[House Report 104-233]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-233
_______________________________________________________________________


 
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL 
                               YEAR 1996

_______________________________________________________________________


 August 4, 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

                    ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                                  and

THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE MARKUPS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 
              AND AERONAUTICS AND THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                        [To accompany H.R. 2043]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 2043) to authorize appropriations to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for human space flight, 
science, aeronautics, and technology, mission support, and 
Inspector General, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Amendment........................................................3
 II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................17
III. Background and Need for Legislation.............................18
 IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................19
  V. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................21
 VI. Sectional Analysis and Committee Views..........................24
          Section 1. Short Title.................................    24
          Section 2. Findings....................................    24
          Section 3. Definitions.................................    25
          Section 101. Human Space Flight........................    25
              The Space Shuttle..................................    25
              Russian Cooperation................................    27
          Section 102. Science, Aeronautics, and Technology......    28
              Space Science......................................    28
              Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications....    35
              Mission to Planet Earth............................    35
              Space Access and Technology........................    42
              Aeronautical Research and Technology...............    48
              Mission Communication Services.....................    49
              Academic Programs..................................    49
          Section 103. Mission Support...........................    50
          Section 104. Inspector General.........................    51
          Section 105. Total Authorization.......................    51
          Section 106. Additional Authorization and Corresponding 
            Reduction............................................    51
          Section 107. Limited Availability......................    52
          Section 111. Findings..................................    52
          Section 112. Asset-Based Review........................    53
          Section 121. Use of Funds for Construction.............    55
          Section 122. Availability of Appropriated Amounts......    56
          Section 123. Reprogramming for Construction of 
            Facilities...........................................    56
          Section 124. Consideration by Committees...............    56
          Section 125. Limitation on Obligation of Unauthorized 
            Appropriations.......................................    56
          Section 126. Use of Funds for Scientific Consultations 
            or Extraordinary Expenses............................    57
          Section 127. Limitation on Transfers to Russia.........    57
          Section 201. Commercial Space Launch Amendments........    58
          Section 202. Office of Air and Space Commercialization 
            Authorization........................................    62
          Section 203. Requirement for Independent Cost Analysis.    63
          Section 204. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 
            Amendments...........................................    63
          Section 205. Procurement...............................    64
          Section 206. Additional National Aeronautics and Space 
            Administration Facilities............................    65
          Section 207. Purchase of Space Science Data............    65
          Section 208. Report on Mission to Planet Earth.........    65
          Section 209. Shuttle Privatization.....................    66
          Section 210. Aeronautical Research and Technology 
            Facilities...........................................    67
          Section 211. Launch Voucher Demonstration Program 
            Amendments...........................................    67
          Section 212. Privatization of Microgravity Parabolic 
            Flight Operations....................................    67
          Section 213. Eligibility for Awards....................    68
          Section 214. Prohibition of Lobbying Activities........    68
          Section 215. Limitation on Appropriations..............    68
          Section 216. Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 
            Amendments...........................................    69
VII. Committee Action................................................69
VIII.Committee Cost Estimates........................................72

 IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimates......................73
  X. Effects of Legislation on Inflation.............................75
 XI. Oversight Findings and Recommendations..........................75
XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight.................................75
XIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........75

XIV. Additional and Dissenting Views.................................90
 XV. Proceedings from the Subcommittee Markup of the Chairman's Mark100
XVI. Proceedings from the Committee Markup of the Chairman's Mark...239
                              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 ``National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1996''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  The Congress makes the following findings:
          (1) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has 
        failed to request sufficient funds to perform all missions it 
        has proposed in annual budget requests. For fiscal year 1996, 
        the budget requested is $140,000,000 below the amount required 
        to fulfill program commitments made by the fiscal year 1995 
        budget approved by Congress. The request for fiscal year 1996 
        proposes continued underfunding of the requirements of the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration by $439,000,000 
        for fiscal year 1997, $847,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, 
        $1,189,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and $1,532,000,000 for 
        fiscal year 2000.
          (2) In order to close the gap between projected program 
        requirements and the underfunding requested, the National 
        Aeronautics and Space Administration should aggressively pursue 
        actions and reforms directed at reducing institutional costs, 
        including management restructuring, facility consolidation, 
        procurement reform, personnel base downsizing, and convergence 
        with other defense and private sector systems.
          (3) While institutional reforms, restructurings, and 
        downsizing hold the promise of comporting the projected needs 
        of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration with 
        funding levels requested by the Administration, such reforms 
        provide no guarantee against cancellation of missions in the 
        event reform efforts fail to achieve cost reduction targets.
          (4) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration must 
        reverse its current trend toward becoming an operational 
        agency, and return to its proud history as the Nation's leader 
        in basic scientific air and space research.
          (5) Commercial space activity is in a delicate stage of 
        growth but has the potential to eclipse Federal space activity 
        in its economic return to the Nation if not stifled.
          (6) The United States is on the verge of creating and using 
        new technologies in microsatellites, information processing, 
        and space launch that could radically alter the manner in which 
        the Government approaches its space mission.
          (7) The overwhelming preponderance of the Federal 
        Government's requirements for routine, nonemergency manned and 
        unmanned space transportation can be most effectively, 
        efficiently, and economically met by a free and competitive 
        market in privately developed and operated launch services.
          (8) In formulating a national space transportation service 
        policy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        should agressively pursue reverse contracting opportunities to 
        support the private sector development of advanced space 
        transportation technologies including reusable space vehicles, 
        single-stage-to-orbit vehicles, and manned space systems.
          (9) International cooperation in space exploration and 
        science activities serves the United States national interest--
                  (A) when it--
                          (i) reduces the cost of undertaking missions 
                        the United States Government would pursue 
                        unilaterally;
                          (ii) enables the United States to pursue 
                        missions that it could not otherwise afford to 
                        pursue unilaterally; or
                          (iii) enhances United States capabilities to 
                        use and develop space for the benefit of United 
                        States citizens; and
                  (B) when it does not--
                          (i) otherwise harm or interfere with the 
                        ability of United States private sector firms 
                        to develop or explore space commercially;
                          (ii) interfere with the ability of Federal 
                        agencies to use space to complete their 
                        missions;
                          (iii) undermine the ability of United States 
                        private enterprise to compete favorably with 
                        foreign entities in the commercial space arena; 
                        or
                          (iv) transfer sensitive or commercially 
                        advantageous technologies or knowledge from the 
                        United States to other countries or foreign 
                        entities except as required by those countries 
                        or entities to make their contribution to a 
                        multilateral space project in partnership with 
                        the United States, or on a quid pro quo basis.
          (10) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and 
        the Department of Defense can cooperate more effectively in 
        leveraging their mutual capabilities to conduct joint space 
        missions that improve United States space capabilities and 
        reduce the cost of conducting space missions.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  For purposes of this Act--
          (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and
          (2) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

                       Subtitle A--Authorizations

SEC. 101. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT.

  (a) Authorizations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1996 for 
Human Space Flight the following amounts:
          (1) For Space Shuttle Operations, $2,341,800,000.
          (2) For Space Shuttle Safety and Performance Upgrades, 
        $837,000,000.
          (3) For Payload and Utilization Operations, $315,000,000.
          (4) For Russian Cooperation, $100,000,000.
  (b) Construction of Facilities.--(1) Of the funds authorized to be 
appropriated under subsection (a)(2), $5,000,000 are authorized for 
modernization of the Firex System, Pads A and B, Kennedy Space Center.
  (2) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under subsection 
(a)(2), $7,500,000 are authorized for replacement of the Chemical 
Analysis Facility, Kennedy Space Center.
  (3) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under subsection 
(a)(2), $4,900,000 are authorized for replacement of the Space Shuttle 
Main Engine Processing Facility, Kennedy Space Center.

SEC. 102. SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY.

  (a) Authorizations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1996 for 
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology the following amounts:
          (1) For Space Science, $1,995,400,000, of which--
                  (A) $1,167,600,000 are authorized for Physics and 
                Astronomy, of which $51,500,000 shall be for the 
                Gravity Probe B, except that no funds are authorized 
                for the Space Infrared Telescope Facility; and
                  (B) $827,800,000 are authorized for Planetary 
                Exploration, of which $30,000,000 shall be for the New 
                Millennium Spacecraft, including $5,000,000 for the 
                National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 
                participation in Clementine 2 (Air Force Program 
                Element 0603401F Advanced Spacecraft Technology).
          (2) For Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, 
        $293,200,000.
          (3) For Mission to Planet Earth, $1,013,100,000, of which 
        $21,500,000 shall only be for activities described in section 
        208(b)(7)(A), except that no funds are authorized for the 
        Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network 
        (except as provided in section 107) or the Topex Poseidon 
        Follow-On mission. Funds authorized by this paragraph may not 
        be expended to duplicate private sector or other Federal 
        activities or to procure systems to provide data unless the 
        Administrator certifies to Congress that no private sector or 
        Federal entity can provide suitable data in a timely manner. 
        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds in excess of 
        those authorized by this paragraph may not be obligated for 
        Mission to Planet Earth.
          (4) For Space Access and Technology, $639,800,000 of which--
                  (A) $193,000,000 are authorized for Advanced Space 
                Transportation;
                  (B) $10,000,000 are authorized to be made available 
                for defraying the costs of converting or redesigning 
                commercially inconsistent elements of former Federal 
                facilities or to take actions required for conformance 
                with Federal laws or regulations relating to commercial 
                space transportation infrastructure, to remain 
                available until expended;
                  (C) $20,000,000 shall be for continuing the Launch 
                Voucher Demonstration Program authorized under section 
                504 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
                Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993 (15 
                U.S.C. 5803); and
                  (D) $33,900,000 are authorized for the Small 
                Spacecraft Technology Initiative, except that funds for 
                such Initiative may not be expended to duplicate 
                private sector activities or to fund any activities 
                that a private sector entity is proposing to carry out 
                for commercial purposes. No funds are authorized under 
                this paragraph for the Partnership for Next Generation 
                Vehicle.
          (5) For Aeronautical Research and Technology, $826,900,000, 
        of which--
                  (A) $354,700,000 are authorized for Research and 
                Technology Base activities;
                  (B) $245,500,000 are authorized for High Speed 
                Research;
                  (C) $133,000,000 are authorized for Advanced Subsonic 
                Technology, except that no funds are authorized for 
                concept studies for Advanced Traffic Management and 
                Affordable Design and Manufacturing;
                  (D) $40,200,000 are authorized for High-Performance 
                Computing and Communications; and
                  (E) $48,100,000 are authorized for Numerical 
                Aerodynamic Simulation.
          (6) For Mission Communication Services, $461,300,000.
          (7) For Academic Programs, $102,200,000.
  (b) Construction of Facilities.--(1) Of the funds authorized to be 
appropriated under subsection (a)(3), $17,000,000 are authorized for 
construction of the Earth Systems Science Building, Goddard Space 
Flight Center.
  (2) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under subsection 
(a)(5), $5,400,000 are authorized for modernization of the Unitary Plan 
Wind Tunnel Complex, Ames Research Center.
  (3) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under subsection 
(a)(2), $3,000,000 are authorized for the construction of an addition 
to the Microgravity and Development Laboratory, Marshall Space Flight 
Center.

SEC. 103. MISSION SUPPORT.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for fiscal year 1996 for Mission Support the 
following amounts:
          (1) For Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance, 
        $37,600,000.
          (2) For Space Communication Services, $319,400,000.
          (3) For Construction of Facilities, including land 
        acquisition, $152,600,000, of which--
                  (A) $6,300,000 shall be for restoration of Flight 
                Systems Research Laboratory, Ames Research Center;
                  (B) $3,000,000 shall be for restoration of chilled 
                water distribution system, Goddard Space Flight Center;
                  (C) $4,800,000 shall be for replacing chillers, 
                various buildings, Jet Propulsion Laboratory;
                  (D) $1,100,000 shall be for rehabilitation of 
                electrical distribution system, White Sands Test 
                Facility, Johnson Space Center;
                  (E) $4,200,000 shall be for replacement of main 
                substation switchgear and circuit breakers, Johnson 
                Space Center;
                  (F) $1,800,000 shall be for replacement of 15kV load 
                break switches, Kennedy Space Center;
                  (G) $9,000,000 shall be for rehabilitation of Central 
                Air Equipment Building, Lewis Research Center;
                  (H) $4,700,000 shall be for restoration of high 
                pressure air compressor system, Marshall Space Flight 
                Center;
                  (I) $6,800,000 shall be for restoration of 
                Information and Electronic Systems Laboratory, Marshall 
                Space Flight Center;
                  (J) $1,400,000 shall be for restoration of canal 
                lock, Stennis Space Center;
                  (K) $2,500,000 shall be for restoration of primary 
                electrical distribution system, Wallops Flight 
                Facility;
                  (L) $30,000,000 shall be for repair of facilities at 
                various locations, not in excess of $1,500,000 per 
                project;
                  (M) $30,000,000 shall be for rehabilitation and 
                modification of facilities at various locations, not in 
                excess of $1,500,000 per project;
                  (N) $2,000,000 shall be for minor construction of new 
                facilities and additions to existing facilities at 
                various locations, not in excess of $750,000 per 
                project;
                  (O) $10,000,000 shall be for facility planning and 
                design not otherwise provided for; and
                  (P) $35,000,000 shall be for environmental compliance 
                and restoration.
          (4) For Research and Program Management, including personnel 
        and related costs, travel, and research operations support, 
        $2,094,800,000.

SEC. 104. INSPECTOR GENERAL.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for Inspector General, $17,300,000 for fiscal 
year 1996.

SEC. 105. TOTAL AUTHORIZATION.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the total amount 
authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration under this Act shall not exceed $11,547,400,000 for 
fiscal year 1996.

SEC. 106. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND CORRESPONDING REDUCTION.

  (a) Authorization.--In addition to amounts authorized by section 
102(a)(3), there are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1996 for Mission 
to Planet Earth $274,360,000, to be derived from amounts otherwise 
authorized by this Act.
  (b) Operating Plan.--The Administrator shall, within 30 days after 
the later of--
          (1) the date of the enactment of this Act; and
          (2) the date of the enactment of the Act making 
        appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration for fiscal year 1996,
transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives 
and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate an operating plan which identifies which amounts will be 
transfered purusant to subsection (a).
  (c) Limitation on Obligation and Expenditure.--None of the funds 
authorized by subsection (a) shall be available for obligation or 
expenditure until--
          (1) the National Academy of Sciences has conducted a 
        comprehensive review of the Mission to Planet Earth program as 
        part of its study of the United States Global Change Research 
        Program;
          (2) the Administrator has reported to the Committee on 
        Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a plan for 
        implementing the study's recommendations and a formal request 
        for all or part of such funds; and
          (3) 90 legislative days have passed after the report is 
        transmitted under paragraph (2).

SEC. 107. LIMITED AVAILABILITY.

  Nothing in this Act shall interfere with the rights of any parties 
under contracts. Nothing in this Act shall preclude the Consortium for 
International Earth Science Information Network from receiving a 
contract awarded following a full and open competition.

     Subtitle B--Restructuring the National Aeronautics and Space 
                             Administration

SEC. 111. FINDINGS.

  The Congress finds that--
          (1) the restructuring of the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration is essential to accomplishing the space missions 
        of the United States while simultaneously balancing the Federal 
        budget;
          (2) to restructure the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration rapidly without reducing mission content and 
        safety requires objective financial judgment;
          (3) no effort has been undertaken by the National Aeronautics 
        and Space Administration to perform a formal economic review of 
        its missions and the Federal assets that support them;
          (4) therefore it is premature and unwarranted to attempt 
        closing any National Aeronautics and Space Administration field 
        center until an asset-based review of United States space 
        missions and capabilities to support them is performed; and
          (5) cost savings from the closing of National Aeronautics and 
        Space Administration field centers are speculative and 
        potentially injurious to mission goals, unless derived from an 
        asset-based analysis.

SEC. 112. ASSET-BASED REVIEW.

  (a) Request for Proposals.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall publish in the 
Commerce Business Daily a request for proposals to perform a National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration asset-based review.
  (b) Qualified Proposals.--Qualified proposals to perform the asset-
based review under this section shall be from United States persons 
whose primary business is corporate financial strategy, investment 
banking, accounting, or asset management. All proposals shall, at a 
minimum, propose to review, for each capital asset owned by the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration--
          (1) its primary function or purpose in relationship to a 
        program, mission, or activity of the National Aeronautics and 
        Space Administration;
          (2) the existence of other capital assets which duplicate or 
        overlap with such function or purpose;
          (3) the Federal and non-Federal users thereof; and
          (4) its necessity to carry out a program, mission, or 
        activity of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
  (c) Report.--The contractor selected to perform the asset-based 
review under this section shall complete such review and transmit to 
the Administrator and the Congress, no later than July 31, 1996, a 
report containing, at a minimum--
          (1) for each National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        field center facility--
                  (A) a list of capital assets that should be 
                permanently retired or disposed of;
                  (B) a list of capital assets that may be transferred 
                to non-Federal institutions and corporations, if the 
                transfer of such asset is cost effective; and
                  (C) a list of capital assets essential to the conduct 
                of National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
                programs, missions, or activities, and a justification 
                for retaining the asset;
          (2) for each National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        program element--
                  (A) a list of capital assets essential to the conduct 
                of the program element; and
                  (B) a plan for achieving the most cost-effective 
                consolidation and efficient use of necessary capital 
                assets to support such program element, including the 
                use of non-Federal assets where appropriate; and
          (3) for each National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        capital asset--
                  (A) the total annual cost of maintaining and 
                operating such capital asset, including Federal 
                employee and contractor costs;
                  (B) the depreciated cost, replacement cost, and 
                salvage value; and
                  (C) the most cost-effective strategy for maintaining, 
                replacing, upgrading, or disposing of the capital 
                asset, as appropriate.
  (d) Implementation.--The Administrator shall consider the results of 
the asset-based review conducted under this section, and based on the 
Administrator's recommendations, the President shall propose to 
Congress legislation required to implement those recommendations no 
later than September 30, 1996.
  (e) Closing of Field Centers.--The Administrator shall not close any 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration field center until after 
the asset-based review report is transmitted under subsection (c), and 
may only close field centers that would become obsolete as a result of 
the implementation of the Administrator's recommendations, and may do 
so only after enactment of legislation implementing those 
recommendations.

             Subtitle C--Limitations and Special Authority

SEC. 121. USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

  (a) Authorized Uses.--Funds appropriated under sections 101(a), 
102(a), and 103 (1) and (2), and funds appropriated for research 
operations support under section 103(4), may be used for the 
construction of new facilities and additions to, repair of, 
rehabilitation of, or modification of existing facilities at any 
location in support of the purposes for which such funds are 
authorized.
  (b) Limitation.--None of the funds used pursuant to subsection (a) 
may be expended for a project, the estimated cost of which to the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, including collateral 
equipment, exceeds $500,000, until 30 days have passed after the 
Administrator has notified the Committee on Science of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate of the nature, location, and estimated 
cost to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of such 
project.
  (c) Title to Facilities.--If funds are used pursuant to subsection 
(a) for grants to institutions of higher education, or to nonprofit 
organizations whose primary purpose is the conduct of scientific 
research, for purchase or construction of additional research 
facilities, title to such facilities shall be vested in the United 
States unless the Administrator determines that the national program of 
aeronautical and space activities will best be served by vesting title 
in the grantee institution or organization. Each such grant shall be 
made under such conditions as the Administrator shall determine to be 
required to ensure that the United States will receive therefrom 
benefits adequate to justify the making of that grant.

SEC. 122. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS.

  To the extent provided in appropriations Acts, appropriations 
authorized under subtitle A may remain available without fiscal year 
limitation.

SEC. 123. REPROGRAMMING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES.

  (a) In General.--Appropriations authorized under any paragraph of 
section 101(b), 102(b), or 103(3)--
          (1) may be varied upward by 10 percent in the discretion of 
        the Administrator; or
          (2) may be varied upward by 25 percent, to meet unusual cost 
        variations, after the expiration of 15 days following a report 
        on the circumstances of such action by the Administrator to the 
        Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
        Senate.
The aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated under sections 
101(b), 102(b) and 103(3) shall not be increased as a result of actions 
authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection.
  (b) Special Rule.--Where the Administrator determines that new 
developments in the national program of aeronautical and space 
activities have occurred; and that such developments require the use of 
additional funds for the purposes of construction, expansion, or 
modification of facilities at any location; and that deferral of such 
action until the enactment of the next National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act would be inconsistent with the 
interest of the Nation in aeronautical and space activities, the 
Administrator may use up to $10,000,000 of the amounts authorized under 
section 101(b), 102(b), or 103(3) for each fiscal year for such 
purposes. No such funds may be obligated until a period of 30 days has 
passed after the Administrator has transmitted to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee 
on Science of the House of Representatives a written report describing 
the nature of the construction, its costs, and the reasons therefor.

SEC. 124. CONSIDERATION BY COMMITTEES.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
          (1) no amount appropriated to the National Aeronautics and 
        Space Administration may be used for any program for which the 
        President's annual budget request included a request for 
        funding, but for which the Congress denied or did not provide 
        funding;
          (2) no amount appropriated to the National Aeronautics and 
        Space Administration may be used for any program in excess of 
        the amount actually authorized for the particular program by 
        subtitle A; and
          (3) no amount appropriated to the National Aeronautics and 
        Space Administration may be used for any program which has not 
        been presented to the Congress in the President's annual budget 
        request or the supporting and ancillary documents thereto,
unless a period of 30 days has passed after the receipt by the 
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate of notice given 
by the Administrator containing a full and complete statement of the 
action proposed to be taken and the facts and circumstances relied upon 
in support of such proposed action. The National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration shall keep the Committee on Science of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate fully and currently informed with respect 
to all activities and responsibilities within the jurisdiction of those 
committees. Except as otherwise provided by law, any Federal 
department, agency, or independent establishment shall furnish any 
information requested by either committee relating to any such activity 
or responsibility.

SEC. 125. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after the later of 
the date of enactment of an Act making appropriations to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1996 and the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit a report to 
Congress and to the Comptroller General which specifies--
          (1) the portion of such appropriations which are for 
        programs, projects, or activities not authorized under subtitle 
        A of this title, or which are in excess of amounts authorized 
        for the relevant program, project, or activity under this Act; 
        and
          (2) the portion of such appropriations which are authorized 
        under this Act.
  (b) Federal Register Notice.--The Administrator shall, coincident 
with the submission of the report required by subsection (a), publish 
in the Federal Register a notice of all programs, projects, or 
activities for which funds are appropriated but which were not 
authorized under this Act, and solicit public comment thereon regarding 
the impact of such programs, projects, or activities on the conduct and 
effectiveness of the national aeronautics and space program.
  (c) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
may be obligated for any programs, projects, or activities of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1996 not 
authorized under this Act until 30 days have passed after the close of 
the public comment period contained in the notice required in 
subsection (b).

SEC. 126. USE OF FUNDS FOR SCIENTIFIC CONSULTATIONS OR EXTRAORDINARY 
                    EXPENSES.

  Not more than $30,000 of the funds appropriated under section 102 may 
be used for scientific consultations or extraordinary expenses, upon 
the authority of the Administrator.

SEC. 127. LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS TO RUSSIA.

  (a) Limitation.--No funds authorized to be appropriated to the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1996 may 
be paid or otherwise transferred to Russia unless--
          (1) the payment or transfer is authorized by this Act;
          (2) the payment or transfer is made in exchange for goods or 
        services that have been provided to the National Aeronautics 
        and Space Administration in accordance with a written agreement 
        between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and 
        Russia;
          (3) the Government of the Russian Federation agrees to 
        provide a monthly report to the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration during the term of such written agreement, that 
        fully accounts for the disposition of the funds paid or 
        transferred, including information with respect to the 
        preceding month on--
                  (A) the amount of the funds received, and the date of 
                receipt;
                  (B) the amount of the funds converted from United 
                States currency, the currency into which the funds have 
                been converted, and the date and rate of conversion;
                  (C) the amount of non-United States currency, and of 
                United States currency, that is disbursed to any 
                contractor or subcontractor, the identity of such 
                contractor or subcontractor, and the date of 
                disbursement; and
                  (D) the balance of the funds not disbursed as of the 
                date of the report;
          (4) Russia has provided all monthly reports with respect to 
        which an agreement was made pursuant to paragraph (3); and
          (5) the President, before such payment or transfer and 
        annually upon submission of the President's budget request for 
        fiscal years after fiscal year 1996, has certified to the 
        Congress that--
                  (A) the presence of any troops of the Russian 
                Federation or the Commonwealth of Independent States; 
                and
                  (B) any action by the Russian Federation or the 
                Commonwealth of Independent States,
        in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or any other independent state 
        of the former Soviet Union do not violate the sovereignty of 
        those independent states.
  (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``Russia'' 
means the Government of the Russian Federation, the Russian Space 
Agency, or any agency or instrumentality of the Government of the 
Russian Federation or the Russian Space Agency.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Amendments.--Chapter 701 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended--
          (1) in the table of sections--
                  (A) by amending the item relating to section 70104 to 
                read as follows:

``70104. Restrictions on launches, operations, and reentries.'';

                  (B) by amending the item relating to section 70108 to 
                read as follows:

``70108. Prohibition, suspension, and end of launches, operation of 
launch sites and reentry sites, and reentries.'';

                and
                  (C) by amending the item relating to section 70109 to 
                read as follows:

``70109. Preemption of scheduled launches or reentries.'';

          (2) in section 70101--
                  (A) by inserting ``microgravity research,'' after 
                ``information services,'' in subsection (a)(3);
                  (B) by inserting ``, reentry,'' after ``launching'' 
                both places it appears in subsection (a)(4);
                  (C) by inserting ``, reentry vehicles,'' after 
                ``launch vehicles'' in subsection (a)(5);
                  (D) by inserting ``and reentry services'' after 
                ``launch services'' in subsection (a)(6);
                  (E) by inserting ``, reentries,'' after ``launches'' 
                both places it appears in subsection (a)(7);
                  (F) by inserting ``, reentry sites,'' after ``launch 
                sites'' in subsection (a)(8);
                  (G) by inserting ``and reentry services'' after 
                ``launch services'' in subsection (a)(8);
                  (H) by inserting ``reentry sites,'' after ``launch 
                sites,'' in subsection (a)(9);
                  (I) by inserting ``and reentry site'' after ``launch 
                site'' in subsection (a)(9);
                  (J) by inserting ``, reentry vehicles,'' after 
                ``launch vehicles'' in subsection (b)(2);
                  (K) by striking ``launch'' in subsection (b)(2)(A);
                  (L) by inserting ``and reentry'' after ``commercial 
                launch'' in subsection (b)(3);
                  (M) by striking ``launch'' after ``and transfer 
                commercial'' in subsection (b)(3); and
                  (N) by inserting ``and development of reentry 
                sites,'' after ``launch-site support facilities,'' in 
                subsection (b)(4);
          (3) in section 70102--
                  (A) by inserting ``from Earth'' after ``and any 
                payload'' in paragraph (3);
                  (B) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (12) as 
                paragraphs (14) through (16), respectively;
                  (C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following 
                new paragraphs:
          ``(10) `reenter' and `reentry' mean to return or attempt to 
        return, purposefully, a reentry vehicle and its payload, if 
        any, from Earth orbit, from exo-atmospheric flight, or from 
        outer space to Earth.
          ``(11) `reentry services' means--
                  ``(A) activities involved in the preparation of a 
                reentry vehicle and its payload, if any, for reentry; 
                and
                  ``(B) the conduct of a reentry.
          ``(12) `reentry site' means the location on Earth to which a 
        reentry vehicle is intended to return (as defined in a license 
        the Secretary issues or transfers under this chapter).
          ``(13) `reentry vehicle' means a vehicle designed to return 
        from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, or a reusable launch 
        vehicle designed to return from outer space or exo-atmospheric 
        flight to Earth, substantially intact.''; and
                  (D) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after 
                ``launch services'' each place it appears in paragraph 
                (15), as so redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this 
                paragraph;
          (4) in section 70103(b)--
                  (A) by inserting ``and Reentries'' after ``Launches'' 
                in the subsection heading;
                  (B) by inserting ``and reentries'' after ``space 
                launches'' in paragraph (1); and
                  (C) by inserting ``and reentry'' after ``space 
                launch'' in paragraph (2);
          (5) in section 70104--
                  (A) by amending the section designation and heading 
                to read as follows:

``Sec. 70104. Restrictions on launches, operations, and reentries'';

                  (B) by inserting ``or reentry site, or reenter a 
                reentry vehicle,'' after ``operate a launch site'' each 
                place it appears in subsection (a);
                  (C) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``launch or 
                operation'' in subsection (a)(3) and (4);
                  (D) in subsection (b)--
                          (i) by striking ``launch license'' and 
                        inserting in lieu thereof ``license'';
                          (ii) by inserting ``or reenter'' after ``may 
                        launch''; and
                          (iii) by inserting ``or reentering'' after 
                        ``related to launching''; and
                  (E) in subsection (c)--
                          (i) by amending the subsection heading to 
                        read as follows: ``Preventing Launches and 
                        Reentries.--'';
                          (ii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after 
                        ``prevent the launch''; and
                          (iii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after 
                        ``decides the launch'';
          (6) in section 70105--
                  (A) by inserting ``or reentry site, or reentry of a 
                reentry vehicle,'' after ``operation of a launch site'' 
                in subsection (b)(1); and
                  (B) by striking ``or operation'' and inserting in 
                lieu thereof ``, operation, or reentry'' in subsection 
                (b)(2)(A);
          (7) in section 70106(a)--
                  (A) by inserting ``or reentry site'' after ``observer 
                at a launch site''; and
                  (B) by inserting ``or reentry vehicle'' after 
                ``assemble a launch vehicle'';
          (8) in section 70108--
                  (A) by amending the section designation and heading 
                to read as follows:

``Sec. 70108. Prohibition, suspension, and end of launches, operation 
                    of launch sites and reentry sites, and reentries'';

                and
                  (B) in subsection (a)--
                          (i) by inserting ``or reentry site, or 
                        reentry of a reentry vehicle,'' after 
                        ``operation of a launch site''; and
                          (ii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after 
                        ``launch or operation'';
          (9) in section 70109--
                  (A) by amending the section designation and heading 
                to read as follows:

``Sec. 70109. Preemption of scheduled launches or reentries'';

                  (B) in subsection (a)--
                          (i) by inserting ``or reentry'' after 
                        ``ensure that a launch'';
                          (ii) by inserting ``, reentry site,'' after 
                        ``United States Government launch site'';
                          (iii) by inserting ``or reentry date 
                        commitment'' after ``launch date commitment'';
                          (iv) by inserting ``or reentry'' after 
                        ``obtained for a launch'';
                          (v) by inserting ``, reentry site,'' after 
                        ``access to a launch site'';
                          (vi) by inserting ``, or services related to 
                        a reentry,'' after ``amount for launch 
                        services''; and
                          (vii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``the 
                        scheduled launch''; and
                  (C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or reentry'' 
                after ``prompt launching'';
          (10) in section 70110--
                  (A) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``prevent the 
                launch'' in subsection (a)(2); and
                  (B) by inserting ``or reentry site, or reentry of a 
                reentry vehicle,'' after ``operation of a launch site'' 
                in subsection (a)(3)(B);
          (11) in section 70111--
                  (A) by inserting ``and reentry services'' after 
                ``launch services'' in subsection (a)(1)(B);
                  (B) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after ``or 
                launch services'' in subsection (a)(2);
                  (C) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``commercial 
                launch'' both places it appears in subsection (b)(1);
                  (D) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after 
                ``launch services'' in subsection (b)(2)(C);
                  (E) by striking ``or its payload for launch'' in 
                subsection (d) and inserting in lieu thereof ``or 
                reentry vehicle, or the payload of either, for launch 
                or reentry''; and
                  (F) by inserting ``, reentry vehicle,'' after 
                ``manufacturer of the launch vehicle'' in subsection 
                (d);
          (12) in section 70112--
                  (A) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``one launch'' 
                in subsection (a)(3);
                  (B) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after 
                ``launch services'' in subsection (a)(4);
                  (C) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after 
                ``launch services'' each place it appears in subsection 
                (b);
                  (D) by striking ``, Space, and Technology'' in 
                subsection (d)(1);
                  (E) by inserting ``or Reentries'' after ``Launches'' 
                in the heading for subsection (e); and
                  (F) by inserting ``or reentry site or a reentry'' 
                after ``launch site'' in subsection (e);
          (13) in section 70113(a)(1) and (d)(1) and (2), by inserting 
        ``or reentry'' after ``one launch'' each place it appears;
          (14) in section 70115(b)(1)(D)(i)--
                  (A) by inserting ``reentry site,'' after ``launch 
                site,''; and
                  (B) by inserting ``or reentry vehicle'' after 
                ``launch vehicle'' both places it appears;
          (15) in section 70117--
                  (A) by inserting ``or reentry site or reenter a 
                reentry vehicle'' after ``operate a launch site'' in 
                subsection (a);
                  (B) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``approval of a 
                space launch'' in subsection (d);
                  (C) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
  ``(f) Launch Not an Export; Reentry Not an Import.--A launch vehicle, 
reentry vehicle, or payload that is launched or reentered is not, 
because of the launch or reentry, an export or import, respectively, 
for purposes of a law controlling exports or imports.''; and
                  (D) in subsection (g)--
                          (i) by striking ``operation of a launch 
                        vehicle or launch site,'' in paragraph (1) and 
                        inserting in lieu thereof ``reentry, operation 
                        of a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle, or 
                        operation of a launch site or reentry site,'';
                          (ii) by striking ``or'' at the end of 
                        paragraph (1);
                          (iii) by inserting ``reentry,'' after 
                        ``launch,'' in paragraph (2);
                          (iv) by striking the period at the end of 
                        paragraph (2) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; 
                        or''; and
                          (v) by adding at the end the following new 
                        paragraph:
          ``(3) any amateur and similar small rocket activities, as 
        defined by the Secretary by regulation.'';
          (16) in section 70119, by inserting the following after 
        paragraph (2):
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
Transportation $6,000,000 to carry out this chapter for fiscal year 
1996. None of the funds authorized by this section may be expended for 
policy development or analysis activities not directly related to the 
Secretary's regulatory responsibilities under this chapter.''.
  (b) Additional Amendments.--(1) Section 70105 of title 49, United 
States Code, is amended--
          (A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``A person may apply'' in 
        subsection (a);
          (B) by striking ``receiving an application'' both places it 
        appears in subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``accepting an application in accordance with criteria 
        established pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(D)'';
          (C) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following new 
        paragraph:
  ``(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary may establish 
procedures for certification of the safety of a launch vehicle, reentry 
vehicle, or safety system, procedure, service, or personnel that may be 
used in conducting licensed commercial space launch or reentry 
activities.'';
          (D) by striking ``and'' at the end of subsection (b)(2)(B);
          (E) by striking the period at the end of subsection (b)(2)(C) 
        and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and'';
          (F) by adding at the end of subsection (b)(2) the following 
        new subparagraph:
          ``(D) regulations establishing criteria for accepting or 
        rejecting an application for a license under this chapter 
        within 60 days after receipt of such application.''; and
          (G) by inserting ``, or the requirement to obtain a 
        license,'' after ``waive a requirement'' in subsection (b)(3).
  (2) The amendment made by paragraph (1)(B) shall take effect upon the 
effective date of final regulations issued pursuant to section 
70105(b)(2)(D) of title 49, United States Code, as added by paragraph 
(1)(F) of this subsection.
  (3) Section 70102(5) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
          (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
        subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and
          (B) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so redesignated 
        by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the following new 
        subparagraph:
                  ``(A) activities directly related to the preparation 
                of a launch site or payload facility for one or more 
                launches;''.
  (4) Section 70103(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
          (A) in the subsection heading, as amended by subsection 
        (a)(4)(A) of this section, by inserting ``and State Sponsored 
        Spaceports'' after ``and Reentries''; and
          (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and State sponsored 
        spaceports'' after ``private sector''.
  (5) Section 70105(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, as amended 
by subsection (b)(1) of this section, is amended by inserting at the 
end the following: ``The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation of the Senate a written notice not later 
than 7 days after any occurrence when a license is not issued within 
the deadline established by this subsection.''.
  (6) Section 70111 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
          (A) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting after subparagraph (B) 
        the following:
``The Secretary shall establish criteria and procedures for determining 
the priority of competing requests from the private sector and State 
governments for property and services under this section.'';
          (B) by striking ``actual costs'' in subsection (b)(1) and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``additive costs only''; and
          (C) by inserting after subsection (b)(2) the following new 
        paragraph:
  ``(3) The Secretary shall ensure the establishment of uniform 
guidelines for, and consistent implementation of, this section by all 
Federal agencies.''.
  (7) Section 70112 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
          (A) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``launch, reentry, or 
        site operator'' after ``(1) When a'';
          (B) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``launch, reentry, or 
        site operator'' after ``(1) A''; and
          (C) in subsection (f), by inserting ``launch, reentry, or 
        site operator'' after ``carried out under a''.

SEC. 202. OFFICE OF AIR AND SPACE COMMERCIALIZATION AUTHORIZATION.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce 
for the activities of the Office of Air and Space Commercialization, 
$457,000 for fiscal year 1996.

SEC. 203. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS.

