roemer is able. He's mainly thoughtful. He's just wrong 
on this issue. And this is not the first time or the second 
time or the third time or the fourth time he's been wrong. 
We've been through this over and over again.
    We on this Committee and we the Congress have required NASA 
to jump through every hoop we could require it to jump through. 
We've been occasionally part of the problem with the budget 
over Space Station.
    Mr. Hall and others have pointed out the medical research 
that we would be giving up if we turned our back on this issue. 
A few years ago, I think the first year that I was here, 
several of us sat down with physicians from all over the world 
who had come in here to this Congress during this debate to 
lobby for us to save Space Station.
    And when you would talk to them, to the extent that you 
could talk to them and understand them, they were committed to 
heart valves and robotics and ways of doing surgeries that I 
had not even thought owed their technologies to the space 
program and to the agenda of Space Station.
    So I don't think now's the time to turn our back on this 
issue. At some point, we owe a responsibility to the 
commitments that we've made, and we've made a commitment to 
NASA and to Space Station. Defeat this amendment.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, Mr. Roemer represents an area of this country 
that is very dear to my heart, the University of Notre Dame, 
St. Mary's, when I left Waco, Texas, going to college many 
years ago.
    And somehow we came through the same areas with different 
directions.
    I learned that research was very valuable. And I saw my 
grandmother die of cancer of the breast in 1947, and that's 
when I decided I wanted to go into the health caring 
profession.
    Because of the Space Station exploration, space 
exploration, the technique of mammograms came to be. And though 
breast cancer is still the number one cause of death of women, 
we've come a very long ways in detecting cancer because we all 
know that prevention is the best approach to any problem.
    I am deeply committed to research because I've seen so much 
come from research. And it is not cheap. Sometimes it might 
even look foolish, because I think that many thought the Super 
Collider research might have been.
    But I think when we decide that we can no longer afford to 
invest in this type of major research, that's the very time 
that we decide that we can no longer invest in our future.
    I will not support this amendment, and I'd ask all of my 
colleagues to think seriously about defeating this amendment 
because I think it's ill-advised at this time.
    This country must be committed to research because we want 
to be, and want to continue to be the leading nation in the 
world. And the only way we can do that is not ever to turn our 
face on research.
    That does not mean we must not spend wisely, but I think we 
must spend intelligently. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Barton?
    Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise in opposition to the Roemer amendment and in support 
of the Committee bill.
    Others before me have talked about the values of the Space 
Station, so I'm not going to get into that. Suffice it to say 
there is value.
    I want to talk about the process. We enter these multiple 
year projects and we don't, we don't authorize them for 
multiple years, we don't fund them for multiple years, so that 
each year, they have to rejustify their existence.
    That creates tremendous uncertainty among the industrial 
groups that are working on the projects, it creates uncertainty 
among our international allies, it creates tremendous stress 
and tension in the communities where the projects are located.
    The bill before us solves those problems. It's a multiyear 
authorization bill but it caps the total amount that can be 
spent in totality, it caps the amount that can be spent in a 
given year, it requires coordination with NASA and the 
Congress. It's the way the Congress should operate.
    Mr. Walker and Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Brown and others 
are to be commended for bringing together, putting forth an 
authorization bill that actually does it the way the textbooks 
say that we ought to do it on these kinds of projects.
    So I would hope that we'd defeat the Roemer amendment, vote 
affirmatively on the base bill, send it to the floor pass it on 
the floor, send it to the Senate, get the Senate to pass it, 
get the President to sign it, and then once and for all, we'll 
have a bill that authorizes the project for the next seven 
years, that says how much can be spent in any given year, that 
has performance requirements in it.
    It brings certainty to the process. It means we will build 
the Space Station. It tells our international allies that we're 
going to be good partners, good faith partners. It solves all 
the tension in the communities that are building the project, 
and we show the world and we show the country that we can do 
something right in this century for science and basic research.
    So I oppose the Roemer amendment, I support the base bill, 
and again I want to commend Chairman Walker, Mr. Sensenbrenner, 
Mr. Hall, Mr. Brown, and others for doing right. This is the 
way the Congress should operate. This is a good bill, this is a 
good project.
    We should reject Mr. Roemer and vote affirmatively on the 
bill and I yield back my time.
    The Chairman. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I too am, I believe, very committed to 
scientific research, and have some understanding of how that is 
conducted and what you can expect from it.
    But I'm going to support Mr. Roemer's amendment here, and I 
want to give you a few pieces of how I get to that point.
    First of all, there is always a question of just how far do 
you go in a large project, how deeply into it do you go before 
you reach the point of no return, which is where you make a 
decision that you're going to go ahead with this rather than 
stop it to save money or for whatever reason.
    In this instance, we've already heard that there's 
something in the range of $11 billion spent and more 
appropriated, and we've heard at least a report that there may 
be as much as $80 more billion spent, likely to be $80 billion 
more spent over the next couple of decades. And so I don't 
really think we've reached the point of no return.
    I particularly feel that in situations like this, in the 
cases of very large, large, big science kinds of projects, that 
the cost sharing with industrial, with other segments of the 
industrial world should be extensive.
    And I would say that if we're talking about a project, 
which over its development is going to be in the range of $80, 
$90 billion in total, that the cost sharing that comes $2.5 
billion from the Japanese, $3 billion from the Europeans, $.5 
billion from the Canadians, as has been enumerated by the 
distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield? That's to 
date. Going through to completion, those figures go up 
significantly.
    Mr. Olver. I'm glad to hear that. I would of course like to 
know what the exact accounting and balance sheet is on that. 
But I look for, in this kind of program, a cost-sharing in the 
program which is really equivalent cost-sharing of other major 
economies in the industrial world, and obviously if the 
gentleman from Wisconsin would show me what is committed over 
the long haul, that might change my point of view. But what 
I've seen thus far is nowhere nearly what should be the level 
of cost-sharing.
    I say there is a question about what the point of no return 
ought to be, and certainly there can be debate about this issue 
of cost- sharing.
    There is no question at all that big science projects, as 
we have conducted them, produce technology which was 
unanticipated, which is unpredictable even and in any way at 
the time. Surely the Manhattan project was one of those. Surely 
the space program, as it relates to putting a man on the moon 
and so forth, was another one of those.
    But I don't really think that there's anything in here that 
we cannot do technologically or virtually anything that we 
can't do technologically that would come from a balanced space 
program or an unmanned space station or something along those 
lines.
    The mission, as has been said, has been reduced several 
times. It remains ill-defined. It has just changed repeatedly. 
It has been oversold on what it might solve. It's almost 
ludicrous in its claims of what can only be done under 
weightlessness.
    The $2 billion per year that if it were directed to direct 
efforts at biotechnology and genetic engineering and gene 
mapping and so forth, would be extremely much more likely to 
solve our problems with breast cancer, just as an example, or 
almost any other form of cancer.
    These just simply do not require the kind of location in a 
manned space station in order to be solved. It's been vastly 
oversold on what science can be done on a manned space station 
that can't be done in much cheaper ways in other locations.
    So with all of that taken together, I come to the 
conclusion that this is, while very close perhaps to the point 
of no return, that this is a time when in this period of budget 
cutting, that the expenditure of this many billions of dollars 
over the next couple of decades at a time when we are squeezing 
in dozens and dozens and dozens of important programs in 
research in NASA, and in many other places, that it just does 
not justify doing it in the way that it has been done.
    This is the wrong time to spend this number of tens of 
billions of dollars on this particular, very oversold, very 
over committed kind of a project. So I expect to support the 
amendment by the gentleman from Indiana.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Weldon from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Curt Weldon. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I'll be brief.
    I speak in opposition to the Roemer amendment. I will be 
supportive of the effort to fund the Space Station, but I can't 
let this moment pass without acknowledging the fact that we 
spend so much money on space exploration in contrast to what 
we're spending on researching the oceans of this earth.
    In fact, we spend more money looking for water on other 
planets than we do in researching our own oceans right here.
    I think Sylvia Earle, who was the past Chief Scientist for 
NOAA summed it up best in a letter to us, when she was the 
Chief Scientist at NOAA, she recalls spending $26 million for a 
space shuttle toilet in the same season that the Administration 
zeroed funding for the nation's six national underwater centers 
and all of the research and facilities. Congress later put that 
money back in.
    I'm not saying that we should not continue the aggressive 
program in space, and I will support that with my vote.
    What I'm saying is that, down the road, this Committee 
needs to look at what our commitment level should be in terms 
of our marine ecosystem and the oceans of the world, because I 
think it's woefully inadequate.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Mr. Largent.
    Mr. Largent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'd like to also enter into this annual foray and perhaps 
try to convince Mr. Roemer to make this the Roemer/Largent bill 
next year, so that I can have a lot of nice things said about 
me too.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Largent. I guess I approach this thing a little bit 
differently.
    Since January 4th, when we were sworn in, I really feel 
like one of the purposes that I was sent here was to bring 
about some fiscal responsibility, and we've been told by no 
less than the Speaker of the House that we have a moral 
imperative to bring about some fiscal responsibility and 
accountability with the way the Federal Government spends our 
tax dollars.
    And I keep remembering that, and as I hear those words, I 
envision my own four children before me as I make decisions 
where we're continuing to spend Federal dollars on different 
programs.
    And as I've been sitting here, I can honestly tell you that 
for the last two months, I've been searching for a reason to 
support the Space Station and to support my Chairman, and the 
reasons that I have heard here in this meeting this afternoon, 
I'm trying to envision my own children sitting here at the 
table in front of me and see if this is a very compelling 
argument as to why we should continue to spend their money.
    That, number one, we are stiffing our foreign and 
international partners. Maybe that's a compelling argument. I'm 
wondering if my children would think so.
    That we won't save a dime by cutting the Space Station. 
That is not a very convincing argument in my opinion, and I 
don't think my kids would think so either.
    That we would be saying so long to workers in Texas, 
California, and Florida. And I have to tell you that I discount 
a lot of what was said by members of this Committee that are 
from Texas, California, and Florida, because I know why they're 
voting for the Space Station now.
    So I don't think that my kids would think that that was a 
very compelling argument either, since we live in Oklahoma.
    Mr. Roemer. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Largent. --wondering about the claims that we're doing 
so much medical research. I made a trip, with supporting the 
Space Station in mind, to the campus of NIH where they're doing 
absolutely the cutting edge in medical research. And I asked 
them specifically what do you think about the Space Station? 
Are you really going to make some incredible advances in 
medical research. The answer was a resounding absolutely not.
    So I went to the pharmaceutical companies. I went to the 
largest pharmaceutical company in this country, and I said, you 
must be really excited about being able to perform a lot of 
experiments on the Space Station in zero gravity or 
microgravity environment to develop all these crystals so that 
we can cure all these different ailments.
    And the pharmaceutical company told me, absolutely not. We 
could care less about the Space Station.
    So I'm presenting all this in front of my four children and 
then trying to make a compelling argument about why I should 
vote for the Space Station.
    And I see a number of the Committee staff with their Space 
Station buttons on. And on that button, it says, ``it's about 
life on earth.''
    And the Space Station is about potential, what could be. 
But what I know as a fact is that if we continue to spend my 
children and your children's dollars, I can tell you what is a 
reality. That the moral imperative is to bring our financial 
house in order, and if we don't, that house will fold along 
with the future of our country and the future of our children. 
That's reality.
    We can talk about potential of Space Station. I think 
there's a lot of potential there, but the reality is, if we 
continue to spend more money than we have on programs that are 
potential, that we definitely undermine the future of our 
children.
    So this is about life on earth. That's what this decision's 
about and that's why I support the Roemer amendment. I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Roemer. Would the gentleman yield before he yields back 
the balance of his time?
    After that speech, we may name it the Largent/Roemer 
amendment next year.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I will say nice things about Mr. Largent. I think he's a 
great asset in the Congress.
    However,--
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Schiff. --two things.
    First, I voted for the House budget resolution. I have 
voted for the Balanced Budget amendment. I have voted for some 
very difficult figures throughout subcommittee meetings, and I 
think that entitles me to say I share the gentleman's desire 
for fiscal responsibility.
    And we will be presented with a budget resolution shortly 
which is a plan to balance the budget within seven years, which 
has been the goal. And I intend to vote for that resolution, 
even though I have some differences with some of the 
conclusions that are made.
    My point is this. My point is, if we stick to the plan, we 
will achieve a balanced budget in seven years, and that 
achieves the fiscal responsibility goal.
    We are now talking about how to spend that money which 
remains within Federal spending, all of which of course does 
not disappear during the next several years.
    And it's my view, in sum, as to say when the gentleman from 
Oklahoma says why should I vote for it? What will we get? I can 
only say that I'm very glad that when Queen Isabella agreed to 
mortgage her jewels to finance a foreigner from Italy to sail 
into the unknown, she was not persuaded not to do that by those 
who said, we have other problems and concerns that we need to 
worry about here in Spain.
    I think that scientific research and development has always 
proven its own worth. And therefore I will vote against the 
amendment. I yield back my time.
    The Chairman. Are there other members who wish to be 
recognized?
    Mr. Geren. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Geren.
    Mr. Geren. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer 
amendment, but I think I understand now why he offers this 
every year.
    And lest my silence be construed as having anything other 
than the affection for Mr. Roemer that everybody else on this 
Committee also feels, and we're talking about the future, and I 
want him to know that if my daughters were older, and if he 
weren't married, I'd be glad for Tim Roemer to go out with 
either one of them.
    Thank you, sir.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Geren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Geren. The gentleman will yield.
    Mr. Hall. You know, if Roemer keeps getting all this 
attention, I don't really like him personally.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hall. He's too intelligent, he's too young, he's too 
attractive, and I dislike him more and more every time anybody 
speaks, and if they keep on checking on him, Mr. Chairman, they 
may find out he had something to do with the Lindburgh 
kidnapping.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hall. And I yield back my time.
    Mr. Geren. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
    The Chairman. Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. I was just going to say to my good friend 
from Oklahoma, there's been many predictions throughout history 
when you look at the use of electricity or other research that 
we have done throughout history, and there was always naysayers 
out there that couldn't predict what was going to happen.
    And for anybody to actually predict what kind of research 
and science we're going to have, is not realistic.
    And I think that once we look back on it, we're going to 
say it was a good deal.
    And I think by evidence for that is the heart pacer and 
many other advances including some of the microcircuitry which 
we have today is a direct result of the investment we made in 
the sixties and seventies in Space Station. And I've no comment 
on Tim.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Are there further people that wish to be 
heard on this before the Chairman closes the debate?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, it is my view that this amendment 
should be rejected.
    And I just want to talk for a second with regard to the 
issue that was raised earlier by one of the members about what 
this means in terms of the Space Station.
    It's been suggested by some of the people who propose this 
amendment that this means nothing about the rest of the space 
program, they're very much for the space program.
    Well, I think you ought to put together the arguments that 
you've heard here today. You've heard arguments about the lock 
box and then the GAO report.
    And it has been suggested that there are tens of billions 
of dollars that are going to be spent on Space Station.
    Well, first of all, the amount of money in this bill for 
the entire seven years of the program is $13 billion. It 
anticipates $2 billion of spending, $2.1 billion a year. That's 
the total amount authorized in this bill.
    When you start talking about this GAO report of $94 
billion, I would suggest that some of you go back and read the 
report if you're then saying that your for the Space Station. 