  The Chief Financial Officer for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration shall be responsible for conducting independent cost 
analyses of all new projects estimated to cost more than $5,000,000 and 
shall report the results annually to Congress at the time of the 
submission of the President's budget request. In developing cost 
accounting and reporting standards for carrying out this section, the 
Chief Financial Officer shall, to the extent practicable and consistent 
with other laws, solicit the advice of expertise outside of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

SEC. 204. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958 AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Declaration of Policy and Purpose.--Section 102 of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451) is amended--
          (1) by striking subsection (e) and redesignating subsections 
        (f) through (h) as subsections (e) through (g), respectively; 
        and
          (2) in subsection (g), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of 
        this subsection, by striking ``(f), and (g)'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``and (f)''.
  (b) Reports to the Congress.--Section 206(a) of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2476(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``January'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``May''; and
          (2) by striking ``calendar'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``fiscal''.
  (c) Disclosure of Technical Data.--Section 303 of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2454) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)(C), by inserting ``or (c)'' after 
        ``subsection (b)''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(c)(1) The Administration may delay for a period not to exceed 5 
years the unrestricted public disclosure of technical data in the 
possession of, or under the control of, the Administration that has 
been generated in the performance of experimental, developmental, or 
research activities or programs funded jointly by the Administration 
and the private sector.
  ``(2) Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 
1996, the Administrator shall issue regulations to carry out this 
subsection. Paragraph (1) shall not take effect until such regulations 
are issued.
  ``(3) Regulations issued pursuant to paragraph (2) shall include--
          ``(A) guidelines for a determination of whether data is 
        technical data within the meaning of this subsection;
          ``(B) a requirement that a determination described in 
        subparagraph (A) that particular data is technical data shall 
        be reported to the Committee on Science of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
        Transportation of the Senate;
          ``(C) provisions to ensure that technical data is available 
        for dissemination within the United States to United States 
        persons and entities in furtherance of the objective of 
        maintaining leadership or competitiveness in civil and 
        governmental aeronautical and space activities by the United 
        States industrial base; and
          ``(D) a specification of the period or periods for which the 
        delay in unrestricted public disclosure of technical data is to 
        apply to various categories of such data, and the restrictions 
        on disclosure of such data during such period or periods, 
        including a requirement that the maximum 5-year protection 
        under this subsection shall not be provided unless at least 50 
        percent of the funding for the activities or programs is 
        provided by the private sector.
  ``(4) Along with the initial publication of proposed regulations 
under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall include a list of those 
experimental, developmental, or research activities or programs 
conducted by, or funded in whole or in part by, the Administration that 
may result in products or processes of significant value in maintaining 
leadership or competitiveness in civil and governmental aeronautical 
and space activities by the United States industrial base. Such list 
shall be updated biannually.
  ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `technical data' 
means any recorded information, including computer software, that is or 
may be directly applicable to the design, engineering, development, 
production, manufacture, or operation of products or processes that may 
have significant value in maintaining leadership or competitiveness in 
civil and governmental aeronautical and space activities by the United 
States industrial base.''.

SEC. 205. PROCUREMENT.

  (a) Procurement Demonstration Program.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish within the 
        Office of Space Access and Technology a program of expedited 
        technology procurement for the purpose of demonstrating how 
        innovative technology concepts can rapidly be brought to bear 
        upon space missions of the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration.
          (2) Procedures and evaluation.--The Administrator shall 
        establish procedures for actively seeking from persons outside 
        the National Aeronautics and Space Administration innovative 
        technology concepts relating to the provision of space 
        hardware, technology, or services to the National Aeronautics 
        and Space Administration, and for the evaluation of such 
        concepts by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 
        Advisory Council against mission requirements.
          (3) Requirement.--At least 1 percent of amounts authorized to 
        be appropriated under section 102(a)(4) shall be used for 
        innovative technology procurements that are determined under 
        paragraph (2) of this subsection to meet mission requirements.
          (4) Special authority.--In order to carry out this subsection 
        the Administrator shall recruit and hire for limited term 
        appointments persons from outside the National Aeronautics and 
        Space Administration with special expertise and experience 
        related to the innovative technology concepts with respect to 
        which procurements are made under this subsection.
          (5) Sunset.--This subsection shall cease to be effective 10 
        years after the date of its enactment.
  (b) Technology Procurement Initiative.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall coordinate National 
        Aeronautics and Space Administration resources in the areas of 
        procurement, commercial programs, and advanced technology in 
        order to--
                  (A) fairly assess and procure commercially available 
                technology from the marketplace in the most efficient 
                manner practicable;
                  (B) achieve a continuous pattern of integrating 
                advanced technology from the commercial sector, and 
                from Federal sources outside the National Aeronautics 
                and Space Administration, into the missions and 
                programs of the National Aeronautics and Space 
                Administration;
                  (C) incorporate private sector buying and bidding 
                procedures, including fixed price contracts, into 
                procurements; and
                  (D) provide incentives for cost-plus contractors of 
                the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to 
                integrate commercially available technology in 
                subsystem contracts on a fixed-price basis.
          (2) Certification.--Upon solicitation of any procurement for 
        space hardware, technology, or services that are not 
        commercially available, the Administrator shall certify, by 
        publication of a notice and opportunity to comment in the 
        Commerce Business Daily, for each such procurement action, that 
        no functional equivalent, commercially available space 
        hardware, technology, or service exists and that no commercial 
        method of procurement is available.

SEC. 206. ADDITIONAL NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 
                    FACILITIES.

  The Administrator shall not construct or enter into a new lease for 
facilities to support National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
programs unless the Administrator has certified to the Congress that 
the Administrator has reviewed existing National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration and other federally owned facilities, including military 
facilities scheduled for closing or reduction, and found no such 
facilities appropriate for the intended use.

SEC. 207. PURCHASE OF SPACE SCIENCE DATA.

  (a) In General.--To the maximum extent possible, the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration shall purchase from the private 
sector space science data. Examples of such data include scientific 
data concerning the elemental and mineralogical resources of the moon 
and the planets, Earth environmental data obtained through remote 
sensing observations, and solar storm monitoring.
  (b) Competitive Bidding.--(1) Contracts for the purchase of space 
data under this section shall be awarded in a process of full, fair, 
and open competitive bidding.
  (2) Submission of cost data, either for the purposes of supporting 
the bid or fulfillment of the contract, shall not be required of 
bidders.
  (3) Conformance with military specifications (Milspec) or National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration specifications systems with 
respect to the design, construction, or operation of equipment used in 
obtaining space science data under contracts entered into under this 
section shall not be a requirement for a commercial provider bidding to 
provide such services.
  (4) Contracts under this section shall not provide for the Federal 
Government to obtain ownership of data not specifically sought by the 
Federal Government.

SEC. 208. REPORT ON MISSION TO PLANET EARTH.

  (a) Requirement.--The Administrator shall, within 6 months after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, transmit to the Congress a report on 
Mission to Planet Earth.
  (b) Contents.--The plan required by subsection (a) shall include--
          (1) an analysis of Earth observation systems of other 
        countries and the ways in which the United States could benefit 
        from such systems, including by eliminating duplication of 
        effort;
          (2) an analysis of how the Department of Defense's airborne 
        and space sensor programs could be used in Mission to Planet 
        Earth;
          (3) a plan for infusing advanced technology into the Mission 
        to Planet Earth program, including milestones and an 
        identification of available resources;
          (4) a plan to solicit proposals from the private sector on 
        how to innovatively accomplish the most critical research on 
        global climate change;
          (5) an integrated plan for research in the Scientific 
        Research and Mission to Planet Earth enterprises of the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
          (6) a plan for developing metrics and milestones to quantify 
        the performance of work on Mission to Planet Earth; and
          (7) an analysis of how the United States Government can--
                  (A) most effectively utilize space-based and airborne 
                Earth remote sensing data, services, distribution, and 
                applications provided by the United States private 
                sector to meet Government goals for Mission to Planet 
                Earth; and
                  (B) evaluate and foster commercial data sources, 
                commercial archiving services, commercial applications, 
                and commercial distribution of Mission to Planet Earth 
                data.

SEC. 209. SHUTTLE PRIVATIZATION.

  (a) Policy and Preparation.--The Administrator shall prepare for an 
orderly transition from the Federal operation, or Federal management of 
contracted operation, of space transportation systems to the Federal 
purchase of commercial space transportation services for all 
nonemergency launch requirements, including human, cargo, and mixed 
payloads. In those preparations, the Administrator shall take into 
account the need for short-term economies, as well as the goal of 
restoring the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's research 
focus and its mandate to promote the fullest possible commercial use of 
space. As part of those preparations, the Administrator shall plan for 
the potential privatization of the Space Shuttle program.
  (b) Request for Proposals.--Within 30 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall publish in the Commerce 
Business Daily a request for proposals to achieve a single prime 
contract for the space shuttle program. The request for proposals shall 
include--
          (1) a timetable and milestones for selecting a single prime 
        contractor not later than September 30, 1996;
          (2) criteria for selection of the single prime contractor;
          (3) the annual target cost to be achieved by the single prime 
        contractor;
          (4) proposed terms and conditions of the single prime 
        contract, including fee and incentives for achieving the target 
        cost, and for savings below the target cost; and
          (5) a requirement that each proposal be accompanied by a plan 
        by the proposer to privatize the space shuttle program.
  (c) Privatization Plans.--The Administrator shall forward all 
privatization plans received pursuant to subsection (b)(5) to the 
Congress not later than 30 days after the deadline for submitting 
proposals under subsection (b).
  (d) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds authorized by this 
Act shall be used to plan or prepare for Federal Government, or 
federally contracted, operation of the Space Shuttle beyond the year 
2012, nor for studying, designing, or developing upgrades to the 
Shuttle whose sole purpose is to extend the operational life of the 
Space Shuttle system beyond 2012. Nothing in this Act shall preclude 
the Federal, or federally contracted, operation of the Space Shuttle 
through the year 2012, or the privatized operation of the Space Shuttle 
after the year 2012.

SEC. 210. AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY FACILITIES.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may be obligated 
for fiscal year 1996 for Aeronautical Research and Technology programs 
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in excess of 
amounts authorized by this Act, except to the extent that the 
Administrator receives from non-Federal sources full reimbursement of 
such excess amounts through payment of costs associated with research 
at the aeronautical research and technology facilities of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration.

SEC. 211. LAUNCH VOUCHER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.

  Section 504 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993 (15 U.S.C. 5803) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)--
                  (A) by striking ``the Office of Commercial Programs 
                within''; and
                  (B) by striking ``Such program shall not be effective 
                after September 30, 1995.'';
          (2) by striking subsection (c); and
          (3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
        (c) and (d), respectively.

SEC. 212. PRIVATIZATION OF MICROGRAVITY PARABOLIC FLIGHT OPERATIONS.

  (a) Finding.--The Congress finds that no national security or mission 
critical justification exists for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration to maintain its own fleet of aircraft to provide a short 
duration microgravity environment via parabolic flight.
  (b) Privatization of Flight Operations.--(1) The Administrator shall 
privatize all parabolic flight aircraft operations conducted by or for 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in support of 
microgravity research, astronaut training, and other functions, through 
issuance of one or more long-term, renewable, block purchase contracts 
for the performance of such operations by United States private sector 
providers.
  (2) Within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Administrator shall issue a request for proposals to provide services 
as described in paragraph (1). The Administrator shall coordinate the 
process of review of such proposals, and shall oversee the transfer of 
such operations to the private sector.
  (3) Within 6 months after the issuance of a request for proposals 
under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall award one or more 
contracts for microgravity parabolic flight services, and shall cease 
all National Aeronautics and Space Administration-operated parabolic 
aircraft flights, and shall thereafter procure all microgravity 
parabolic flight services from private sector providers. National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration experimenters, and National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration-funded experimenters, who would 
otherwise use National Aeronautics and Space Administration-owned or 
operated microgravity parabolic flight aircraft, shall be issued 
vouchers for the procurement of microgravity parabolic flight services 
from the private sector.

SEC. 213. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

  (a) In General.--The Administrator shall exclude from consideration 
for awards of financial assistance made by the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration after fiscal year 1995 any person who received 
funds, other than those described in subsection (b), appropriated for a 
fiscal year after fiscal year 1995, from any Federal funding source for 
a project that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award 
process. Any exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section 
shall be effective for a period of 5 years after the person receives 
such Federal funds.
  (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to awards to persons 
who are members of a class specified by law for which assistance is 
awarded to members of the class according to a formula provided by law.

SEC. 214. PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.

  None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be available for any 
activity whose purpose is to influence legislation pending before the 
Congress, except that this shall not prevent officers or employees of 
the United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating 
to Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, 
through the proper channels, requests for legislation or appropriations 
which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public 
business.

SEC. 215. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Exclusive Authorization for Fiscal Year 1996.--Notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, no sums are authorized to be appropriated 
for fiscal year 1996 for the activities for which sums are authorized 
by this Act unless such sums are specifically authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act.
  (b) Subsequent Fiscal Years.--No sums are authorized to be 
appropriated for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1996 for the 
activities for which sums are authorized by this Act unless such sums 
are specifically authorized to be appropriated by Act of Congress with 
respect to such fiscal year.

SEC. 216. UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949 AMENDMENTS.

  The Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 is amended--
          (1) in section 101 (50 U.S.C. 511) by striking ``transsonic 
        and supersonic'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``transonic, 
        supersonic, and hypersonic''; and
          (2) in section 103 (50 U.S.C. 513)--
                  (A) by striking ``laboratories'' in subsection (a) 
                and inserting in lieu thereof ``laboratories and 
                centers'';
                  (B) by striking ``supersonic'' in subsection (a) and 
                inserting in lieu thereof ``transonic, supersonic, and 
                hypersonic''; and
                  (C) by striking ``laboratory'' in subsection (c) and 
                inserting in lieu thereof ``facility''.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 1996 for all programs of the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, except the International Space 
Station; the Department of Transportation Office of Commercial 
Space Transportation; and, the Department of Commerce Office of 
Air and Space Commercialization. The International Space 
Station was authorized in H.R. 1601, the International Space 
Station Authorization Act of 1995 (H.Rpt. 104-210, filed July 
28, 1995). [see chart #1]

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 1996 ESTIMATES
              ANALYSIS OF AGENCY SUPPORT FOR SPACE STATION              
                [By fiscal year, in thousands of dollars]               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       1994         1995         1996   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Space Flight:                                                     
    Space station................   1,939,200    1,889,600    1,833,600 
    Russian cooperation..........      70,800       50,100       29,200 
Science, Aeronautics and                                                
 Technology:                                                            
    Life and microgravity                                               
     sciences and applications:                                         
        Russian cooperation......      52,900       55,600       53,100 
            (Life sciences)......     (31,500)     (16,600)     (20,800)
            (Microgravity).......     (10,200)     (11,300)      (9,300)
            (Spacelab mission                                           
             management).........     (11,200)     (27,700)     (23,000)
        Space station facility                                          
         payloads................      37,000       90,500      137,300 
        Space station                                                   
         utilization:                                                   
            (Life sciences)......  ...........         500        4,200 
            (Microgravity).......       6,100       11,800       16,200 
        Mission to planet earth                                         
         space station attached                                         
         payload.................  ...........  ...........       4,100 
        Space Access and                                                
         Technology Space Station                                       
         Utilization.............  ...........      15,000       37,100 
                                  --------------------------------------
              Total..............   2,106,000    2,113,100    2,114,800 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Space station-related activities are funded in the Human 
Space Flight (HSF) appropriation and in the Science, 
Aeronautics & Technology (SAT) appropriation. Activities funded 
in the HSF appropriation include the development and operation 
of the Space Station, and the flight support component of the 
Russian cooperation program of joint flights to the Mir space 
Station. Both programs are managed by the Office of Space 
Flight. Space Station-related funding in the SAT appropriation 
provides for the development, operation and science research 
association with the scientific, technology and commercial 
payloads being built for utilization of the Space Station or in 
conjunction with the joint Mir program. The majority of these 
activities are managed by the Office of Life and Microgravity 
Sciences and Applications for these discipline-specific 
experiments. An externally-attached Space Station payload is 
being developed by the Mission to Planet Earth program. The 
Space Access and Technology program is providing technology and 
commercial payloads for both external and pressurized Space 
Station deployment.

                III. Background and Need For Legislation

    The U.S. space program is at a critical point in its 
history. With the collapse of the Cold War, it no longer serves 
the explicit geopolitical purposes for which it was created and 
subsequently, enjoys less popular support from a public that no 
longer sees the need for space activity to demonstrate 
superiority over the Soviet Union. At the same time, there is 
general support for civil space activities and the recognition 
that the civil space program's scientific and technical 
contributions to the country have been and will continue to be 
of great significance. Thus, the civil space program finds 
itself at a crossroads. It has completed its Cold War mission 
successfully and must seek to contribute to America's future in 
new ways.
     Two other developments will affect the evolution of the 
U.S. space program. First, federal space policies and projects 
must be designed and implemented within the framework of 
progress towards and maintenance of a balanced federal budget, 
as well as other important economic, domestic, and foreign 
policy goals of the United States. Thus, federal outlays on the 
civil space program through NASA can be expected to decline for 
several years. As a result, NASA is in the midst of a 
reorganization to adjust to the end of the Cold War, 
accommodate lower budgets than anticipated in the late 1980s, 
and lay the foundation for a National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration that can take the United States into the next 
century. The Committee agrees with NASA Administrator Daniel 
Goldin that non-essential or obsolete programs, activities, and 
infrastructure should be redirected, privatized, or cancelled 
during the course of this reorganization.
     Second, near-Earth space is no longer the completely 
unknown and foreign environment it was at the point of NASA's 
creation in 1958, but is rather a frontier with abundant energy 
and material resources analogous to the positive 
characteristics of the early American frontier. This is most 
apparent in the rapid and continuing rise of a commercial space 
industry and the transition of NASA from its scientific 
research and technology focus towards the orientation of an 
operational agency. These two developments are working at 
cross-purposes. The rise of a commercial space industry 
suggests that NASA no longer needs to operate large, continuous 
systems and can instead focus on leading-edge scientific 
research. H.R. 2043, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act, fiscal year 1996, begins the 
process of moving NASA in this direction.

                        IV. Summary of Hearings

     The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held two formal 
hearings during the early part of 1995. On February 13, NASA 
Administrator Daniel Goldin; Frank Weaver, Director of the 
Transportation Department's Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation; and, Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director of the 
Commerce Department's Office of Air and Space Commercialization 
testified about their programs.
     On March 16, David Moore, Congressional Budget Office; 
Wolfgang Demisch, Bankers Trust; Rick Tumlinson, President of 
the Space Frontier Foundation; Gerald May, The American Legion; 
Richard Kohrs, Center for International Aerospace Cooperation; 
Norman Parmet, Chairman of the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory 
Panel; Hans Mark, Professor of Aerospace Engineering and 
Engineering Mechanics at the University of Texas; Maxime Faget, 
founder of Space Industries Inc.; Lori Garver, Executive 
Director of the National Space Society; Robert Minor, President 
of the Space Systems Division of Rockwell International 
Corporation; Jerry Pournelle, Citizen Advisory Council on 
National Space Policy; Bob Citron, President and CEO of Kistler 
Aerospace; Jerry Grey, American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics; Robert Spitzer, Vice President of Engineering for 
the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group; Scott Pace, National 
Space Society; Charles Hayes III, Cray Research; James 
Anderson, Harvard University; Eric Barron, Pennsylvania State 
University; Jack Brock, the General Accounting Office; Edward 
Teller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Arthur Charo, 
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment; Francis Everitt, 
Stanford University; William Boynton and Chris Lewicki, 
University of Arizona; Dan Lester, University of Texas; and, 
David Gump, President of Luna Corporation, testified before the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics as outside experts on the 
U.S. space program.
     At the February hearing, Mr. Goldin noted that President 
Clinton's undirected cut of $5 billion dollars from the 
agency's five-year budget plan was forcing him to completely 
rethink NASA's organization. He announced seven principles for 
restructuring, including: eliminating duplication; spinning 
functions off from the agency; turning some activities over to 
prime contractors; privatizing and commercializing; 
streamlining regulations; reducing the operations budget; and, 
emphasizing objective contracting. Administrator Goldin pledged 
to make NASA more of an R&D agency and less of an operations 
agency and indicated that NASA was in the midst of a managerial 
and organizational revolution.
     Mr. Weaver indicated that his office has two 
responsibilities. First, as created by Congress in 1984 in the 
Commercial Space Launch Act, the Department of Transportation's 
Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) is charged 
with regulating the commercial space transportation industry to 
protect public safety. Second, Mr. Weaver indicated that the 
President's National Space Transportation Policy of 1994 gave 
his office the responsibility for enhancing the competitiveness 
of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry.
     Mr. Calhoun-Senghor testified that the Department of 
Commerce's Office of Air and Space Commercialization (OASC) was 
created for policy development in support of the commercial use 
of space. According to Mr. Calhoun-Senghor, OASC was 
instrumental in developing the commercial remote sensing policy 
and the National Space Transportation Policy.
     The March hearing focused on expert testimony from outside 
the Executive Branch. David Moore of the Congressional Budget 
Office testified that NASA still faces its traditional problem 
of underfunding existing programs and that the agency's 
overhead as a portion of its total budget had fallen by a mere 
1% between 1990 and 1995. Mr. Demisch, an investment banker, 
stated that NASA's budget cuts and consolidation did not 
constitute, in and of themselves, a major restructuring. He 
further observed that operating large, continuous systems 
undermined NASA's ability to do new, cutting-edge work and 
recommended that Congress prioritize NASA's activities. Mr. 
Tumlinson recommended a new thrust for the space program based 
on commercial activities and low-cost access to orbit.
     Mr. Kohrs and Mr. Parmet summed up some of the ongoing 
studies of the shuttle's safety and workforce. Mr. Mark 
recommended moving shuttle operations to a single prime 
contractor and preserving safety as the first priority amid 
workforce reductions.
     Mr. Minor testified about the benefits of the NASA-
industry partnership on the X-34 program, while Mr. Pournelle 
and Mr. Citron testified about fully reusable spacecraft 
concepts.
     Mr. Grey and Mr. Spitzer noted the aircraft industry's 
interest in wind tunnels. Mr. Pace noted that some of NASA's 
activities might be undertaken more effectively by other 
agencies and/or the private sector and commented that NASA 
could improve its cooperation with other government agencies or 
departments that have advanced space technology. Mr. Hayes 
noted the current and growing importance of supercomputers in 
NASA's operations.
     Mr. Anderson testified about ozone depletion and Mr. 
Barron spoke about the Mission to Planet Earth's Earth 
Observing System and the importance of environmental prediction 
in preventing economic loss. Mr. Brock testified that Mission 
to Planet Earth's EOSDIS information distribution system was 
being designed with inadequate attention to the user community 
and with too much emphasis on near-term development. Mr. Teller 
spoke about the potential to reduce Mission to Planet Earth 
costs by using advanced microsatellites. Mr. Charo noted the 
lack of a stable government policy to support commercial remote 
sensing and commented that such instability could discourage 
the private sector from investing in space development.
     Mr. Everitt testified about the status of Gravity Probe B. 
Mr. Boynton and Mr. Lewicki testified about the importance of 
funding new space science missions and the positive educational 
effects of launching missions at frequent intervals. Mr. Lester 
testified about the need to make infrared astronomical 
observations from above the atmosphere and the educational 
aspects of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy 
(SOFIA) program. Mr. Gump testified about his experiences in 
attempting to finance commercial space science missions that 
were then preempted by NASA's announcement of its own mission.

               V. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

     In February 1995, the President transmitted to Congress a 
request of $14,260,000,000 for NASA for fiscal year 1996. The 
Committee recommends an authorization level of $13,662,200,000. 
This bill authorizes $11,547,400,000; $2,114,800,000 is 
authorized for the International Space Station in H.R. 1601, 
the International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995 
(H.Rept. 104-210, filed July 28, 1995).
     The Committee's recommendation is consistent with the 
amounts established in the House-passed Concurrent Resolution 
on the Budget for fiscal year 1996 (H. Con. Res. 67), as well 
as the conference report on the Resolution.
     The major provisions of the bill are the following:
           Authorizes appropriations for all NASA programs, 
        except the International Space Station;
           Authorizes appropriations for the Office of 
        Commercial Space Transportation and the Office of Air 
        and Space Commercialization;
          Provides for a mechanism to restructure NASA through 
        an asset-based review;
          Amends the Commercial Space Launch Act to establish a 
        statutory framework for the Office of Commercial Space 
        Transportation to license commercial reentry 
        activities;
          Creates procurement initiatives to encourage NASA to 
        take advantage of innovations in the private sector;
          Encourages NASA to purchase space science data from 
        the private sector instead of building complete systems 
        to generate the data;
          Requires the Administrator to submit a detailed 
        report on Mission to Planet Earth; and,
          Requires the Administrator to publish a Request for 
        Proposals for a single prime contractor for the Space 
        Shuttle program with a requirement that any proposal 
        also contain a plan for privatization. [see chart #2]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year--                                                             
                          ------------------------------------                                                  
                              1995                                                  Comments                    
                             funding    1996 req    1996 auth                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT.......     3,575.2     3,646.8     3,593.8  Station authorized in H.R. 1601, multiyear       
                                                                authorization bill; $2,114,800,000.             
SPACE SHUTTLE............     3,155.1     3,231.8     3,178.8  .................................................
Shuttle operations.......     2,415.3     2,394.8     2,341.8  (-53M) savings from luka closure.                
Safety/performance              739.8       837.0       837.0  .................................................
 upgrades.                                                                                                      
Payload Utilization &           320.1       315.0       315.0  .................................................
 Operations.                                                                                                    
Russian Cooperation......      *100.0      *100.0       100.0  $100M in bill for Russian Cooperation outside of 
                                                                Station.                                        
SCIENCE, AERO & TECH.....     5,770.2     5,754.0     5,331.9  .................................................
Physics and Astronomy....     1,195.5     1,131.1     1,167.6  (+36.5M) add $51.5M for GPB; eliminate SIRTF     
                                                                $15M.                                           
Planetary Exploration....       817.1       827.8       827.8  .................................................
Life & Microgravity......      *324.7      *293.2      *293.2                                                   
Mission to Planet Earth..     1,340.1    *1,337.0    *1,013.1  (-323.9M) rescope; program includes $21.5M for   
                                                                commercial data buy; NASA Administrator may     
                                                                reprogram up to an additional $274.4M to this   
                                                                account 90 legislative days after a formal      
                                                                request;.                                       
Space Access & Technology      *627.4      *668.5      *639.8  (-28.7) Tech Transfer -$30.4M; Clean Car -$7M;   
                                                                Laucnh Vouchers + $20M flatline Earth           
                                                                Applications Systems -$21.3M; Federal Spaceport 
                                                                Costs +$10M.                                    
Aero Research &                 882.0       917.3       826.9  (-90.4M) New Starts -$25M; HPCC -$35M; Advanced  
 Technology.                                                    Subsonic -$30.4M.                               
Mission Comm. Services...       481.2       461.3       461.3  .................................................
Academic Programs........       102.2       118.7       102.2  (-16.5M) reduce to fy 95 level.                  
MISSION SUPPORT..........     2,589.2     2,726.2     2,604.4  .................................................
SRQA (safety)............        38.7        37.6        37.6  .................................................
Space Comm. Services.....       226.5       319.4       319.4  .................................................
Research & Pgm Mgt.......     2,189.0     2,202.8     2,094.8  (-108M) NASA estimate; buyout savings.           
Construction of                 135.0       166.4       152.6  (-13.8M) general reduction.                      
 Facilities.                                                                                                    
INSPECTOR GENERAL........        16.0        17.3        17.3  .................................................
Natl Aeronautical               400.0  ..........  ..........  .................................................
 Facilities (wind                                                                                               
 tunnels).                                                                                                      
      Total..............    12,350.6    12,145.2    11,547.4  13,662.2 -2,114.8 (Station) = 11,547.4.          
OCST.....................  ..........         6.5         6.0  (-.5M) general reduction.                        
Air & Space                ..........         0.5         0.5  .................................................
 Commercialization.                                                                                             
NASA # for fy 96:          ..........  ..........  ..........  .................................................
 $13,662.2M.                                                                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Excludes $ for Space Station.                                                                                  

               VI. Sectional Analysis and Committee Views

                         SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

    This Act may be referred to as the ``National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1996.''

                          SECTION 2. FINDINGS

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    The Congress finds that: NASA has failed to request 
sufficient funds to perform all missions proposed in annual 
budget requests; NASA should pursue reforms to reduce 
institutional costs; NASA must return to its role as the 
Nation's leader in basic aeronautics and space research; NASA 
should pursue reverse contracting opportunities to support 
private sector development of advanced space transportation 
technologies; international cooperation in space exploration 
and science should be pursued when it satisfies particular 
conditions; and NASA and the Department of Defense can reduce 
the cost of space missions by more effectively leveraging their 
mutual capabilities.

Committee views

    For years, NASA has underfunded programs due to unrealistic 
cost estimates about programs and the expectation that Congress 
would provide additional funding. For fiscal year 1996, for 
example, NASA requested a budget some $140,000,000 less than is 
required to complete those programs approved in 1995. The 
mismatch only worsens to $439,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 and 
$847,000,000 in fiscal year 1998. By fiscal year 2000, the 
underfunding is projected to be over $1,500,000,000. When 
budgetary decisions must be made, Congress has unreliable 
information about the scope of NASA activities and the agency's 
ability to pay for its programs. Furthermore, underfunding 
forces cost-increasing delays in NASA programs. In the past, 
Congress has been culpable because of its tolerance of this 
situation. The Committee recommends that Congress refuse to 
tolerate such underfunding. In order to restore fiscal 
responsibility, Congress should work with NASA, using realistic 
budget projections, to identify shortfalls, reduce overhead, 
and restructure or cancel programs.
    The Committee further finds that the United States is on 
the verge of a veritable revolution in the way space activity 
is conducted. First, new information and microsatellite 
technologies are maturing to the point where they can be 
applied to space missions, radically lowering costs and moving 
the United States away from launching large spacecraft and 
towards launching constellations of small spacecraft that 
cooperate with one another. Second, after years of promise the 
commercial space sector is rapidly maturing and moving into new 
activities, such as remote sensing. This industry is still at a 
delicate stage, however. Consequently, government space policy 
and activity must take into account the interests and fragility 
of the commercial space sector when conceiving, planning, 
developing, launching, and operating new space missions.
    In the area of space transportation, the Committee finds 
that private sector investment in new expendable and reusable 
launch vehicles and the emerging commercial sector are altering 
the supply and demand of space launch capabilities. In order to 
reduce costs, the Committee seeks to encourage a free market in 
commercial space transportation services, which could meet most 
routine government launch requirements.
    The Committee commends NASA and its international partners 
for their many cooperative ventures. These include the 
International Space Station, the exploration of Mars and 
Saturn, and the study of the Earth from space. The Committee, 
however, does not view international cooperation as an end in 
itself. Rather, the Committee supports international 
cooperation for the specific benefits it brings to the United 
States and its international partners, including a lowering of 
national space costs; an increase in U.S. space capabilities; 
and an enhancement in the pace of scientific progress. The 
Committee also notes that international cooperation can do net 
harm to all of these interests by increasing mission complexity 
and U.S. costs, undermining U.S. space capabilities in the 
government and U.S. private sector, and/or transferring 
commercially or militarily advantageous technology from the 
United States to the world market without an offsetting return 
to the United States. Consequently, the Committee directs NASA 
to consider these secondary effects of international space 
cooperation before entering into new agreements with foreign 
partners. Furthermore, the Committee expects that NASA will not 
enter into such agreements when the disadvantages outweigh the 
benefits.
    Finally, the Committee notes anecdotal evidence of 
successful cooperation between NASA and the Departments of 
Defense and Energy. The Committee supports such interagency 
cooperation because it lowers costs, eliminates duplication, 
and facilitates the transfer of technology among agencies and 
the private sector. In the past, such cooperation has been 
difficult due to the Cold War limitations on access to defense-
related space technology. The Committee notes that those 
limitations are breaking down and directs NASA to make use of 
defense-related technologies for civil space missions as 
appropriate.

                         SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS

    Throughout the Act and Committee report, the term 
``Administrator'' refers to the Administrator of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the phrase 
``institution of higher education'' refers to the meaning of 
this phrase given in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).

               Title I.--Authorization of Appropriations

                      Subtitle A.--Authorizations

                    SECTION 101. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

Sec. 101(a)(1)(2) and (3) The Space Shuttle Program

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $2,341,800,000 is authorized for Space Shuttle operations 
in fiscal year 1996. This represents a reduction of $53,000,000 
from the request due to the closure of the Iuka facility in 
Mississippi. The Committee concurs with the request of 
$837,000,000 for safety and performance upgrades, and 
$315,000,000 for payload and utilization operations.

Program description

    The objective of the Space Shuttle program is to support 
the nation's launch requirements while balancing the goal of 
mission accomplishment with the primacy of program safety. 
Because of its unique capabilities, the Space Shuttle remains 
the cornerstone of America's space program. The Shuttle Orbiter 
is the world's first reusable space vehicle which can be 
reconfigured for a variety of payloads and missions. In 
addition to the transportation of personnel and equipment to 
orbit, the Space Shuttle stands alone among the world's space 
systems, due to its ability to retrieve material from space for 
repair or return to Earth. The Space Shuttle will serve as the 
primary transportation system for the assembly and operation of 
the International Space Station.

Committee views

    The Shuttle program is in a period of transition for many 
reasons. Numerous reviews conducted both within NASA and 
external to the agency have addressed subjects ranging from 
program safety to the status of the shuttle workforce. Due to 
current budgetary constraints, there has been considerable 
effort on the part of the agency and outside groups to find 
ways to achieve cost savings within the program. The Committee 
recognizes that effort and commends the Administrator for the 
agency's difficult work in streamlining shuttle operations 
without compromising safety.
    The Kraft report, Shuttle Workforce Review, and the annual 
report by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel have been 
presented to the Committee in response to its oversight of the 
overall safety and integrity of the program. It is noted that, 
though the annual launch-rate of the shuttle has been reduced 
to seven launches per year, the total annual workload has not 
decreased correspondingly, requiring that it be re-distributed 
among the remaining flights. Further, shuttle launches are not 
scheduled at even intervals, which may lead to peak operating 
periods in excess of the average annual rate. For instance, a 
period of 60 days could pass without a launch which is followed 
by a second 60 days wherein there are three launches scheduled. 
Though the annual rate may not have been exceeded, the 
operational tempo for the shuttle workforce for the second 60 
day period would equal that of an 18 launch annual rate. The 
Committee therefore urges the Administrator and shuttle program 
managers to approach the schedule of station assembly mindful 
of periodic operational tempo increases. In addition, the 
Committee encourages the NASA Administrator to continue to take 
positive steps towards the stability of the shuttle workforce.
    There has been a significant decrease in NASA's budget 
resulting in the agency's efforts to streamline programs to 
achieve cost savings. The zero-based review and the Kraft 
report point to potentially large cost savings within the 
shuttle program, but without sufficient details on where they 
will be found. The Committee remains enthusiastic that cost 
savings can be realized and expects that the level of detail of 
their sources can be clarified.

Sec. 101 (a)(4). Russian Cooperation

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $100,000,000 is authorized for Russian Cooperation, fully 
funding the President's request for fiscal year 1996.

Program description

    The Russian Cooperation line pays the Russian Space Agency 
and Russian space enterprises under its jurisdiction for 
necessary designs, data, and support services required to carry 
out the Joint Statement on Space Cooperation of the U.S. Joint 
Commission on Economic and Technological Cooperation, under the 
terms of NASA Contract #NAS15-10110, entered into on June 23, 
1994. The firm fixed-price contract provides for the U.S. 
purchase of discrete technological products, services, and 
space hardware, not to exceed $400,000,000 during fiscal years 
1994 through 1997. The annual request of $100,000,000 is 
consistent with these contract terms.

Committee views

    The Committee strongly commends the Administrator for 
conceiving of, and successfully executing, the visionary 
program of human space flight cooperation represented by this 
element of the President's request. Rarely has the Committee 
seen a program initiative achieve its promised results as 
quickly as the U.S.- Russian space cooperation agreements. On 
December 16, 1993, the legal agreement providing for up to ten 
Shuttle-Mir docking missions was signed by the Administrator 
and the Director General of the Russian Space Agency. In less 
than two years, on June 29, 1995, the first docking took place 
flawlessly.
    The primary purpose of the $400,000,000 contract is to 
combine U.S. and Russian human space flight operations, 
although a small portion of the deliverables under contract 
exclusively support the International Space Station program, 
which is authorized by the Committee in H.R. 1601, the 
International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995 (H. Rept. 
104-210, filed July 28, 1995). The Committee does not consider 
it necessary to authorize appropriations for different parts of 
the contract under separate measures.
    Insofar as the $400 million contract is concerned, the 
Committee notes that no funds appropriated and obligated 
pursuant to this authorization are transferred to Russian 
entities until the U.S. has received deliverable items in good 
condition, inspected them, and accepted them. It is not 
possible under the terms of this contract for NASA to pay for 
something it does not receive, does not want, or cannot use. 
The Committee commends NASA for negotiating these terms of the 
contract, and appreciates the Russian Space Agency's agreement 
to abide by such terms.
    However, as referred to in Sec. 127 of this bill, 
Limitation on Transfers to Russia, the terms of this contract 
do not require the Russian Space Agency to account for the use 
of NASA funds once a transfer is made. The Committee observes 
that some of the Russian deliverables under contract are 
overdue at this time, and have in some instances been months 
late, in spite of the built-in contractual incentive to 
complete delivery and hasten acceptance. The Russian government 
has argued that providing an accounting of U.S. funds should 
not be of concern to the program or Congress. To the contrary, 
the Committee believes that it has a strong interest in knowing 
whether the individual firms or persons responsible for 
fulfillment of the $400 million contract are, in fact, being 
paid for their efforts. In light of the tight schedule 
established for future docking missions and other preparatory 
work for the International Space Station, the Committee 
believes establishing a clear relationship between the work 
performed under the contract and payment to the responsible 
entities will help to assure the timely completion of contract 
tasks.