Because if in fact you are for killing that entire $94 billion 
of money and putting it in a lock box somewhere, what you have 
just done is eliminated the shuttle program, eliminated the 
life sciences program, you eliminated a whole host of things 
that were included in that GAO report.
    And so you can in fact take the money out of NASA, it would 
take $6 billion a year out of NASA, and I guarantee you'd have 
no Space Station and no space program left at that point, and 
you certainly have killed off virtually the entire manned space 
program at that point.
    And so anybody who uses the argument that they are in fact 
buying the GAO report, and then in addition are buying the lock 
box, and then in addition are saying that they support the 
space program, it doesn't add up folks. It just doesn't add up. 
You can't have the whole thing.
    And for instance, over $50 billion of the $94 billion in 
that GAO report are space shuttle operations costs. It includes 
all the space shuttle operations costs, not just part of them.
    And I would suggest that this really is about whether or 
not we're going to preserve a manned space program for our 
future, or whether or not we are going to abandon the manned 
space effort, and go on to some other kinds of spending. I 
think that's what we are debating in terms of our future.
    The goal of this Committee, it seems to me, ought to be the 
search for new knowledge. One of the great advantages of the 
Space Station is we are creating a totally new environment in 
which to expand our ability to gain new knowledge.
    I think it was Mrs. Lofgren who said a little while ago 
that one of the things we ought to realize is is it's not what 
we do know that we will obtain from station; it's what we don't 
have any idea what will happen. I agree with that.
    By creating this brand new environment in which to do 
research, we will in fact learn things that we never 
anticipated learning.
    And I think that's the challenge before this Committee and 
whether or not we are going to give ourselves that opportunity 
to pursue basic science in its truest sense, the creation of 
new knowledge. With that, the Chair will put the question.
    Mr. Minge. Would the gentleman yield just for a one-
sentence statement about the space shuttle?
    The Chairman. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Minge. I thank the Chairman.
    The space shuttle, as the distinguished Chairman knows, 
requires 35--the Space Station development program alone 
requires 35 shuttle flights to carry out the three phases of 
that.
    So I would argue that that's a legitimate cost to be 
included when you're using the shuttle that many times.
    The Chairman. Well, the gentleman's absolutely correct, and 
that's going to be the job of the space shuttle for some years, 
and so therefore, if you're not flying to do that, you're not 
flying the space shuttle, and you have no program at that 
point.
    And the bottom line is that what the gentleman is doing, 
and if the gentleman does anticipate flying the space shuttle 
for other things, then his report is a phony report, because 
then those costs will still be accruing to NASA during that 
period of time.
    And so it's a totally phony number if he anticipates flying 
those same numbers of flights per year.
    So the gentleman is talking about killing off manned space 
as we anticipate manned space being done for the next 20 years.
    Mr. Minge. Will the Chairman yield for just a moment?
    The Chairman. This Committee--well, the Chair is prepared 
to put the question. The Chair has waited to engage in the 
debate here until the end to make his point of view. I'm not 
looking to extend the time of the members while people engage 
in a dialogue with the Chair. The Chair's going to put the 
question. Those in favor of the Roemer amendment will signify 
by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it.
    Mr. Roemer. On that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll call 
vote.
    The Chairman. The gentleman requests a roll call vote. The 
Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Boehlert?
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Schiff votes no.
    Mr. Barton?
    Mr. Barton. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton votes no.
    Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. Baker?
    Mr. Baker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes yes.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Stockman votes no.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Largent?
    Mr. Largent. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Largent votes yes.
    Mr. Hilleary?
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Ms. Myrick. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes yes.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Present.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall votes no.
    Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes no.
    Mr. Geren?
    Mr. Geren. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Geren votes no.
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes yes.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Cramer votes no.
    Mr. Barcia?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes no.
    Ms. Harman?
    Ms. Harman. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Harman votes no.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes no.
    Mr. Minge?
    Mr. Minge. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Minge votes yes.
    Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes yes.
    Mr. Hastings?
    Mr. Hastings. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hastings votes no.
    Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes yes.
    Ms. McCarthy?
    Mrs. McCarthy. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. McCarthy votes yes.
    Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Mr. Doggett?
    Mr. Doggett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett votes no.
    Mr. Doyle?
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle votes yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.
    Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes yes.
    The Chairman. Are there other members who wish to be 
recorded?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman present one; Yes 11, No 33.
    Mr. Brown. I mistakenly said pass when I should have said 
present. Record me as being present.
    Ms. Schwartz. I'm sorry, I will mark Mr. Brown as present.
    The Chairman. And that would make two present, is that 
correct?
    Ms. Schwartz. Yes.
    The Chairman. Okay, the Clerk will report again.
    Ms. Schwartz. Present two; yes 11, no 33.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The next amendment is Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of 
order.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point 
of order.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be accepted as read.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    
    
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's amendment with unanimous 
consent it can be accepted on the amendment as read, but there 
has been a point of ordered reserved on the amendment. The 
gentlelady is recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike 
the last word.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The Chairman. If you didn't hear me earlier, let me salute 
both Mr. Largent and Mr. Roemer. I want to start mine, it might 
bring some good luck to them.
    I enjoyed the enthusiastic debate that we had on Space 
Station and of course some of the comments that particularly 
respond to the unifying factor between Space Station and NASA.
    Mr. Hastings, I appreciate your eloquence and I think 
living testimony that NASA and Space Station does in fact save 
lives.
    And I am a supporter of the Space Station.
    And certainly have seen the integration between Space 
Station and NASA and its components be a real part of the 
cutting edge of technology.
    NASA itself supports the concept of a stable monthly year 
commitment to funding for the Space Station program in the 
context of an overall balanced NASA budget and NASA's plan 
includes full funding for the Space Station.
    This current plan also achieves significant savings and 
makes sweeping changes in organization and management 
throughout the agency.
    NASA's already prepared to take the $5 billion in cuts and 
has offered to say that it would be overwhelming to take $11 
billion in cuts that are proposed.
    Since 1993, NASA indicates it has reduced its five-year 
budget plan by 30 percent through the rescoping programs, 
eliminating low priority efforts and reducing support 
contracts.
    This year, NASA developed a budget plan that will require 
the agency to reduce spending by an additional $5 billion 
through the year 2000. Thus the agency is already contributing 
to our efforts to reduce the budget.
    This Committee is considering HR 1601, which provides a 
multiyear authorization for the Space Station.
    And my amendment to this bill seeks to put the Space 
Station in overall context of a balanced space program for 
which there is a consensus on the level of funding.
    My amendment requires that Congress authorize enough 
funding to meet the Administration request over the next five 
years and allows NASA to implement the streamlining efforts 
proposed in their recent study.
    Congress authorizes less than the funding envelope given. 
The amendment requires the NASA Administrator to certify 
whether or not a balanced space program can be maintained.
    But most importantly, Congress has the opportunity to come 
in and authorize Space Station and the NASA program.
    We continue to have Congress involvement. Congress would be 
the final arbiter in the funding of the space program.
    As a practical matter, Congress has reauthorized the Space 
Station every single year. And we've just seen a very strong 
vote in this Committee.
    But we also heard enthusiastic support for the importance 
of funding for Space Station and NASA programs.
    This amendment would recognize that in accompanying 
actions, such as close of a major NASA center in states around 
the nation, or cancellation of one or more major NASA 
activities in science, aeronautics or space flight, would get 
intense scrutiny since such action would be looked at jointly 
with Space Station.
    This makes a very strong, stable balanced national space 
program with the Space Station.
    I believe in NASA and Space Station because they create 
jobs, better science and better health.
    And as we debate today's amendments, let us not forget our 
children. I believe that NASA inspires our children to dream 
about the universe. The result of this is that our children 
will excel in science and math and technology, thus making our 
nation economically stronger for years to come.