Sec. 101(b) 1-3. Construction of Facilities

    Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under subsection 
(a)(2), Space Shuttle Safety and Performance Upgrades: (1) 
$5,000,000 are authorized for modernization of the Firex 
System, Pads A and B; (2) $7,500,000 are authorized for 
replacement of the Chemical Analysis Facility; and, (3) 
$4,900,000 are authorized for replacement of the Space Shuttle 
Main Engine Processing Facility, all at the Kennedy Space 
Center.

           SECTION 102. SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY

Sec. 102 (a)(1) Space Science

    The Committee considers space science to be basic 
scientific research, and thus, one of the highest priority 
missions of NASA. The Committee views with concern the trend of 
Mission to Planet Earth consuming ever increasing amounts of 
the Space Science budget. The Committee seeks to rectify this 
trend by fully authorizing Space Science missions and 
restructuring the Mission to Planet Earth program.


                        A. Physics and Astronomy

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $1,167,600,000 is authorized for Physics and Astronomy, 
including $51,500,000 to continue progress on Gravity Probe B. 
The Committee does not recommend funding for the Space Infrared 
Telescope Facility (SIRTF) at this time due to the program's 
large funding bow wave, which cannot be sustained by budgets 
anticipated over the next few years. The total recommendation 
represents an increase of $36,500,000 over the President's 
request for Physics and Astronomy, reflecting the President's 
failure to provide offsets for Gravity Probe B funding and the 
Committee's prioritization of space science as a key NASA 
mission.

Program description

    The core physics and astronomy missions include the 
Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) a Hubble-class 
observatory for scanning the cosmos; Gravity Probe B, a space 
experiment of Einstein's theory of relativity; the Explorer 
program to develop small to mid-sized astrophysics and space 
physics missions; the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared 
Astronomy, an airborne telescope that benefits from the 
cooperation of international partners; and a suborbital program 
that supplements these activities. Launch support, mission 
operations, and scientific data analysis of mission results are 
also funded within this program.

Committee views

     The Committee recommends continued funding of AXAF and 
Gravity Probe B (GPB) in order to maintain these programs on 
schedule and on budget. Both are well along in their 
development. The Committee further supports continued funding 
for complete mission operations, research, and data analysis in 
order to take advantage of the scientific research 
opportunities created by the funding of space science missions 
such as the Hubble Space Telescope.
            Gravity probe B
    Gravity Probe B is a science mission designed to test 
Einstein's theory of General Relativity. According to the 
latest Space Studies Board review of Gravity Probe B (GPB), 
dated May 1995, the majority of reviewers considered GPB well 
worth its remaining cost to completion. This is one of the few 
space missions NASA has conducted with relevance to fundamental 
physics. This science mission has had a total of 18 National 
Research Council reviews at the request of NASA. Each time the 
National Research Council has recommended proceeding with GPB. 
The Committee supports the continued funding of GPB through 
completion.
            Global geospace science (GGS) and collaborative solar 
                    terrestrial research (COSTR) programs
    The Committee supports the GGS and COSTR activities as 
fundamental scientific research consistent with the goal of 
making NASA build on its strengths. GGS and COSTR also take 
advantage of the benefits of international cooperation in space 
science to improve capabilities and lower U.S. costs of 
expanding the frontiers of human knowledge. Moreover, the 
Committee finds that the GGS program, which focuses on the 
Earth-sun energy budget, may supplement Mission to Planet Earth 
requirements to understand the Earth-sun system as a baseline 
driver of global climate.
            Explorer
    The Committee commends NASA for continuing its Explorer 
program to launch small, low-cost, highly-focused space 
missions exploring the realm of space physics and astrophysics. 
The Committee also agrees with NASA's finding that the Explorer 
program represents an opportunity to develop new technologies 
for low-cost, high-capability spacecraft. In this endeavor, the 
Explorer program can make use of, and contribute to, the New 
Millennium technology development program. Therefore, the 
Committee expects that NASA's Explorer program will also take 
advantage of miniaturized spacecraft technologies developed in 
the Departments of Defense and Energy, as well as the private 
sector. The Committee is concerned that Explorer missions are 
almost entirely managed as in-house projects at the Goddard 
Space Flight Center. In the past, Congress has directed NASA to 
make greater use of the talents, capabilities, and resources 
available outside of the agency to conduct space missions. The 
desirability of going outside the agency for contributions to 
NASA's goals were recently underscored in the NASA Federal 
Laboratory Review and the National Research Council report 
Technology for Small Spacecraft, which recommended that NASA 
make better use of externally-developed technology and 
capabilities. The Committee notes that the New Millennium and 
Discovery programs are seeking to exploit these non-NASA 
resources and expects to see the Explorer program take similar 
steps.
            SOFIA
    The Committee supports full funding for the Stratospheric 
Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA). SOFIA is an 
airborne telescope that will replace the Kuiper Airborne 
Observatory (KAO), which is nearing the end of its useful 
lifespan. In order to take effective measurements of infrared 
radiation, it is necessary to lift the observing telescope 
above the thickest parts of the atmosphere, which block 
infrared radiation. Thus, infrared observations cannot be made 
from the ground. SOFIA will carry a 2.5 meter telescope aloft 
160 times a year for twenty years to collect images in the 
infrared. (By contrast, the Kuiper Observatory carries a 0.9 
meter telescope.) Moreover, SOFIA will carry on the Kuiper 
Observatory's strong educational component by providing flight 
opportunities for college-age students and primary school 
science teachers. Finally, SOFIA represents an important 
collaborative effort with international partners in Germany, 
who are contributing approximately 20% of the platform's cost. 
The Committee is impressed by the fact that the researchers who 
use KAO are willing to forgo data from KAO observations while 
SOFIA is constructed and KAO's operating costs are used to fund 
SOFIA.
            Suborbital programs
    The Committee also recommends complete funding for NASA's 
suborbital programs in space science. While these programs 
often receive less attention than their space-based 
counterparts, they represent an important opportunity to 
conduct frequent, low-cost, scientific research. NASA has an 
accomplished history of using high-altitude balloons and 
sounding rockets in addition to airborne platforms such as 
SOFIA or the Kuiper Observatory. With that in mind, the 
Committee urges NASA to conduct studies and explore 
technologies that increase the utility of suborbital programs. 
The Committee is aware of interest from the scientific 
community in a high-altitude tethered aerostat as a long-
endurance platform that could carry payloads for astronomical 
observation or earth environmental monitoring. Given past 
investments by the Department of Defense in such technologies 
and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's $1 billion 
investment in adaptive optics useful on such platforms, the 
Committee directs NASA to explore the potential use of high-
altitude, tethered aerostats to supplement observations from 
SOFIA and NASA's space-based observatories at a very low cost 
and report its findings back to the Committee by June 31, 1996.

                        b. planetary exploration

Committee authorization and recommendation

    $827,800,000 is authorized for Planetary Exploration, 
including $30,000,000 for the New Millennium program, of which 
$5,000,000 is for NASA's participation in the Department of 
Defense Clementine 2 mission. This represents full funding of 
the President's request.

Program description

    NASA's planetary exploration activities include the Cassini 
probe to Saturn, which is more than halfway completed; the Mars 
Surveyor program, which presents a significant opportunity to 
acquire the benefits of international cooperation; and the 
Discovery and New Millennium programs, along with the 
associated costs of launch, data analysis, research, and 
mission operations.

Committee views

    The Committee recommends full authorization of the request 
for Planetary Exploration. This mission is one of NASA's 
traditional strengths, and, together with other basic 
scientific research activities, represents a positive direction 
on which the agency can focus its energies.
            Cassini
    The program for fiscal year 1996 continues the development 
of the Cassini mission to Saturn. This mission is a joint 
program with the European Space Agency (ESA), which is 
providing the Huygens Probe to study Saturn's moon Titan. An 
extensive cruise period is required to reach Saturn, during 
which the spacecraft will fly by Venus, Earth, and Jupiter to 
gain sufficient velocity to reach its destination and release 
the probe. Upon its arrival at Saturn in June 2004, the 
spacecraft will begin a four-year study of the Saturnian system 
that will provide intensive, long- term observations of 
Saturn's atmosphere, rings, magnetic field, and moons.
    In fiscal year 1996, Cassini subsystem hardware fabrication 
and testing will be completed. The Committee concurs with a May 
1995 GAO report recommending further reductions in the launch 
costs of Cassini. The Committee is concerned about NASA's use 
of a solid rocket motor upgrade (SRMU) for the Cassini launch. 
The GAO report noted that SRMU will have undergone only three 
launches prior to the launch of Cassini, which does not leave 
room for extensive testing of the SRMU. The Committee is 
concerned that NASA may be unnecessarily increasing the risk to 
Cassini.
            Discovery
    The Committee commends NASA for continuing the Discovery 
program to promote low-cost exploration of the solar system, 
and endorses the program because it is demonstrating a real 
commitment to innovative management techniques that lower the 
costs of space exploration. Furthermore, the Discovery program 
addresses the problems associated with NASA's recent approach 
to space exploration, which relied on large, expensive 
spacecraft in development for a decade or more. Consequently, 
the Committee recommends full funding for the Lunar Prospector, 
a low-cost science probe to the moon which will build on the 
Defense Department's successful Clementine mission of 1994 and 
now has a strong educational component provided separately by 
the private sector. Lunar Prospector represents the type of 
resource-leveraging that NASA must perform in an era of 
constrained budgets.
            New Millennium
    NASA's briefing to the Committee ``Exploration for the 21st 
Century: The New Millennium,'' indicates that New Millennium 
intends to create new-capability space missions at a reduced 
cost and increased flight rate through improvements in key 
technology areas, including micro-electronics, autonomy, and 
instruments. While the Committee commends NASA for recognizing 
that these technologies are necessary to lower costs, it also 
notes that the Departments of Defense and Energy have been 
working on such technologies since at least the late 1980s.
    While recognizing that DoD and NASA are making greater 
efforts to work together in order to reduce the cost of 
government space activity and achieve the maximum return from 
space missions, the Committee finds that NASA and the 
Department of Defense do not adequately leverage the 
opportunities to conduct joint missions that contribute to 
national goals and interests in space. The Committee agrees 
with the findings of the NASA Federal Laboratory Review, the 
National Research Council report Technology for Small 
Spacecraft, and hearing witnesses Dr. Scott Pace of the 
National Space Society and Dr. Edward Teller of the Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory that NASA can, and should, make 
better use of technology resources from outside the agency, 
including those of the Departments of Defense and Energy and 
their private sector suppliers. The few programs in which NASA 
and DOD have attempted to complement one another, such as the 
testing of the DC-X technology demonstrator, suggest that 
greater cooperation is possible if bureaucratic interests can 
be set aside in favor of overarching national goals. NASA's New 
Millennium program has considerable potential to meet its goals 
if NASA and DOD work together. Furthermore, this section is 
consistent with the Technology Procurement Initiative goal 
outlined in Title II, Sec. 205 (b): ``achieve a continuous 
pattern of integrating advanced technology from the commercial 
sector and from federal sources outside NASA. . . .''
    The Committee finds that NASA can reduce the cost of New 
Millennium while increasing and accelerating the benefits of 
New Millennium if it takes advantage of the miniaturized 
technologies already paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and 
developed in the Departments of Defense and Energy. To the 
degree that NASA demonstrates technological cooperation with 
the microsatellite technology programs in DoD and DoE, the 
Committee expects that New Millennium will meet its 
programmatic goals and serve the national interest. Therefore, 
the Committee directs NASA to prepare a report for Congress 
detailing the manner in which NASA will make use of the 
technology, personnel, facilities, and expertise related to New 
Millennium program goals within the USAF Phillips Laboratory 
Space Experiments Directorate, the Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory Physics and Space Technology Directorate, and the 
Naval Research Laboratory Naval Center for Space Technology in 
conjunction with NASA's own capabilities and those of the 
private sector, prior to obligating any funds for the New 
Millennium program. The Committee commends NASA for the 
willingness and desire to work directly with DoD and DoE 
personnel on New Millennium programs, as expressed in briefings 
to Committee staff, and will closely monitor this program's 
progress in promoting NASA cooperation with DoD and DoE. The 
Committee further finds that failure to achieve such 
cooperation will result in wasteful duplication of capabilities 
and may give cause to terminate the New Millennium program.
    Furthermore, as indicated in this bill, Congress directs 
NASA to contribute to the Department of Defense's Clementine 2 
mission to develop technology for small and miniaturized 
satellites, including the flight demonstration of several 
microsatellites. This is not a new-start for NASA, but an 
opportunity to leverage Department of Defense technologies for 
NASA's New Millennium program. In the 103rd Congress, the House 
Appropriations Committee and House Armed Services Committee 
recommended a Clementine 2 mission. This Congress is acting on 
those recommendations. The Committee commends the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee for 
authorizing and appropriating funds for this second, low-cost 
mission in the Clementine program to develop defense-related 
microsatellite technologies while performing space science 
missions. The Committee believes NASA's technology and space 
science programs can also benefit from the mission at a 
remarkably low cost and directs NASA to play a role in defining 
science goals and providing a science team for Clementine 2, 
consistent with the mission's defense technology development 
mission. In FY1997 and FY1998, the Committee strongly 
encourages NASA to contribute communication and tracking 
resources, as well as analysis of science data and sensor 
calibration. Because Clementine 2 will rendezvous with two 
near-Earth asteroids, NASA will thus be able to improve U.S. 
understanding of near-Earth objects at a cost significantly 
less than that required to fund its own mission. Moreover, NASA 
participation in Clementine 2 will enable it to build on 
research conducted under its Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous 
mission.

Sec. 102 (a)(2) Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications

Sectional Analysis and Committee Recommendation

    $293,200,000 is authorized for the Office of Life and 
Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA). The 
$210,800,000 of remaining activities of OLMSA which relate to 
the International Space Station are fully funded in H.R. 1601, 
the International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995 
(H.Rept. 104-210, filed July 28, 1995). These figures total the 
entire amount requested by the President.

Program Description

    OLMSA conducts the basic research required to enable human 
space flight and is responsible for the health of astronaut 
crews who live and work in space. As a function of this, OLMSA 
performs a wide variety of life sciences research that use the 
absence of gravity as a medium for understanding the human 
immune system; the development and loss of bone mass and 
connective tissues; and, human and plant adaptation to zero 
gravity, including their attending cellular and molecular 
effects. OLMSA is responsible for carrying out the NASA-
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Protocol, which has served 
to make space-based biomedical research relevant to other basic 
health research. OLMSA is also NASA's occupational health 
program office, which promotes the health and safety of all 
NASA employees. On the microgravity sciences front, OLMSA is 
responsible for programs to discover new space-based 
manufacturing processes, the study of materials and fluids in 
space, and other gravitational research programs.

Committee View

    The Committee believes that OLMSA is responsible for some 
of the most important science programs of NASA. The 
foundational research to enable better human adaptation to 
weightlessness has yielded profound research on all aspects of 
human physiology. Accordingly, the Committee urges NASA and the 
National Institutes of Health to continue and expand the 
partnership begun under the NASA-NIH protocol to the fullest 
extent possible.
    The Committee regards OLMSA's upcoming Neurolab mission, 
the final Spacelab module flight, to be an extremely important 
life sciences mission and commends NASA for initiating this 
mission with NIH.

Sec. 102 (a)(3) Mission to Planet Earth

Sectional Analysis and Recommendation

    $1,013,100,000 is authorized for Mission to Planet Earth, 
except that no funds are authorized for the Consortium for 
International Earth Science Information Network (except as 
provided in sec. 107) or the Topex-Poseidon Follow-On. 
$4,100,000 of this account is authorized in H.R. 1601, the 
International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995 (H.Rept. 
104-210, filed July 28, 1995). This authorization represents a 
decrease of $323,900,000 from the President's request. Funds 
may not be expended to duplicate private sector or other 
federal activities or to procure systems to provide data, 
unless the Administrator certifies that no private sector or 
federal entity can provide suitable data in a timely manner. 
Funds in excess of $1,013,100,000 may not be obligated for 
Mission to Planet Earth.

Program Description

    In 1990 the federal government initiated the interagency 
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) at a time when 
NASA's budget was expected to increase 10% per year. NASA's 
contribution to this effort is Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE), 
which averages 70% of the total USGCRP and applies NASA's 
sensor technologies to the purpose of monitoring Earth's 
environment. The main elements of MTPE are the Earth Observing 
System (EOS) and the Earth Observing System Data Information 
System (EOSDIS). EOS consists of a series of satellites with 
various instruments to observe the Earth continuously for 15 
years. EOSDIS is the data collection and management system for 
the constellation of satellites.
    The three main EOS spacecraft groups are: morning (AM), 
afternoon (PM), and the Chemistry series. Each series has 3 
satellites that will fly for six years. For example, AM-1 flies 
in 1998; AM-2 flies in 2004, and AM-3 flies in 2010. Each 
series contains a different suite of instruments to observe 
different parts of the Earth and its atmosphere. The AM series 
will cross the equator in the morning when cloud cover is at a 
minimum so it can observe terrestrial surface features. The PM 
series will focus on cloud formation, precipitation and 
radiative properties; thus, an afternoon equatorial crossing is 
preferred. PM-1 is scheduled for launch in 2000. The Chemistry 
series will study atmospheric chemical species and their 
transformations. Chem-1 is scheduled for launch in 2002.
    The original program has undergone restructuring three 
times since its approval in 1990. The program was originally 
estimated to cost $17 billion through the year 2000, and it was 
to fly six large polar-orbiting satellites, two at a time, over 
15 years. In the summer of 1991, the program was brought down 
to $11 billion at the request of the Office of Management and 
Budget and the National Space Council. In the fall of 1992, the 
program was further reduced to $8 billion. Last year, the 
program was reduced to $7.25 billion through the year 2000 
(this figure represents about two-thirds of MTPE). The program 
is expected to run until 2022. Funding for MTPE from fiscal 
year 1991-2000 is expected to be over $12 billion.
    EOSDIS will be the first data information system to collect 
such immense quantities of data, which will result in a very 
complex system. It is estimated that when MTPE is fully 
operational, the instruments will generate an average of 2100 
gigabytes (gigabyte = 1 billion bytes of data) per day. Data 
from other U.S. and foreign satellite systems could double this 
amount. The architecture of EOSDIS is intended to be 
decentralized through the use of nine interconnected 
Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs). These DAACs are 
located across the United States and they each have a different 
function.

Committee views

    The Committee is concerned with several elements of the 
Mission to Planet Earth program. First, it is not clear that 
MTPE is an affordable program over the long term. According to 
the General Accounting Office (GAO), EOS represents two-thirds 
of the $12.1 billion MTPE budget through fiscal year 2000. 
Assuming the current EOS baseline program is continued through 
2022, GAO estimates the total funding requirement at about $33 
billion.
    NASA has been very reluctant to reveal the cost estimates 
for the program beyond the year 2000, as indicated by its 
failure to provide projections in response to written questions 
submitted at the February oversight hearing. The Committee is 
concerned that MTPE not displace space science as a NASA 
priority during a period of stringent budget constraints, 
especially since the assumption, made at the time of Mission to 
Planet Earth's initiation, of an annual 10% increase in the 
agency's budget is no longer realistic.
    Second, Mission to Planet Earth has a significant 
international component, portions of which involve flying NASA 
sensors on foreign spacecraft. Finalizing and maintaining 
NASA's current international partnerships continues to present 
a challenge. Most of the international agreements to pursue 
MTPE have not been finalized. None cover the necessary 15-year 
data sets. Inevitably, if the foreign satellites and launches 
do not materialize, NASA will have to fund a completely new 
MTPE mission, or delete the relevant instruments from its MTPE 
goals.
    Third, it remains to be demonstrated that MTPE as currently 
organized has the proper scientific focus and priorities. 
According to several scientists interviewed by the Committee, 
NASA did not ask itself which scientific questions were most 
important before it started designing the MTPE satellite 
constellations. For example, there has not been a comprehensive 
review of the data types other countries are gathering and 
whether the U.S. may be duplicating their efforts. Furthermore, 
some of the data from these foreign systems will be released 
within three years, after which it will be too late to 
restructure MTPE in response to foreign findings.
    Fourth, the Committee has several important questions about 
the scientific content of MTPE that remain unanswered. The 
Committee Chairman requested an outside prioritization of 
unanswered scientific questions about global warming from the 
George C. Marshall Institute, an independent organization led 
by such prestigious scientists as Frederick Seitz, a past 
President of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS); William 
Nierenberg, who chaired several NAS studies on global warming; 
and Robert Jastrow, former Director of the NASA Goddard 
Institute for Space Studies. Under the Institute's auspices, 
Drs. Jastrow and Seitz, joined by their colleagues Sallie 
Baliunas, Albert Arking, and Chauncey Starr, concluded that the 
three greatest sources of uncertainty in current estimates of 
global climate change are (1) upper tropospheric water vapor 
(2) clouds and, (3) aerosols. While noting that climate 
research requires stability to succeed, these prominent 
scientists also cautioned that ``Fundamental research on global 
climate change can become entangled with the temptation to 
support pre-ordained answers that may be linked to the process 
of securing continuing funding. This perversion of the 
scientific process could undermine the most important element 
of research in global climate change: obtaining the best 
affordable research on the fundamental physics of global 
climate.'' (Emphasis added) The Committee is concerned that 
current and future budget pressures will deny MTPE, as it is 
currently structured, the funding stability needed for success, 
which could preclude answering these priority scientific 
questions.
    NASA has indicated that MTPE data will be used to improve 
the predictive capability of climate models, both in terms of 
reliability and regional effects. While the Committee 
recognizes that there is substantial room and need for 
improvement in computer models of the climate system, the 
Committee notes that such models are only as good as the theory 
behind them. This gives rise to the concern that MTPE funds are 
being used disproportionately to improve models rather than 
theory, the latter of which is clearly more important and does 
not always require billions of dollars of investments in data 
collection and management systems.
    Fifth, the Committee is concerned about EOSDIS. According 
to NASA, the system will download some 2100 gigabytes of new 
data from MTPE sensors every day. This amounts to about 766,500 
gigabytes of data per year. NASA estimates a user community of 
some 10,000 investigators will use this data, meaning each one 
would have to completely analyze 210 megabytes of data every 
day of the year in order to use each byte of data just once. A 
GAO official testified that EOSDIS will be the largest civil 
data management and distribution system ever attempted and 
could accumulate data amounting to 1,000 times the entire 
printed contents of the Library of Congress over its lifetime.
    The Committee is concerned that NASA may be spending 
hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire data that will never 
be used. For example, NASA's estimate of 10,000 earth science 
investigators is vastly over-estimated. In fact, this 
represents the total membership of earth and environmental 
science professional associations and societies and their 
undergraduate students and graduate-level teaching assistants. 
According to the GAO, NASA has just 500 principal investigators 
to examine EOS data for specific investigations. GAO 
investigators also commented that NASA's investment in EOSDIS 
focused on near-term development of systems and formats for a 
small group of primary users, without much regard to the needs 
of secondary and tertiary users. EOSDIS was not downsized when 
EOS restructuring took place. Additionally, the GAO noted that 
information technologies change very rapidly; thus, NASA's 
over-emphasis on EOSDIS development at the beginning of Mission 
to Planet Earth may preclude using more capable and affordable 
information technologies available when the EOS satellites 
actually begin collecting data after the turn of the century.
    Moreover, the Committee is concerned that MTPE lacks a 
solid scientific balance. The Office of Technology Assessment 
indicated some concern about the lack of a robust program of 
air and ground-based measurements of Earth systems within the 
U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program. Similarly, the 
Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee 
(ESSAAC) reported on November 8, 1994 that it does not see 
strong evidence of a viable strategy of support for a proper 
program of ground-based measurements necessary to provide 
overall balance and stability in the EOS plans.
    Similarly, the NASA Federal Laboratory Review concluded 
that ``while there is excellent science being pursued within 
MTPE, there is a lack of definition of scientific milestones 
and need dates that will provide the national policy process 
with the necessary information to make decisions in a timely 
manner.'' The Committee urges the Administrator of NASA to 
appoint a task force to determine the baseline scientific 
requirements for Mission to Planet Earth and transmit a report 
to Congress within six months after the date of enactment of 
this Act. The NASA Federal Laboratory Review recommends that 
relevant results from activities conducted within the 
Department of Defense should be integrated with MTPE. The 
Committee concurs with this recommendation and also supports 
greater use of data gathered from Department of Defense space-
based sensors, which may ameliorate some MTPE data 
requirements. The Committee commends NASA's Environmental 
Research and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program for funding 
research into solar-electric, high-altitude, long-endurance 
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) such as Pathfinder. It is the 
Committee's understanding that NASA could use more advanced 
Pathfinder UAVs to conduct early research into the Arctic and 
Antarctic ice sheets (before FY2000) in order to supplement the 
earth science data it will gather with satellites after FY2000. 
The Committee supports the development of fuel-cell technology 
for the Pathfinder UAV, since such technologies will have 
applications to other NASA missions, including the 
International Space Station. The Committee fully supports this 
cost-effective use of the Pathfinder technology-development 
program to provide early data to Mission to Planet Earth and 
commends NASA for wisely sponsoring the program. Moreover, the 
Committee recommends that Mission to Planet Earth make better 
use of such capabilities.
    The Committee is also concerned that inadequate attention 
has been paid to the structure and organization of MTPE 
relative to the activities of other federal agencies and other 
countries. The failure to survey foreign efforts has already 
been mentioned, but there are additional indications that point 
to substantive problems with the program.
    In March of this year, NASA and NOAA embarked on a mission 
to explore ways to enhance interagency collaboration in global 
change research. The NASA Office of Mission to Planet Earth and 
NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information 
Service have established three working groups on collocation, 
technology infusion, and data and information systems. At the 
senior program level, a roundtable has been formed to monitor 
the activities of the working groups and is scheduled to report 
to the Administrators of NASA and NOAA on August 1. The 
Committee is encouraged by these activities to increase 
interagency collaboration. It is concerned, however, that the 
effort was solely prompted by the prospect of cuts to the 
respective elements of USGCRP; this coordination should have 
been ongoing since the inception of the USGCRP.
    Some critical measurements to maintain are the observations 
of global temperature data taken by the NOAA Polar Orbiting 
Environmental Satellite (POES), yet it is not apparent that 
NASA planned to make effective use of such data as part of 
MTPE. The Committee recommends that NASA accord this activity a 
higher priority. Some have charged that satellite observations 
measure the temperature in the atmosphere rather than at ground 
level. However, the Marshall Institute report, The Global 
Warming Experiment, clearly indicates that a comparison of 
surface thermometer records with satellite-based observations 
are ``close to perfect agreement.'' The House Budget Resolution 
and the authorization for POES contained in the NOAA 
Authorization Act of 1995, H.R. 1815, reported by the 
Committee, is adequate to continue the program. MTPE as 
currently designed will make significant demands on NASA 
resources for operations at a time when the agency must move 
away from being an operational organization and back into an 
R&D organization. MTPE must not be allowed to transform itself 
into an open-ended operational program that displaces the 
exploration of space or impedes reform efforts directed at 
transforming the agency into a cutting-edge R&D organization.
    Finally, the Committee does not see sufficient evidence to 
conclude that NASA has adequately considered the emergence of a 
commercial remote sensing industry as a prospective source of 
environmental data. The Committee has frequently encouraged 
NASA to think more creatively about how to acquire 
environmental data, from straightforward purchases of 
privately-gathered data to leverage use of data already 
gathered for other purposes, such as weather records developed 
by the Department of Defense during the Cold War. While the 
agency has launched some commendable pilot programs to explore 
direct purchasing of commercial data, the Committee expects the 
agency to move more aggressively to capitalize on these 
emerging commercial capabilities in its reorganization of MTPE. 
Consequently, the Committee directs NASA's Mission to Planet 
Earth to spend $21,500,000 on a pilot program to study the use 
of commercially-generated Earth remote sensing data and 
actually purchase data for Mission to Planet Earth from the 
private sector. The aforementioned study should: (1) describe 
how NASA can evaluate and foster commercial data sources, 
archiving services, applications, and distribution for Mission 
to Planet Earth data; (2) identify means by which NASA can 
develop specific data applications which foster the use of 
commercial data for Mission to Planet Earth; (3) identify 
mechanisms by which NASA can demonstrate the performance of 
commercial solutions to Mission to Planet Earth requirements; 
(4) provide recommendations to Congress on the fundamental 
scientific research and technology development initiatives 
needed to meet Mission to Planet Earth data requirements not 
met by the U.S. private sector; (5) identify means of 
facilitating feedback from NASA to the private sector on 
opportunities for enhanced provision of commercial services 
that meet Mission to Planet Earth requirements; and (6) 
identify existing policy, regulatory, and/or legislative 
barriers to implementing an effective partnership between the 
private and public sectors in meeting Mission to Planet Earth 
data requirements. This study should go into greater detail on 
commercial solutions for Mission to Planet Earth data 
requirements than the overall review of Mission to Planet Earth 
required in Section 208.
    The Committee notes that NASA's Commercial Remote Sensing 
Program within the Office of Space Access and Technology has 
the most experience in working with the private sector in 
acquiring and applying commercially-generated data and directs 
the NASA Administrator to conduct this pilot program under the 
management of the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, based at 
Stennis Space Center.

Committee action and intent

    The bill reduces the MTPE program request by $323,900,000 
in fiscal year 1996. The Committee intends that the PM-1 and 
Chem-1 satellites be delayed to allow several different things 
to happen. The review of the U.S. Global Change Program by the 
National Academy of Sciences should be completed in September 
of 1995, providing input about the direction of the overall 
program. This delay will also give NASA time to survey and 
assess foreign systems and the Department of Defense's airborne 
and space-based sensor programs to avoid duplication and a 
waste of taxpayer dollars. A delay will also allow time for 
NASA to develop its ``faster, cheaper and better'' spacecraft 
under the New Millennium program and the Small Satellite 
Technology Initiative and incorporate these new technologies 
into PM-1 and Chem-1. Furthermore, such a delay will give NASA 
adequate time to assess and explore the use of commercially-
gathered data to meet its scientific requirements. By making 
greater use of commercial data suppliers, NASA could further 
reduce the costs of MTPE and encourage the development of 
commercial remote sensing. These delays in the PM and Chemistry 
series of EOS satellites also will enable NASA to delay funding 
for EOSDIS, data analysis, and program management.
    In imposing a delay on PM-1 and Chem-1, the Committee 
retains funding to continue work on the sensors for PM-1, but 
eliminates all funding for Chem-1. As a result of these delays, 
the Committee also recommends a 25% ($21.3 million) reduction 
in expenditures on algorithms, the elimination of funding for 
the GLOBE program, a 30% ($86.9 million) reduction in EOSDIS 
funding, the elimination of $6 million in earmarked funding for 
the CIESIN program, and an additional $84.7 million from the 
Applied Research and Analysis function within Mission to Planet 
Earth.
    Furthermore, the Committee recommends against funding for a 
follow-on Topex-Poseidon mission. As presented to Congress, 
NASA intended to spend $146,600,000 on a joint mission with 
France in which France would build the spacecraft and sensors 
instead of conducting a joint mission with the U.S. Navy which 
would have cost the government $134,000,000 for a spacecraft 
and sensors built in the United States. The Committee does not 
find it in the national interest for NASA to cooperate with a 
foreign government's efforts to start up a small satellite 
technology capability that will compete with the U.S. private 
sector in commercial space activities and place U.S. satellite 
and sensor manufacturing jobs at risk. Moreover, NASA had 
underfunded the program by requesting just $7,400,000 for it in 
fiscal year 1996 when the program's cost was estimated at over 
$20,000,000 in fiscal year 1996.

Sec. 102(a)(4) Space Access and Technology

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $639,800,000 is authorized for Space Access and Technology, 
except that no funds are authorized for the Partnership for the 
Next Generation Vehicle. This represents a decrease of 
$28,700,000 from the President's request. An additional 
$37,100,000 is included in a separate bill, H.R. 1601, the 
International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995 (H.Rept. 
104-210, filed July 28, 1995). Included in this authorization 
is $193,000,000 for Advanced Space Transportation; $10,000,000 
for federal spaceport costs; $20,000,000 for continuing the 
Launch Voucher Demonstration program; and, $33,900,000 for the 
Small Spacecraft Technology Initiative. Commercial Technology 
Programs are reduced by $30,400,000 and Earth Applications 
Systems are reduced by $21,300,000.

Program description

    Space Access and Technology operates numerous programs 
intended to provide new technologies for space activities and 
promote the commercial development of space. These include 
advanced space transportation, which includes NASA's X-33 and 
X-34 programs to produce reusable and partially reusable space 
launch vehicles and the DC-XA technology test-bed; spacecraft 
and remote sensing, which provides sensors and small spacecraft 
technology; a program for advanced small satellites, which 
includes the Lewis and Clark spacecraft; space processing and 
flight programs; commercial technology programs; and NASA's 
Small Business Innovative Research program.

Committee views

Advanced space transportation--in general

    One of the government's goals for the Advanced Space 
Transportation program is to find an economical replacement for 
the nation's aging Space Shuttle fleet. This goal must be made 
to work in harmony with the nation's commercial need to develop 
the world's least expensive, most reliable payload delivery 
system. In a world where even nonmarket nations have gained 
access to the commercial space launch market, the most 
effective government incentive for private capital infusion 
into next-generation reusable launch systems is a solid 
technological investment to develop a new launch system that 
will surpass all current systems in terms of economy, 
reliability, and performance.
    Traditionally, the government has taken the lead in 
developing new launch systems to meet national security 
requirements. But, as these strictly government demands have 
receded in recent years, new systems must instead base their 
capitalized cost on a highly competitive commercial market 
model. In order to facilitate such a large and essential 
private investment, NASA has been charged by the President's 
National Space Transportation Policy (released August 5, 1994) 
to provide up-front technological risk reduction sufficient to 
enable private investors to assume a reasonable business risk 
to then proceed with building an operational launch vehicle.
    The development of a Space Shuttle replacement, however, 
should not be confused with the risk reduction phase of this 
first process. Government requirements, including those 
associated with ``man-rating'' a space launch vehicle, must 
take a back seat to commercial launch market demands. The 
replacement of the Space Shuttle should be derived from 
commercial vehicles developed by the private sector as a result 
of the Reusable Launch Vehicle program. When a privately 
developed reusable launch vehicle has become operational, then 
consideration should be given to human space transportation 
requirements. While it may soon be possible for commercial 
companies to offer human transportation services, the 
distinction between developing human space flight vehicles and 
commercial payload delivery systems is important at this stage 
to focus NASA's RLV effort solely on reducing the risks and 
costs facing industry to develop and certify a commercial RLV.

The RLV programs

    The Committee supports NASA's request to develop reusable 
launch vehicles under the terms of the industry-led cooperative 
agreements. The Committee believes the full-scale development 
and fleet operations of such vehicles, however, must be 
undertaken by private companies using risk capital. 
Accordingly, the business viability of the designs is as 
important as technological viability.
    For several years the Committee has strongly supported 
technology development specifically aimed at achieving a 
single-stage-to-orbit, fully reusable launch vehicle even while 
NASA had no such program underway. Upon the successful testing 
of the DC- X prototype launcher by the Air Force, however, NASA 
and the Office of Science and Technology Policy determined that 
such a concept, if fully developed, could hold the promise of 
eventually replacing the Space Shuttle. Beginning in fiscal 
year 1995, NASA began to adopt the DC-X program for continued 
testing and issued the Cooperative Agreement Notices that led 
to formal agreements with industry to develop two Reusable 
Launch Vehicles, the X-33 and the X-34.
    In presenting the President's request to Congress, NASA has 
labored to draw a clear technological connection between the X-
33 and X-34. Although NASA has demonstrated the applicability 
of the X-34's enabling technologies and business strategy to 
further development of the X-33, the Committee notes the 
fundamental differences that exist between the X-33 and X-34 in 
terms of purpose and technological challenge. The X-34 is a 
small payload class reusable launch vehicle that employs 
multiple stages. The X-33 is planned to be a medium-payload 
class reusable launch vehicle using just one stage. It would be 
inappropriate to draw too close a connection between the X-33 
and X-34 programs or suggest these programs are in a 
competitive relationship.
    The Committee is aware that the model of traditional X-
vehicle programs as conducted by NASA and the Air Force is not 
followed by the X-33 or the X-34. The reason for the different 
programmatic approach is due to the industry-led cooperative 
agreements. These agreements, unlike traditional X-programs, 
presume business viability to be a leading design objective. 
The Committee notes this distinction only because NASA must 
strike a balance between pursuing purely technological goals 
that may conflict with market and competitive pricing 
requirements; which are of paramount importance to developing a 
financially self-supporting launch vehicle.
            The X-34 program
    The Committee recommends full funding of advanced space 
transportation programs for the X-33 and X-34 reusable space 
launch vehicles. These vehicles will be essential in building a 
space program for the next millennium that is affordable, 
responsive, and technologically advanced. Moreover, reusable 
launch vehicles which significantly lower the cost to access 
space will reinvigorate the U.S. commercial space 
transportation industry and could make current expendable 
launch vehicles virtually obsolete.
    The Committee endorses NASA's X-34 program as a pathfinder 
initiative to demonstrate new ways of doing business between 
the government and private sector. The X-34 will put into 
effect an innovative process of ``reverse contracting'' through 
which industry will contract with NASA for the expertise and 
facilities that may be necessary to make the program a success. 
The Committee encourages this and other streamlined program 
management reforms that are an integral part of the X-34 
program. The Committee welcomes the commitment of $100 million 
in private sector funding and affirms its understanding that 
NASA's total investment in X-34 will not exceed $70 million.
    As a result of the cooperative agreement between NASA and 
industry for the X-34, industry retains managerial control over 
NASA inputs to the program. Accordingly, industry has agreed to 
pay for any unbudgeted cost increases which may occur, so long 
as it retains the power to control NASA's contributions. The 
Committee welcomes the commitment of $100 million in private 
sector funding and its leadership of the X-34 program. NASA's 
investment of $70 million is effectively capped as long as the 
``reverse contracting'' features of the cooperative agreement 
are adhered to by both parties.
    The Committee believes that these commitments from NASA and 
the private sector accurately reflect the potential value of 
the X-34 as a commercial space launch vehicle and a technology 
test bed that is complementary to the goal of the program. The 
Committee, therefore, approves the full NASA budget request of 
$30 million in X-34 funding for fiscal year 1996.
            The X-33 program
    The Committee also approves the full NASA budget request of 
$49 million in X-33 concept definition, design and 
demonstration funds for fiscal year 1996. The subprogram 
elements of technology development to support the X-33 and X-34 
programs are also funded at the full amount requested.
    The X-33 program is intended to answer the central question 
facing the space transportation community today: Can a launch 
vehicle be developed with propulsion so efficient, and weight 
so minimized, as to be able to carry a useful payload to orbit 
in a single stage? In making this authorization, the Committee 
has expressed its optimism that Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) 
launch vehicles could reduce the cost of launching payloads of 
all kinds by an order of magnitude.
    The Committee believes the best way for NASA to help 
industry solve the mass fraction equation facing launch 
vehicles of this type is by building and flying experimental 
vehicles to test enabling SSTO technology. In other words, the 
traditional prototype development program aimed at an end-point 
design would be an unacceptable contribution from NASA. Instead 
it should encourage the contractors to demonstrate rapidly an 
intact abort capability throughout the flight profile, rapid 
turnaround for frequent flight, and flying higher and faster 
with the goal of demonstrating orbital flight.
    The Committee commends the House National Security 
Committee for authorizing funds for a reusable rocket 
technology program at the U.S. Air Force's Phillips Laboratory. 
The Committee joins the National Security Committee in 
supporting a strong supportive role in NASA's DC-XA and X-33 
programs by the Department of Defense's highly successful 
Single Stage Rocket Technology (SSRT) program team.
    The Committee commends NASA for continuing these programs 
based on the DC-X prototype initiated in the Department of 
Defense. The Committee further recommends that the reusable 
launch vehicle program continue with complementary activities 
being undertaken within the Department of Defense, as called 
for by the President's Space Transportation Policy and 
testimony to the Congress from senior Defense Department 
officials. The Committee believes that a complementary 
technology program within the Department of Defense is 
necessary for successful completion of the reusable launch 
vehicle program and commends the House National Security 
Committee and House Appropriations Committee for funding 
supportive activities within the Department of Defense.
            Spacecraft and remote sensing
    The Committee supports NASA's activities in this area to 
produce advanced technology and spacecraft systems intended to 
reduce the cost of conducting space missions and to support the 
commercial development of space. The Partnership for the Next 
Generation Vehicle (PNGV) is included in this account. PNGV, 
which is intended to develop commercial automotive 
technologies, has minimal application to advanced spacecraft or 
the commercial development of space. Consequently, the 
Committee recommends that funding for the PNGV within NASA be 
eliminated.
            Earth applications systems
    Earth Applications Systems includes activities by the 
Office of Space Access and Technology to produce active 
sensors, such as space-based radars and lasers, that will be 
compact enough to fit on small spacecraft. The program also 
includes development of mechanisms to reduce spacecraft 
``jitter'' and safer pyrotechnics. The budget request for 
fiscal year 1996 is $71,100,000, an increase of $21,300,000 
over the fiscal year 1995 appropriation. The Committee does not 
recommend this increase and favors an appropriation frozen at 
the FY1995 level, a reduction in the budget request of 
$21,300,000.
    There are several reasons for this action. First, NASA has 
not indicated a major user requirement for small active 
sensors. While Mission to Planet Earth might be expected to use 
such sensors, the Committee notes that Mission to Planet Earth 
managers have offered no plans to use such technology. At the 
same time, the Committee believes that the private sector has 
an interest in improving spacecraft pyrotechnics on its own in 
order to reduce insurance costs.
    NASA's Commercial Remote Sensing Program is also funded 
through Earth Applications Systems. The Committee endorses and 
fully supports this program, which seeks to work with private 
sector data suppliers to improve the application of earth 
remote sensing data and notes that it has directed the 
Commercial Remote Sensing Program to manage the pilot program 
to study and purchase commercially-provided data for Mission to 
Planet Earth.
    The authorization does not preclude NASA from funding 
existing activities at their current level or reprioritizing 
among existing activities.
            Space processing
    The Committee supports continuing space processing 
activities to help develop new products in space, bring the 
private sector into commercial space activities, and provide 
opportunities for student-industry interaction in space 
processing experiments. This activity will also benefit the 
space station program by providing direction for the 
utilization programs aboard the station. The Committee is aware 
that some space processing proposals from the university 
community have commercial potential, but may lack mature 
business plans due to the research background of academic 
investigators. The Committee supports efforts by NASA to help 
individuals with good concepts for space processing to develop 
sound business plans and partnerships with the private sector.
            NASA robotics engineering consortium
    The Committee fully supports NASA's Robotics Engineering 
Consortium, which brings together NASA, academia, industry, and 
state and local government to promote research and development 
of robotics technologies with civil space and commercial 
applications. The Committee notes that industry contributions 
to the consortium are exceeding expectations and commends all 
those involved for bringing a successful partnership to 
fruition.
            Small spacecraft technology initiative
    The Committee supports the Small Spacecraft Technology 
Initiative (SSTI), as a low-cost means of developing and 
flight-qualifying small satellite technologies which industry 
and the government can then use. The Committee has some 
concerns, however, that NASA may offer services from Earth-
remote sensing platforms built under the SSTI that compete with 
the private sector. Because the United States government should 
encourage the commercial development of space to lower 
government costs and promote the creation of high-technology 
aerospace jobs that do not depend on federal outlays for their 
existence, the bill precludes NASA from conducting space 
technology missions that will compete with or otherwise 
preempt, any private sector activities to develop space 
commercially.
            Commercial technology programs
    The Committee notes that this program has grown from 
$27,800,000 in fiscal year 1994 to $40,400,000 in the 
President's request for fiscal year 1996. While the Committee 
commends NASA's efforts to spin-off technology to the private 
sector, it finds that many of the activities within the 
Commercial Technology Program are better performed within the 
private sector. These include activities funded under 
``commercial applications, business practices, and metrics,'' 
in the President's request, an account which provides funding 
for NASA to perform market research, develop business plans for 
the private sector, and assist in raising capital. Similarly, 
the Committee does not recommend any funding for ``civil 
systems'' within the Commercial Technology Program. NASA 
requested funds for civil systems to support the AdaNET, a 
facility in West Virginia which recycles old software, and the 
National Technology Transfer Center (NTTC), a clearinghouse for 
federal technology, which is also located in West Virginia. The 
Committee included a reduction of $30,400,000 to the Commercial 
Technology Program and recommends that no NASA funds be used to 
support the NTTC or AdaNET and directs NASA to leverage the 
$10,000,000 authorized for Commercial Technology Programs among 
those other activities which bring the greatest benefit. These 
should include effective use of the Internet and media for 
technology dissemination and marketing and more effective use 
of the Regional Technology Transfer Centers. The Committee also 
expects NASA to provide assistance to the private sector on a 
cost-reimbursable basis so that those companies which increase 
their profit margin with government assistance bear the 
financial burden of such government assistance.
            Federal spaceport costs
    $10,000,000 is authorized for either (1) defraying the 
costs of converting or redesigning commercially inconsistent 
elements of former federal facilities or (2) complying with 
federal laws or regulations relating to commercial space 
transportation infrastructure.
            Launch voucher demonstration program
    $20,000,000 is authorized for the Launch Voucher 
Demonstration Program. This authorization allows for the 
continuation of the bi-partisan experiment, first authorized by 
the fiscal year 1993 NASA Authorization Act (P.L. 102-588). The 
goal of the program is to privatize suborbital and small 
orbital scientific payloads by demonstrating that the private 
sector can provide cheaper and faster launch services for small 
NASA missions. The voucher program will further identify 
providers of launch or payload integration services. The first 
voucher demonstration will take place in early 1996.

Sec. 102(a)(5) Aeronautical Research and Technology

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $826,900,000 is authorized for Aeronautical Research and 
Technology. This authorization includes: $354,700,000 for 
Research and Technology Base; $245,500,000 for High Speed 
Research; $133,000,000 for Advanced Subsonic Technology, except 
that no funds are authorized for concept studies for Advanced 
Traffic Management and Affordable Design and Manufacturing; 
$40,200,000 for High Performance Computing and Communication; 
and, $48,100,000 for Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation.
    The Committee does not recommend funding High Performance 
Computing and Communications at the requested amount as these 
activities are currently funded throughout the federal 
government in amounts totalling over $1 billion. Further, the 
Committee fails to find justification for extensive applied 
research in global climate modelling under this program. The 
Advanced Subsonic technologies program is not recommended for 
the significant increase in funding that was requested, and 
funding for the new initiatives Advanced Air Traffic 
Technologies and Affordable Design and Manufacturing programs 
are not recommended. The sum of $5,400,000 is recommended for 
construction of facilities.

Program description

    The Research and Technology Base, High Speed Research, 
Advanced Subsonic Technologies, Numerical Aerodynamic 
Simulation, and the High Performance Computing and 
Communications programs form the bulk of NASA's aeronautical 
research efforts. The core of these programs can be found in 
the Research and Technology Base where the focus is leading-
edge research in propulsion and structures. Overcoming the 
significant challenges in the development of a High Speed Civil 
Transport, specifically; a safe, environmentally friendly 
supersonic transport whose cost efficiencies rival today's 
subsonic long-range aircraft, is the focus of the High Speed 
Research program.

Committee views

    The Committee supports the goals of The National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration's aeronautics programs to 
ensure that basic aeronautical research conducted within the 
United States is unsurpassed. During the 104th Congress, 
however, the Congressional Budget Office has been critical of 
NASA aeronautics programs, including the Advanced Subsonics 
Technologies (AST) program, as being beneficial primarily to 
airlines and aircraft manufacturers by way of the conduct of 
research more appropriately belonging in the private sector. 
The Committee does in fact view many of the elements of this 
program as more mature than basic research, and wishes to 
ensure that federal funding be invested in NASA programs which 
supports broad aeronautical research efforts. With that in 
mind, the Committee urges that elements of the AST program be 
reviewed for consideration for reimbursement by the private 
sector. Research programs or elements thereof which should be 
considered for reimbursement with non-federal funds include, 
but are not restricted to: Terminal Area Productivity, Interior 
Noise Reduction, Fly-by-Light/Power-by-Wire, Civil Tiltrotor, 
Technology Integration and Environmental Assessment, and 
Composite Wing.
    The Committee recommends that funding levels for NASA 
polymer-matrix composite programs be revised to achieve a 
balance between composite and metallic technologies. Aluminum 
has been the material of choice for all significant commercial 
aircraft structures, and continues to offer opportunities for 
cost effective improvements in aircraft structural performance.

Sec. 102(a)(6) Mission Communication Services

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $461,300,000 is authorized for Mission Communication 
Services. This authorization represents no change from the 
President's request.

Program description

    The Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) 
activities most directly related to the support of NASA's 
science and aeronautics programs is contained in the Mission 
Communication Services program. TDRSS is a critical 
communications link placed in geostationary orbit with ground 
facilities at White Sands, New Mexico. TDRSS provides high 
volume, continuous communication capability for almost all low-
Earth orbit missions, including the Space Shuttle and the 
Hubble Space Telescope. It is also used for transmission of 
data from science missions and classified satellites. In 
January 1995, the contract for TDRSS replenishment was issued. 
It was contested shortly thereafter and settled in July 1995. 
The cost to the agency has risen an estimated additional 
$10,000,000 due to the delay. The agency is renegotiating the 
fixed price contract, which increases the cost of the 
procurement substantially.

Committee views

    The Committee recommends that NASA place Mission 
Communication Services (under Science, Aeronautics and 
Technology) and Space Communication Services (under Mission 
Support) under one account, as was the case in years previous 
to fiscal year 1995.

Sec. 102(a)(7) Academic Programs

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $102,200,000 is authorized for Academic Programs. This 
represents a reduction of $16,500,000 from the President's 
request, freezing this account at the level of the fiscal year 
1995 appropriation.

Program description

    The Committee views the dramatic increase in the Academic 
Programs over the last several years, with concern. The request 
for fiscal year 1996 is 320 percent of the appropriated level 
in fiscal year 1991.

Committee views

    In order to support and stimulate the effectiveness of NASA 
academic funding, NASA is encouraged to work with non-profit 
organizations to enhance the development of aerospace education 
programs through state-based teacher outreach. The goal of such 
a partnership should be to streamline the administration of 
NASA education programs, resulting in personnel reductions at 
NASA headquarters and field centers; lower costs; stimulate 
state participation in the civil space program; evolve the role 
of aerospace science in the classroom; and support teacher 
training in aerospace science.
    The Committee also believes that space education is 
essential. The Spaceweek International Association, for 
example, holds an annual event with government, industry, and 
education organizations across the United States to educate the 
public about space. The Committee supports initiatives such as 
this one and believes that scheduling this type of event during 
the school year will maximize student participation.
    The Committee supports NASA's educational activities as an 
important means of generating student interest in mathematics 
and the hard sciences.

Sec. 102(b) 1-3. Construction of Facilities

    1. Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under 
subsection (a)(3), Mission to Planet Earth, $17,000,000 are 
authorized for construction of the Earth Systems Science 
Building at the Goddard Space Flight Center. 2. Of the funds 
authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a)(5), 
Aeronautical Research and Technology, $5,400,000 are authorized 
for modernization of the Unitary Wind Tunnel Complex at Ames 
Research Center. 3. Of the funds authorized to be appropriated 
under subsection (a)(2), $3,000,000 are authorized for the 
construction of an addition to the Microgravity and Development 
Laboratory at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

                      SECTION 103. MISSION SUPPORT

Sec. 103(1) Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $37,600,000 is authorized for Safety, Reliability, and 
Quality Assurance. This authorization represents no change from 
the President's request.

Program description

    NASA's agency-wide efforts to develop policies and 
practices to ensure safe operations and practices, quality 
controls, and reliable flight systems are funded under this 
account.

Committee views

    The Committee considers safety, reliability, and quality a 
high priority and recommends an authorization of $37,600,000 
for Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance in fiscal year 
1996. This equals the President's request.

Sec. 103(2) Space Communication Services

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $319,400,000 is authorized for Space Communication 
Services. This authorization represents no change from the 
President's request.

Program description

    These support activities encompass all of NASA's strategic 
enterprises and are contained in the Space Communication 
Services program. All Space Network major development 
activities are contained in Mission Support.

Sec. 103(3) Construction of Facilities

    $152,600,000 is authorized for Construction of Facilities. 
This represents a $13,800,000 decrease from the President's 
request due to a general reduction.

Sec. 103(4) Research and Program Management

    $2,094,800,000 is authorized for Research and Program 
Management. This represents a reduction of $108,000,000 from 
the President's request based on estimates of cost savings from 
NASA due to the latest buyout.

                     SECTION 104. INSPECTOR GENERAL

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $17,300,000 is authorized in fiscal year 1996 for the 
Office of Inspector General. The authorization represents no 
change from the President's request.

Program description

    Funding for this account supports activities of the NASA 
Office of Inspector General in carrying out its 
responsibilities under the Inspector General Act of 1978, 
including conduct of independent audits and investigations of 
agency programs and operations, prevention and detection of 
waste, fraud and abuse in agency activities, and promotion of 
economy and efficiency within the agency.

                    SECTION 105. TOTAL AUTHORIZATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    The total amount authorized under this Act for NASA for 
fiscal year 1996 is $11,547,400,000. The authorization for the 
International Space Station for fiscal year 1996, 
$2,114,800,000, was included in H.R. 1601, the International 
Space Station Authorization Act of 1995 (H. Rept. 104-210, 
filed July 28, 1995).

   SECTION 106. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND CORRESPONDING REDUCTION

Sectional analysis

    The Committee adopted an amendment to authorize up to an 
additional $274,360,000 for Mission to Planet Earth from within 
the total NASA authorization level of $11,547,400,000. This 
increase in the MTPE authorization requires the NASA 
Administrator to identify offsets in other NASA programs and 
submit those offsets to Congress for reprogramming approval 
before increasing the MTPE authorization beyond the 
$1,013,100,000 authorized in Section 102. None of the 
additional funds may be obligated or expended until (1) the 
National Academy of Sciences has conducted a comprehensive 
review of Mission to Planet Earth as part of its study of the 
U.S. Global Change Research Program and formally reported the 
results to Congress; (2) the NASA Administrator has developed 
and reported a plan to Congress for implementing the study's 
recommendations and formally requested all or part of the 
additional funds authorized for Mission to Planet Earth in 
Section 106; and, (3) 90 legislative days have passed after the 
Administrator's report is received by Congress.

Committee views

    Although Section 106 requires the Administrator to match 
each increase to MTPE above $1,013,100,000 with a corresponding 
reduction in a different NASA program, the Administrator is not 
required to request an increase in MTPE.
    The Administrator's reprogramming request should identify 
the specific offsets NASA proposes in order to accommodate a 
higher MTPE budget authority and an assessment of the impact 
those offsets will have on the affected programs. It is not the 
Committee's intention to defer its policymaking authority, 
budgetary judgments about Mission to Planet Earth, or 
comprehensive NASA program priorities to the National Academy 
of Sciences or the NASA Administrator. Should the Administrator 
request additional funding for Mission to Planet Earth, the 
Committee reserves the right to review the proposed increases 
against the specific offsets.

                   SECTION 107. LIMITED AVAILABILITY

    The Committee adopted an amendment which states that 
nothing in the Act will interfere with the rights of any 
parties under contracts and that nothing in the Act precludes 
the Consortium for International Earth Science Network (CIESIN) 
from competing for future contracts awarded following a full 
and open competition. Funds for CIESIN in fiscal year 1996 were 
specifically eliminated in section 102(a)(3). CIESIN is not 
prejudiced from competing for future contracts, subject to a 
full and open competition, using funds other than fiscal year 
1996 funds.

     Subtitle B.--Restructuring the National Aeronautics and Space 
                            Administration.

                         SECTION 111. FINDINGS

Sectional analysis

    Section 111 finds that restructuring NASA is essential to 
accomplishing space missions while balancing the federal 
budget; restructuring requires objective financial judgement; 
no formal economic review of NASA's infrastructure has been 
conducted; it is premature to close centers until such a formal 
economic review of the infrastructure and missions supported is 
performed; and, cost savings derived from the closing of NASA 
field centers are speculative and may risk mission goals unless 
derived from an asset-based analysis.

                    SECTION 112. ASSET-BASED REVIEW

Sectional analysis

    Section 112 initiates a formal asset-based review by 
requiring the Administrator, within 30 days after enactment of 
this Act, to issue a Request for Proposals to perform the 
review. Qualified proposals shall be from United States persons 
whose primary business is corporate financial strategy, 
investment banking, accounting, or asset management. The 
proposals, at minimum, shall propose to review, for each 
capital asset owned by NASA, the primary function of the asset 
in relation to a NASA program; the existence of duplicative 
assets; the federal and non-federal users of the asset; the 
asset's necessity for carrying out a NASA program.
    Section 112 (c) requires a report to Congress and the 
Administration no later than July 31, 1996, providing NASA a 
field center-by-center analysis of excess assets, assets that 
may be transferred to non-federal institutions and 
corporations, and a list of capital assets considered essential 
to be retained by NASA to conduct its missions. The report 
shall also examine the use of such assets in NASA programs, and 
provide a plan for achieving the most cost-effective 
consolidation of assets to support programs, including using 
non-federal assets when appropriate. The report shall also 
analyze the assets themselves, from the standpoint of 
maintenance and operational costs, valuation of the assets, and 
the most cost-effective strategy for maintaining, replacing, 
upgrading or disposing of the asset.
    Section 112 (d) implements the findings of the asset-based 
review by having the Administrator review the findings and 
requiring the President to propose implementing legislation to 
Congress not later than September 30, 1996. Section 112 (e) 
prohibits the Administrator from closing any NASA field center 
until after the asset-based review is completed and the report 
to Congress is transmitted. The Administrator may close only 
field centers that would become obsolete as a result of 
enactment of legislation to implement the Administrator's 
recommendations.

Committee views

    NASA has formally proposed to cut more than $4,000,000,000 
from its planned program cost over five years without cutting 
programs or missions, or closing any of its ten field center 
facilities. At first glance, this goal would seem impossible. 
The general methods for achieving cost savings of this 
magnitude are limited to actions that cut program content, 
reduce civil service employees, and close federal facilities. 
Efficiency improvements, quality and productivity efforts, 
process monitoring, and other management-driven reform programs 
have been initiated at NASA; unfortunately, these reforms take 
time and require some investment to achieve results. In any 
case, these kinds of reforms, while commendable as management 
initiatives, will not provide cost savings in addition to those 
previously baselined.
    The Committee recognizes the commendable goals of 
maintaining programs and not closing field centers, and thus, 
has proposed the asset-based review. Instead of summarily 
closing some of NASA's field centers, the Committee intends for 
the asset-based review to take the next logical step between 
the NASA Federal Laboratory Review and closing NASA field 
centers. The NASA Federal Laboratory Review identified the 
strategic strengths of NASA field centers and proposed ways for 
reducing the breadth of activity undertaken by the centers. It 
also proposed additional management reforms and standardization 
of procedures between centers. The Committee notes that NASA's 
zero-based review, while basing much of its work on the NASA 
Federal Laboratory Review, only proposes the consolidation of 
activities in a particular strategic enterprise. This amounts 
to little more than relocating particular research disciplines 
from two or more centers into one or two. It is implied by the 
series of relocations that enough attrition of civil service 
employees might thereby occur to save significant funds. The 
Committee does not believe attrition from relocations will 
either produce sufficient cost savings or result in a NASA that 
maintains necessary skills for the conduct of its missions.
    The asset-based review, on the other hand, will address the 
fundamental building blocks of the modern NASA budget: the 
assets which are owned by NASA, maintained and operated by 
civil servants, in the furtherance of NASA missions and 
programs. An analysis of NASA's cost structure based on 
programs and missions would be entirely misleading in today's 
NASA culture. The traditional impulse of NASA field center 
directors has been to justify annual budgets based on a 
comparatively subjective assessment of the center's importance 
or contribution to a particular program. This practice has 
resulted in centers obtaining work for part of a program in 
order to justify assets owned and resources to be consumed 
maintaining them, in the center's budget request submitted to 
headquarters. Alternatively, this practice resulted in each 
center acquiring new assets under the aegis of a program or 
mission, and which became duplicative of similar assets 
elsewhere in the NASA system.
    The Committee firmly intends that the contractor selected 
to conduct the asset-based review be from outside the 
traditional NASA contracting community, (i.e., not an aerospace 
or engineering firm) rather, the Committee directs that 
qualified proposals shall be from U.S. persons whose primary 
business is ``corporate financial strategy, investment banking, 
accounting, or asset management.'' The Committee intends that 
this review be conducted as dispassionately as possible, and 
without political considerations. In short, the review should 
be conducted as though a private investor had purchased NASA 
``lock, stock, and barrel'' with the intention of turning it 
into a profitable business.
    The Committee does not specify the scope of assets to be 
reviewed by the asset-based review contractor. The Committee 
believes some assets which drive large personnel costs are 
small, for instance some computer workstations. The Committee 
relies on the judgement of the contractor to target the range 
of assets that it believes will cause the greatest reduction in 
costs.
    Ideally, the most productive civil servants are those who 
are responsible for assets representing many times their cost 
of employment. The individual who operates the crane in Kennedy 
Space Center's Vehicle Assembly Building, which lifts the $2 
billion Space Shuttle Orbiter from the floor to be attached to 
the Shuttle's external tank, is arguably the single most 
productive person in the entire federal government by this 
standard.
    The Committee observes how the aerospace industry has 
managed its own down-sizing and restructuring by engaging in 
formal economic reviews of its capital asset base. Each merger 
and divestment decision taken by the aerospace industry has 
been guided by the residual value and earnings potential of 
capital assets. The Committee believes NASA can act as a 
private corporation would in considering the contribution of 
each capital asset it owns to the missions it undertakes. As 
NASA's budgets have declined considerably since 1992, the 
assets supported and maintained have remained relatively 
constant. Any company facing a declining sales base would 
determine which assets should be retired, sold and leased back, 
or otherwise managed for maximum return.
    A function of NASA's failure to manage according to assets 
is that resources to upgrade or modernize necessary assets are 
not made available by reducing unneeded assets. The asset-based 
review will provide the Administrator guidance for improving 
the use and utility of important assets, including strategies 
for upgrading or replacing these critical assets cost-
effectively.
    The Committee intends the asset-based review to provide 
Congress and the Administrator with objective information to 
use in making downsizing decisions while supporting all 
programs and missions approved by Congress. The Committee does 
not believe decisions to close NASA field centers can be made 
intelligently without having the formal economic analysis of 
center assets provided by this subtitle.
    The Committee also believes a formal ``Reduction In 
Force,'' if implemented under the present civil service system, 
would neither result in significant cost reduction nor provide 
necessary skills to conduct missions. The appropriate way to 
reduce employment is to reduce excess assets and, subsequently, 
the people charged with maintaining and operating unneeded 
assets.

             Subtitle C.--Limitations and Special Authority

               SECTION 121. USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION

    This section authorizes the use of funds appropriated for 
program purposes other than construction of facilities and 
personnel and travel-related costs in the Human Space Flight; 
Science, Aeronautics and Technology; and Mission Support 
accounts, for the construction of new facilities or repair of 
existing facilities at any location. The authorization is 
subject to a limitation that funds may not be expended for 
projects exceeding $500,000 until 30 days have passed following 
a report to the House Committee on Science and to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. This 
section would also provide for vesting of legal title in the 
United States when funds are used under this section for grants 
to academic institutions for additional research facilities.
    The Committee wishes to emphasize that the sole purpose of 
consolidating in one section the various provisions in previous 
authorization acts and bills concerning use of funds for 
construction of facilities purposes is to streamline and 
simplify the applicable legal authorities. This change from 
past practice should in no way be viewed as a dilution of the 
agency's authority to manage the construction of facilities 
program, or to realign the respective authorities and 
responsibilities of NASA Headquarters in relation to the 
Centers. With respect to the latter, the Committee expects the 
agency to establish the necessary internal procedures to ensure 
that construction of facilities decisions continue to be made 
in an orderly and fully justified manner.

           SECTION 122. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS

    Section 122 provides for funds authorized for Human Space 
Flight; Science, Aeronautics, and Technology; Mission Support; 
and, Inspector General to remain available until expended.

       SECTION 123. REPROGRAMMING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES

    Section 123 establishes authority for the Administrator to 
vary upward the amount of funds authorized for specific 
construction of facilities projects, provided that the total 
authorization for construction of facilities is not increased 
as a result of such reprogramming actions. This section also 
authorizes the Administrator to use up to $10,000,000 of 
amounts authorized in this bill for construction of facilities 
for projects that result from new and unforeseen developments 
in the national civil space program, subject to notification to 
the House and Senate authorizing committees.

                SECTION 124. CONSIDERATION BY COMMITTEES

    Section 124 establishes a requirement that the 
Administrator report in advance to the respective House and 
Senate authorizing committees the use of appropriated funds for 
a program where the Congress did not provide funding as 
requested; the amount of funds proposed to be used exceeds the 
amount authorized for the program under subtitle A of this 
bill; or the program was not presented to the Congress in the 
President's budget request. This section also obliges NASA to 
keep the authorizing committees fully apprised of agency 
activities and responsibilities within the jurisdiction of 
those committees, including the provision of information 
requested by either committee that relates thereto.

  SECTION 125. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS

    Section 125 requires the Administrator to submit a report 
to the Congress and to the Comptroller General on fiscal year 
1996 appropriations for programs not authorized under subtitle 
A of this bill or that exceed authorized amounts for specific 
programs. The report is to be submitted within 30 days 
following enactment of an appropriations act for fiscal year 
1996. Section 115 also requires the Administrator to publish a 
Federal Register notice seeking public comment on programs for 
which funds are appropriated but which were not authorized in 
this bill, and limits the obligation of such funds until 30 
days following close of the comment period.

SECTION 126. USE OF FUNDS FOR SCIENTIFIC CONSULTATIONS OR EXTRAORDINARY 
                                EXPENSES

    Section 126 authorizes the Administrator to use funds 
appropriated for Science, Aeronautics, and Technology 
activities, in an amount not exceeding $30,000 per fiscal year, 
for scientific consultations or extraordinary expenses.

             SECTION 127. LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS TO RUSSIA

    The Committee prohibits the transfer of funds authorized to 
be appropriated under this Act to Russia unless the following 
conditions are met: (1) the payment or transfer is authorized 
by this Act; (2) the payment or transfer is made in accordance 
with a written agreement between NASA and Russia; (3) during 
the term of such written agreement, a monthly report to NASA 
that fully accounts for the deposition of U.S. funds, including 
information as to whom, when, in what currency the funds are 
paid to Russia contractors or subcontractors, and the balance 
of funds not disbursed at the time of the report; (4) Russia 
provides all reports as required by this section; and (5) the 
President of the United States has certified to Congress that 
the presence of any troops of either the Russian Federation or 
the Commonwealth of Independent States, or any action by the 
Russian Federation or the Commonwealth of Independent States, 
does not violate the sovereignty of the Baltic states, or any 
other independent state of the former Soviet Union. The section 
defines the term ``Russia'' to mean the Government of the 
Russian Federation, the Russian Space Agency, or any agency or 
instrumentality of the Government of the Russian Federation or 
the Russia Space Agency.
    The Committee recognizes that the deliberately contractual 
nature of the agreements between NASA and the Government of the 
Russian Federation and the Russian Space Agency (RA) is 
intended to assure value received for any funds paid or 
transferred by NASA pursuant to the Interim Agreement between 
NASA and RA (Contract NAS15-10110). This section is not 
intended to constitute or supplant the function of a contract 
compliance audit. However, the Committee also recognizes the 
economic and political pressures that bear on even official 
institutions of the Russian government, including quasi-private 
firms having access to hard currency. The Committee is also 
aware that financial regulations in Russia are evolving at this 
time. The Committee's intent, as expressed by this section, is 
to help preserve the value (buying and/or negotiating power) of 
U.S. funds paid by NASA to Russia. The purpose of this section 
is to help the Committee understand, and to assure, the timely 
procurement and completion of Russia's tasks under the firm 
fixed-price contracts.
    Furthermore, the Committee believes the sovereignty of the 
Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union and the 
Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is fundamental 
to the positive new relationship between the United States and 
Russia. The Committee believes it would be inconsistent with 
U.S. policy for NASA to continue transacting business with 
Russia on space projects in the event that Russia, or the 
Commonwealth of Independent States, violates the sovereignty of 
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or any other independent states of 
the former Soviet Union. Accordingly, the President is required 
to certify, annually upon submission of the budget request, 
that the sovereignty of these states has not been violated by 
the Russian Federation or the Commonwealth of Independent 
States before payments or transfers to Russia, as authorized by 
this Act, can take place.

            SECTION 201. COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH AMENDMENTS

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    This section amends Chapter 701 of title 49, United States 
Code, entitled ``Commercial Space Launch Activities,'' which is 
a recodification of the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984. 
The purpose of the amendments is to establish a statutory 
framework for the licensing of commercial reentry activities by 
the Secretary of Transportation, clarify certain provision in 
Chapter 701, and provide for criteria for accepting a license 
application. $6,000,000 is authorized for the Secretary to 
carry out Chapter 701 for fiscal year 1996. None of these funds 
may be expended for policy analysis activities outside the 
scope of the Secretary's regulatory responsibilities under 
Chapter 701.
    The Commercial Space Launch Act is further amended to 
expand the definition of ``launch services'' to those 
activities directly related to the preparation of a launch site 
or payload facility. Under Section 70105, the Secretary of 
Transportation is directed to notify the authorizing House and 
Senate Committees within 7 days after a license has not been 
issued within the deadline. The Secretary may establish 
procedures for certification of the safety of a launch or 
reentry vehicle. The Secretary is also given the authority to 
develop regulations establishing criteria for accepting an 
application for a license within the 60 days after receipt of 
such application. The Secretary is directed to establish 
criteria and procedures for determining the priority of 
competing requests from the private sector and State 
governments for property and services under section 70111. The 
term ``license'' is amended to ``launch reentry or site 
operator license'' under section 70112 on liability insurance.

Program description

    The Department of Transportation, through its Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation, is responsible for 
implementing Chapter 701 which authorizes the Secretary of 
Transportation to license and regulate the nongovernmental 
space launch and reentry of a vehicle and operation of a launch 
or reentry site. In addition, by virtue of Executive Order 
12465, the Department has lead agency responsibilities within 
the Executive Branch to encourage, facilitate and coordinate 
development of commercial expendable launch vehicle operations 
by private U.S. enterprises.

Committee views

    When the Commercial Space Launch Act was passed in 1984 
(P.L. 98-575) and when it was amended in 1988 (P.L. 100-657), 
Congress did not address the full range of space transportation 
activities that the private sector could undertake on a 
commercial basis. Specifically, commercial space activities 
involving reentry vehicles that are returned to Earth from 
Earth orbit or from exo-atmospheric flight were not 
encompassed, and were not intended to be encompassed, by the 
statute. Market demand to support commercial reentry ventures 
has yet to emerge. However, the private sector is beginning to 
demonstrate technical capability to undertake such activities 
if a suitable profit making opportunity were presented. In 
recognition of these developments, the Committee wishes to 
establish the appropriate legal framework to ensure public 
safety is protected while minimizing regulatory burden, delay 
or uncertainty that could inhibit commercial exploitation of 
reentry capabilities. In addition to establishing a regulatory 
regime for commercial reentries, the Committee intends these 
amendments to address certain issues that have arisen regarding 
the definition of ``launch,'' the extent to which activities 
before and after launch may be licensed or regulated, and 
applicability of the third party liability provisions of 
sections 70112 and 70113 of Chapter 701.
    In establishing the legal framework for reentry, the 
Committee's approach is to treat reentry of a reentry vehicle 
the same as launch of a launch vehicle. Reentries described in 
section 70104(a) must be licensed, just as launches meeting 
these same criteria must be licensed. In addition, amendments 
to other sections of Chapter 701 grant to the Secretary the 
same authority and responsibility with respect to the licensing 
and regulation of the reentry of reentry vehicles as existing 
law provides to the Secretary with respect to the launch of 
vehicles.
    An amendment to section 70102 also adds the phrase ``from 
Earth'' to the existing definition of ``launch'' in order to 
make clear the original intention of the Commercial Space 
Launch Act that the launch of a launch vehicle is an event that 
takes place from Earth, not from Earth orbit or otherwise from 
or in outer space. Although the definition of launch in the 
original Act lacks this explicit specification, the Act was 
otherwise quite clear that a launch for purposes of the license 
requirement takes place from a ``launch site,'' which is 
defined in terms of a location ``on Earth.'' Moreover, the 
legislative history of the commercial Space Launch Act 
demonstrates that only launches from Earth were envisioned.
    The amendment to section 70102 was originally prompted by a 
concern that the Department of Transportation was advocating 
the position that a reentry is subject to a launch license 
requirement on the grounds that reentry entailed the placing of 
a launch vehicle in a suborbital trajectory ``from Earth 
orbit.'' Although the Department has since abandoned that 
position, the committee wishes by this amendment to register 
its emphatic rejection of any interpretation of ``launch'' that 
would include space transportation activities that do not begin 
from Earth; such as reentry, the transfer of a satellite 
between one Earth orbit and another, or any other on-orbit 
operation after a launch is completed and before reentry is 
initiated.
    The Committee intends that for purposes of the license 
requirement, reentry begins when the vehicle is prepared 
specifically for reentry. By way of definition, the Committee 
intends the term to apply to that phase of the overall space 
mission during which the reentry is intentionally initiated. 
Although this may vary slightly from system to system, as a 
general matter the Committee expects reentry to begin when the 
vehicles's attitude is oriented for propulsion firing to place 
the vehicle on its reentry trajectory.
    The Committee acknowledges that in order to issue a license 
the Department must be satisfied that an applicant has 
demonstrated capability to carry out a reentry safely and 
without jeopardy to critical national interests. The Committee 
also appreciates that, to evaluate capability, the Department 
may need to examine certain of the applicant's proposed 
procedures and activities that would precede initiation of 
reentry. However, the Committee wishes to make clear that these 
pre-reentry procedures or activities are not events requiring a 
license, nor otherwise subject to regulation. Rather, they 
would represent aspects of an application that the Department 
would have to measure against standards and criteria that the 
Department has established are necessary to evaluate capability 
to conduct the reentry. These standards and criteria may be 
generally applicable to all applicants or specific to a 
particular proposal. The Committee urges the Department to take 
the steps necessary to ensure that they are clearly articulated 
and understandable to license applicants.
    These same principles should apply to the licensing of a 
launch. There has been much discussion about what activities, 
should be encompassed by the term ``launch'' for purposes of 
the license requirement. It is the Committee's view that there 
may be activities that precede flight that (1) are closely 
proximate in time to ignition or lift-off, (2) entail critical 
steps preparatory to initiating flight, (3) are unique to space 
launch, and (4) are inherently so hazardous as to warrant the 
Department's regulatory oversight under Chapter 701, For 
instance, once a launch vehicle is fueled and armed in 
preparation for a launch, whether from the ground or the air, 
the risk of an inadvertent ignition may be sufficiently high to 
justify an interpretation of launch that would encompass this 
pre-flight phase of the launch campaign.
    The Committee recognizes that, given the very different 
preparatory process associated with individual launch vehicle 
systems, it may be difficult to pinpoint the same commencement 
of launch for all proposals. However, the Committee views with 
concern the Department's attempt to address this situation by 
using a license to indiscriminately cover all activities of a 
licensee at a launch facility before, during, and after a 
launch. The Committee believes that the Department can identify 
when a launch begins both for well-established launch systems 
as well as emerging systems. This would limit applicability of 
the Department's license requirement for purposes of obtaining 
a license and implementing the insurance and risk allocation 
provisions in Chapter 701.
    The original Act intended that a launch ends, as far as the 
launch vehicle's payload is concerned, once the launch vehicle 
places the payload in Earth orbit or in the planned trajectory 
in outer space. The Committee wishes to make clear that the 
Secretary has no authority to license or regulate activities 
that take place between the end of the launch phase and the 
beginning of the reentry phase, such as maneuvers between two 
Earth orbits or other non-reentry operations in Earth orbit; or 
after the end of a launch phase in the case of missions where 
the payload is not a reentry vehicle.
    Sections 70112 and 70113, establishing an allocation of 
risk regime, are also amended to cover reentry in the same way 
that launches are covered. The Committee notes that these 
provisions apply to losses sustained as a result of licensed 
activities, (i.e., launches and reentries) not events or 
activities before launch, between launch and reentry, or after 
reentry. Once a launch or a reentry is completed no protection 
against third party liability is intended to be provided under 
Chapter 701 unless there is a clear causal nexus between the 
loss and the behavior of the launch or reentry vehicle. For 
instance, if, subsequent to a launch vehicle's successful 
deployment of a payload that is not a reentry vehicle, the 
payload returns to Earth and causes third party loss, the loss 
is not intended to be covered by sections 70112 and 70113. As 
another example, if during an airborne launch, the aircraft 
suffers an accident after the vehicle has separated from the 
aircraft and taken off, and the accident is not attributable to 
the launch vehicle, then this event is also not intended to be 
covered by sections 70112 and 70113.
    To clarify applicability of sections 70112 and 70113 to 
licensed activities, the Committee recommends that the 
Secretary initiate a rule-making action to address both launch 
and reentry insurance and allocation of risk requirements as 
soon as reasonably practicable following enactment of this 
bill.