    NASA works best when the Space Station and other programs 
are mutually strengthened.
    I see no other sound, rational approach. While NASA, along 
with other agencies, must make its fair share of sacrifices for 
deficit reduction, I feel that NASA's contributing greatly, and 
that's why I noted in my earlier debate that we saw McKinney 
Act funds come about at the same time that NASA grew strong. 
McKinney Act funds under the housing legislation that provided 
for homeless citizens. They are not mutually exclusive. And let 
me discuss some details of this amendment.
    The budget profile that NASA's is filing actually allows 
spending reductions of $5 billion over five years. And you can 
see this outlay evidenced in the diagram over to my right.
    This plan actually equates to $8 billion in reduction in 
true buying power. This plan, however, will allow NASA to 
eliminate duplication, overlap and consolidate, change the way 
NASA works with prime contractors, emphasize objective 
contracting, privatize and commercialize some aspects of NASA, 
change regulations to reduce engineering oversight reporting, 
and streamline procurement, return NASA to the role of a 
research and development agency.
    However, this budget will allow NASA to remain strong by 
preserving its commitment to the five strategic lines of 
business which consist of:
    Mission To Planet Earth, aeronautics, human exploration and 
the development of space, which includes Space Station, space 
science, space technology.
    The other budget plans cut deeply into Space Station and 
NASA in terms of a long-term impact. And what you will find 
with this present offering is that this will not cripple, but 
rather streamline the agency.
    And among the specific reductions beyond the 
Administrator's $5 billion reduction are $1.5 billion in space 
shuttle, and that is the proposed. $2.7 billion in Mission to 
Planet Earth, and more than $1 billion in aeronautics.
    Cuts of this nature, I believe, will cause NASA to make 
decisions that may jeopardize the safety for American Space 
Agency and ultimately Space Station.
    To me, we should not turn our backs on NASA and its 
mission, and I believe in supporting a balanced and consistent 
funding level, as I have offered, that would support NASA and 
Space Station.
    I believe this ensures the continued prosperity of this 
particular program and security of future generations to come.
    And I'd like to propose this amendment that would allow 
NASA and Space Station to remain strong, safe, and 
technologically competitive.
    Once again, this amendment, Mr. Chairman, if I can have 30 
seconds by unanimous consent, will allow--thank you, Mr. 
Chairman--for restructuring activities at NASA that meet the 
demand from the American taxpayer for a smaller, more efficient 
government and a more efficient and effective Space Station and 
NASA.
    I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask 
unanimous consent to have two letters, Mr. Chairman, from major 
organizations in support of this funding, be included in the 
record, and as well to have them distributed to the members of 
the Committee.
    I thank my colleagues, I thank Mr. Sensenbrenner, and Mr. 
Chairman Walker, Ranking Member Hall, and Mr. Brown, and I 
think this puts us on the right footing for Space Station and 
NASA together.
    [Two letters to Ms. Jackson Lee follow:]
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin has reserved a 
point of order. Does he wish to pursue his point of order?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment in that it violates Rule 16, Clause 7 of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives relative to 
germaneness.
    The bill before us provides authorization for the Space 
Station. The amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas requires a 
certain authorization level for all of NASA for fiscal years 
1996 through 2000, and requires the Administrator to certify 
that there's a balanced space and aeronautics program, 
including adequate funding for specific enterprises in NASA 
that are outside the Space Station.
    This violates the subject matter test of germaneness 
because it deals with an entire NASA budget rather than simply 
the subject matter of this bill, which deals with providing an 
authorization for the Space Station.
    Under Rule 16, Clause 7, an amendment must relate to the 
subject matter under consideration. The Staff Director of the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics took this amendment over 
to the House parliamentarian yesterday. The House 
parliamentarian agrees with this conclusion, and I would urge 
the Chair to sustain the point of order.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members who wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The amendment does not authorize anything 
outside the scope of the particular legislation that we're now 
dealing with. It is simply a contingency, and we have acted 
upon a contingency.
    I am told that we have worked with the parliamentarian as 
well, and gotten a totally different ruling on it.
    I'd ask in all fairness that this amendment that has been 
before this Committee now be allowed to be heard.
    And as I said, the emphasis is that this is a contingency, 
this is not an authorization of these programs. It is 
contingent therefore of future authorizations and it is more of 
an instruction than it is an authorization.
    So I think we're in good stead with this particular 
amendment and I think the point of order is not well taken.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members that wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The Chair has examined the amendment before 
the Committee and has in fact consulted with regard to the 
specific language of the amendment through staff with the 
parliamentarian.
    The bill before us does provide authorization for Space 
Station and Space Station alone. The amendment, on the other 
hand, goes to questions relating to a balanced space program, 
including particulars including an aeronautics program and 
other funding for specific enterprises in NASA that are outside 
the purview of the Space Station.
    The amendment therefore does violate the subject matter 
test of germaneness. Since an amendment under Clause 7 of Rule 
16 must relate to the subject matter under consideration, and 
the Chair sustains the point of order.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. We have a situation here which I think requires 
some follow-up in that our counsel on this side has consulted 
with a parliamentarian, and there are several parliamentarians 
in the office, and gotten a different viewpoint with regard to 
the germaneness issue here.
    If in fact we are getting, from the parliamentarian's 
office, but there are two different people, divergent rulings 
as to what is germane here, I think that should be investigated 
and see if we can resolve it.
    The Chairman. Well, I would certainly agree with the 
gentleman on that. You know, the Chair sought the advice of the 
parliamentarian on this and I've just doubled checked with 
staff before this to make certain that we were on firm ground 
on this.
    The Chair does not wish to, in any way, prevent someone 
from pursuing an amendment that is in order, and if in fact we 
have gotten two different rulings out of the parliamentarian's 
office, that would disturb the Chair as well.
    I am basing my ruling on advice that we have received that 
in fact it does fail the subject matter test.
    Mr. Brown. I'm not questioning the validity of the advice 
the gentleman received. It would disturb me, however, if we've 
got a republican parliamentarian and a democratic 
parliamentarian that are giving us different viewpoints on what 
is parliamentarily correct.
    The Chairman. Well, I would hope that that would not be the 
case in the parliamentarian's office. There's, you know, a 
longstanding tradition that we are supposed to get completely 
nonpartisan advice out of the parliamentarian's office and it 
was supposed to be based upon the specific issues before us.
    And it is certainly not the intent of the Chair to in any 
way move beyond that, but at the moment, the Chair feels as 
though he does have a strong position.
    Mr. Brown. I will not question the Chair's ruling, based 
upon the advice he's received.
    But I would point out that if in fact, after 
reconsideration, the parliamentarian's office advises that this 
is germane and it's offered on the floor and is ruled germane, 
then it will indicate a certain flaw in the processes over 
there.
    The Chairman. Well, I would agree with the gentleman on 
that, and we will certainly check back and if this is something 
which should be then raised on the floor and, you know, is 
germane, the gentleman will have a perfect right obviously to 
do that.
    And I would certainly hope the advice that we have gotten 
that has led to this ruling is in fact the case because I do 
not wish to prevent anybody from offering a legitimate 
amendment before this Committee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And I appreciate the ranking member's presentation.
    I'd like to appeal the ruling of the Chair and move to 
strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I make a point of order that her appeal 
is not timely because there's been debate that has intervened.
    The Chairman. The gentleman is correct on that. The appeal 
of the ruling of the Chair would have had to immediately 
proceed the ruling of the Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like then you give me a vote in 
some manner, and let me, if I have a moment to consult, I'd 
like to move to strike the last word, please.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady is recognized under her motion 
to strike.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And let me join with the ranking member's comment. It is 
difficult to proceed in a legislative manner when you seek 
consultation from the parliamentarian, and as the gentleman has 
said from California, you rely upon the direction of the 
parliamentarian which obviously didn't consult with the 
parliamentarian that you had, and you have a different point of 
view.
    My question, Mr. Chairman, and my comment is in terms of 
the germaneness issue, is there an opportunity for this matter 
to be reconsidered in Committee if we were to get a consensus 
on the parliamentarian's perspective?
    I'd have this reconsidered in Committee so that Committee 
can make a statement on this prior to going to the House floor.
    Again, I raise the point in disagreement, both really with 
the parliamentarian's decision that you have now offered and 
agreed with. This is contingent. It is not an authorization, 
and therefore it is appropriate.
    And my question then is whether or not this can be 
reconsidered in Committee?
    The Chairman. Well, the gentlelady, if the gentlelady would 
yield under her motion to strike?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield.
    The Chairman. This of course is only one aspect of the NASA 
budget. It is the intention of the subcommittee to bring 
further appropriations or authorizations relative to NASA to 
the subcommittee in the relatively near future.
    Obviously, the gentlelady's amendment, as it relates to a 
broader scope of NASA priorities, would certainly be something 
that could be considered at that time.
    So she will have additional opportunities within the 
Committee to deal with the subject matter that she brings 
before the Committee in terms of aeronautics and Mission To 
Plant Earth and a number of other items that were within her 
amendment.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from Texas controls the time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I need to make an inquiry, Mr. Roemer, and I will certainly 
yield to you.
    Mr. Chairman, I would, two offerings at this point, be 
prepared to offer a substitute, and so I'd like to reclaim part 
of my time.
    Mr. Roemer, do you have an inquiry? I yield to you.
    Mr. Roemer. My only--I don't have an inquiry, I just have a 
brief statement to make.
    I don't claim to be an expert on parliamentary rules but I 
certainly think that the ruling entertained by the Chair was 
probably a correct one.
    And it sure would give us a great deal of thought in future 
authorizations to try to do the Space Station with the NASA 
budget so that we don't separate these two.
    I think the gentlelady's question goes to the heart and 
soul of many of the questions that we have to face as a 
Committee with our priorities and our diminishing budget.
    The Space Station is directly related to the rest of the 
NASA budget. Some of us claim that the Space Station is 
cannibalizing some of the other budgetary priorities in NASA. 
The gentlelady wants a balanced program.
    I would argue adamantly for a balanced space program, that 
we get more money into aeronautics and some of the other 
programs within NASA. And I think this is a very, very good 
question, but under the ruling of the Chair, when we just bring 
up the separate authorization items within the NASA budget, I'm 
not sure that it should be ruled in order.
    I would hope that we'd do the entire NASA authorization 
together in the future.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Reclaiming my time.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Roemer.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the substitute that I 
mentioned and offer to delete certain lines in order to agree 
with the sentiment to have this opportunity to have this heard.
    The Chairman. Well, if the gentlelady--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. If I could offer the substitute.
    The Chairman. If the gentlelady would yield to the 
Chairman?
    The amendment that she offered previously has been ruled 
out of order.
    If she wishes to offer an additional amendment at this 
time, she certainly, under the rules of the Committee, may 
offer a new amendment that has different wording, and we will, 
you know, be willing to examine that amendment. So the 
gentlelady may be recognized to offer a different amendment.
    I didn't want her to say she's offering a substitute 
because her original language has been ruled non-germane. She 
needs to offer a separate amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    
    
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, the kindness in your remarks 
are appreciated. And I'd like to describe the new amendment 
while it is being copied by staff, if that would be helpful for 
the Chairman.
    I would like to read the new amendment as proposed.
    The Chairman. If the gentlelady would yield to the 
Chairman?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. It would be helpful, I think, since this is a 
matter of some consequence in terms of where we've been on this 
issue of germaneness, to have the specific language before us.
    If I understand correctly, certain lines of the original 
amendment are being eliminated. Could the gentlelady describe 
to the Chair just exactly what she's eliminating? That would 
give us an ability to examine the language at the Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I'd be more than happy to, Mr. Chairman. 
Likewise, I'd be more than happy to provide the copies, but let 
me move you to page three. It's page one of my amendment. It's 
listed in our packet, two at the top encircled and three at the 
bottom.
    An amendment to HR 1601 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee. I would 
take us down, Mr. Chairman, to line number 14 on that page. And 
we would delete, after the words ``has been maintained'' delete 
starting with ``and'' and going to line 18, ending with the 
words ``for such fiscal year.''
    One, two, three, four, five lines, a portion of the first 
line.
    The Chairman. And you're placing a semicolon after the word 
maintained, is that correct?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reserve a 
point of order.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point 
of order against the amendment but the gentlelady is recognized 
to offer her new amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, relying upon the discussion that we had earlier in 
the combined desire to strengthen NASA and to strengthen Space 
Station, and as well to reflect upon NASA's already strong 
efforts to downsize its agency and as well to take the $5 
billion cuts and to ensure that we have the opportunity to 
provide for both Space Station and the other NASA programs 
including the manned space shuttle, this particular amendment 
gives the funding that will allow both a balanced budget but as 
well it allows for a combined balanced space program.
    Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my colleagues support this 
amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Schiff. Would the lady yield for a moment here, over 
here on your left?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, Mr. Schiff, I yield.
    Mr. Schiff. I wonder if you could briefly explain, please--
I understand your support of the NASA program and support of 
the Space Station--I wonder if you could explain exactly what 
your amendment does that's different from the bill right now.
    Is it a higher level of funding? Is it a guaranteed level 
of funding? I'm not following exactly what the amendment says. 
I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. It provides funding on cuts of $5 billion 
over the next five years.
    Mr. Schiff. If the lady would yield again, I'm not quite 
sure I understood that.
    The lady is boosting the figures that are in the Space 
Station bill now?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. What it does, Mr. Schiff, is that it 
balances the NASA Space Station budget with cuts of $5 billion 
over a period of five years.
    Mr. Schiff. Does the lady mean cuts elsewhere in NASA?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No, it provides funding that does not cut 
beyond the $5 billion.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for his point of order.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation. 
I think that the gentlewoman from Texas has cleaned up this 
amendment so that it does meet the germaneness test.
    However, I would seek time to speak in opposition to the 
amendment.
    The Chairman. The gentleman withdraws his point of order 
and is recognized in opposition to the amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment 
of the gentlewoman from Texas is well-intentioned. However, I 
believe that it will have the exact opposite effect than what 
she wants to accomplish.
    What we're saying in this bill, with a multi-year 
authorization for station to assembly complete in the year 
2002, is that the station is the highest priority for NASA and 
that all of NASA's manned space programs are contingent upon 
the successful completion of the station.
    What the gentlewoman from Texas' amendment has the effect 
of doing is changing the station from being the top priority 
for NASA to making it the bottom priority for NASA because it 
says that if the authorizations do not meet or exceed the 
figures that are contained in the lines 5 through 10 of her 
amendment, then there is no more authorization for the station 
and the station becomes deauthorized, and the gentleman from 
Indiana ends up being delighted that he's killed the station 
simply because he was able to get minor reductions in the total 
authorization for NASA.
    I don't think that's what we want to do here. And that's 
why I think this amendment is defective and not accomplishing 
what the gentlewoman from Texas hopes to accomplish.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I'm going to finish making my statement. 
I didn't interrupt you. I'm going to finish making my 
statement.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I think I did yield to you at one point 
though, but that's all right, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well not--
    Well, I'm going to finish making my statement. If I've got 
any time left, then I'll yield to you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Secondly, this amendment makes it 
contingent upon an authorization bill being passed and signed 
into law.