Additional amendments authorizing criteria for license application 
        acceptance

    Section 201 also amends Chapter 701 to authorize the 
Secretary to issue regulations establishing criteria for 
acceptance of a license application. The acceptance or 
rejection must be made within 60 days of receipt of the 
application. The purpose of this amendment is to (1) limit the 
undue expenditure of Office resources on determining whether an 
application is viable, and (2) to provide the applicant with 
timely notice of whether the application will be accepted.

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $6,000,000 is authorized for the Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation within the Department of Transportation.

Committee views

    The Committee views with concern the allocation of 
resources currently being provided for regulatory activities 
within the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, 
Department of Transportation. The Committee has consistently 
held since the creation of that office, that the primary duty 
of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation is to regulate 
commercial launches and launch site operators. Promotion and 
advocacy, are of secondary importance. By limiting the Office's 
policy-making functions to only those within its regulatory 
responsibilities, OCST will be able to concentrate on 
developing critical safety and insurance regulations, and 
licensing and certification procedures.
    The Committee notes that the current number of office 
personnel devoted to regulatory activities is less than half of 
total personnel. This reflects a downward trend during the past 
12 months in numbers of regulatory personnel. The Committee 
also notes that the remaining number, a majority of all office 
personnel, are devoted to non-regulatory activities, including 
representation at bilateral trade negotiations and promotional 
activities.
    The Committee directs the Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation to immediately correct the current imbalance in 
the number of personnel devoted to regulatory activities in 
order to reflect the priority of those duties. The Committee 
notes the requirement that regulatory personnel have the 
requisite technical and regulatory experience and skill level 
commensurate with the duties and responsibilities they are 
assigned. A written report on the revised allocation of office 
personnel is required to be submitted to the House Science 
Committee no later than December 31, 1995.
    It is the recommendation of the Committee that should the 
proposed transfer of the Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation from the Office of the Secretary to the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) be undertaken, that the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation be recognized as an independent 
division of the FAA with the same level of authority as the six 
current divisions. In addition, OCST should be allowed to 
operate autonomously in both its budget and personnel matters 
and that the Director of OCST should report directly to the FAA 
Administrator or his deputy.

  SECTION 202. OFFICE OF AIR AND SPACE COMMERCIALIZATION AUTHORIZATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $457,000 is authorized for the Department of Commerce 
Office of Air and Space Commercialization (OASC).

Program description

    The Office of Air and Space Commercialization assists the 
Secretary of Commerce in efforts to promote the commercial 
development of space through policy development, export 
licensing, and commercial remote sensing satellite regulation.

Committee views

    While the Committee commends the Office for its excellent 
work in the past, the Committee is concerned about the other 
forces within the Administration that are interfering with 
OASC's ability to effectively and efficiently coordinate and 
license commercial remote sensing satellites. The U.S. 
government is required to consider and issue or reject a 
license application to launch and operate a private remote 
sensing satellite within 120 days of a company's complete 
submission of an application. Over the past two years, this 
process has taken as long as eight months for some 
applications. Other reviews, such as those triggered by the 
addition of foreign partners, have taken longer than allowed. 
The Committee is aware that the Department of State is the 
source of many of these delays and is concerned that the 
Department of State may be exceeding its authority in the 
review process to make policy inconsistent with the President's 
policy direction.
    The Committee recognizes that the licensing process 
involves interagency cooperation and consultation, over which 
OASC has no authority. Consequently, responsibility for failure 
to comply with legally-mandated licensing deadlines rests with 
the White House, which is clearly not performing its agency 
coordination and oversight functions. Continued failures on the 
part of the Administration to provide a reliable regulatory 
regime for this emerging industry will undermine the 
willingness and ability of entrepreneurs to invest in 
commercial space activity, thereby threatening existing and 
potential high-technology jobs in the U.S. commercial space 
sector and the overall space technology base in the United 
States. Moreover, the Administration's inability to manage the 
interagency process, make license determinations on time, and 
ensure an efficient review process will undermine the ability 
of U.S. firms to compete with foreign enterprises on the 
market, again threatening U.S. aerospace jobs. The Committee 
urges the President to take all necessary steps to ensure that 
his Administration lives up to its obligations and will 
continue to closely monitor the licensing process.

         SECTION 203. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS

    Section 203 requires the NASA Chief Financial Officer to 
conduct independent cost analyses of all new projects estimated 
to cost in excess of $5,000,000, and to report the results of 
the analyses to the Congress when the President's budget 
request is submitted. The Committee views this provision as 
critical to its ongoing oversight and authorization 
responsibilities, as well as Congressional support for current 
and future NASA programs.

   SECTION 204. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958 AMENDMENTS

Automotive research

    Section 102 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 
1958 is amended to delete subsection (c), which relates to 
automotive research. With a declining budget profile for the 
next five years, the Committee recommends that NASA concentrate 
its resources on basic aeronautics and space research.

Reports to the Congress

    Section 204 amends the National Aeronautics and Space Act 
of 1958 to conform to Executive Branch practice the statutory 
requirement for the President to submit a report on 
governmental aeronautics and space activities and 
accomplishments, and to allow adequate time to prepare the 
report. Accordingly, the President is required to submit to 
Congress the annual aeronautics and space report in May, rather 
than January; and to address in the report activities carried 
out by government agencies on a fiscal, rather than calendar, 
year basis.

Disclosure of technical data

    Section 204 also amends the National Aeronautics and Space 
Act of 1958 by the addition of provisions that authorize the 
Administrator, under certain circumstances, to withhold from 
public disclosure technical data generated in the performance 
of experimental, development, or research activities funded 
jointly by NASA and the private sector that would enhance U.S. 
aerospace industry competitiveness.
    Under existing authority (42 U.S.C. 22454(b)), NASA is 
authorized to withhold from public disclosure for up to five 
years information that (1) results from activities conducted 
under an agreement entered into under section 203(c) (5) and 
(6) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, and (2) 
would be exempt from disclosure as a trade secret or commercial 
or financial information privileged or confidential under the 
Freedom of Information Act if it were obtained from a 
nongovernmental participant in the activities. However, this 
authority does not necessarily apply to the product of jointly-
funded research and development initiatives.
    The absence of appropriate protection for commercially-
sensitive data can be an obstacle to industry involvement and 
investment in cooperative projects with NASA. Private sector 
participation and cost-sharing in NASA projects could be 
encouraged by allowing temporary protection for certain kinds 
of commercially sensitive data that may emerge from cooperative 
initiatives. At the same time, the Committee supports 
fundamental principles of open access to Government information 
that underlie the Freedom of Information Act.
    The amendment set forth in Section 204 seeks to balance 
these competing interests. Subject to issuance of regulations 
implementing this provision, the Administrator is authorized to 
afford limited and temporary protection for up to five years of 
technical data generated in the course of joint NASA-private 
sector research activities and programs as long as such 
activities include cost-sharing by the industry partners. 
``Technical data'' is defined as any recorded information, 
including computer software that is, or may be, directly 
applicable to the design, engineering, development, production, 
manufacture, or operation of products or processes that may 
have significant value in maintaining leadership or 
competitiveness in civil and governmental aeronautical and 
space activities by the United States industrial base. 
Regulations required to be issued are to include guidance for 
evaluating data from cooperative projects to determine whether 
it is encompassed by the definition of ``technical data''; 
specification of the period(s) of nondisclosure for different 
types of technical data, including a requirement that the full 
five-year nondisclosure period is available only if the private 
sector share of funding is at least 50%; and identification of 
those experimental, developmental, or research activities that 
could generate technical data protected under this amendment. 
The Committee believes that NASA should study whether the 
regulations should provide for a sliding scale that would 
provide longer periods of protection for larger amounts of 
cost-sharing by industry. Cost-sharing means the expenditure by 
industry of private funds directly on the joint research 
activities.

                        SECTION 205. PROCUREMENT

    This section establishes a program of expedited technology 
procurement to demonstrate how innovative technology concepts 
generated by the private sector can quickly be brought to bear 
upon NASA space missions.
    Subsection (a) creates a procurement demonstration program 
within the Office of Space Access and Technology with a sunset 
provision of ten years. At least one percent of the amounts 
authorized for this office shall be used for innovative 
technology procurement of space hardware, technology or 
services from the private sector.
    Evaluation of these technology concepts against the 
agency's mission requirements shall be conducted by NASA's 
Advisory Council. The Administrator is given special authority 
to hire, for limited term appointments, persons outside of NASA 
with expertise in relevant innovative technology concepts. In 
the past, NASA has been unreceptive to new solutions or ideas 
that came from outside the agency. This subsection is designed 
to generate creative solutions from the private sector which 
shall be applied to the missions of NASA.
    Subsection (b) calls for a technology procurement 
initiative wherein the Administrator is required to certify 
that no functional equivalent of space hardware, technology, or 
service exists in the commercial sector or other, non-NASA 
federal agency before NASA can proceed with any procurement. 
The Administrator is required to comment in the Commerce 
Business Daily. This subsection is intended to ensure that NASA 
pursues ``off-the-shelf'' technology available from the private 
sector or another non-NASA federal agency before soliciting a 
more expensive one-of-a-kind procurement.

 SECTION 206. ADDITIONAL NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 
                               FACILITIES

    This section requires the Administrator to determine, prior 
to construction or lease of new facilities, that no existing 
NASA or other federally-owned facilities are appropriate for 
the intended use.

              SECTION 207. PURCHASE OF SPACE SCIENCE DATA

    This section requires NASA, to the maximum extent possible, 
to purchase space science data from the private sector and to 
accomplish these procurements through a competitive bidding 
process.
    The purpose of this section is to encourage the 
Administrator of NASA to acquire space science data 
commercially. For those data sets with both scientific merit 
and commercial appeal, NASA can spur commercial enterprises 
while acquiring the data faster and cheaper.

             SECTION 208. REPORT ON MISSION TO PLANET EARTH

    The Administrator shall, within six months after the date 
of enactment of this act, transmit to Congress a report on 
Mission to Planet Earth including the following: (1) an 
analysis of Earth observation systems of other countries to 
include current and historical data sets; (2) an analysis of 
how Department of Defense airborne and space sensor systems 
could be used in MTPE; (3) a plan for infusing advanced 
technology into the MTPE program; (4) a plan to solicit 
proposals from the private sector on how to accomplish the 
goals of MTPE; (5) an integrated plan for research in the 
Scientific and MTPE enterprises in NASA; (6) a plan for 
developing metrics and milestones to quantify the performance 
of MTPE; and, (7) an analysis of how the U.S. government can 
use the space-based and airborne remote sensing data, services, 
distribution, and applications of the private sector to meet 
MTPE goals.

                   SECTION 209. SHUTTLE PRIVATIZATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    The Administrator shall publish, within 30 days after 
enactment of this Act, in the Commerce Business Daily a request 
for proposals (RFP) to achieve a single prime contract for the 
space shuttle program. Certain criteria for the proposals are 
laid out, including a requirement that each proposal be 
accompanied by a plan to privatize the space shuttle program. 
The Administrator shall forward the privatization plans to 
Congress not later than 30 days after the deadline for 
submitting proposals to the RFP.
    The Committee adopted an amendment directing the 
Administrator to prepare for an orderly transition from the 
federal operation, or federal management of contracted 
operation, of space transportation systems to federal purchase 
of commercial space transportation services. The Administrator 
shall also plan for the potential privatization of the Space 
Shuttle program.
    The section includes a prohibition of funds authorized 
under this Act being used to plan or prepare for Federal 
Government, or federally contracted, operation of the Space 
Shuttle beyond the year 2012, or for studying, designing, or 
developing upgrades to the Shuttle whose sole purpose is to 
extend the operational life of the Space Shuttle system beyond 
2012.
    The Committee adopted an amendment to the aforementioned 
amendment which allows the federal, or federally contracted, 
operations of the Space Shuttle through 2012, or the privatized 
operation of the Space Shuttle after the year 2012.

Committee view

    In order to realize cost savings in the shuttle program, 
the Committee directs the NASA Administrator to move forward 
with a single prime contract. Each proposal is required to 
contain a privatization plan. The Committee is interested in 
receiving expert input on privatization from the individuals 
who are intimately involved in the shuttle program. 
Privatization is the next logical step beyond consolidation of 
existing contracts and should be carried out in a manner that 
provides for a safe and efficient transition to private 
enterprise.
    The Committee supports human spaceflight and endorses the 
concept of a derivative of a reusable launch vehicle to satisfy 
the requirement for a manned successor to the space shuttle 
program. This follow-on project should become operational prior 
to the planned milestone of the year 2012, at which time major 
decisions will have to have been reached regarding the service 
life extension of the shuttle. It is hoped that any such system 
will be operated by the private sector as will any operation of 
the shuttle by and beyond 2012. It is with this in mind that 
the Committee wishes to restrict any modifications to the 
shuttle that serve solely to extend its operating life past 
this milestone. The Committee views the goal of a privately 
operated follow-on to the shuttle program as one that is 
achievable by this date but will reserve the right to monitor 
the progress of both programs and revise any milestones 
accordingly.

      SECTION 210. AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY FACILITIES

Sectional analysis

    No funds may be obligated beyond the authorized amount in 
this bill, unless the Administrator receives full reimbursement 
of such excess amounts from non-federal sources.

Committee view

    The Committee has responded to a report by the 
Congressional Budget Office that has been critical of certain 
programs within the NASA Aeronautics program. Programmatic 
descriptions of some of the elements of the Advanced Subsonic 
Technologies program in particular, lend themselves to being 
interpreted as more mature than basic research. While there is 
no question that domestic aerospace manufacturers are competing 
with heavily subsidized foreign aircraft companies, it is not 
the responsibility of NASA to respond in kind. To that end, any 
funds obligated in excess of the amounts authorized by this Act 
for Aeronautics Research and Technology programs will require 
the Administrator to receive full reimbursement from non-
federal sources.

      SECTION 211. LAUNCH VOUCHER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

Sectional analysis

    Launch Voucher Demonstration Program Amendments, Section 
504 of the fiscal year 1993 National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Act (P.L. 102-588) is amended by striking out 
outdated references to dates and offices.

 SECTION 212. PRIVATIZATION OF MICROGRAVITY PARABOLIC FLIGHT OPERATIONS

    The Committee accepted an amendment to privatize all 
parabolic microgravity flight operations conducted by or for 
NASA. The Committee's intent in adopting this amendment is to 
accelerate the development of a new commercial space-related 
industry and save scarce federal resources. The Committee 
believes that such action is consistent with the desire 
Congress and the NASA Administrator have expressed to spin-off 
NASA activities that can be performed by the private sector at 
a lower cost.
    The Committee's intention in privatizing microgravity 
flights is to change NASA from a provider of services to the 
commercial sector into a consumer of services provided by the 
private sector, which presumably will also earn revenue and 
cover overhead expenses from private-sector consumers of such 
services. Prior to discontinuing its own microgravity parabolic 
flights, as required by this section, NASA should report to the 
House Committee on Science and the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation any shortfalls in the 
private sector's ability to meet NASA needs, any steps NASA can 
take to help the private sector rectify those shortcomings, and 
the expected budgetary impact of privatizing microgravity 
flights.

                  SECTION 213. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    The Administrator is directed to exclude from consideration 
of awards of financial assistance by NASA after fiscal year 
1995, any person who received funds appropriated for a fiscal 
year after fiscal year 1995, from federal funding that was not 
subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process. This 
exclusion is effective for five years after the person receives 
such federal funds. This section shall not apply to persons who 
are members of a class specified by law for which assistance is 
awarded to members of the class according to a formula provided 
by law.

Committee view

    The Committee has long opposed the use of NASA funds for 
earmarked projects, as a corruption of the well-established 
peer review process. Section 213 is intended to ensure that 
funds authorized under this Act are not expended unless a 
competitive, merit-based, peer reviewed process is used to 
award the financial assistance. With the exception of persons 
who are a member of a class specified by law for which 
assistance is awarded to members of the class according to a 
formula provided by law, anyone who, after fiscal year 1995, 
receives funds for a project that was not subjected to a 
competitive, merit-based award process is to be excluded from 
awards of financial assistance under this Act.

            SECTION 214. PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be available 
for lobbying activities. This section shall not prevent 
departments or agencies from communicating with Congress on the 
request of any Member or to Congress on legislation or 
appropriations.

Committee views

    The Committee strongly opposes the use of federal funds for 
the purpose of lobbying Members of Congress.

               SECTION 215. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    Fiscal year 1996 sums can be used for only those activities 
and those specific amounts that are specifically authorized by 
this Act. Any subsequent fiscal years must be specifically 
authorized by this Act.

Committee views

    Section 215 emphasizes the Committee position that the only 
funds authorized to be appropriated for the activities of NASA 
(other than the International Space Station), the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation of the Department of 
Transportation, and the Office of Air and Space 
Commercialization of the Department of Commerce are made 
available through this Act. It is the Committee's clear intent 
that annual authorizations are required for appropriations to 
be authorized. Organic act authority is enabling of agency 
missions and programmatic activity, but not sufficient to 
authorize actual funding.

      SECTION 216. UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949 AMENDMENTS

Sectional analysis

    This section is amended to reflect the fact that the 
Unitary Wind Tunnel Act of 1949, as amended in 1958 does not 
include provisions for hypersonic facilities. It is further 
amended to include research and engineering centers along with 
laboratories for construction or expansion of wind tunnel 
facilities covered under the Act.

Committee view

    The Committee wishes to encourage ongoing studies into the 
development of advanced aeronautic facilities. The Committee 
also recognizes that NASA and its industry partners are 
aggressively pursuing alternative plans which consider fewer 
new facilities, the utilization of existing infrastructure for 
development of new facilities, and increased cost-sharing for 
their construction. Industry must prioritize its long-term 
research needs with those of the Department of Defense and 
other federal agencies, within realistic budgetary constraints, 
before the Committee can favorably consider the authorization 
of funds for new facilities.

                         VII. Committee Actions

Subcommittee markup

    On July 19, 1995, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
convened to mark up the Chairman's mark of H.R. 2043, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization 
Act, fiscal year 1996. The purpose of this markup was to 
authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration for fiscal year 1996.
    Of the ten amendments submitted, six were adopted, one was 
defeated, two were withdrawn, and one was not offered.
    Amendment 1.--Mr. Sensenbrenner offered an amendment on 
technical and conforming language. The amendment was adopted by 
voice vote.
    Amendment 2.--Ms. Harman's amendment to increase funding 
for Mission To Planet Earth by $274,360,000 without offsets was 
discussed but not offered. Mr. Sensenbrenner expressed concern 
over the amendment because it contained no specific offsets and 
therefore, it would be the NASA Administrator's decision about 
where to take the corresponding cuts.
    Amendment 3.--Mr. Rohrabacher offered an En Bloc amendment 
which inserted a new finding in Section 2 on commercial launch 
services; a new paragraph to promote purchase of commercial 
space transportation services for all non-emergency manned and 
unmanned launches; an amendment to insert language regarding 
shuttle privatization (RFP); and a new paragraph to prohibit 
space shuttle funding beyond 2012. The En Bloc amendment was 
adopted as amended by voice vote.
    Amendment 4.--Mr. Weldon (FL) offered an amendment to Mr. 
Rohrabacher's amendment, which clarifies that the shuttle can 
be operated by the federal government or a federal contractor 
through 2012 and can be privately operated after 2012. Mr. 
Weldon's amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 5.--Mr. Weldon (FL) offered a substitute En Bloc 
amendment to amend the Commercial Space Launch Act regarding 
spaceports. This amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 6.--Mr. Roemer offered an En Bloc amendment to 
change Aeronautic Research and Technology program priorities: 
$15 million out of Research and Technology, $15 million out of 
High Speed Research, and $30 million added to Advanced Subsonic 
Technology. The amendment was defeated by a roll call vote of 8 
to 13.
    Amendment 7.--Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment to take 
$24,400,000 out of Terminal Area Productivity (Aeronautics 
Account) and put this amount into the X-33 project was not 
offered.
    Amendment 8.--Mr. Davis offered an En Bloc amendment to add 
``exo-atmospheric flight'' to Commercial Space Launch Act. This 
amendment places the X-34 under the commercial space launch 
licensing and insurance schemes. Since the X-34 does not 
actually reenter the earth's atmosphere from outer space, as 
defined by the bill, its return to Earth will not be covered by 
the licensing and insurance requirements of the Department of 
Transportation. This amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 9.--Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment that 
provided a new section, Sec. 212, Privatization of Microgravity 
Parabolic Flight Operations. This amendment allows private 
companies to perform microgravity flights used to train 
astronauts, perform test experiments, or other short-duration 
zero-gravity work presently being performed by NASA. Mr. Walker 
was concerned that a referral was likely because of the Federal 
Aviation Administration. This amendment passed by voice vote, 
but it was agreed that the referral issue would be examined 
prior to Full Committee markup.
    Amendment 10.--Mr. Hilleary withdrew his amendment on 
revising the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949, with the 
intent to offer it at Full Committee.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Hall moved that the Subcommittee 
report the bill, as amended, and that staff prepare the 
Subcommittee report and make technical and conforming 
amendments and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to 
bring the bill before the Full Committee for consideration. The 
motion was agreed to by voice vote.

Full committee markup

    On July 25, 1995, the Committee on Science convened to mark 
up the Chairman's mark of H.R. 2043, the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration Authorization Act, fiscal year 1996. 
The purpose of the markup was to authorize appropriations for 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal 
year 1996.
    Of the ten amendments submitted, six were adopted, three 
were defeated, and one was withdrawn.
    Amendment 1.--Mr. Brown offered an amendment in the Nature 
of a Substitute. The amendment would increase the overall 
funding level to $13.8 billion, a 1.2% level above H.R. 2043. 
It provides full funding for Space Station and science 
programs, including Cassini, a new start for SOFIA and the New 
Millennium program. It provides funding for Advanced Subsonic 
Aeronautical Research, Space Infrared Telescope Facility and 
Gravity Probe-B. It significantly reduces the Reusable Launch 
Vehicle program and makes minor reductions to the Mission to 
Planet Earth. Defeated by voice vote.
    Amendment 2.--Mr. Roemer offered an amendment to restore 
partial funding for Regional Technology Transfer Centers 
(RTTCs). This amendment would put $35 million in the Regional 
Technology Transfer Centers account, which is currently funded 
at $7 million a year. Withdrawn.
    Amendment 3.--Mr. Roemer offered an amendment to 
reprioritize funds in Aeronautics R&D programs. This amendment 
would take away $15 million from the research and technology 
base and $15 million from high-speed research and put $30 
million into the advanced subsonic account. Defeated--Roll 
Call--Y-13, N-24.
    Amendment 4.--Ms. Harman offered an amendment to increase 
funding for the Mission to Planet Earth by $274,360,000. This 
amendment would increase funding for the Mission to Planet 
Earth. This amendment was the same, with the exception of 
clarifying language, that Ms. Harman offered at Subcommittee 
level.
    Amendment 4a.--Mr. Bartlett offered an amendment to the 
amendment offered by Ms. Harman. This amendment adds to the 
Harman amendment subsection (c) ``Limitation on Obligation and 
Expenditure.'' This amendment would require the National 
Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive review of the 
Mission to Planet Earth program as part of its study of the 
U.S. Global Change Research Program. It would require the 
Administrator to report to Congress a plan for implementing the 
study's recommendation. The Administrator would have to make a 
formal request for all or part of the funds fenced off by this 
amendment ($274,360,000). Furthermore, the amendment would 
require that 90 legislative days pass after the report is 
transmitted before these funds would be available for 
obligation or expenditure. Amendment to the amendment--Adopted 
by voice vote. Amendment by Ms. Harman--Adopted, as amended, by 
voice vote.
    Amendment 5.--Ms. Lofgren offered an amendment to 
restructure the NASA field centers. This amendment states that 
the Administrator shall not reconfigure any NASA field centers 
in a manner which would change the enterprises of such centers 
until after the asset-based review report is transmitted and 
after enactment of legislation implementing the Administrator's 
recommendation. The Chairman raised a concern that this 
amendment would undercut the Administrator's ability to conduct 
zero-based review which allows for cutting costs without 
cutting missions or closing centers. Defeated--Roll Call--Y-6, 
N-23.
    Amendment 6.--Mr. Hilleary offered an amendment creating a 
new section, 215, of the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949. 
This amendment offers technical changes to update the language 
in the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949. Adopted by voice 
vote.
    Amendment 7.--Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment to 
strike subsection (c) on FAA regulation. This amendment was a 
technical correction of an amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher and 
adopted in Subcommittee. This amendment struck language 
referring to the FAA so as to not cross jurisdictional lines. 
Adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 8.--Mr. Weldon (PA) offered an amendment 
referring to GLOBE. This amendment would strike the language of 
the original bill that specifically eliminated (GLOBE) Global 
Observations to Benefit the Environment program. Adopted by 
voice vote.
    Amendment 9.--Mr. Barcia offered an amendment creating a 
new section 106 (Limited Availability) on CIESIN. This 
amendment would allow a privatized CIESIN to compete for future 
contracts following a full and open-bidding competition. 
Adopted by voice vote.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Brown moved that the Committee 
report the bill, as amended, to make technical and conforming 
amendments, prepare the legislative report, and that the 
Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the 
House for consideration. The motion was adopted by voice vote.
    Mr. Brown moved that the Members have three legislative 
days to submit supplemental minority and additional views. The 
motion was adopted.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner moved that the Committee adopt, as part 
of the legislative report on H.R. 2043, the summary chart. The 
motion was adopted by voice vote.
    Mr. Ehlers moved 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 H.R. 2043 or a similar Senate 
bill. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.

                     VIII. Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report that accompanies 
a measure providing new budget authority, new spending 
authority, or new credit authority or changing revenue or tax 
expenditure to contain a cost estimate, as required by section 
308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, 
and, when practicable with respect to estimates of new budget 
authority, a comparison of the total estimated funding relevant 
program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under current 
law.
    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII requires each committee report 
accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a public 
character to contain the committee's cost estimates, which 
include, where practicable, a comparison of the total estimated 
funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the 
appropriate levels under current law.
    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

             IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimates

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, August 4, 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 for H.R. 2043, the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal 
Year 1996.
    Enacting H.R. 2043 could affect direct spending and 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to 
the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                                   June E. O'Neill.
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 2043.
    2. Bill title: National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1996.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Science on July 25, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: H.R. 2043 would authorize fiscal year 1996 
appropriations for the Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation (OCST) in the Department of Transportation 
(DOT), the Office of Air and Space Commercialization in the 
Department of Commerce, and all programs of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) except the 
International Space Station. The bill also would direct NASA to 
privatize its microgravity parabolic flight operations in 1996 
and take steps toward privatizing the space shuttle operations 
by the year 2012. Other provisions would reform NASA's 
procurement practices for innovative technologies, set 
guidelines for disclosing data developed jointly with the 
private sector, and require an asset-based review of NASA 
operations to guide the restructuring of the agency. Finally, 
the bill would expand the scope of existing law regarding the 
licensing of commercial space launch activities by OCST to 
include reentry vehicles, activities, and sites.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: As shown in 
the following table, H.R. 2043 would authorize appropriations 
totaling $11.6 billion for 1996. Of this total, $6 million 
would be authorized for OCST, $457,000 for the Office of Air 
and Space Commercialization, and $11.5 billion for NASA. 
Enacting this bill could affect direct spending and revenues, 
but CBO estimates that any such amounts would not be 
significant over the 1996-2000 period.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1995       1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending under current law:                                                                                     
    Budget authority \1\......................     11,766          0          0          0          0          0
    Estimated outlays.........................     12,497      4,466        979         53         21          9
Proposed changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization level.......................          0     11,554          0          0          0          0
    Estimated outlays.........................          0      7,297      3,475        782          0          0
Spending under H.R. 2043:                                                                                       
    Authorization level \1\...................     11,766     11,554          0          0          0          0
    Estimated outlays.........................     12,497     11,763      4,454        835         21          9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1995 level is the amount actually appropriated for that year.                                           

    The budgetary impacts of this bill fall within budget 
functions 250, 370, and 400.
    Spending Subject to Appropriations Action.--This estimate 
assumes that the full amounts authorized will be appropriated 
and that outlays would occur at rates consistent with 
historical trends for each program. Although provisions 
regarding procurement reforms for the space shuttle and 
innovative technologies could accelerate the pace of 
obligations in those programs, these changes are not expected 
to significantly effect spending patterns in 1996.
    We also assume for this estimate that federally supported 
experiments that use private microgravity parabolic flight 
operators would be funded within the amounts authorized by H.R. 
2043 for NASA operations. The amount and timing of 
appropriations for such costs would depend on the terms of the 
contractual arrangements and may differ from the amounts that 
would be budgeted for those operations under current law. CBO 
estimates that other provisions of the bill would have no 
significant effect on discretionary spending.
    Direct Spending and Revenues.--Enacting this bill could 
result in offsetting receipts to the government from the sale 
of surplus property or from the levy of civil penalties. 
Privatization of microgravity parabolic flight operations would 
reduce NASA's need for certain aircraft, which could lead to 
the sale of such facilities as surplus property by the General 
Services Administration. CBO does not estimate receipts from 
such sales over the next five years, because officials at NASA 
have indicated that the aircraft would continue to be used by 
the agency for other programs.
    CBO estimates that any additional receipts from penalties 
resulting from this bill would be insignificant. DOT has never 
collected a penalty for a violation of the licensing and 
related requirements of the commercial space transportation 
program.
    6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enactment 
of H.R. 2043 could affect direct spending and receipts because 
of provisions that could result in the sale of surplus property 
or the collection of civil penalties. As shown in the following 
table, we estimate that these changes would be zero or 
negligible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1995       1996       1997       1998  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays...........          0          0          0          0
Change in receipts..........          0          0          0          0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
    8. Estimate comparison: None.
    9. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    10. Estimate prepared by: Kathleen Gramp.
    11. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, for Paul N. 
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                 X. Effects of Legislation on Inflation

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI requires each committee report on 
a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include an 
analytical statement describing what impact enactment of the 
measure would have on prices and costs in the operation of the 
national economy. The Committee has determined that H.R. 2043 
has no inflationary impact on the national economy.

               XI. 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.

    XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
                    Government Reform and Oversight

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on Science 
has received no such findings or recommendations from the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

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

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italics, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

          * * * * * * *

              SUBTITLE IX--COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

          * * * * * * *

            CHAPTER 701--COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES

Sec.
70101.  Findings and purposes.
70102.  Definitions.
70103.  General authority.
[70104.  Restrictions on launches and operations.]
70104.  Restrictions on launches, operations, and reentries.
70105.  License applications and requirements.
70106.  Monitoring activities.
70107.  Effective periods, and modifications, suspensions, and 
          revocations, of licenses.
[70108.  Prohibition, suspension, and end of launches and operation of 
          launch sites.
[70109.  Preemption of scheduled launches.]
70108.  Prohibition, suspension, and end of launches, operation of 
          launch sites and reentry sites, and reentries.
70109.  Preemption of scheduled launches or reentries.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 70101. Findings and purposes

  (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (3) new and innovative equipment and services are 
        being sought, produced, and offered by entrepreneurs in 
        telecommunications, information services, microgravity 
        research, and remote sensing technologies;
          (4) the private sector in the United States has the 
        capability of developing and providing private 
        satellite launching, reentry, and associated services 
        that would complement the launching, reentry, and 
        associated services now available from the United 
        States Government;
          (5) the development of commercial launch vehicles, 
        reentry vehicles, and associated services would enable 
        the United States to retain its competitive position 
        internationally, contributing to the national interest 
        and economic well-being of the United States;
          (6) providing launch services and reentry services by 
        the private sector is consistent with the national 
        security and foreign policy interests of the United 
        States and would be facilitated by stable, minimal, and 
        appropriate regulatory guidelines that are fairly and 
        expeditiously applied;
          (7) the United States should encourage private sector 
        launches, reentries, and associated services and, only 
        to the extent necessary, regulate those launches, 
        reentries, and services to ensure compliance with 
        international obligations of the United States and to 
        protect the public health and safety, safety of 
        property, and national security and foreign policy 
        interests of the United States;
          (8) space transportation, including the establishment 
        and operation of launch sites, reentry sites, and 
        complementary facilities, the providing of launch 
        services and reentry services, the establishment of 
        support facilities, and the providing of support 
        services, is an important element of the transportation 
        system of the United States, and in connection with the 
        commerce of the United States there is a need to 
        develop a strong space transportation infrastructure 
        with significant private sector involvement; and
          (9) the participation of State governments in 
        encouraging and facilitating private sector involvement 
        in space-related activity, particularly through the 
        establishment of a space transportation-related 
        infrastructure, including launch sites, reentry sites, 
        complementary facilities, and launch site and reentry 
        site support facilities, is in the national interest 
        and is of significant public benefit.
  (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this chapter are--
          (1)  * * *
          (2) to encourage the United States private sector to 
        provide launch vehicles, reentry vehicles, and 
        associated services by--
                  (A) simplifying and expediting the issuance 
                and transfer of commercial [launch] licenses; 
                and
                  (B) facilitating and encouraging the use of 
                Government-developed space technology;
          (3) to provide that the Secretary of Transportation 
        is to oversee and coordinate the conduct of commercial 
        launch and reentry operations, issue and transfer 
        commercial [launch] licenses authorizing those 
        operations, and protect the public health and safety, 
        safety of property, and national security and foreign 
        policy interests of the United States; and
          (4) to facilitate the strengthening and expansion of 
        the United States space transportation infrastructure, 
        including the enhancement of United States launch sites 
        and launch-site support facilities, and development of 
        reentry sites, with Government, State, and private 
        sector involvement, to support the full range of United 
        States space-related activities.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 70102. Definitions

  In this chapter--
  (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (3) ``launch'' means to place or try to place a 
        launch vehicle and any payload from Earth--
                  (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (5) ``launch services'' means--
                  (A) activities directly related to the 
                preparation of a launch site or payload 
                facility for one or more launches;
                  [(A)] (B) activities involved in the 
                preparation of a launch vehicle and payload for 
                launch; and
                  [(B)] (C) the conduct of a launch.
          * * * * * * *
          (10) ``reenter'' and ``reentry'' mean to return or 
        attempt to return, purposefully, a reentry vehicle and 
        its payload, if any, from Earth orbit, from exo-
        atmospheric flight, or from outer space to Earth.
          (11) ``reentry services'' means--
                  (A) activities involved in the preparation of 
                a reentry vehicle and its payload, if any, for 
                reentry; and
                  (B) the conduct of a reentry.
          (12) ``reentry site'' means the location on Earth to 
        which a reentry vehicle is intended to return (as 
        defined in a license the Secretary issues or transfers 
        under this chapter).
          (13) ``reentry vehicle'' means a vehicle designed to 
        return from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, or a 
        reusable launch vehicle designed to return from outer 
        space or exo-atmospheric flight to Earth, substantially 
        intact.
          [(10)] (14) ``State'' means a State of the United 
        States, the District of Columbia, and a territory or 
        possession of the United States.
          [(11)] (15) ``third party'' means a person except--
                  (A) the United States Government or the 
                Government's contractors or subcontractors 
                involved in launch services or reentry 
                services;
                  (B) a licensee or transferee under this 
                chapter;
                  (C) a licensee's or transferee's contractors, 
                subcontractors, or customers involved in launch 
                services or reentry services; or
                  (D) the customer's contractors or 
                subcontractors involved in launch services or 
                reentry services.
          [(12)] (16) ``United States'' means the States of the 
        United States, the District of Columbia, and the 
        territories and possessions of the United States.

Sec. 70103. General authority

  (a)  * * *
  (b) Facilitating Commercial Launches and Reentries and State 
Sponsored Spaceports.--In carrying out this chapter, the 
Secretary shall--
          (1) encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial 
        space launches and reentries by the private sector and 
        State sponsored spaceports; and
          (2) take actions to facilitate private sector 
        involvement in commercial space transportation 
        activity, and to promote public-private partnerships 
        involving the United States Government, State 
        governments, and the private sector to build, expand, 
        modernize, or operate a space launch and reentry 
        infrastructure.
          * * * * * * *

[Sec. 70104. Restrictions on launches and operations]

Sec. 70104. Restrictions on launches, operations, and reentries

  (a) License Requirement.--A license issued or transferred 
under this chapter is required for the following:
          (1) for a person to launch a launch vehicle or to 
        operate a launch site or reentry site, or reenter a 
        reentry vehicle, in the United States.
          (2) for a citizen of the United States (as defined in 
        section 70102(1)(A) or (B) of this title) to launch a 
        launch vehicle or to operate a launch site or reentry 
        site, or reenter a reentry vehicle, outside the United 
        States.
          (3) for a citizen of the United States (as defined in 
        section 70102(1)(C) of this title) to launch a launch 
        vehicle or to operate a launch site or reentry site, or 
        reenter a reentry vehicle, outside the United States 
        and outside the territory of a foreign country unless 
        there is an agreement between the United States 
        Government and the government of the foreign country 
        providing that the government of the foreign country 
        has jurisdiction over the launch or operation or 
        reentry.
          (4) for a citizen of the United States (as defined in 
        section 70102(1)(C) of this title) to launch a launch 
        vehicle or to operate a launch site or reentry site, or 
        reenter a reentry vehicle, in the territory of a 
        foreign country if there is an agreement between the 
        United States Government and the government of the 
        foreign country providing that the United States 
        Government has jurisdiction over the launch or 
        operation or reentry.
  (b) Compliance With Payload Requirements.--The holder of a 
[launch] license under this chapter may launch or reenter a 
payload only if the payload complies with all requirements of 
the laws of the United States related to launching or 
reentering a payload.
  (c) [Preventing Launches.--] Preventing Launches and 
Reentries.--The Secretary of Transportation shall establish 
whether all required licenses, authorizations, and permits 
required for a payload have been obtained. If no license, 
authorization, or permit is required, the Secretary may prevent 
the launch or reentry if the Secretary decides the launch or 
reentry would jeopardize the public health and safety, safety 
of property, or national security or foreign policy interest of 
the United States.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 70105. License applications and requirements

  (a) Applications.--(1) A person may apply to the Secretary of 
Transportation for a license or transfer of a license under 
this chapter in the form and way the Secretary prescribes. 
Consistent with the public health and safety, safety of 
property, and national security and foreign policy interests of 
the United States, the Secretary, not later than 180 days after 
[receiving an application] accepting an application in 
accordance with criteria established pursuant to subsection 
(b)(2)(D), shall issue or transfer a license if the Secretary 
decides in writing that the applicant complies, and will 
continue to comply, with this chapter and regulations 
prescribed under this chapter. The Secretary shall inform the 
applicant of any pending issue and action required to resolve 
the issue if the Secretary has not made a decision not later 
than 120 days after [receiving an application] accepting an 
application in accordance with criteria established pursuant to 
subsection (b)(2)(D). The Secretary shall submit to the 
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate a written notice not later than 7 days after any 
occurrence when a license is not issued within the deadline 
established by this subsection.
  (2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
establish procedures for certification of the safety of a 
launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or safety system, procedure, 
service, or personnel that may be used in conducting licensed 
commercial space launch or reentry activities.
  (b) Requirements.--(1) Except as provided in this subsection, 
all requirements of the laws of the United States applicable to 
the launch of a launch vehicle or the operation of a launch 
site or reentry site, or reentry of a reentry vehicle, are 
requirements for a license under this chapter.
  (2) The Secretary may prescribe--
          (A) any term necessary to ensure compliance with this 
        chapter, including on-site verification that a launch 
        [or operation], operation, or reentry complies with 
        representations stated in the application;
          (B) an additional requirement necessary to protect 
        the public health and safety, safety of property, 
        national security interests, and foreign policy 
        interests of the United States; [and]
          (C) by regulation that a requirement of a law of the 
        United States not be a requirement for a license if the 
        Secretary, after consulting with the head of the 
        appropriate executive agency, decides that the 
        requirement is not necessary to protect the public 
        health and safety, safety of property, and national 
        security and foreign policy interests of the United 
        States[.]; and
          (D) regulations establishing criteria for accepting 
        or rejecting an application for a license under this 
        chapter within 60 days after receipt of such 
        application.
  (3) The Secretary may waive a requirement, or the requirement 
to obtain a license, for an individual applicant if the 
Secretary decides that the waiver is in the public interest and 
will not jeopardize the public health and safety, safety of 
property, and national security and foreign policy interests of 
the United States.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 70106. Monitoring activities

  (a) General Requirements.--A licensee under this chapter must 
allow the Secretary of Transportation to place an officer or 
employee of the United States Government or another individual 
as an observer at a launch site or reentry site the licensee 
uses, at a production facility or assembly site a contractor of 
the licensee uses to produce or assemble a launch vehicle or 
reentry vehicle, or at a site at which a payload is integrated 
with a launch vehicle. The observer will monitor the activity 
of the licensee or contractor at the time and to the extent the 
Secretary considers reasonable to ensure compliance with the 
license or to carry out the duties of the Secretary under 
section 70104(c) of this title. A licensee must cooperate with 
an observer carrying out this subsection.
          * * * * * * *

[Sec. 70108. Prohibition, suspension, and end of launches and operation 
                    of launch sites]

Sec. 70108. Prohibition, suspension, and end of launches, operation of 
                    launch sites and reentry sites, and reentries

  (a) General Authority.--The Secretary of Transportation may 
prohibit, suspend, or end immediately the launch of a launch 
vehicle or the operation of a launch site or reentry site, or 
reentry of a reentry vehicle, licensed under this chapter if 
the Secretary decides the launch or operation or reentry is 
detrimental to the public health and safety, the safety of 
property, or a national security or foreign policy interest of 
the United States.
          * * * * * * *

[Sec. 70109. Preemption of scheduled launches]

Sec. 70109. Preemption of scheduled launches or reentries

  (a) General.--With the cooperation of the Secretary of 
Defense and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, the Secretary of Transportation shall act 
to ensure that a launch or reentry of a payload is not 
preempted from access to a United States Government launch 
site, reentry site, or launch property, except for imperative 
national need, when a launch date commitment or reentry date 
commitment from the Government has been obtained for a launch 
or reentry licensed under this chapter. A licensee or 
transferee preempted from access to a launch site, reentry 
site, or launch property does not have to pay the Government 
any amount for launch services, or services related to a 
reentry, attributable only to the scheduled launch or reentry 
prevented by the preemption.
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Reports.--In cooperation with the Secretary of 
Transportation, the Secretary of Defense or the Administrator, 
as appropriate, shall submit to Congress not later than 7 days 
after a decision to preempt under subsection (a) of this 
section, a report that includes an explanation of the 
circumstances justifying the decision and a schedule for 
ensuring the prompt launching or reentry of a preempted 
payload.

Sec. 70110. Administrative hearings and judicial review

  (a) Administrative Hearings.--The Secretary of Transportation 
shall provide an opportunity for a hearing on the record to--
          (1) * * *
          (2) an owner or operator of a payload under this 
        chapter, for a decision of the Secretary under section 
        70104(c) of this title to prevent the launch or reentry 
        of the payload; and
          (3) a licensee under this chapter, for a decision of 
        the Secretary under--
                  (A) section 70107 (b) or (c) of this title to 
                modify, suspend, or revoke a license; or
                  (B) section 70108(a) of this title to 
                prohibit, suspend, or end a launch or operation 
                of a launch site or reentry site, or reentry of 
                a reentry vehicle, licensed by the Secretary.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 70111. Acquiring United States Government property and services

  (a) General Requirements and Considerations.--(1) The 
Secretary of Transportation shall facilitate and encourage the 
acquisition by the private sector and State governments of--
          (A)  * * *
          (B) launch services and reentry services, including 
        utilities, of the Government otherwise not needed for 
        public use.
The Secretary shall establish criteria and procedures for 
determining the priority of competing requests from the private 
sector and State governments for property and services under 
this section.
  (2) In acting under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the 
Secretary shall consider the commercial availability on 
reasonable terms of substantially equivalent launch property or 
launch services or reentry services from a domestic source.
  (b) Price.--(1) In this subsection, ``direct costs'' means 
the [actual costs] additive costs only that--
          (A) can be associated unambiguously with a commercial 
        launch or reentry effort; and
          (B) the Government would not incur if there were no 
        commercial launch or reentry effort.
  (2) In consultation with the Secretary, the head of the 
executive agency providing the property or service under 
subsection (a) of this section shall establish the price for 
the property or service. The price for--
          (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (C) launch services or reentry services is an amount 
        equal to the direct costs, including the basic pay of 
        Government civilian and contractor personnel, the 
        Government incurred because of acquisition of the 
        services.
  (3) The Secretary shall ensure the establishment of uniform 
guidelines for, and consistent implementation of, this section 
by all Federal agencies.
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Collection by Other Governmental Heads.--The head of a 
department, agency, or instrumentality of the Government may 
collect a payment for an activity involved in producing a 
launch vehicle [or its payload for launch] or reentry vehicle, 
or the payload of either, for launch or reentry if the activity 
was agreed to by the owner or manufacturer of the launch 
vehicle, reentry vehicle, or payload.

Sec. 70112. Liability insurance and financial responsibility 
                    requirements

  (a) General Requirements.--(1) When a launch, reentry, or 
site operator license is issued or transferred under this 
chapter, the licensee or transferee shall obtain liability 
insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility in amounts to 
compensate for the maximum probable loss from claims by--
          (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (3) For the total claims related to one launch or reentry, a 
licensee or transferee is not required to obtain insurance or 
demonstrate financial responsibility of more than--
          (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (4) An insurance policy or demonstration of financial 
responsibility under this subsection shall protect the 
following, to the extent of their potential liability for 
involvement in launch services or reentry services, at no cost 
to the Government:
          (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (b) Reciprocal Waiver of Claims.--(1) A launch, reentry, or 
site operator license issued or transferred under this chapter 
shall contain a provision requiring the licensee or transferee 
to make a reciprocal waiver of claims with its contractors, 
subcontractors, and customers, and contractors and 
subcontractors of the customers, involved in launch services or 
reentry services under which each party to the waiver agrees to 
be responsible for property damage or loss it sustains, or for 
personal injury to, death of, or property damage or loss 
sustained by its own employees resulting from an activity 
carried out under the license.
  (2) The Secretary of Transportation shall make, for the 
Government, executive agencies of the Government involved in 
launch services or reentry services, and contractors and 
subcontractors involved in launch services or reentry services, 
a reciprocal waiver of claims with the licensee or transferee, 
contractors, subcontractors, and customers of the licensee or 
transferee, and contractors and subcontractors of the 
customers, involved in launch services or reentry services 
under which each party to the waiver agrees to be responsible 
for property damage or loss it sustains, or for personal injury 
to, death of, or property damage or loss sustained by its own 
employees resulting from an activity carried out under the 
license. The waiver applies only to the extent that claims are 
more than the amount of insurance or demonstration of financial 
responsibility required under subsection (a)(1)(B) of this 
section. After consulting with the Administrator and the 
Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of Transportation may 
waive, for the Government and a department, agency, and 
instrumentality of the Government, the right to recover damages 
for damage or loss to Government property to the extent 
insurance is not available because of a policy exclusion the 
Secretary of Transportation decides is usual for the type of 
insurance involved.
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than November 15 of each 
year, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate and the Committee on Science[, Space, and Technology] of 
the House of Representatives a report on current determinations 
made under subsection (c) of this section related to all issued 
licenses and the reasons for the determinations.
          * * * * * * *
  (e) Launches or Reentries Involving Government Facilities and 
Personnel.--The Secretary of Transportation shall establish 
requirements consistent with this chapter for proof of 
financial responsibility and other assurances necessary to 
protect the Government and its executive agencies and personnel 
from liability, death, bodily injury, or property damage or 
loss as a result of a launch or operation of a launch site or 
reentry site or a reentry involving a facility or personnel of 
the Government. The Secretary may not relieve the Government of 
liability under this subsection for death, bodily injury, or 
property damage or loss resulting from the willful misconduct 
of the Government or its agents.
  (f) Collection and Crediting Payments.--The head of a 
department, agency, or instrumentality of the Government shall 
collect a payment owed for damage or loss to Government 
property under its jurisdiction or control resulting from an 
activity carried out under a launch, reentry, or site operator 
license issued or transferred under this chapter. The payment 
shall be credited to the current applicable appropriation, 
fund, or account of the department, agency, or instrumentality.

Sec. 70113. Paying claims exceeding liability insurance and financial 
                    responsibility requirements

  (a) General Requirements.--(1) To the extent provided in 
advance in an appropriation law or to the extent additional 
legislative authority is enacted providing for paying claims in 
a compensation plan submitted under subsection (d) of this 
section, the Secretary of Transportation shall provide for the 
payment by the United States Government of a successful claim 
(including reasonable litigation or settlement expenses) of a 
third party against a licensee or transferee under this 
chapter, a contractor, subcontractor, or customer of the 
licensee or transferee, or a contractor or subcontractor of a 
customer, resulting from an activity carried out under the 
license issued or transferred under this chapter for death, 
bodily injury, or property damage or loss resulting from an 
activity carried out under the license. However, claims may be 
paid under this section only to the extent the total amount of 
successful claims related to one launch or reentry--
          (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Surveys, Reports, and Compensation Plans.--(1) If as a 
result of an activity carried out under a license issued or 
transferred under this chapter the total of claims related to 
one launch or reentry is likely to be more than the amount of 
required insurance or demonstration of financial 
responsibility, the Secretary shall--
          (A) survey the causes and extent of damage; and
          (B) submit expeditiously to Congress a report on the 
        results of the survey.
  (2) Not later than 90 days after a court determination 
indicates that the liability for the total of claims related to 
one launch or reentry may be more than the required amount of 
insurance or demonstration of financial responsibility, the 
President, on the recommendation of the Secretary, shall submit 
to Congress a compensation plan that--
          (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 70115. Enforcement and penalty

  (a)  * * *
  (b) General Authority.--(1) In carrying out this chapter, the 
Secretary of Transportation may--
          (A)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (D) under lawful process--
                  (i) enter at a reasonable time a launch site, 
                reentry site, production facility, assembly 
                site of a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle, or 
                site at which a payload is integrated with a 
                launch vehicle or reentry vehicle to inspect an 
                object to which this chapter applies or a 
                record or report the Secretary requires be made 
                or kept under this chapter; and
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 70117. Relationship to other executive agencies, laws, and 
                    international obligations

  (a) Executive Agencies.--Except as provided in this chapter, 
a person is not required to obtain from an executive agency a 
license, approval, waiver, or exemption to launch a launch 
vehicle or operate a launch site or reentry site or reenter a 
reentry vehicle.
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Consultation.--The Secretary of Transportation is 
encouraged to consult with a State to simplify and expedite the 
approval of a space launch or reentry activity.
          * * * * * * *
  [(f) Launch Not an Export.--A launch vehicle or payload that 
is launched is not, because of the launch, an export for 
purposes of a law controlling exports.]
  (f) Launch Not an Export; Reentry Not an Import.--A launch 
vehicle, reentry vehicle, or payload that is launched or 
reentered is not, because of the launch or reentry, an export 
or import, respectively, for purposes of a law controlling 
exports or imports.
  (g) Nonapplication.--This chapter does not apply to--
          (1) a launch, [operation of a launch vehicle or 
        launch site,] reentry, operation of a launch vehicle or 
        reentry vehicle, or operation of a launch site or 
        reentry site, or other space activity the Government 
        carries out for the Government; [or]
          (2) planning or policies related to the launch, 
        reentry, operation, or activity[.]; or
          (3) any amateur and similar small rocket activities, 
        as defined by the Secretary by regulation.
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 70119. Authorization of appropriations

  The following amounts may be appropriated to the Secretary of 
Transportation for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993:
          (1) $4,900,000 to carry out this chapter.
          (2) $20,000,000 for a program to ensure the 
        resiliency of the space launch infrastructure of the 
        United States if a law is enacted to establish that 
        program in the Department of Transportation.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
Transportation $6,000,000 to carry out this chapter for fiscal 
year 1996. None of the funds authorized by this section may be 
expended for policy development or analysis activities not 
directly related to the Secretary's regulatory responsibilities 
under this chapter.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


               NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

          * * * * * * *

      TITLE I--SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND DEFINITIONS

          * * * * * * *

                   declaration of policy and purpose

  Sec. 102. (a)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
  [(e) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the 
United States requires that the unique competence in scientific 
and engineering systems of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration also be directed toward ground propulsion 
systems research and development. Such development shall be 
conducted so as to contribute to the objectives of developing 
energy- and petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems, and 
of minimizing the environmental degradation caused by such 
systems.
  [(f)] (e) The Congress declares that the general welfare of 
the United States requires that the unique competence in 
scientific and engineering systems of the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration also be directed toward the 
development of advanced automobile propulsion systems. Such 
development shall be conducted so as to contribute to the 
achievement of the purposes set forth in section 302(b) of the 
Automotive Propulsion Research and Development Act of 1978.
  [(g)] (f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of 
the United States requires that the unique competence of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration in science and 
engineering systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering 
research, development, and demonstration programs designed to 
alleviate and minimize the effects of disability.
  [(h)] (g) It is the purpose of this Act to carry out and 
effectuate the policies declared in subsections (a), (b), (c), 
(d), (e), [(f), and (g)] and (f).
          * * * * * * *

      TITLE II--COORDINATION OF AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE ACTIVITIES

          * * * * * * *

                        reports to the congress

  Sec. 206. (a) The President shall transmit to the Congress in 
[January] May of each year a report, which shall include (1) a 
comprehensive description of the programed activities and the 
accomplishments of all agencies of the United States in the 
field of aeronautics and space activities during the preceding 
[calendar] fiscal year, and (2) an evaluation of such 
activities and accomplishments in terms of the attainment of, 
or the failure to attain, the objectives described in section 
102(c) of this Act.
          * * * * * * *

                        TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

          * * * * * * *
                         access to information
  Sec. 303. (a) Information obtained or developed by the 
Administrator in the performance of his functions under this 
Act shall be made available for public inspection, except (A) 
information authorized or required by Federal statute to be 
withheld, (B) information classified to protect the national 
security, and (C) information described in subsection (b) or 
(c): Provided, That nothing in this Act shall authorize the 
withholding of information by the Administrator from the duly 
authorized committees of the Congress.
          * * * * * * *
  (c)(1) The Administration may delay for a period not to 
exceed 5 years the unrestricted public disclosure of technical 
data in the possession of, or under the control of, the 
Administration that has been generated in the performance of 
experimental, developmental, or research activities or programs 
funded jointly by the Administration and the private sector.
  (2) Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization 
Act, Fiscal Year 1996, the Administrator shall issue 
regulations to carry out this subsection. Paragraph (1) shall 
not take effect until such regulations are issued.
  (3) Regulations issued pursuant to paragraph (2) shall 
include--
          (A) guidelines for a determination of whether data is 
        technical data within the meaning of this subsection;
          (B) a requirement that a determination described in 
        subparagraph (A) that particular data is technical data 
        shall be reported to the Committee on Science of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
        Science, and Transportation of the Senate;
          (C) provisions to ensure that technical data is 
        available for dissemination within the United States to 
        United States persons and entities in furtherance of 
        the objective of maintaining leadership or 
        competitiveness in civil and governmental aeronautical 
        and space activities by the United States industrial 
        base; and
          (D) a specification of the period or periods for 
        which the delay in unrestricted public disclosure of 
        technical data is to apply to various categories of 
        such data, and the restrictions on disclosure of such 
        data during such period or periods, including a 
        requirement that the maximum 5-year protection under 
        this subsection shall not be provided unless at least 
        50 percent of the funding for the activities or 
        programs is provided by the private sector.
  (4) Along with the initial publication of proposed 
regulations under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall 
include a list of those experimental, developmental, or 
research activities or programs conducted by, or funded in 
whole or in part by, the Administration that may result in 
products or processes of significant value in maintaining 
leadership or competitiveness in civil and governmental 
aeronautical and space activities by the United States 
industrial base. Such list shall be updated biannually.
  (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``technical 
data'' means any recorded information, including computer 
software, that is or may be directly applicable to the design, 
engineering, development, production, manufacture, or operation 
of products or processes that may have significant value in 
maintaining leadership or competitiveness in civil and 
governmental aeronautical and space activities by the United 
States industrial base.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


   SECTION 504 OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 
                  AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1993

SEC. 504. LAUNCH VOUCHER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

  (a) Commercial Space Voucher Demonstration Program; Effective 
Period.--The Administrator shall establish a demonstration 
program to award vouchers for the payment of commercial launch 
services and payload integration services for the purpose of 
launching payloads funded by [the Office of Commercial Programs 
within] the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to 
become effective October 1, 1993. [Such program shall not be 
effective after September 30, 1995.]
          * * * * * * *
  [(c) Assumption of Certain Responsibilities.--In carrying out 
the demonstration program established under subsection (a), the 
Administrator, in awarding vouchers, is limited to the launch 
of payloads funded by the Office of Commercial Programs within 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
  [(d)] (c) Assistance.--The Administrator may provide voucher 
award recipients with such assistance, including contract 
formulation and technical support during the proposal 
evaluation, as may be necessary, to ensure the purchase of cost 
effective and reasonably reliable commercial launch services 
and payload integration services.
  [(e)] (d) Report.--The Administrator shall conduct an ongoing 
review of the program established under this section, and 
shall, not later than January 31, 1995, report to Congress the 
results of such a review, together with recommendations for 
further action relating to the program.
                              ----------                              


                  UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949

                                TITLE I

  Sec. 101. The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (hereinafter referred to as the 
``Administrator'') and the Secretary of Defense are hereby 
authorized and directed jointly to develop a unitary plan for 
the construction of [transsonic and supersonic] transonic, 
supersonic, and hypersonic wind-tunnel facilities for the 
solution of research, development, and evaluation problems in 
aeronautics, including the construction of facilities at 
educational institutions within the continental limits of the 
United States for training and research in aeronautics, and to 
revise the uncompleted portions of the unitary plan from time 
to time to accord with changes in national defense requirements 
and scientific and technical advances. The Administrator and 
the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force are 
authorized to proceed with the construction and equipment of 
facilities in implementation of the unitary plan to the extent 
permitted by appropriations pursuant to existing authority and 
the authority contained in titles I and II of this Act. Any 
further implementation of the unitary plan shall be subject to 
such additional authorizations as may be approved by Congress.
          * * * * * * *
  Sec. 103. (a) The Administrator is hereby authorized to 
expand the facilities at his existing [laboratories] 
laboratories and centers by the construction of additional 
[supersonic] transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic wind 
tunnels, including buildings, equipment, and accessory 
construction, and by the acquisition of land and installation 
of utilities.
          * * * * * * *
  (c) The facilities authorized by this section shall be 
operated and staffed by the Administrator but shall be 
available primarily to industry for testing experimental models 
in connection with the development of aircraft and missiles. 
Such tests shall be scheduled and conducted in accordance with 
industry's requirements and allocation of [laboratory] facility 
time shall be made in accordance with the public interest, with 
proper emphasis upon the requirements of each military service 
and due consideration of civilian needs.
          * * * * * * *
                  XIV. Additional and Dissenting Views

                              ----------                              


                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    The Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 which originally 
declared that the NASA Administrator and the Secretary of 
Defense should jointly develop a plan for the construction of

        . . . wind tunnel facilities for the solution of 
        research, development, and evaluation problems in 
        aeronautics at educational institutions within the 
        continental limits of the United States for training 
        and research in aeronautics, and to revise the 
        uncompleted portions of the unitary plan from time to 
        time to accord with changes in national defense 
        requirements and scientific and technical advances.

    The field of aeronautics has received many advances since 
this Act was last amended in 1958. Our problem is that the wind 
tunnel facilities in this nation are several decades old. The 
European countries, in a consortium, recently opened a new 
transonic wind tunnel which is technologically superior to any 
in the United States. This will have a direct effect on 
improving the competitiveness of European aircraft in the 
global market.
    The aerospace industry is the second largest exporting 
industry in this country, second only to agriculture. While 
just a few short years ago, the United States aerospace 
industry accounted for around 70 percent of the global market, 
recent reports show that this year we may drop below 50 
percent. This loss of market share costs us billions of dollars 
in our trade deficit and each percentage point of global 
aerospace market lost by our domestic companies translates into 
about 44,000 Americans losing their jobs.
    A study conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) in 
1992 identified that our current wind tunnel facilities are 
inadequate for maintaining aeronautical superiority into the 
next century. In 1994, NASA was directed by Congress to conduct 
a study of the needs and requirements of a National Wind Tunnel 
Complex.
    NASA currently is in the process of conducting this study 
of the technical, business, and related issues concerning the 
feasibility of developing the National Wind Tunnel complex. We 
fully support and encourage NASA to complete this study 
process, to assure that America's national security and 
international competitive interests in civil and military 
aeronautics will be sustained over the long term.
    In our view, the NWTC study takes on added importance at 
this time, in light of continuing budgetary pressures on NASA 
and other agencies engaged in aeronautics research and test 
activities, including the Department of Defense and the Federal 
Aviation Administration. We should also consider economic 
conditions in the aviation manufacturing sector of America's 
national industrial base constraining large-scale capital 
investment in research and test facilities; and the need to 
effectively integrate the NWTC with existing NASA, DOD, and FAA 
aeronautical research and test facilities and activities.
    With this background, it is our view that the integrated 
planning and organizational framework envisioned in the Unitary 
Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949, as amended, is a suitable and 
appropriate vehicle for the planning, development and operation 
of aeronautics research and test facilities and activities in 
subsonic, transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic flight regimes, 
since all regimes influence performance, cost and competition 
for civil aviation directly undertaken in whole or in part by 
NASA.
    Congress has already made it very clear that before the 
first spade of dirt can be turned, there must be an agreement 
in place which includes substantial financial participation 
from both the private aerospace industry and the Department of 
Defense as they will be the primary users and beneficiaries of 
the project. Any decision by the Congress to move beyond the 
Phase 1 study is contingent upon NASA executing a Memorandum of 
Agreement with both the Department of Defense and the U.S. 
aviation industry, both commercial and military, regarding cost 
shares for construction and utilization of the complex.
    With regard to the NWTC study, in light of the budgetary 
pressures, general economic conditions impacting the U.S. 
aviation industry and other factors noted above, we anticipate 
that NASA will place special emphasis on the development and 
operation of additional wind tunnels at existing NASA and DOD 
research and test facilities. We also expect that NASA will 
coordinate the NWTC study activity with any similar activities 
being undertaken by the Department of Defense and/or the 
Federal Aviation Administration.
                                   Van Hilleary.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Matt Salmon.
                                   Zach Wamp.
                                   Ken Calvert.
                                   Todd Tiahrt.
                                   Lindsey O. Graham.
                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. MIKE DOYLE

    I am greatly concerned about the adverse impact on computer 
and communications research that will result from the 
Committee's action to cut $35 million from the NASA High 
Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program.
    Federal funding under HPCC primarily supports university-
based research, which underpins the development of new computer 
and communications technologies for use in engineering, 
financial services, manufacturing, medicine, security, space, 
and other areas. This fundamental research usually lies outside 
the research and development funded by the communications 
industry, as it involves long-term investment and uncertain 
financial payoffs. Cuts to the HPCC program reduce the scale of 
basic research in critical technology areas and ultimately will 
cripple the ability of the U.S. to compete internationally in 
computer and communications technologies.
    Since its inception under the High Performance Computing 
Act of 1991, the HPCC Program has received bipartisan support 
and has performed well under Committee review. The legislative 
report (H.Rept. 102-66, Part 1) states that, at the full 
Committee mark-up of the High Performance Computing Act on May 
8, 1991, ``a bipartisan amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, sponsored by Representatives Boucher, Valentine, 
Brown, Packard, Lewis, and Walker, was adopted.''
    In an October 26, 1993, hearing the Committee received 
testimony from the manufacturing, financial services, energy 
and aerospace industries supporting the value of the program. 
An oversight hearing on May 10, 1994, revealed no serious 
problems with HPCC. The most recent assessment of the program 
was carried out by the National Academy of Sciences, which 
praised HPCC in a report earlier this year stating:

          Accomplishments under the High Performance Computing 
        and Communications Initiatives to date reveal two key 
        trends: better computing and computational 
        infrastructure and increasing researcher-developer-user 
        synergy. In the committee's expert judgment, the 
        program has been generally successful.

    The HPCC program is closely coordinated among 12 federal 
R&D agencies with many jointly funded activities. NASA provides 
approximately 12% of the total HPCC budget and is the agency 
responsible for the coordination of the government, academic, 
and industrial partners in the advanced software technologies 
component of the initiative.
    The Committee has held no hearings on this program during 
the 104th Congress. New Members of Congress, who comprise a 
majority of the Committee on Science, have not had the 
opportunity to learn about the objectives and accomplishments 
of this multi-agency, closely coordinated program. In the 
absence of any hearing record in this Congress, major cuts in 
the HPCC program are, at best, ill-advised. A large cut, such 
as the one contained in this bill, will have a negative impact 
on the ability of the overall HPCC program to meet its goals.
    As a program that has proven its success, HPCC merits 
continued federal funding at a level that will allow it to 
continue its activities. The decision to drastically reduce the 
NASA component of the HPCC budget should be reconsidered.
                                                        Mike Doyle.
            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVE WELDON OF FLORIDA

    Increased international competition has resulted in the 
nation's loss of a majority share of the commercial space 
launch market for medium and intermediate size launch vehicles. 
U.S. market share has decreased from 100 percent in 1965 to 
less than 35 percent in 1994. An integral factor in that loss 
is inefficient, labor intensive infrastructure that exists at 
the nation's current launch ranges.
    In addition, there does not now exist at any launch range 
permanent infrastructure for use by small launch vehicles. The 
small launch vehicles will support the growing international 
market for small satellites, which has been projected by the 
Department of Transportation to reach a total of 120 launches 
in the next decade. The development of such infrastructure in 
the U.S. could enable the nation to recapture a significant 
share of the international space launch market.
    At the same time as this threat and this opportunity 
present themselves, federal government facilities--including 
launch property--have been identified as excess and therefore 
available through state governments to the private sector. With 
a modest investment by the federal government, to be matched by 
state government and industry, infrastructure can be developed 
for use by small launch vehicles. The committee has provided 
$10 million for that purpose. The funds are to be spent on the 
improvement of existing launch infrastructure on federal 
government ranges and development of new launch infrastructure 
at nonfederal sites.
                                                       Dave Weldon.
             DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

    While there are a number of provisions in H.R. 2043 with 
which I can agree, the bill's fatal flaw is that it attempts to 
perpetuate the illusion that it is possible to significantly 
cut the NASA budget year after year without adversely affecting 
our future space program. As a result, I do not believe that 
there is a simple way to fix this piece of legislation.
    My specific concerns fall into three areas.

                        mission to planet earth

    I would like to stress that my concerns with the bill are 
not partisan in nature. The adoption of Ms. Harman's amendment 
removed one of the most egregiously objectionable features of 
the bill that was presented for Full Committee markup, namely 
that the bill would have fundamentally unbalanced the civil 
space program by eliminating one of NASA's basic research 
missions: Mission to Planet Earth.
    Unfortunately, the Committee report seems to presume that 
the Harman amendment was never offered, let alone adopted. The 
spreadsheet and language contained in the report are highly 
misleading in their statements that the authorization for 
Mission to Planet Earth was reduced by $323.9 million. With 
adoption of the Harman amendment, the FY 96 authorization for 
MPE was reduced by $50 million, leaving an authorization for 
the program of $1.287 billion. It is true that expenditure of 
about $280 million was ``fenced'' pending certain actions, but 
the authorization levels for the program are unequivocably set 
at $1.287 billion. On this there can be no argument.
    Furthermore, the report is rife with language specifying 
how $323.9 million in reduction for MPE are to be allocated. 
Even had the authorization been lowered by this amount (which 
it wasn't), any attempt to specify such reductions in the 
Committee report clearly violates Rule 21(b) of the Science 
Committee's rules. I find it troubling that a new Committee 
Rule was violated so clearly and so quickly, in an apparent 
attempt to paper over the fact that the Harman amendment was 
adopted by the Committee on a unanimous voice vote.

                       inadequate funding levels

    H.R. 2043 still provides inadequate funding for NASA in FY 
1996 and moves NASA further along the path of declining NASA 
budgets envisioned in the Republican's budget proposal.
    Figure 1 illustrates the situation confronting NASA. As can 
be seen from Figure 1, NASA has had its five-year funding plan 
cut significantly each year. Since 1992, this situation took a 
dramatic change for the worse when, despite the recommendations 
of the Augustine panel, the NASA budget began to decline 
significantly below inflationary levels and more recently to 
register actual declines in nominal levels. It goes without 
saying that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for 
NASA to plan and execute complex, multiyear, research and 
development programs when the agency's funding plan is in a 
state of constant flux.
    The situation will only worsen over the next five years if 
the Republican budgetary proposals are implemented. As shown in 
figure 2, the Republican five-year budgetary plan for NASA 
would reduce NASA's buying power to a level lower than that 
seen since the earliest days of the U.S. civil space program. 
NASA already has undertaken a major restructuring to meet the 
five-year budgetary targets imposed on it by the 
Administration. The more than $3 billion in additional cuts 
proposed by the Republicans over the next five years will force 
yet another major restructuring.