    We've not had a NASA authorization bill being passed and 
signed into law for a number of years. That's unfortunate and 
much of that has had to do with the argument that we've had 
with the Senate over whether we should have a multi-year NASA 
authorization bill or a single year one.
    I'm hopeful that the other body will change its mind on 
this for reasons that we can debate, aside from this amendment. 
But if this amendment and this bill should be passed, and then 
we end up having one of these turf battle wars with the other 
body in the years 1997, '98, '99, or the year 2000, then people 
who are opposed to the Space Station can end up using 
procedural objections simply to kill the Space Station because 
the gentlewoman from Texas' amendment is law and it sets up the 
contingency for each of the next five fiscal years.
    Finally, I would point out that this amendment is a budget 
buster. It is significantly below the Conference Committee 
agreement for NASA that was reached between the Senate and 
House budgeteers, which presumably will be adopted before we 
get out of here this week.
    So what the gentlewoman from Texas' amendment will do is to 
continue to fund the Space Station for fiscal year 1996, but 
after fiscal year 1996, unless there is either an authorization 
or an appropriation that is above the numbers contained in her 
amendment, we can kiss the Space Station goodbye.
    That will mean that we end up wasting another $2.1 billion 
and help wanted signs will be appearing in Houston in a far 
greater extent than they are under the President's budget. I'll 
now yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Let me take quite the opposite perspective of what you have 
just relayed.
    First of all, I think, when we listen to the discussion of 
Mr. Roemer's amendment, we heard a litany of arguments, but 
what we most of all heard, in addition to those who were 
supporting Space Station, is the combined support for Space 
Station and NASA.
    I think what you are asking us to do, which is to oppose 
this amendment, does the very thing that you're trying to 
avoid. It does pit one group against the other because it puts 
Space Station over NASA or NASA over Space Station, depending 
upon where you are. It is the view that I have--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, reclaiming my time, my bill in 
authorizing the station through assembly complete tells NASA 
and the world that the station is the highest priority in terms 
of funding.
    What you do is you set up a contingency that erodes that 
priority and you do not deauthorize any of the other programs 
of NASA, you deauthorize the station.
    And that's why your amendment, while very well intentioned 
in trying to get the Congress to authorize and appropriate more 
money for NASA, is going to have the exact opposite effect, 
from what you say.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentlewoman has been recognized for her five minutes 
and she can have other people yield to her but the gentleman 
from California, I would recognize him.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak for a couple 
of minutes, and then yield to Ms. Jackson Lee my additional 
time.
    I think that the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, gives a greater weight to the matter of the 
numbers in here than is justified.
    The anticipation, the basis for the numbers is that these 
are the numbers that are necessary to maintain a balanced space 
and aeronautics program.
    However, the language is quite clear that if these numbers 
are not met, then all that needs to happen is for the 
administrator to certify that he has such a program, and in 
that case, the amounts that are in both bills, the original and 
the amendment, to fund to completion, are available to NASA to 
go ahead and fund the Space Station to completion.
    I don't think that's particularly onerous. I don't think it 
indicates any major change in priorities.
    It does say to NASA, to the President, to the Congress that 
we expect NASA to maintain a balanced space program and that 
these are the figures which we think represent that, but if he 
thinks differently, he can so certify under paragraph b and the 
authorization goes forward. I think that's very clear.
    Now I personally consider this to be a sine qua non for my 
support of the Space Station. I do not want to see NASA torn 
apart by fights between the various portions of the space 
program over who gets the ax next when we can no longer afford 
to support both the Space Station and the rest of the program.
    I think that will destroy the political base of support for 
the Space Station and will weaken NASA considerably.
    My whole concern has been to strengthen NASA, not to kill 
the Space Station or anything else. And I see a scenario where, 
under the worst conditions next year, there's not enough 
funding to carry out all the programs, and we decide, through a 
process of triage, to kill the Mission to Planet Earth, and 
that then begins to unravel the political support for the whole 
program. I now yield to Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Brown, thank you very much, and I 
wanted to emphasize the point that you made, which is to 
reemphasize the involvement of Congress and the ability of the 
administrator to certify that they have a balanced NASA space 
budget.
    I think that you are on the mark with respect to the 
detriment to the divisiveness of breaking apart NASA and Space 
Station. You are strengthened by the Jackson Lee amendment 
because, one, it involves Congress, which has authorized Space 
Station for the last two years so the fear of that not 
happening may be somewhat stretched, if you will.
    But I think the divisiveness that will occur with the 
suggestion of the upperhandedness, there is no doubt of the 
importance of Space Station but it comes strengthened with the 
support of the NASA programs and as well, I think what you're 
having in the present amendment is even budgeting that gives 
the entire program sufficient funding to be accepted by 
Congress, and as well to include the efficiencies, up to $5 
billion, and to have the global support of individuals in 
various segments of the country to support both NASA and the 
Space Station.
    That is the bottom line of this amendment, to strengthen 
both and to ensure that both will be strong in the debate of 
support for both of them.
    And I think that in terms of a safety net, you have a 
safety net because you don't take Congress out of the loop, and 
if these past records have been evidence of the future, then 
you would have the support.
    But you do have it stronger in light of the combined 
amendment that has the NASA program, space program strengthened 
with Space Station strengthened as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief.
    The Chairman. I would recognize Mr. Barton. I have so many 
Texans here at the moment that it's difficult to keep it going, 
so I'd better recognize by name.
    Mr. Barton.
    Mr. Barton. Well, you can never have too many Texans, Mr. 
Chairman.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Well,--
    Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in reluctant and 
respectful opposition to the gentlelady from Houston's 
amendment because a close reading of it, in the section A, the 
section, she uses the language, by year, funding equal or 
greater than, and then she enumerates for each year. And when 
she gets down to section B, in talking about the Space Station, 
she uses the language, not to exceed, and then puts a specific 
amount for each year, and then in totality.
    And what the gentleman from Wisconsin said is true. If this 
were to become law, it would actually make the Space Station 
the lowest priority of NASA because it literally caps each year 
and in totality the amount that can be spent while it creates 
an open-ended authorization for the total NASA program.
    And I personally believe, as the Chairman and others 
believe, that if you don't have a vibrant Space Station 
program, soon you will not have a vibrant overall NASA program.
    So while her intent may be to guarantee the Space Station, 
the reality literally in the amendment would be to make it the 
lowest priority and you could actually spend less in a given 
year on the Space Station, so that you could spend more on some 
of these other program areas, which in and of itself may be a 
debate that this Committee and NASA needs to have.
    But we're here tonight to authorize and show support for 
the Space Station, not for the overall NASA budget.
    So I would hope that those that want a strong Space Station 
program would vote in opposition to this amendment, although I 
understand that her intent may be different than what the 
literal reading of the amendment is.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Barton. I'd be happy to yield.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Barton, and I 
appreciate the concern you have offered and the service you've 
given in terms of Space Station and the NASA budget over the 
years.
    Let me just offer to say to you that the language that was 
used in the Jackson Lee amendment is the same that was used in 
terms of not to exceed in the Sensenbrenner amendment, and the 
dollars cited for Space Station are likewise not different 
from, as I understand it, than the Sensenbrenner legislation.
    Mr. Barton. And I understand that. I understand that. But 
the gentlelady has attached to the language of the pending 
bill, authorization levels in totality for NASA that uses the 
language, is equal or greater than, and so you've created an 
open end situation for the general budget, but you've 
maintained a very tight cap for the specific Space Station 
program.
    And I would argue that if we're going to open end the 
larger budget, at a minimum you should also at least give the 
possibility to increase spending for the Space Station. That's 
why I oppose the amendment. I would yield back to the 
gentlelady or to the gentleman, the other gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Hall, if I still have time.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hall was seeking his own time.
    Mr. Barton. I would ask the gentleman from Texas, when he 
talked about Lindberg earlier, who was Lindberg? Those of us 
that are third wave new generation Congressman have never heard 
that name before.
    Mr. Hall. That's a cheap shot at us old guys.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief 
because I know the time's late and we have a vote coming on.
    I think the Jackson Lee amendment seems like to me to bring 
some reasoning to the budgetary process by sending a signal, 
it's time to stabilize the NASA budget.
    I think the amendment is a good one and I think it responds 
to issues that were raised by members of the subcommittee 
markup, and the gentlelady was kind enough and thoughtful 
enough to withdraw her amendment at that time to work on it 
until we could get to the Full Committee. She even amended it 
today to span the objection of germaneness.
    I think, to quote the Houston Chronicle, on Thursday, June 
22nd, they pointed out that the amendment attempts, in essence, 
to ensure the funds already planned for, already planned for, 
not to increase, will remain available to NASA. And I think 
that's very important, and to the Space Station until expended 
through fiscal year 2002.
    And it would limit the amount that could be expended on the 
Space Station project to not more than $2.1 billion in any 
given year. The remain and the limit, two words in there, I 
think certainly give some strength to this amendment, and I 
certainly support it.
    The amendment ensures that the Space Station is fully 
authorized and that the overall NASA budget's going to be 
authorized at an adequate level over the next five years. I 
think the lady has a very good amendment. I yield back my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time.
    The Committee stands in recess until the votes are 
completed on the House floor.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
    When we broke for recess, we were proceeding with the 
debate on the amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee. There are several 
other people seeking recognition. The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The gentlelady from Texas is obviously advocating a 
balanced program for NASA, and that seems to be one of the 
things that she is aiming at, and that's her target, that's her 
goal.
    But I'm not quite sure what is meant by a balanced program 
and what she has to say. I'm mystified. Do we want to fund 
unmanned space activities as well as manned space flight? Of 
course we do. Do we want to fund science as well as 
engineering? Yes. Do we still care about advanced research? Of 
course we do. But how far do we carry this and are all of these 
things in the balance? Are we promising to give equal amounts 
of money to all of these activities, or to say that they will 
have equal priorities?
    If that's the case, then I must say that I am pretty much 
against balance, balance then becomes fairly meaningless. And I 
guess that word balance is something that is important for 
someone to support this amendment, someone must really have a 
better understanding of balance than I have, or perhaps if they 
have an understanding of it, perhaps they're against the 
amendment.
    The voters did not elect the republican Congress, at least 
I can say this for our side of the aisle last fall, to 
basically have sort of a reheated oatmeal approach to making 
policy and having balances between this and that.
    I believe our priorities in space policy must change from 
what they were, and when you're talking about balance, balance 
in and of itself, sort of negates the idea of setting 
priorities.
    But most importantly, Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with 
the underlying assumption behind the whole concern about a 
balanced space program. And my problem is with the word 
program.
    As I said, at our Committee's first hearing this year, 
American can accomplish a lot of exciting things and seemingly 
unaffordable goals can be reached if we don't assume that 
Government, including NASA, is doing it all.
    Indeed, I would argue that we can't accomplish the 
commercialization goals of the Chairman that I share, the 
medical research goals of the gentleman from Texas who's been 
so eloquent today, or the space science goals that my good 
friend and colleague, Mr. Brown, from California has defended 
for so long, if we limit ourselves and our resources and ideas 
of what the Federal Government is all about.
    And that is what space activity is all about, just 
government activity, as opposed to bringing in people from the 
outside in the private sector and bringing the power and 
creativity of a free market to play.
    The balance issue, if we're just talking about what the 
Government has to do has to be balanced, I think unbalances the 
whole concept of how we look at space exploration and 
utilization and commercialization in the future.
    The balance issue basically, if left untouched, is 
something that I think is a fatal flaw in the gentlelady's 
amendment and I will have to oppose it.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Are there others seeking recognition on the Jackson Lee 
amendment?
    Mr. Fawell.
    Mr. Fawell. Thank you. I'm still not sure I understand it, 
but from what I read, it's, I don't know why we're wrapping 
ourselves up in all this agony about making sure that the 
overall authorization of the appropriations for NASA are going 
to reach certain amounts.
    And if they don't, depending on how the administrator may 
certify or not, then we put in jeopardy what we're doing here.
    I thought we were authorizing in reference to the Space 
Station, and I must confess I had to do a lot of soul searching 
in casting the vote I did cast.
    Now I find that what we have here really is an effort to 
protect, it seems to me, the total authorization for NASA in 
general.
    While we're going to have to meet that question I think in 
the future some time, but I don't think it should be brought in 
here. It seems to me it's irrelevant and not something we ought 
to be considering here.
    I would think that there would still be a point of order, 
it would almost seem to me, but I'm not a parliamentarian. But 
I certainly can't support this effort, understandable by the 
gentlelady, to try, you know, protect all of NASA.
    I think what we're talking about here is the Space Station, 
and I would hope we would just forget about this amendment and 
center upon indeed the authorization in regard to the Space 
Station.
    Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It's a good thing I'm not a singer.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hastings. Or maybe it's this amendment that choked me.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, if there's another speaker, perhaps they 
could go forward and I could speak afterward?
    The Chairman. Is there someone else seeking recognition?
    Mr. Hastings. If not, I think I'm okay, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman,--
    The Chairman. We won't expect the gentleman to hit any high 
notes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, I support Ms. Jackson Lee's 
amendment, admitting that, among other things, at the outset it 
lent itself to confusion because of the sustaining of the point 
of order.
    But after going back and addressing the concerns that were 
sustained in the point of order, I believe that the amendment 
is a good one that responds to issues raised by members at the 
subcommittee markup.
    And it seems to be a constructive addition to the bill that 
would help alleviate a lot of the concerns of members, and me 
included, who worry that the Space Station will compete with 
funding for other worthy NASA activities.
    Principally, it's fiscally prudent. And I guess that's what 
all of the talk is about.
    I can't talk about budgetary considerations, Mr. Chairman, 
without reminding all of my colleagues, democrat and 
republican, that there's, you know, a lot of what we are doing 
in this exercise from the President to the republicans and 
democrats alike on down, is an exercise in fiction.
    We ain't going to balance no budget. And the sooner we have 
people understand that, the better off we're going to be, but, 
you know, I just want to say it so 15 years from now, I will 
have said it.
    Toward that end, I think at least Ms. Jackson Lee is making 
the effort to complete the restructuring that we keep calling 
for and cutting the budget in a manner that is consistent with 
the directive from the Administration as well as many of the 
members of the subcommittee.
    She has substantial support at home that is evidenced by 
the number of signers-on to letters that support this 
particular effort.
    I fully support it, Mr. Chairman, and at this time, I'd 
like to yield the balance of my time to Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Hastings, thank you very much.
    I simply want to make a broad response to some of the 
criticism that I've heard about holding the Space Station in 
abeyance.
    Nothing could be further from the truth. What the Jackson 
Lee amendment does, it does require something that we have 
never had, and that is a consensus on what NASA's budget should 
be, in conjunction, jointly in partnership, in friendship with 
the Space Station.
    And the consensus requires two parties, the Committee and 
NASA. The Committee in its wisdom does decide to reduce NASA's 
budget. The amendment requires that we hear from the 
Administrator whether such reductions can be done and maintain 
the Space Station and NASA's other activities.
    That is a plus as evidenced by those who understand this 
amendment for Space Station and for NASA and for NASA's mission 
and for the opportunities for advancement and medical research 
that we all seem to be on one page.
    And, Mr. Hastings, I might add, trying to sing from one 
page on one note.