    Despite the vague discussion of potential cost savings from 
``privatization'' and capital asset sales, among other 
proposals, there are no measures identified in the bill that 
have any meaningful hearing record or documented savings 
associated with them. However, it is difficult to envision NASA 
being able to absorb the cuts contained in the Republican 
proposals without closing at least one Field Center and gutting 
one or more major NASA programs.
    Historically, Democrats and Republicans on the Science 
Committee have strongly supported in a bipartisan manner space 
commercialization and the concept of harnessing the economic 
power of the private sector. Democrats, however, have viewed 
this as a way to expand the space program and capitalize on 
Federal investments, not as a substitute for a Federally 
supported space program. Although growth in commercial space 
may provide the Government with meaningful alternatives for 
carrying out its mission in the future, there is no evidence to 
demonstrate that this will occur any faster by decreasing 
Federal funding for NASA.
    Over the near term, there is a widespread consensus 
supporting the management reforms which NASA has studied such 
as streamlining the contract structure for the Shuttle program. 
Beyond this, I urge caution inforcing privatization and 
commercialization where there is no clear evidence that this 
will be practically achievable, cost effective, or a benefit to 
the taxpayer.
    We believe that NASA is a critically important element of 
the Nation's overall investment in research and development. We 
believe that that view is shared by the House at large, and we 
note that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation has already approved a NASA Authorization bill 
at a significantly higher funding level than was approved by 
the House Science Committee.
    It is fundamentally short-sighted and unwise to commit NASA 
to carrying out major national objectives without providing the 
space agency with sufficient funding to meet its commitments. 
That shortcoming, coupled with the inclusion of a wide range of 
policy provisions for which no documentation has been provided 
or hearings held, makes this bill one which I cannot support in 
its present form.

                    inappropriate policy directives

    Finally, it must be noted that the Chairman's report, which 
was unavailable to the Members at the time of the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 2043 and thus was not adopted by the 
Committee at its markup, contains a plethora of policy 
directives and conclusions for which no basis can be found in 
the Committee's hearing or markup record. These include 
findings critical of Mission to Planet Earth that have been 
made in the absence of any Committee review of NASA's plans for 
this initiative in the 104th Congress. Such report language 
should not be interpreted as representing the consensus views 
of the Committee, and of course is not legislatively binding in 
any event.
 XV. Proceedings From the Subcommittee Markup of the Subcommittee Print

                              ----------                              




    SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP--H.R. 2043, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
               ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, FY 1996