    This is what the Jackson Lee amendment does. It brings that 
consensus into reality and it adequately funds and recognizes 
the cuts that have already taken place or offered to be taken 
place by NASA, and as well, Space Station into the 21st 
century, into the year 2000.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Hastings. I yield back the time to 
you.
    Mr. Hastings. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Is there anyone else seeking recognition on 
this amendment?
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I am not sure 
that I understand the ruling of the Chair in terms of this 
amendment being germane. I'm not sure how we can debate such 
critical questions as a balanced NASA program when we're only 
authorizing the Space Station with this bill.
    I again implore the Committee to do the entire NASA budget 
together so that we can get to the heart and soul of some of 
these questions as to what are the priorities within NASA. I 
don't think you can separate $2.1 billion within the NASA 
budget and then entertain the gentlelady from Texas' amendment 
to say we want to have our cake and eat it too.
    We want to cram $2 billion Space Station into the NASA 
budget and then we want to have a balanced NASA program, 
especially in light of the republican budget levels on NASA 
take this funding level down to about $11 billion by the year I 
think by the year 2002.
    So I just don't see how this is realistic to entertain this 
amendment and I would hope that the Chairman would, in the 
future, have us do the entire NASA authorization.
    The Chairman. Are there further speakers on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair is prepared to close the 
debate.
    I think from listening to the debate, I understand what the 
gentlelady is attempting to achieve. If I gather correctly, 
she's attempting to use the support that is felt for the Space 
Station, rather broad-based support, in order to drive the rest 
of the NASA budget to assure that it maintains these rather 
high levels, compared to the budget document that the House has 
passed.
    And I wish that it could be so. I wish that somehow what we 
could do is, in this Committee, say you know because this 
program is popular, we will in fact hold it hostage and tell 
you that you don't get this program, which is a popular 
program, if you don't maintain these figures for NASA.
    And the fact is what we would be doing is saying that for 
essentially a five-year period.
    Now I'll tell you where I think there's a problem and that 
is in the first year in 1996. Under this amendment, we lose 
Space Station as of 1996, because that $14.260 figure is not 
going to be the figure that is going to be in the 
Appropriations bill.
    As a matter of fact, we're going to be lucky if we're 
within $500 million of that figure in the Appropriations bill.
    It comes nowhere close to the figure that's in the budget. 
And so this is a clear way of killing Space Station the first 
year, is simply don't appropriate at that level and Space 
Station is dead.
    And let me tell you for those of you who think that well, 
okay, that's the penalty we pay, and are concerned about the 
fact that then the budget document, you go down to $11.7 
billion over a period of five years.
    The problem is that once you kill Space Station in that 
first year, that $2 billion comes out of NASA immediately, and 
so you end up with a budget where instead of having NASA cut on 
a glide path that represents a balanced program, you end up 
with a situation where you have taken $2 billion out of the 
program immediately with no replacement whatsoever.
    And so all of the things that you say you're against in 
terms of the NASA figure, you get with this amendment. And I 
don't think that's the intent.
    I think the intent is to try to make certain that Space 
Station, you know, kind of holds up and props up the rest of 
the program. That won't be the result of this amendment.
    The result of this amendment will be that Space Station 
will be the lowest priority and it will bring down the entire 
budget, and at the end of the present fiscal year, you will end 
up with NASA not with a $13.7 billion budget, you will end up 
with NASA with about an $11.6 billion budget.
    And in my view, that would be a tragic result from 
something which I think is a well-intentioned effort. And for 
that reason, it seems to me that we want to oppose this 
particular effort because I think that it has all of the 
consequences that everyone fears will happen over the long term 
that are going to be dictated in the short term by this 
approach. With that, the Chair would put the question.
    Those in favor of the Jackson Lee amendment, would vote 
yes.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will vote no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have a roll call 
vote, please.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady requests a roll call vote.
    The Clerk will call the roll
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Boehlert?
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Schiff votes no.
    Mr. Barton?
    Mr. Barton. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton votes no.
    Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. Baker?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Largent?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary?
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Ms. Myrick. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Present.
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. Geren?
    Mr. Geren. No.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes no.
    Mr. Cramer?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia?
    Mr. Barcia. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia votes no.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Harman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mr. Minge?
    Mr. Minge. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Minge votes no.
    Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes yes.
    Mr. Hastings?
    Mr. Hastings. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
    Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes no.
    Mrs. McCarthy?
    Mrs. McCarthy. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. McCarthy votes no.
    Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
    Mr. Doggett?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes no.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members that wish to be 
recorded?
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Chairman. How is Mr. Doyle recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle is not recorded.
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Doyle votes yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle votes yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Chairman. How is Ms. Jackson Lee recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson Lee is recorded as voting yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members that wish to 
vote?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Clerk will report.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, the roll call vote is: yes, 11; 
no, 30.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    That completes the amendments on the roster.
    Are there additional amendments for the Committee to 
consider at this time?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, we will proceed to final passage.
    The question is on the bill HR 1601, the International 
Space Station Authorization Act of 1995.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    Does the gentleman from Texas have a motion?
    If not, the gentleman from Wisconsin, does he have a 
motion?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
report the bill HR 1601 as amended.
    Furthermore, I move to instruct the staff to prepare the 
legislative report, including supplemental, minority, or 
additional views, to make technical and conforming amendments, 
and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the 
bill before the House for consideration.
    Furthermore, I ask that anybody who wishes to may file 
additional separate, minority, or dissenting views.
    The Chairman. The gentleman has made a motion.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, the motion is agreed to. 
Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid upon the 
table.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, can we have a roll call vote on 
final passage?
    The Chairman. This is the motion to report the bill. I 
mean, the bill has been passed by voice vote. This is the 
motion to report the bill.
    Does the gentleman wish to have a vote on the motion to 
report the bill.
    Mr. Roemer. I would, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman requests that a roll call vote 
on the motion to report the bill.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes yes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes yes.
    Mr. Boehlert?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes yes.
    Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. Mrs. Morella votes yes.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes yes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
    Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Schiff votes yes.
    Mr. Barton?
    Mr. Barton. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton votes yes.
    Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes yes.
    Mr. Baker?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes yes.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ehlers votes yes.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes yes.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes yes.
    Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Graham votes yes.
    Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes yes.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes yes.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Stockman votes yes.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand votes yes.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes yes.
    Mr. Largent?
    Mr. Largent. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Largent votes yes.
    Mr. Hilleary?
    Mr. Hilleary. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary votes yes.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes yes.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Ms. Myrick. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes yes.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Brown votes no.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. Geren?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes no.
    Mr. Cramer?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia?
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia votes yes.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Harman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mr. Minge?
    Mr. Minge. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Minge votes no.
    Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. Yes. No, excuse me. Change my vote to no.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes no.
    Mr. Hastings?
    Mr. Hastings. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
    Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes yes.
    Ms. McCarthy?
    Mrs. McCarthy. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. McCarthy votes yes.
    Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
    Mr. Doggett?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle?
    Mr. Doyle. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes no.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members that wish to be 
recognized to vote?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Clerk will report.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, the roll call vote is: yes, 34; 
no, 8.
    The Chairman. The bill is therefore ordered reported.
    The Chair will recognize Mr. Ehlers for a motion.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I move, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 20 of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives that the Committee authorize the 
Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House 
to go to conference with the Senate on the Bill HR 1601 or a 
similar Senate bill.
    The Chairman. The Committee has heard the motion.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The motion is agreed to.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California?
    Mr. Brown. May I inquire to the actions we take to provide 
for the usual three days for the minority.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin included that in 
his motion.
    Mr. Brown. He included a statement that the majority views 
could be there, but I distinctly did not hear three days.
    The Chairman. The gentleman did say that we would have 
three days for all members to file.
    Mr. Brown. All right.
    The Chairman. That concludes our markup on the measure HR 
1601, the International Space Station Authorization Act of 
1995.