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1995

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                              Committee on Science,
                     Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m. in Room 2318 of the 
Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (chairman of the Subcommittee), presiding.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Subcommittee will be in order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Chair calls up the bill H.R. 2043 
for markup. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
    Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and 
open for amendment at any point. And without objection, the 
Chair will be granted authority to declare a recess at any time 
during today's markup.
    The Chair will state that he intends to complete the markup 
in one sitting, and only intends to call recesses when there 
are votes on the House floor. We do not have a large number of 
amendments to be offered, and I hope that we can get this 
markup done before lunch. Is there any objection to either of 
the unanimous consent requests?
    Mr. Brown. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I 
so only for the purpose of commending you on your statement.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
    Mr. Brown. And I will not object.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Let's hope the rest of this markup goes 
as smoothly as it's gone so far. The Chair moves to strike the 
last word, and recognizes himself for five minutes.
    Today we need to mark up H.R. 2043, the NASA Authorization 
Act for 1996, which provides Congressional direction and 
authorization for NASA's activities in the coming year, when 
combined with H.R. 1601, the multi-year authorization of the 
International Space Station.
    This bill offers Congressional input into NASA's priorities 
within the context of the confining budget. It recognizes the 
fundamental reality which many organizations across the United 
States face: the need to downsize.
    President Clinton recognized the public's mood when he 
began the process of reducing NASA's budget this past January.
    Rather than debating an arbitrary total budget authority at 
this markup, we can work together to prioritize NASA's missions 
within a realistic budget.
    Unlike the President, who ordered budget reductions without 
specifying how NASA was to achieve them, this Committee must 
responsibly prioritize NASA's mission within a realistic 
budget.
    Restoring NASA to financial health means that we cannot 
allow it to continue the practice of sponsoring more missions 
than it can afford. Should we fail to act responsibly or simply 
authorize everything under the sun, the Committee will have 
dodged its responsibility and broken faith with the American 
voters.
    This bill will create a NASA whose priority is basic 
scientific research and technology development. It authorizes 
$11,547,000 for NASA which equals the amount approved for NASA 
under the House Budget Resolution.
    When combined with H.R. 1601, this represents a savings of 
some $700 million from the fiscal year 1995 appropriation. H.R. 
2043 moves NASA back to its strength in space science and takes 
the agency away from large systems such as the Space Shuttle 
and Mission to Planet Earth.
    When the government created NASA, we built an agency 
designed to do fast, cutting edge research. Somewhere along the 
line, NASA took its R&D infrastructure and used that to run 
large, continuous operational systems.
    H.R. 2043 reverses this trend and gives us a stronger 
agency that plays to its strength rather than to its 
weaknesses.
    First, we are taking steps to privatize the shuttle, 
beginning with the first cost-saving step of moving to a single 
prime contractor, which NASA Space Shuttle Management 
Independent Review Team concluded held the greatest potential 
for significant cost savings.
    According to industry, this action alone could save up to a 
billion dollars a year by fiscal year 1999.
    Second, H.R. 2043 instructs NASA to study new methods of 
gathering earth environmental data from Mission to Planet 
Earth.
    The General Accounting Office concluded that Mission to 
Planet Earth will cost the taxpayers some $33 billion by the 
time it is complete. When Mission to Planet Earth began, NASA 
expected its budget to increase some ten percent a year to 
accommodate this new mission, applying its science capabilities 
to the study of the earth. That expectation is no longer 
realistic, if it ever was.
    Given these changed circumstances, we need to develop new 
approaches to Mission to Planet Earth. As currently structured, 
MTPE does not adequately take into account the possibility for 
using new cost-saving technology. The program is just in the 
beginning stages of exploring the applications of the 
miniaturized system with EOS satellites from the New Millennium 
program which is itself just getting underway.
    The NASA Federal Laboratory Review found little evidence of 
advanced technology development or an infusion into MTPE which 
should be an ideal candidate for technology development.
    By the same token, Mission to Planet Earth does not take 
adequate account of the emerging commercial remote sensing 
industry in its plans to acquire earth environmental data from 
space.
    This industry is investing hundreds of millions of dollars 
in collecting environmental data from space for commercial 
customers. That is an investment the government cannot afford 
to ignore.
    Similarly, Mission to Planet Earth has some scientific 
shortcomings. The Earth Systems Science and Applications 
Committee reported to the Committee, this Committee, that it 
does not see strong evidence of a program to provide balance in 
the earth observing system plans.
    Similarly, the Federal Laboratory review noted a lack of 
definitive definite milestones and need dates that will provide 
the national policy process with necessary information to make 
decisions in a timely manner.
    H.R. 2043 directs NASA to delay construction of the PM and 
Chemistry Series of EOS satellites and provide Congress with 
its plan to rectify these shortcomings. This will save the 
American people some $323 million in fiscal year 1996.
    We still fund Mission to Planet Earth at over a billion 
dollars, but make cuts that will move that agency toward 
greater efficiency and creativity.
    These steps provide the fiscal stability that the 
distinguished scientists of the George C. Marshall Institute 
deemed necessary for success.
    Even as we move NASA away from these large operational 
systems, H.R. 2043 sharpens NASA's focus on space science, an 
area in which its accomplishments and capabilities are 
unmatched.
    H.R. 2043 includes funding to complete the Cassini probe of 
Saturn, which is more than halfway done and enjoys significant 
financial contributions from several European partners.
    The bill also provides funding for Gravity Probe B, which 
is more than 60 percent complete, and funds the Stratospheric 
Observatory for Infrared Astronomy or SOFIA. Our international 
partners in Germany have a strong stake in SOFIA and are 
contributing some 20 percent to the platform's cost.
    Moving NASA out of large operational systems, such as 
Mission to Planet Earth, enables us to continue pursuing these 
excellent space science missions.
    We also authorized programs intended to provide NASA with 
new lost-cost approaches in technology for the exploration of 
space. In particular, the bill recommends continued funding of 
the Discovery Program and the New Millennium Program.
    Discovery, as many of us know, is NASA's attempt to 
demonstrate that it can conduct a faster, cheaper, better space 
exploration mission with a high science content.
    H.R. 2043 also authorizes NASA's New Millennium program 
which the agency began in fiscal '95 to develop new 
technologies for miniaturized spacecraft systems and micro-
satellites.
    This is a technology program that focuses on providing the 
United States with new capabilities in space exploration that 
should dramatically decrease the cost of our space science 
missions.
    Almost as important, NASA can use New Millennium to 
capitalize on the nation's multibillion dollar defense 
investment in miniaturized spacecraft, and by working 
cooperatively with the Department of Defense and the private 
sector, apply technology developed for the national security to 
the peaceful exploration of space and study of the earth. If 
managed properly, New Millennium can be an important 
contribution to our efforts at defense conversion.
    Finally, H.R. 2043 is an important step in the continuing 
streamlining of NASA on a rational basis. The bill directs the 
NASA Administrator to conduct an asset-based review that 
relates NASA's infrastructure to its missions, and to avoid 
premature elimination of NASA facilities which sent a shockwave 
through a lot of folks last week.
    The bill specifically directs the NASA Administrator to 
seek an independent evaluation of NASA assets, including the 
centers, and to make a recommendation upon which Congress must 
act, before closing any NASA field center.
    As drafted, H.R. 2043 builds on the work the Subcommittee 
started with the Space Station Authorization bill. By providing 
the station with a multi-year authorization, HR 1601 gives NASA 
the funding stability it needs to reduce costs and to create 
technology within realistic budget expectations.
    This bill moves NASA away from operating large, expensive 
programs and funds those programs that will enable the agency 
to further reduce its costs in the future.
    The bill reduces NASA's budget by $597.8 million from the 
President's request, and is in line with plans to achieve a 
balanced Federal budget by the year 2002.
    The agency will emerge smaller, leaner, and more 
responsive, and better able to accomplish those missions that 
the country asks from it within the parameters of fiscal 
responsibility.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, the ranking 
minority member, Mr. Hall.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I do thank you, and I thank you 
also for the open door policy that you've carried out, and for 
the extension of not just your friendship, but the time of your 
Committee people to mine, and it's been a pleasure working with 
you.
    I also thank you for your remarks and for your SOFIA 
comments. I think today all of us know that we see hard times 
ahead for NASA.
    We are struggling to maintain some public support for the 
Space and Aeronautics Program in the face of the increasingly 
severe budgetary climate that we live in today.
    The space program today appeals to a broad segment of the 
public simply because it does so many things and fulfills so 
many dreams for so many people.
    From biomedical research, which is very dear to me, to 
aeronautical research, each of NASA's activities has met a 
genuine need. And frankly, though, we are in danger today of 
losing this broad coalition, as we argue amongst ourselves over 
a declining budget.
    Declining funding spawns arguments even among friends, and 
we can do that and yet try to come out with a bill that 
preserves and one that cuts back but does not cut out.
    And I also appreciate your comments regarding the closing 
of Huntsville, Goddard, and Langley. There, once again, I 
always say cut back but don't cut out.
    I would have applied that of course to even the Clinch 
River project some eight years ago in this Congress. We'd be 
getting electricity there now, had we kept a semblance of that 
program. Certainly the Synfuels Corporation, which was badly 
run, but we should have cut back and reorganized, rather than 
cutting out. And of course I feel that the same applies to the 
Super Collider.
    I personally favor biomedical research over many other 
things in the NASA budget including environmental research, 
including reusable launch vehicles, spaceports and so on. And 
yet, I realize, Mr. Chairman, that most of these programs are 
very dear to others and have their advocates, and I'm willing 
to be considerate of them, and consider them to the extent that 
we share the cuts, but yet don't lose the program.
    There's no right research or wrong research; there's only 
the challenge to plan and produce a balanced program that meets 
the needs and expectations of the public. That's, after all, 
what we're here for.
    My guiding principle for NASA here in these tough budgetary 
times has been cut back but don't cut out.
    So, accordingly, I'm willing to support such amendments as 
the one that Mrs. Harman has, intends to offer. Because, 
although Mission to Planet Earth is not my personal highest 
priority, her amendment has some restoration of the balance to 
the overall NASA budget while still making Mission to Planet 
Earth share in the overall cuts and yet survive in the face of 
these severe budgetary times.
    So, Mr. Chairman, when Congress has completed its work on 
the NASA Authorization in this bill and this year, I hope we'll 
have maintained a space program the American people can 
support, and I intend to support you as you work toward that 
goal. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker.
    Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I first of all want to begin by congratulating you and the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, for the bill which you have 
brought to us today.
    The NASA Authorization bill before the Subcommittee, H.R. 
2043, addresses the fundamental challenges facing NASA today. 
This document contains the authorization necessary for NASA to 
carry out its basic science and research mission.
    $11,547,000 are authorized for the programs in this bill 
which, together with the International Space Station activities 
previously authorized in 1601, the total for NASA is $13.662 
billion.
    But I believe this document contains much more than money. 
It contains a new way of doing business, a clear priority for 
basic science and a forward-looking commitment to right-sizing 
NASA's assets, missions and budgets for the future. Today, we 
begin a new way of doing business.
    The NASA budget woes go back many years. NASA budgets were 
unrealistic, even when they were increasing. Many large new 
programs were started by underestimating the potential costs. 
In a climate of 15 percent real budget increases, that was seen 
as okay. There would always be money to pay the bills as they 
came due.
    But when there wasn't, the programs got stretched out, 
dropped scientific value, and ultimately were cancelled. A good 
example of this was CRAF, that NASA dropped in 1992.
    Likewise, as NASA budgets have been reduced since 1991, 
unrealistic estimates of cost savings promised to be achieved 
through a powerful new lexicon of management challenges, 
unreserved costs and unallocated cost reductions.
    Those have left NASA managing one fiscal crisis after 
another. This is exactly what led to the cancellation of the 
Space Station Freedom program in 1993.
    In short, NASA has not been realistic about its costs when 
times were good, and unrealistic about savings when the times 
were tough.
    I don't make this point to say that NASA is poorly or has 
been poorly led, only that it's been misleading itself.
    I believe the Administrator, Dan Goldin, is working to turn 
things around. He is tireless in initiating cost cutting 
reviews, the roles and mission studies, red teams, blue teams, 
the Functional Work Force Review, the CRAF Committee, the NASA 
Federal Laboratory review, and the Zero-Based Review.
    They are constantly looking to achieve the cost-cutting 
goals set by the President and by OMB.
    H.R. 2043 recognizes the time has come to refocus NASA's 
priorities and right-size its Federal asset base to the 
missions approved by Congress. We are providing a clear sense 
of direction when NASA must again become the world's premier 
high risk basic R&D agency.
    As we refocus NASA's capabilities on the basic science 
mission, I want to point out the last serious look at where 
NASA was going, conducted by the Augustine Committee in 1990, 
set forward the idea of balance between basic science and other 
missions within NASA.
    Augustine's Committee believed that 20 percent of the NASA 
budget should be devoted to basic science, the kinds of high 
risk basic science missions that are funded in H.R. 2043, 
Gravity Probe B, Cassini, the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics 
Facility, the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy, 
Discovery Missions, and others like small explorers and New 
Millennium.
    Today, I suspect we might spend some time discussing the 
balance of the NASA program as it concerns the cut proposed by 
the bill for Mission to Planet Earth.
    I would like to remind my colleagues, new and old, that the 
Mission to Planet Earth was initiated as an adjunct to, not a 
replacement for, the basic science that I just talked about.
    The first year it was proposed in fiscal 1991, EOS was 
termed a leadership initiative. It was not part of the science 
core mission.
    As we return NASA to its basic science mission in Fiscal 
Year 1996, H.R. 2043 does not propose terminating EOS, even 
though I would argue that the critical measure of the balance 
in NASA is between human space flight and the core science 
program.
    The balance we strike in H.R. 2043 favors the core science, 
continues the restructured EOS, and in human space flight 
initiates fundamental reforms that also refocus NASA on the 
basic research mission.
    H.R. 2043 will begin the privatization of the Space 
Shuttle. We do so by requiring those companies who wish to be 
the single prime operating contractor for the shuttle, 
something that I agree with Dan Goldin is the critical first 
step, that in order to be considered for the single prime, the 
company must present a privatization plan for taking the 
program private.
    We don't know, nor do we tell the companies how to do this. 
We require them to tell us how they want to do it. It's up to 
the privatizee to give us the deal they want. The Committee 
working with NASA will take the implementing steps together.
    Why is privatization important? It's important because 
shuttle safety is so important. The current government only 
system requires one million signatures to launch a single 
shuttle mission. That's statistically unsafe, having to depend 
on a million separate approvals to be one hundred percent 
correct. That's what we do now.
    By privatizing, I believe the cost of each such signature 
can be known, evaluated in terms of its contribution to safety, 
and reduced.
    Without privatizing, there is no incentive to reduce the 
amount of paper work and improve safety in more meaningful ways 
than signatures.
    Shuttle safety is not a government monopoly and we should 
stop treating it that way.
    Along these same lines, H.R. 2043 proposes a business-like 
approach to the issue of NASA's infrastructure by examining the 
Federally owned assets that form the basis of NASA's budget.
    If we had thought that missions ran NASA or that EOSAT 
centers ran missions, we were wrong.
    The truth is that assets billed to NASA's budget, buildings 
that are maintained, wind tunnels that are operated, test 
stands that are used, computers that are programmed, offices 
that are occupied, all assets in general are what we pay for 
whether they are needed to do the mission or not.
    Instead of closing field centers because we don't believe 
NASA has a plan to achieve its budget cuts, H.R. 2043 shows 
NASA how to find the cost savings it needs in the assets that 
NASA does not need.
    We require the Administrator to conduct a full review of 
assets and their contributions to missions. If an asset is not 
being used, it should be retired, sold, or even given away in 
order to remove it from the cost base.
    We believe this is an opportunity for NASA to get rid of 
the things it doesn't need to do its mission.
    H.R. 2043 represents the only sensible approach for 
restructuring efforts which, according to the President's 
outyear budget, must come up with $4 billion in savings just to 
do the programs contained in the fiscal 1996 request.
    Which brings me to a concluding observation. If this 
Committee doesn't help NASA put its house in order, I'm not 
sure who's going to do the job.
    We see what other Subcommittees might do out of their 
frustration with NASA. Our job is to be innovative, to be 
inventive and constructive, and to help lead the way.
    We have a bold vision for the future in this bill. We can 
see NASA growing stronger, not just on appropriated funds, but 
on ideas appropriated from the private sector.
    I look forward to the Subcommittee's passage of this bill, 
H.R. 2043, today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The Chair intends to recognize the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Brown, but before doing so, would like to ask 
unanimous consent that other opening statements be placed in 
the record following Mr. Brown's statement, so that we can get 
to the amendment process after Mr. Brown has concluded. Is 
there any objection to my unanimous consent request?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Hearing none, it is so ordered.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Brown, is recognized.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I first would like to say that I have listened with 
interest to the other opening statements, and find that I'm in 
fundamental agreement with the thrust of most of these 
statements.
    However, I am unfortunately, at my age, humbled by the 
past, and I will have to tell you that I have been listening to 
this talk of redirecting NASA, cutting its waste and fraud or 
whatever, and doing a more efficient job for quite a few years.
    And for example, with regard to the Augustine Report, some 
of you may recall that the first hearing that I held as 
Chairman in January of '91 was on the Augustine Report, which 
made the same point, Mr. Chairman, that you made: that NASA has 
more programs in its portfolio than have come forth. Mr. 
Augustine projected if we wanted to continue these programs, 
what the budget requirements would be. And as I recall, he said 
it would take a ten percent per year increase in the budget.
    He also of course indicated the priorities that you and Mr. 
Walker have indicated, and which I share, and I've said so 
repeatedly over the years.
    The projections on funding adequately the programs that 
NASA had underway of course were unrealistic. We could never 
hope for a 10 percent increase in 1991 and certainly we can't 
hope for that today.
    I recall that my first authorization bill, the one that the 
Committee reported, I suggested perhaps a five percent increase 
per year, which is marginally over inflation and would have 
allowed for us to continue to make the efficiencies which Mr. 
Goldin was making and allow us to keep most of the programs 
that were then on our portfolio.
    Well, we never even achieved that. And what has happened, 
and I think that it's unfair to criticize NASA and Mr. Goldin 
for not suggesting larger budgets than they have, it's that 
they never got the larger budgets. And even after they got a 
smaller budget, that budget was then cut repeatedly year after 
year. So it is very difficult for NASA to know just what is a 
reasonable portfolio of programs to sponsor under these 
conditions.
    Mr. Chairman, this fact is reflected in the language of the 
bill itself. It says the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration has failed to request sufficient funds to 
perform all missions it has proposed in annual budgets. And yet 
in this bill, we cut their request by another $600 million. 
That is typical of the situation that faces us.
    I find that this is somewhat contradictory. NASA has just 
completed a major restructuring that will reduce planned 
spending by almost $5 billion over the next five years. Now 
they have to start over again. And this has been the story of 
their life for the last ten years.
    And I suggest that it's going to be very difficult for this 
country to maintain a leadership role in any field where it 
continues to restructure programs year after year. And there's 
no way of determining what the proper time horizon is.
    I have a second problem with this bill. That is that it 
seeks to kill the Earth Observing System, despite the fine 
words that have been made as to how this is going to make it a 
better program.
    You will hear words about involving the commercial sector, 
delaying some of the spacecraft, seeking to incorporate new 
technology, but these are basically obfuscations.
    The bill does irreparable damage to EOS and is simply the 
first step in implementing the House Republican Budget 
Committee guidance to cut Mission to Planet Earth by $2.7 
million over the last five years. This is after it's already 
been cut 50 percent, I might say.
    Let me quote from the NASA Administrator's statement last 
month on the Budget Committee's plan. He said:
    ``Such a cut would dismantle the national approach to U.S. 
global change research priorities established over the last 
three Administrations and undercut U.S. leadership in this 
important area of research. It would destroy this program's 
basic feature--comprehensiveness--and turn an integrated, 
global program into a series of disconnected and fundamentally 
less effective measurements.
    ``The cuts would cripple the core of the program--the Earth 
Observing System--the first integrated satellite and research 
system designed to observe the linkages among all the 
components of the Earth system--the land, oceans, atmosphere, 
ice sheets, and ecosystems . . .
    ``By walking away from the systematic and comprehensive 
approach for Mission to Planet Earth, the U.S. would also give 
up its undisputed world leadership in Earth observations, 
jeopardize technologies that will be critical to the growing 
commercial remote sensing market, and reduce our ability to 
influence the global environmental agenda.''
    I thoroughly agree with the Administrator on this, as I 
have been in most areas in which he's seeking to make sense out 
of the complicated situation that he has to exist in.
    And I will make every effort to correct that problem with 
Mission to Planet Earth if we can do so.
    Mr. Chairman, I have focused on my areas of disagreement, 
perhaps disproportionately. I am in agreement with probably 90 
percent of what this bill contains, but it's a borderline 
situation.
    I'm trying to maintain the posture that I've consistently 
had for a number of years, that we need to stabilize this 
budget.
    I think the Chairman, Mr. Walker, has made it clear that he 
agrees with this overall goal, although I'm afraid we see 
stability at slightly different levels, at least at the present 
time.
    I therefore will continue to work toward increasing this 
budget up to what I consider to be a more acceptable minimum, 
not an increase.
    The question is how much of a cut we should make, and 
frankly I think what making will amount to a 35 percent cut in 
NASA over a relatively short period of time is extreme and does 
great damage to our world leadership role in many space 
programs. I thank the Chair for his indulgence.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired. 
The bill is now open for amendment at any point.
    The Chair has an en bloc amendment on technical and 
conforming amendments, number one, which the Clerk will report.
    Mr. Adams. Amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair asks unanimous consent that 
the amendment be considered as read, and open for amendment at 
any point.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and 
I will not object, but I hope I'll have the opportunity to ask 
a few questions before we actually move to a vote.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Absolutely.
    The Chair yields himself five minutes to explain the 
amendment. This amendment corrects technicalities in the bill 
in four ways.
    First, it changes a reference to Section 208, paragraph 7, 
subparagraph [a], so that NASA cannot misinterpret the 
intention of funds authorized for Mission to Planet Earth. So 
the only difference is that there's a subsection that was put 
in there.
    Second, it specifies that the upper limits set on funds 
authorized in the Act are funds intended for NASA, so that 
funds authorized in this bill for the Department of 
Transportation's Office of Commercial Space Transportation and 
the Commerce Department's Office of Air and Space 
Commercialization, are not counted against the total budget 
authority for NASA.
    Third, it sharpens restrictions on transfers of resources 
to Russia so that this bill is consistent with H.R. 1601, the 
Space Station Authorization bill.
    Finally, it changes the title that currently reads, 
centives, and corrects it to read incentives so that NASA 
creates an incentives structure for potential shuttle single 
prime contractors in order to reduce costs. I yield back the 
balance of my time. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'll confess that in reading over your amendment, and in 
referencing it to the bill very quickly, I still don't 
thoroughly understand it.
    I do understand the typo on page 47, and I thoroughly agree 
with the correction on page 24. I consider that an editorial 
change, and I thoroughly support that.
    But it appears to me that what you have done, in the 
language change that you have made, is to specify that 
something like $21.5 million must be spent in the preparation 
of a report. Is this the intent of what you're doing?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The answer is no. This suggested change 
was suggested to us by the legislative counsel so that it 
specifically deals with the language on the bottom of page 46 
and reads ``most effectively utilize space-based and airborne 
earth remote sensing data services distribution and application 
provided by the United States private sector to meet government 
goals for Mission to Planet Earth.''
    Mr. Brown. This is an analysis for which we will pay $21.5 
million?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No, it's not. This is for purchase of 
commercial data.
    Mr. Brown. All right, I'm not going to probe further into 
this. I hope you understand that it is not really clear yet in 
my mind that that's what you achieve. I'm not sure that I would 
disagree with the purpose.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Perhaps between now and Full Committee, 
legislative counsel can come up with a clearer way of stating 
this. We certainly would be open to that.
    Mr. Brown. We'll work to see if we can agree to that. I'll 
not raise any objection to the amendment at this point.
    Mr. Hall. Will the gentleman kindly yield?
    Mr. Chairman, the book on you is that you don't usually put 
out $21 million or even $2100 for data that's not needed, and 
you say this is not for data provided by the private sector 
before NASA. You're saying between now and the time we have the 
Full Committee markup, that we'll more clearly delineate what 
the $21 mil is for.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman from California, who 
has the time, will yield to me, the answer is yes.
    Mr. Hall. Thank you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The question is on adoption of the en 
bloc amendment.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Those opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes 
have it. The en bloc amendments are agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment by the 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Harman.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman 
from California.
    Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First off, I would just like to quibble a bit with the 
description of this amendment.
    It says to increase funding for Mission to Planet Earth 
without offset. My amendment, and we can distribute it now, 
although I want to tell the Subcommittee that I am planning not 
to offer it today, so maybe we don't need to, but to offer it 
in the Full Committee, though I would like to discuss it for a 
brief moment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    At any rate, the amendment does restore funding for Mission 
to Planet Earth but you will notice in I think it's one line, 
that it does not increase the overall caps. Therefore, it would 
automatically include an offset against the general NASA 
budget.
    That is my intention, to have the Administrator of NASA 
make a cut in NASA's general operating expenses to compensate 
for the increase in funding for the Mission to Planet Earth 
fund.
    Moving along, I would ask unanimous consent to put in the 
record of this markup at this point, some material from NASA 
which was supplied yesterday and today to the House 
Appropriations Committee, a response to queries on various 
subjects.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [Response to Query dated July 19, 1995, follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Harman. Let me just read about a paragraph and a half. 
This was supplied again by NASA, I guess yesterday. It says:
    ``Beginning today, July 19th, the National Academy of 
Sciences, at Chairman Walker's request, will be evaluating our 
long-range plans for EOS.
    ``By walking away from the systematic and comprehensive 
approach for EOS, the U.S. would be giving up its undisputed 
world leadership in earth observations. NASA has always been at 
the forefront of such advances in knowledge and stands 
committed to this effort. Further near term cuts to this 
critical program seriously jeopardize our ability to realize 
both near and long term benefits from this research. Further 
cuts would also make it extremely difficult for NASA to 
incorporate innovative new approaches now being planned for the 
future. The full FY 1996 President's request for Mission to 
Planet Earth is critical.''
    The point here obviously is that NASA is opposed to the 
cuts that would be made in this bill. I would just make these 
points briefly right now, and yield time to others, if people 
would like to discuss this.
    First of all, the cuts to Mission to Planet Earth are 
disproportionate. It's 25 percent compared to a four percent 
overall cut for other science programs.
    Second of all, they are premature, as you've heard in the 
NASA statement I just read. Chairman Walker has requested a 
National Academy of Sciences study on the Mission to Planet 
Earth. It is underway now, and it will be completed in about a 
month from now. So I would think we would like its results 
before we make cuts.
    And third, I would make the point that the Mission to 
Planet Earth work is extremely valuable for predicting weather 
disasters, for example, like El Nino, which could in the end, 
if we had advanced warning, have saved us billions of dollars.
    And also, for risk assessment which is a subject that this 
Subcommittee and the Full Committee and this member care about 
a great deal.
    So when we get to the Full Committee level, I certainly 
will be offering this amendment and will hope for the 
Committee's support.
    Mr. Brown. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Harman. Yes, I will.
    Mr. Brown. I am disturbed by one aspect of what the 
gentlelady says about the review by the National Academy of 
Sciences, and I wonder if the distinguished Chairman would 
indicate his thinking about making this severe cut prior to 
receiving the report, which I understand that he himself 
requested.
    I know it's not conceivable that he has made up his mind 
before he made the request, but perhaps he could explain in 
more detail the rationale.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Time is controlled by the gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Harman.
    Ms. Harman. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the Full 
Committee Chairman for a response to Mr. Brown's question.
    Mr. Walker. Obviously, we have on-going missions. It's one 
of the problems in having any kind of science research done. It 
doesn't necessarily fit with the legislative rhythm, and we 
have asked for the National Academy of Science's review.
    I believe the National Academy of Sciences' review will end 
up providing a roadmap for achieving some of the savings that 
we are now budgeting.
    It is true that we are making cuts prior to having that 
particular review before us but based upon conversations that I 
have had on-going, I have no doubt that the National Academy of 
Sciences will suggest that there are some ways to restructure 
this program.
    Whether or not they will meet exactly the numbers that we 
have in the budget, that I don't know. I'm not about to 
prejudge where they're coming.
    But I do believe that some of the concerns that we've 
expressed about the ground-based system for the program, as 
well as the need to adopt lower cost, more advanced 
technologies in the out years, will in fact be reflected in 
that study.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
    Mr. Walker. I would ask to be recognized.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Walker. I simply want to complete my statement.
    In my view, some of the those issues are going to be 
reflected in the report. They are exactly the kinds of things 
which lead us to believe that not only can you achieve savings 
in the near term by beginning the process of rescoping the 
mission, but in particular this mission needs to be looked at 
for potential outyear savings, and I believe in particular the 
National Academy of Sciences' report will help us look at the 
long term prospect of this program, and help us to achieve the 
downstream outyear savings that are going to be so necessary if 
we are to keep this within the framework of our balanced budget 
goal.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
yield to me?
    Mr. Walker. I'll be happy to yield to the Chair.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
    I have reviewed the Harman amendment, and for the record, 
let me state my extreme concern about the way this amendment is 
drafted.
    The amendment proposes to increase the authorization for 
Mission to Planet Earth by approximately $274 million. It does 
not raise the cap on the total authorization that tracks the 
amount of money in the budget resolution.
    The consequence of increasing the Mission to Planet Earth 
funding without raising the cap, and raising the cap would put 
us out of sync with the budget resolution, places every other 
program of NASA in jeopardy because it means that the NASA 
Administrator would have to take $274 million out of other NASA 
programs in order to fund the higher level of authorization 
that the gentlewoman from California proposes for Mission to 
Planet Earth.
    Now looking at the practicalities of what this Subcommittee 
and eventually the Full Committee and the Congress will have to 
face.
    Last week, as we know, the Appropriations Subcommittee came 
up with a NASA budget that closed three centers. They were 
operating within the same budget cap.
    Fortunately, the Full Appropriations Committee thought 
better of that and reported out an appropriations bill that 
keeps the centers open.
    I think that given the cap that the budget resolution and 
the 602[b] allocations have placed on the Appropriations 
Subcommittee means that we either can fund Mission to Planet 
Earth at the higher level proposed by the gentlewoman from 
California, or we have to start denuding the centers and 
perhaps closing down a center or two to maintain that funding.
    Unfortunately, that is the situation we're in. I don't 
think anybody is comfortable. But it seems to me that Mission 
to Planet Earth, which is still funded at over a billion 
dollars a year, is going to be alive and well, even with the 
cuts that are being proposed by the Appropriations Committee 
and in this legislation.
    I just do not want to see the NASA Administrator being 
forced to take over a quarter billion out of other NASA 
programs, including those that are run in the centers, in order 
to fund Mission to Planet Earth. That's why I think the Harman 
amendment is not a good one. I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for yielding.
    Mr. Walker. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    And the other thing is, as I say, we have to look not only 
at the present budget situation, which I think has all the 
dangers the gentleman describes, but also the situation in the 
outyears. This is a program that is going to grow at a rate 
much faster than anything anticipated in the general NASA 
budget or any other program within the budget.
    So as a result, if we don't begin to make some savings 
early on, the pressures of just exactly the kind of problems 
that the gentleman points out become even more acute in the 
future.
    And if we can rescope this program in a way that allows us 
to do it, but do it in a way which is more in line with where 
we think the budgets are going to be in the future, we think 
that you end up with a much stronger program, one that's 
actually possible to do, not one that has everybody's wish list 
included in the numbers. I'll be happy to yield to the 
gentlelady.
    Ms. Harman. I would like to ask a question, but I believe 
that Mr. Roemer was interested in asking a question first. I 
know he has his own five minutes.
    Mr. Roemer. I'll take my own time. I'll ask you the 
question.
    Ms. Harman. I just have a question. I certainly am not for 
programs growing out of proportion and I do support the NAS 
study which you have asked for.
    I was going to ask you a while back why it doesn't make 
more sense to have the results of that study and then 
restructure that program, if indicated, according to the 
results of the study.
    Mr. Walker. Because either we are going to go forward with 
this authorization bill and help influence the policymaking, or 
the appropriators are going to go forward with their program, 
and they are not going to reference the NAS study.
    The fact is that I think we are better off making a real 
determination here that is in line with the appropriators.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think the discussion and the debate has been helpful 
here. I would just yield for a brief minute to the gentlelady, 
the sponsor of the amendment, for a question. How does she 
propose, in the drafting of the amendment, to pay for the $274 
million?
    Ms. Harman. I thank the gentleman. There's clearly some 
confusion on this point.
    I had a choice which was to try to add some money and not 
offset it, and there would be problems with that that were 
indicated by our Chairman when he was talking about it a few 
minutes ago, or to find an offset.
    And what I have chosen to do is not to raise the caps but 
to have the offset be generally to the NASA science budget. By 
not raising the caps, that's what automatically happens.
    I just heard conversation about how that could endanger 
other programs. I understand that, but I believe that given 
NASA's strong opposition to any cuts here, that NASA at least 
could work out these cuts in a way that would least affect the 
basic science programs, as NASA has been able to work out the 
cuts in its other funding to overhead and not to program.
    I have been very impressed, and I know we all have, at 
Administrator Goldin's ability to do this.
    Let me just endorse some comments that were made earlier by 
both the Chairman and the Full Committee Chairman about the 
need for more efficiency and creativity and for a better, 
faster, cheaper program, and high science content and for 
appropriate privatization.
    I agree with all this, but I don't agree with taking a 
valuable program and giving it a disproportionate cut, so I 
think I've been responsible in the way I've crafted the 
amendment and I think restoring funding up to the level of the 
funding for other science programs makes sense in this 
environment.
    Mr. Roemer. I would thank the gentlelady, and reclaiming my 
time, just say that this has certainly been a debate we would 
have on a NASA authorization bill where we were debating the 
Space Station and the rest of NASA at the same time, rather 
than separating the two when they were in the same budget.
    And when the gentlelady is talking about cutting a good, 
responsible program that has a very important mission for NASA 
and an appropriate mission for NASA and for the people of this 
country, this is exactly the impact that a Space Station is 
going to have on this budget.
    I would like to support the gentlewoman's amendment. I 
think that this program has very positive economic and 
environmental ramifications for the people of the United States 
and for the economy of the United States.
    It could stimulate telecommunication and technology 
advances. It certainly is going to impact the climate.
    Our GDP, 25 percent of the United States' GDP is impacted 
by our climate. We have disasters that we appropriate money for 
every year. It's getting to be floods and El Nino and 
hurricanes and a host of different things that threaten our 
economy. This would certainly help us be proactive in that 
area, and understand the impact. I come from a farming state. 
It would certainly help our farmers. The insurance industry 
would benefit from this kind of program.
    Twenty-five percent of the economy is impacted. I think 
that's the kind of program that is appropriately within NASA's 
mission that has huge benefits to the taxpayers of the United 
States, and I would hope that we could work out some 
responsible budgetary way to work in Ms. Harman's amendment.
    And would encourage the Committee in the future, as well, 
to handle both this Space Station and the rest of the NASA 
programs within one authorization bill.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time is controlled by the gentleman 
from Indiana for one minute.
    Mr. Roemer. I would be happy to yield to Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back the 
balance of his time?
    Mr. Roemer. I do yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Brown. Just to clarify this parliamentary situation, 
did I understand correctly, Ms. Harman, that you intend to 
withdraw the amendment?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The amendment has not been offered. 
We're all striking the last word to give our thoughts for the 
good of the order, and the gentleman's thoughts are very 
valuable.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Brown. There are a couple of points, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I appreciate the statements Mr. Walker made 
indicating the value of this program. I understand he does have 
mixed feelings about it, however.
    I will try to have available at the Full Committee some of 
the mixed feelings that he's reflected in the past about the 
political nature of this program, which I think he does not 
thoroughly approve of.
    Secondly, with regard to the constraints that are purported 
to be placed upon us by the report language in the budget 
resolution, I note, and I think all of us are aware of this, 
that the language of the budget resolution, and particularly 
the report language, is not binding on the Appropriations 
Committee, only their 602[b] resolution is, and neither of 
these is binding on the Authorizing Committee.
    I would like to have the Chairman and Mr. Walker both admit 
that I have correctly stated the situation, and if there's an 
argument about it, I'll get the legal references that are 
necessary to support it.
    In justification or support of this, I would point out that 
the Appropriations Subcommittee came up with a proposal, which 
I didn't like, but then I didn't like the President's budget 
either, which had a certain bottomline, and which provided 
essentially no funding for EOS.
    They obviously were not bound by the report language in the 
budget resolution which stipulated lower figures for EOS. So in 
effect that's confirmation of my earlier statement.
    Secondly, as a result of Mr. Walker's intervention, and I 
applaud him for it, the Full Committee acted quite properly to 
reinstate the figures that were contained in the budget 
resolution report language, or close to it, but then went on to 
increase the bottomline a fairly substantial amount over what 
the Subcommittee had reported.
    And I commended this action too, but again it supports my 
statement that the precise language of the budget report is not 
binding on the Subcommittee or the Full Appropriations 
Committee, and not binding at all on this Committee.
    I think what Mr. Walker is trying to do, in an effort to 
instill some discipline in this Committee, is to give weight to 
these things which he had a hand in creating as Vice Chairman 
of the Budget Committee, which goes beyond what I feel is 
legally necessary.
    And I would suggest that historically the role of the 
Authorizing Committee in support of the effort which I again 
agree with Mr. Walker on in influencing the Appropriations 
Committee, which has been very hard to do in the past and 
apparently is difficult even yet to do, is to give its own best 
judgment of what the priorities ought to be, and not to be 
constrained by report language in the budget which has no legal 
significance to it, or even by the 602[b] allocation which 
again has no significance to it as an authorizing committee.
    I make these statements, and they're editorial comments, to 
try and set the stage for expanding the role of this Committee. 
They are not bound by the things that have been suggested they 
are bound by.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Brown. I certainly will.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. All I would do is just bring the 
gentleman up to date on what's happened in the last week.
    The Appropriations Subcommittee, last week, closed three 
centers, made major disruption in the NASA budget.
    On Monday, Mr. Walker and I introduced our bill showing 
that it could be done and a little bit less disruptively, and 
yesterday the Appropriations Committee caved.
    Mr. Brown. May I, if the gentleman will allow me to reclaim 
my time, may I point out that I too had conversations and have 
a bill introduced which I have outlined to members of the 
Appropriations Committee in which I did exactly the same thing. 
I prefer to think that they caved in response to a prominent 
former Chairman's views.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Brown. Than the very able current Chairman's views. 
We're both entitled to that opinion if we wish. But it's pure 
dicta, as I think the gentleman will recognize.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I'll need three or four minutes.
    I guess I just want to listen to myself to try and 
determine whether or not I want to support an amendment that 
hasn't been offered. And if it is offered, it's going to be 
withdrawn.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hall. While Mission to Planet Earth is not my personal 
highest priority, I think it's an illustration of what I was 
talking about in my opening statement that we all have our 
priorities and all of us who have priorities ought to have some 
give on our own priorities to accommodate others.
    Once again, to cut back but not cut out. There is an 
offsetting general reduction in the gentlewoman's amendment and 
it still preserves the essential structure of the program and 
maintains some balance, I think, and it's not a budget buster.
    I think it's worth looking at, and I think the gentlelady's 
entirely correct in withdrawing it and trying to work with some 
others and work out with others who might have some give and to 
get an amendment a little more acceptable to the Chairman and 
to the leadership. And I yield back my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Next on the roster of amendments is an en bloc amendment by 
the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from California for the purposes of 
offering an en bloc amendment.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I've prepared three amendments to move us towards 
privatization and commercialization. However, I'm only offering 
two today.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendments.
    Mr. Adams. Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Page 3, after line 20, insert the following new paragraph.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    The gentleman from California is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. As I say, these amendments, of which I'm 
offering two today, will move us toward privatization and 
commercialization of the space transportation, as well as move 
us towards cheaper access to space.
    And I'm very pleased to be able to offer these en bloc. 
They are, I believe, non-controversial.
    In the first part, in the first amendment I'm offering, it 
deals with shuttle privatization, and second, privatization of 
a small part of NASA's space transportation efforts, parabolic 
flight services.
    Number one, the space shuttle privatization is an amendment 
that urges privatization of the shuttle, stating that the 
government should not operate the shuttle after 2012 and should 
not spend money upgrading its shuttle for use after 2012.
    As of now, NASA has already said that it would like to 
replace the shuttle system by that year 2012, with a 
commercially developed reusable launch vehicle.
    Continuing to fly the shuttle would require major upgrades 
which NASA probably can't afford. So we're talking about 
something that the space program is already, pardon the 
expression, in a glide path towards this direction anyway.
    But my amendment today would reconfirm that. I believe that 
the Subcommittee should urge NASA to streamline the shuttle to 
the point where it can be privatized so that the shuttle can 
compete in the marketplace with other systems as soon as 
possible.
    This amendment does not bash the space shuttle or the 
people that developed or operated it. I have consistently 
labeled them as heroes. That is, the men and women in NASA and 
industry who built the shuttle on a shoestring and are now 
operating it safely in a budget constrained environment.
    But I've also said that because we under-funded it and 
because the government operates it, the space shuttle is simply 
too expensive for the long-term. So we want to move towards a 
cheaper access to space and free up resources for space 
exploration, science technology and other research projects.
    So I would ask your support for this part of my amendment. 
This is not at all anti-shuttle. It is basically focused on 
moving us on as the shuttle is evolving out, moving us on 
towards the next generation of space transportation.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair understands that the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Weldon, wishes to offer an amendment to the Rohrabacher 
amendment en bloc. Is that correct?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. That is correct, but I would ask 
permission for an additional one minute to explain the second 
half of my amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Mr. Walker. Would the gentleman yield for just a moment? 
I'm trying to figure out what the gentleman--is the gentleman 
offering just the amendment number three on our chart?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No. In fact, amendment three is combined 
with amendment number eight.
    Mr. Walker. So you are offering both three and eight 
simultaneously as reflected on our chart?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
    Mr. Walker. I think you need to get unanimous consent.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I'd ask unanimous consent to offer these 
two amendments en bloc.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The unanimous consent request is that 
Mr. Rohrabacher be allowed to offer amendment three and 
amendment eight en bloc. Any objection?
    Mr. Brown. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, it 
was my intention to vote for amendment number eight, but I have 
serious questions about some elements of amendment number 
three.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I withdraw my request.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California withdraws 
his request.
    Does the gentleman from Florida wish to offer his amendment 
to amendment number three?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I will proceed with amendment number 
three.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. That's the question before the Committee 
is the adoption of amendment number three. Does the gentleman 
from Florida wish to offer an amendment?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment to 
the amendment. The deputy clerks will distribute the amendment 
to the amendment because I don't believe this is in the 
package.
    Mr. Adams. Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida to 
the amendment of Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Page two, line 16, insert ``Nothing in this Act shall 
preclude the Federal, or federally contracted, operation of the 
Space Shuttle through the year 2012, or the privatized 
operation of the Space Shuttle after the year 2012.'' after 
``system beyond 2012.''.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Dave Weldon. Mr. Chairman, current national policy 
regarding the future operation of the space shuttle is still 
being debated.
    The nation has not resolved the question of exactly how 
manned space flight will be carried out in the future.
    My amendment, I believe, clarifies the current national 
policies regarding future operation of the space shuttle.
    I understand that it is not the gentleman's intent to rule 
out the shuttle as an option, and my amendment simply clarifies 
that the shuttle is not ruled out as an option for continued 
human exploration of space beyond the year 2012.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I would accept this as a 
friendly amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The question is on the adoption of the 
amendment by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Weldon, to the 
Rohrabacher amendment. Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Those opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The ayes have it. The amendment to the 
amendment is adopted. The question is now on the adoption--
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I guess that I have some questions 
for the gentleman from California. These are questions, and 
this amendment that the gentleman from Florida just sent up, 
set forth subjects that probably could have been worked out in 
hearings. We didn't, I don't recollect, have any hearing right 
here, particularly of getting NASA's views on this proposal.
    I have high regard for the gentleman from California, as he 
well remembers. We had hearings on his high direct thrust--I 
believe he was with the DCX, where we moved it up a little bit 
and then moved it back down, but it showed that it could be 
done. It was almost a re-elect Rohrabacher hearing that we had 
that day.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hall. So I don't question the motives of the gentleman. 
I just have some problems about not having any hearing record 
on this.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield?
    The gentleman may recall that when the initial budget 
submission was sent to Congress by the President, we had a 
hearing where Mr. Goldin testified, and brought practically 
everybody on the ninth floor of NASA up here.
    I don't even know if the phone was answered that day 
because the ninth floor was denuded of all of its personnel.
    Mr. Goldin didn't talk very much about the budget, didn't 
talk very much about the policy issues, but he had an 
opportunity to do so, and to answer questions of members of the 
Committee.
    You also may recall that in March, we had a marathon 
hearing where non-government witnesses of all sizes, shapes and 
forums, were invited to testify on the various types of policy 
issues that were contained in the budget issue.
    That hearing went on most of the day, so I think we do have 
an adequate hearing record.
    If there was not a hearing on this specific issue, or 
testimony on this specific issue, it was simply because none of 
the witnesses either from NASA or from the private sector 
wished to testify on it.
    Mr. Hall. I think the gentleman is correct, and I think 
that this specific issue, we did not have a hearing on it, and 
that's exactly why I said it. Mr. Goldin was fending you off 
most of the time during those hearings, and you didn't get a 
chance to ask him.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hall. I do yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. If the gentleman will remember, Mr. Goldin 
did say at the January 6th Full Committee hearing, and at the 
February hearings, that he would prefer--he's on the record in 
front of Committee saying that the reusable launch vehicle 
should replace the shuttle. That's in fact, if they can, and 
that is our goal by the year 2012. This amendment basically has 
incorporated what Mr. Goldin stated before this Committee.
    Mr. Hall. I thank the gentleman. This seems to be more like 
a privatizing issue rather than replacing the shuttle. My 
objection is not to the privatization of it. It just seems like 
this goes against the launch policy to keep the shuttle open 
until we are sure everything is going to work. I think you're 
for that. The gentleman from Florida's amendment may have 
addressed that.
    Mr. Dave Weldon. If I could comment?
    Mr. Hall. I do yield to the gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Dave Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
    I think the people in NASA and on this Committee will agree 
that we would like to move to a new launch vehicle for human 
space flight in the future. I think what Mr. Rohrabacher is 
trying to do in this language is further set the stage for that 
and encourage it in that direction.
    And I think what I have done in my clarifying language is 
made it possible that if NASA is not ready to go ahead, or if 
it appears as though it's in the best financial interests of 
the people of the United States to continue the shuttle beyond 
2012 that we will be able to do so with this language.
    I know I personally would like to see a new launch vehicle 
developed between now and then and deployed between now and 
then, even though the shuttle has served us extremely well. And 
indeed, even though it's 20-year-old technology, it is still 
way ahead of the rest of the world in technology.
    We need to start setting the stage for moving onto the 
future so that we can always be ahead of the rest of the world. 
I think Mr. Rohrabacher is giving us some language that puts us 
in that direction and I think my clarifying language gives us 
the opportunity to continue the shuttle.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Roemer. I thank the gentleman.
    I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from 
California. I think he's bringing up a very, very timely and 
serious question. I'm not sure that I understand the question, 
however.
    Whether it is a question of replacing or privatizing, and I 
think the terminology here is extremely important.
    If we're talking about privatizing the space shuttle, I 
agree with Mr. Hall. I'm not sure that that question has been 
sufficiently asked or answered through the hearing process 
before this Subcommittee.
    I would also further say that I think it goes beyond that. 
I think that if the gentleman means privatization of the space 
shuttle in the bottom of his amendment, on page three of our 
amendment handouts, it says that the Administrator shall 
prepare for an orderly transition from the Federal operation or 
Federal management of the contracted operation of space 
transportation systems to the Federal purchase of commercial 
space transportation services for all non-emergency launch 
requirements, including human cargo and mixed payloads.
    It further goes on to say, as part of those preparations, 
the Administrator shall plan for the potential privatization of 
the space shuttle program. So I think he's talking about more 
than just the space shuttle.
    I would also just ask him, with respect to this, what is 
the industry perspective on this? There is huge risk in the 
liability if the private sector were to take this on. Have we 
talked to the contractors? Are they willing to take this risk 
and liability on? What happens, given the scenario of a private 
shuttle operation that does not succeed?
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Roemer. I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. Hall. I certainly agree with you, and it seems similar 
to what we did in the Clean Air Act in the early nineties, late 
eighties, where we provided for a cleansing of the air, using 
technology that has not even yet been discovered.
    The sole purpose of this is to prevent expending or 
planning for any use of the shuttle beyond the year 2012. I 
just think it's kind of a dangerous thing to do until we know 
whether or not the REL vehicle's going to work.
    I'm not questioning the gentleman from California's 
interest in privatization. I totally support that if we can do 
it timely, but I don't want to burn the bridge and not have an 
area to retreat back into if NASA, in their wisdom and their 
accumulated wisdom, feels that we need to go to the year 2013 
or 2014. This would absolutely cut it off.
    That's my problem, and I don't question the gentleman from 
Florida's total support of the space program. I think his 
amendment probably takes care of my problems.
    I think you are exactly right in pointing out the pitfalls 
in saying we get to the year 2012, by golly, and midnight 
December 31st, of the year 2012, and you know, we will both 
probably still be in Congress then.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hall. We'll have a chance until that time. I may be in 
the nursing home.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Roemer. I'll be happy to yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. As Mr. Weldon's amendment takes care of 
any of the problems that have been raised here, especially what 
the shuttle would do after 2012, and hopefully we will all be--
I can't speak for everybody, but hopefully I won't be sitting 
here in Congress at that time.
    But the fact is, this amendment is urging NASA to go 
towards privatization. We have this huge army that now is 
required to launch a space shuttle.
    There are various things that can be done by the private 
sector and this effort can be privatized to some degree. We're 
not mandating that. We're just urging that they go in that 
direction.
    Let's save the taxpayers some money, for pete's sake. We 
can do things in the private sector that can be done and again, 
it's not mandating that we put the shuttle up on a block; we're 
just saying, look, there are some services required for the 
shuttle. Let's privatize those services.
    Mr. Roemer. I don't disagree with the gentleman from 
California's thrust at all. As a matter of fact, anything to 
save the taxpayers money that ensures a safe NASA and continues 
to be a technologically advanced NASA is in the best interests 
of the country.
    But I do think that this amendment raises many important 
questions on liability, on risk, on NASA's position, and the 
Administration's position, and so forth.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker.
    Mr. Walker. Thank you. Strike the last word. I think there 
are some important issues that have been raised, but that's 
exactly why the gentleman is saying, shall prepare for an 
orderly transition.
    There are in fact a number of those questions that need to 
be addressed. The gentleman is simply saying that somewhere, 
somewhere around the 110th Congress, we're going to have to 
make some decisions of these types. It would be best if the 
policymakers at that time have a period of time when we've 
actually looked at these issues seriously so that they know 
what it is we're going to do, and when we arrive at that time, 
it may even be something where we have decided there is a new 
generation of launch vehicles that are available to us and we 
want to utilize those launch vehicles.
    We have a shuttle that might still be usable. We might want 
to spin that off into the private sector. Who knows what the 
range of options might be?
    The gentleman from California's amendment simply says, 
let's have an orderly transition process so that we don't 
stumble into these things, but in fact answer the questions 
that need to be answered along the way.
    It would seem to me that in light of the new directions 
we're trying to take in this bill, this is exactly the kind of 
amendment that helps achieve the end result that I think 
everybody wants, a NASA that can aggressively do its missions 
but do so in a way that recognizes other assets that may be 
available in the totality of the economy.
    And if we can achieve those kinds of things, we ought to 
take those steps. And the gentleman's amendment helps us move 
in that direction.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back the 
balance of his time?
    Mr. Walker. Yes, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Brown, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to the chorus 
of statements. I have no real problems with the thrust of the 
gentleman's amendment towards privatization and in fact 
hopefully we can support that.
    But I am concerned about, and I just perhaps don't fully 
understand exactly how this would impact NASA's current 
operations.
    Having had no opportunity to receive a comment from the 
agency as to how they interpret the language here, I would have 
to reserve my approval.
    I would make note of the fact that Section 209 of the bill, 
which seeks to be amended by this amendment, is entitled 
``Shuttle Privatization,'' and that it requires that the 
Administrator shall solicit proposals for a single prime 
contract for the space shuttle program, and that the proposals 
must be accompanied by a plan by the proposer to privatize the 
space program. And that these privatization plans for the 
shuttle will then be transmitted to the Congress so we may 
consider them in due course, or make a decision. Now I approve 
of that. I would raise no objections to that. I think this is 
reasonable language.
    Now what additional impact does the language Mr. 
Rohrabacher is proposing have? Because it says that none of the 
funds authorized by this Act shall be used to plan or prepare 
by the Federal Government or the Federal contractors for the 
operations of the shuttle after the year 2012. And I think that 
the Weldon amendment may have ameliorated some of that 
language. If so, what is the remaining impact of the language?
    Mr. Walker. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Brown. If the gentleman would explain that to me?
    Mr. Walker. I think what you have is both tracks being 
addressed in this amendment. In the case of the language which 
is in the bill, we are going to get the private sector's view 
of how all of this can take place.
    What you have in the Rohrabacher amendment is the public 
sector also being asked to look at an orderly transition that 
way, so you will get both aspects happening here.
    Our proposed language in the bill will make certain that 
the private sector is responding to this with detailed plans. 
This particular language will assure that the NASA 
Administrator and his agencies are also preparing for an 
orderly transition this way, and getting us detail, so that you 
get both public and private.
    Mr. Brown. I would certainly hope that that would be the 
situation and if that is the situation, I can support the 
amendment.
    But I would like a second opinion, frankly, from the agency 
as to how they would interpret the situation.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield?
    You seem to be able to get opinions from the agency 
communicated to you much quicker than we on the majority side.
    Mr. Brown. The gentleman, this is flattering to me.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Brown. But generally what I see is the speeches that 
have been made by the Administrator before another Committee, 
and from that, I can interpret.
    Mr. Walker. If the gentleman would just yield further to 
me, I think the language here that needs to be focused on is 
the language on the second page of the gentleman's amendment, 
if you look at, it's a full paragraph, it's the orderly 
transition on the top of the paragraph, and then the final 
language in the paragraph says:
    As a part of those preparations, the Administrator shall 
plan for potential privatization of the space shuttle program.
    In other words, what we are asking of industry would now 
also be that which the Administrator is doing under the 
gentleman from California's amendment.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Brown. I'll be happy to yield, if I have the time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Forty-five seconds.
    Mr. Brown. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Again, I think Mr. Weldon's amendment has 
really taken care of many of the concerns that have been 
expressed today.
    And what we're really talking about is urging NASA to move 
towards privatization and work at it seriously, look at the 
options and questions about liability and all the other issues 
that have been raised. That's exactly the kind of thing we need 
to address.
    We are urging that we do so. That doesn't mean that we're 
mandated to sell the shuttle or anything such as that. But we 
want to move in the direction where the taxpayers are doing 
those things that only the taxpayers can do, and the private 
sector can do the rest. And we'll take a look and see what that 
is.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Rohrabacher, if I may reclaim my time very 
briefly, I'm told by the staff that the problem that is most 
salient is the last paragraph which purports to put a 
limitation on the use of funds to NASA. If the gentleman would 
withdraw that portion of the amendment--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman would yield, that's 
what the Weldon amendment addressed.
    Mr. Brown. Added to the amendment?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Correct.
    Mr. Walker. It took care of the problems with that last 
part.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Brown. Let me study that and be prepared to offer a 
rebuttal at Full Committee, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. I just want to briefly say how much--and I 
promise to be brief--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Tiahrt. With an increasing demand for space, we're 
looking for new opportunities for access to space. I've worked 
in new technology before in a prior life, and the way we can 
achieve new technology is you set goals and you work towards 
those goals.
    If nobody had that vision and set the goals to try and move 
into a new technology, then it would never occur. We'd just 
keep plodding along with the same old thing.
    And I think this is a good example of how we're setting 
goals for NASA to move into new technology for access to space, 
and allowing the private sector to take over the old 
technology. 2012 is plenty of time. In the year 2011, if we 
come to the sudden realization that we're unable to transition, 
then we'll have a year to make that adjustment. If we see that 
in 2010, we'll have two years.
    So I think there's plenty of time between now and 2012 that 
we can make this adjustment if it is necessary. But we have 
other programs going on now that are basic research that are 
seeking new ways to access space, and I think that's the way we 
ought to encourage NASA to move. And this is a good vehicle to 
do it, and I support the amendment. I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair rises in support of the 
amendments by Mr. Rohrabacher. Collectively, the amendments 
bring the commercial sector into the American launch market and 
get the government out of launching routine payloads. This will 
bring market incentives into the provision of launch services 
to the U.S. Government, helping reduce the overall cost to the 
government of launching payloads into space, and promoting 
commercial development and private financing of space 
infrastructure.
    These amendments also send a signal to capital markets that 
government is not going to compete with the private sector in 
space launch. This will help private financing of commercially 
developed space launch vehicles, again lowering the 
government's costs and perhaps those of the private sector as 
well by bringing more capital into the commercial space 
industry.
    The first item is the new finding that most government 
space launch requirements can be met by a free and competitive 
market in launch services. It also indicates that Congress 
recognizes that the Department of Defense may have emergency 
launch on demand requirements that cannot be accommodated by 
the private sector.
    The second item directs the Administrator to prepare for an 
orderly transition to reliance on the launch market for the 
provision of launch services to the government. This is 
important if we are to move the government out of operating a 
bus line in space in a rational manner. The question is on the 
adoption of the Rohrabacher amendments en bloc, as amended. 
Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Those opposed, no.
    Mr. Brown. No.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes 
have it and the amendment is adopted.
    Next on the list of amendments is an amendment by the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Weldon.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida to call up 
his amendment.
    Mr. Dave Weldon. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk. I ask that it be considered in lieu of the amendment 
printed.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment, and 
the deputy clerks will pass out copies.
    Mr. Adams. Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Page 37, after line 10, insert the following new 
paragraphs:
    [3] Section 70101[5] of--
    Mr. Dave Weldon. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. I ask that the amendment be considered as 
read.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection. The gentleman is 
recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.
    Mr. Dave Weldon. Mr. Chairman, the only change from my 
amendment as printed comes on line 12 of page two, where I 
deleted the language ``requests from the State governments 
shall be given first priority.''
    I commend the Chairman for including the changes in this 
bill that address the advances in commercial space since 
enactment of the Commercial Space Transportation Act of 1984.
    As you may know, Florida's commercial space port endeavor, 
Space Port Florida, is pressing the envelope on commercial 
space launch activities.
    In my discussions with them and other space port leaders 
across the nation, I see several additional areas of the 1984 
Act that need to be addressed.
    My amendment addresses these issues by, first off, 
clarifying and expanding the term, launch services. As defined 
in current law, launch services only applies to launch vehicle 
preparation and actual launch. Preparation of launch sites and 
payload facilities is also part of launch services.
    My amendment extends the definition of launch services to 
preparing the site for launch. This will clarify when DOT 
insurance requirements are to be set and when indemnification 
by the Federal Government may be available.
    My amendment also adds a requirement that the Secretary of 
Transportation notify the House Science Committee and Senate 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee within seven 
days after a space port license is not issued. Currently there 
is no response required if a license is not granted.
    I believe that such reporting will help the Committee 
remain well-informed on this issue, as we seek to encourage 
U.S. leadership in commercial space launch activities.
    My amendment also requires the Secretary of Transportation 
to provide guidelines for agencies to use in disposing of 
excess launch property when there are competing interests 
wanting the property.
    There are currently no guidelines for resolving such 
dilemmas. Existing law requires that direct costs be charged to 
the commercial user.
    My amendment clarifies that. a] price for launch services 
is to include direct costs only; b] price to be charged for 
launch services is to include the salaries of government and 
contractor personnel only when they are direct costs; c] the 
Secretary of Transportation shall assure that Federal 
Government agencies consistently define and implement direct 
costs for launch property and services.
    Finally, my amendment clarifies that DOT is to establish 
insurance requirements for launch site operators and that 
indemnification above that amount may be available to launch 
site operators.
    Over the past decade, the market share of commercial 
launches from the U.S. has declined significantly.
    My amendment is forward-looking and will help U.S. 
commercial space endeavors move forward and avoid some 
unnecessary and cumbersome hurdles that may lie in their way.
    The amendment is about U.S. leadership in commercial space 
and restoring the U.S. market share in the commercial space 
launch market. I hope that all members of the Committee will 
support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the balance of 
his time. Is there any further discussion on the amendment of 
the gentleman from Florida?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair supports the amendment for the 
reasons the gentleman from Florida has stated. All those in 
favor of the amendment will signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Opposed, no?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The ayes have it. The amendment is 
agreed to.
    Next on the amendment roster is an amendment by the 
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Roemer.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Indiana.
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk, and ask for its consideration.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Mr. Adams. Amendment offered by Mr. Roemer.
    Page 9, line 21,--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to begin to 
explain the amendment as it's being handed out?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. It's in the packet.
    Mr. Roemer. The Administration request for aeronautical 
research and technology, Mr. Chairman, is $917 million.
    The bill we are considering today funds the account at $826 
million, a $90 million cut and a $55 million cut in the current 
year's level of $882 million.
    The bill authorizes $354 million for hypersonic research 
and technology, $245 million for high speed technology, and 
$133 million for subsonic technology.
    The request for subsonic was $188 million. My amendment 
would bring this up $30 million to $163 million, splitting the 
difference between the request and the Committee bill.
    Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the trade figures came out for the 
United States. They projected we would hit an all time record 
trade deficit in 1995.
    Subsonic research and application is one account where 
we're most responsible for our positive balance of trade in the 
aeronautics field, a field that the U.S. dominated in 1970 with 
100 percent of the market. And where our market share today, in 
1995, is 50 percent.
    NASA aeronautics programs have traditionally been the 
catalyst in promoting intercompany cooperation so important for 
our economy. Aeronautics has made a good effort to get the most 
bang for the buck by selecting programs that have both the 
broadest level of impact and the highest probability of 
success.
    Such programs also mitigate high levels of risk for U.S. 
industry. Competition from Europe and fledgling industries in 
Asia is intense and growing. Aggressive pricing and substantial 
European Government investment in the Airbus Corporation have 
seriously eroded the U.S. balance of trade in aerospace, our 
most significant contributor for a favorable balance of trade.
    Advanced subsonics is important to produce high payoff 
technologies, such as, and let me list some examples:
    Sophisticated derivatives of current aircraft, future 
generations of subsonic aircraft, advanced materials and 
composites for better efficiency and lower cost, as well as 
improved safety, improved superior wing designs for safety and 
fuel efficiency, improved acoustics and noise control.
    All of this aeronautics research, Mr. Chairman, and 
development is critical, but the subsonics account drives the 
economy and makes the real advancements in the future fields 
possible.
    I would encourage adoption of this amendment so as to have 
a better balance in the allocation of resources in this account 
to help us with our trade deficit and help in a real world 
compete with foreign countries who have taken 50 percent of the 
market share from the United States.
    As a student of international relations, Mr. Chairman, Hans 
Morgenthau used to talk about Realpolitik in the real world. I 
think this amendment affects and influences and recognizes the 
real world in trade deficits by saying here is an industry 
where the United States has performed extraordinarily well in 
the past, where we're having severe competition in this real 
world from subsidies and government support to Airbus with the 
Asians, particularly the Japanese and the South Koreans, who 
are getting government support to grow new industries and to 
erode the U.S. market share. And whether you call it applied 
research or whether you call it basic research, this is a real 
world reflection of real world competition. I would hope that 
we could restore this money into a very, very important account 
for our industry in this country.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Does anyone else seek recognition?
    Ms. Harman. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to strongly support Mr. Roemer's amendment. I 
think it's excellent, as was his presentation of what it will 
do.
    The first A in NASA is Aeronautics. We tend to forget that 
in our conversations about some of the other issues. Certainly 
an economy like California's which is hurting so much from 
defense cutbacks, could receive an enormous infusion in terms 
of its economy by this assist in aeronautics research.
    We, as Mr. Roemer pointed out, have lost an enormous amount 
of market share in the commercial subsonic aircraft industry. 
And without Federal involvement, the Federal Government here is 
a catalyst of private industry, we will not regain it.
    And I think that, on one hand, this is among the top 
priorities of NASA, and I think that Mr. Roemer is extremely 
farsighted in suggesting that we restore funding. Finally, I 
would just speak to a couple other issues he raised.
    As he said, we're not only talking about helping the 
subsonic aircraft industry, we're talking about byproducts like 
composite materials and improved wing designs and improved 
noise control, and so on and so forth, which can help a variety 
of other industries as well. So I say that let's not be 
shortsighted.
    Mr. Roemer. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Harman. Yes, I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. Roemer. I would just thank the gentlelady from 
California for her support, and explain again to the Committee 
that my amendment, keeping in line with what we've tried to do 
on other markups in this Committee, this does not increase the 
deficit.
    I have provided two offsets for $30 million increase in the 
subsonic area by cutting $15 million out of basic research and 
cutting $15 million out of high speed research for a total of 
$30 million to be added in subsonic. I am not increasing the 
deficit. I would thank again the gentlelady for yielding.
    Ms. Harman. Reclaiming my time, I think that what Mr. 
Roemer is doing is prudent. We all understand, Mr. Chairman, 
the budget imperatives here, and certainly none of us, not me, 
not Mr. Roemer, who have talked about restoring certain 
funding, are proposing to add to the deficit, or to do anything 
that is not budget neutral in this bill. Thank you. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back the balance 
of her time. Does anyone else seek recognition?
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Hall. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I think we see here a 
good illustration of cutting back but not cutting out.
    Adding back 25, 30--this is another example, Mr. Chairman, 
of some of the real tough choices that this budget is forcing 
on the various members.
    I'm sympathetic to Mr. Roemer's amendment because the bill 
we're marking up today really makes some pretty tough, I'd 
almost say ill-advised cuts to NASA's advanced subsonic 
aeronautics program.
    These cuts are all the more troubling given the major 
contribution made by subsonic aircraft sales and subsonic 
aviation to the nation's trade balance. We know we need some 
help there.
    I'm a little unhappy that he's taken some funding from the 
aeronautics research and technology based program which we know 
is NASA's aeronautical research, it's seed corn, this is as 
good a word for it as any, to compensate for the advanced 
subsonic funding shortfall. All in all, I like the intent of 
the amendment and I intend to support it.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Chair rises in opposition to the 
amendment.
    First, this bill does not reduce the account for the 
advanced subsonic technologies program. It's increased by six 
percent to $133 million, when the entire aeronautics account is 
being reduced by $90 million.
    This program has been criticized by the Congressional 
Budget Office as corporate welfare. CBO contends that the 
benefits from the R&D in this program fall almost exclusively 
to aircraft manufacturers, their suppliers, and the airlines.
    Many of the elements in this program are much more mature 
than basic research, and thus should be the subject of 
increased scrutiny.
    Funding this program at $133 million is an increase of 
slightly more than six percent.
    The gentleman from Indiana's amendment would increase AST 
funding nearly 30 percent at the expense of other programs, 
such as high speed research, arguably much more cutting edge 
than AST or the R&D base, which has already been reduced by $65 
million from fiscal year 1994 where most of the aeronautic 
space industry outlines the best basic research.
    So what we're doing is we're further cutting back the best 
basic research to pay for research that has already matured.
    Although it is commendable that this amendment for a 
program increase is offered with the corresponding offset, the 
offsets come at the expense of the R&D base which has already 
been reduced by 15 percent from fiscal '94.
    It also seeks offset from the high speed research program 
whose major component, the high speed civil transport, is 
entering a critical phase of validation for meeting 
international environmental and noise standards.
    This amendment seeks to plus up the AST program almost 30 
percent. The bill, without the amendment, increase AST 
approximately six percent over last year's funding level, but 
allows for increases provided the cost of the utilization of 
Federal facilities is reimbursed by those who benefit from the 
research.
    That's the way we should be doing business, by making those 
who stand to make a profit from the government pay their fair 
share of the cost. I oppose the amendment. The question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Roemer. Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Those opposed, no?
    [Chorus of nays.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Roemer. I'd ask for a roll call vote.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana asks for a 
roll call vote. Those in favor of the amendment will vote aye. 
Those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will call the roll.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Stockman.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Adams. Mrs. Seastrand.
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt.
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Hilleary.
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Salmon.
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Largent.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Foley.
    Mr. Foley. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mr. Walker.
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Roemer.
    Mr. Roemer. Aye.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Roemer votes yes.
    Mr. Cramer.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Barcia.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Adams. Ms. Harman.
    Ms. Harman. Yes.
    Mr. Adams. Ms. Harman votes yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    Mr. Adams. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Hastings.
    Mr. Hastings. Aye.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
    Mr. Ward.
    Mr. Ward. Aye.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Ward votes yes.
    Mr. Luther.
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Luther votes no.
    Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Aye.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Stockman. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    Mr. Adams. The gentleman from Texas is not recorded, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Alabama?
    Mr. Cramer. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Cramer is not recorded.
    Mr. Cramer. My vote should be recorded as aye.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Cramer votes yes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, on this roll call vote, the yeas 
are 8, the nays are 13.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
    [The Subcommittee Roll Call on Roemer amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Next on the amendment roster is 
amendment number six by the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Rohrabacher.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
California seek recognition?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Mr. Adams. Amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Page 8, line 18--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The 
gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I will be withdrawing this 
amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Next on the amendment roster is amendment number seven by 
the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis. For what purpose does 
the gentleman from Virginia seek recognition?
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Davis. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Mr. Adams. Amendment offered by Mr. Davis.
    Page 28,--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment will be 
considered as read, and open for amendment at any point. The 
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively short 
amendment. Let me just explain it to members of the Committee.
    This amendment addresses a shortcoming in the Commercial 
Space Launch Act as currently written. The Commercial Space 
Launch Act defines launch very narrowly for the purpose of 
regulation by the Department of Transportation's Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation, known as the OCST.
    This is the case in part because earlier launch systems 
were stacked and launched from a single site. There was little 
question about which activities were under the regulatory 
purview of OCST.
    But now we're seeing the next generation of commercial 
launch systems authorized in our bill today. The X33 and the 
X34 were clearly not contemplated with the existing CSLA 
provisions were enacted.
    The absence of language updating CSLA in order to 
accommodate these next generation system commercial companies 
who bear the lion's share of the financial and technical risks 
of these programs right now, they literally have to vet their 
companies. No actions would occur unless this change is updated 
now.
    We have talked to OCST. I have not run this language by 
them, but the concept I think is one which they would agree on.
    Right now, the Department of Transportation licenses 
commercial launches and one of OCST's responsibilities is to 
evaluate the maximum comparable lofts for a launch and then 
present this assessment to a launch company. The company then 
buys insurance for that amount, the amount above the maximum 
possible loss; i.e. catastrophic coverage. OCST would have the 
authority to provide indemnification in the case of a reusable 
launch vehicle.
    Current law allows them to provide this coverage only to 
traditional launch vehicles. This really updates it.
    Now just to explain this a step further, to date, the OCST 
has not had the statutory authority to license reentry 
activities, but these new vehicles we have today operate 
differently. They are reusable launch systems like the X33 and 
X34.
    The definitional problem is compounded by virtue of the 
flight hardware returning to earth at the vehicle launch site, 
and defines the structure of the regulatory environment and 
addresses new developments, and adopts a manner appropriate for 
both government and industry.
    Reentry industry activities are not only integral to launch 
of these two systems, but are as inherently dangerous as any 
activity associated with the traditional definition of launch.
    NASA's reusable launch vehicle program is all about new 
ways of doing business. It's about sharing risks among 
government and industry.
    We can't expect our commercial companies to put their 
significant capital on the line while exempting the government 
from keeping up its end of the partnership.
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Davis. Yes.
    Mr. Hall. As I understand it, your amendment is a 
constructive amendment, as most of your amendments have been. 
It seems like you're just clarifying the intent of the reentry 
vehicle licensing provisions that are already in this bill.
    Mr. Davis. Yes. The amendment is technical.
    Mr. Hall. It's a reasonable amendment. I certainly support 
it.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Davis. I'll be happy to.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I support the amendment as well. The 
gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Does anyone seek 
recognition?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. If not, the question is on agreeing to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Davis. All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Opposed, no?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The ayes have it. The amendment is 
agreed to.
    Next on the amendment roster is amendment number eight by 
Mr. Rohrabacher. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
California seek recognition?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. 
Chairman.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Mr. Adams. Amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Page 49, after line 5--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The 
gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment privatizes a mature and potentially 
profitable part of NASA's microgravity flight program that is 
the parabolic aircraft flight operations which are used to 
train astronauts and carry out short duration experiments.
    Many of you on this Committee may remember or be aware of 
the portions of the movie, Apollo 13, that were filmed aboard 
NASA's KC135 which is called the Vomit Comet, pardon the 
expression.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. That phrase will be stricken from the 
record.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. What you may not know, and what people may 
not be aware of is that a private company tried to sell 
parabolic flight services to Ron Howard's production. So we had 
a private company that was trying to sell these flight services 
to Ron Howard's production company, and NASA in effect competed 
with them.
    Parabolic flight services is a clearly mature and 
potentially profitable operational part of NASA's program, and 
it should be privatized. This will save NASA money and create 
more jobs for the private sector by lowering costs and 
attracting new customers.
    Just this morning, my office received a call from an 
employee of Johnson Space Center who said there is considerable 
interest in privatizing this. They see it as a potential 
moneymaker. And I see it as a potential moneymaker as well.
    There's no reason the government should be doing things 
that can be done in the private sector.
    NASA should be doing this not only with this service but 
other services. So I ask for your support of this portion of my 
amendment that will basically help privatize something that can 
be done by the private sector. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back his time. Does 
anyone else seek recognition?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Brown, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Brown. I move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Brown. I support the thrust of this amendment but I am 
constrained by my important leadership role to the minority to 
raise a question or two.
    First of all, while the gentleman has indicated that he had 
informal comments from NASA employees at Johnson, I would 
really like to have some sort of a formal NASA process for 
commenting on this be received by the Committee, and hopefully 
as the bill progresses, even though we don't provide 
necessarily for a hearing, we can get those formal comments.
    Secondly, I'm concerned that this might well trigger a 
referral to another Committee. I don't think even the Chairman 
wants to have that happen. I would like that to be 
investigated.
    Thirdly, and this is of a general nature, we have all 
agreed, and I agree with the gentleman thoroughly that we 
should be privatizing as many things as possible, I'm not sure 
that I would have supported NASA, although it received great 
benefit from it, providing a plane to the movie Apollo 13.
    As I say, even though it I think was a marvelous success 
and helped NASA's public image and so forth, I don't know what 
the charges were. I suspect they were merely marginal charges. 
They could easily have gotten full cost recovery for the plane 
if they had bargained properly on this, and it may well be that 
NASA would be better off to strike a long term contract with a 
private supplier to replace their existing government-owned 
airplanes for this purpose. And I would support that.
    I do think it should be based on due consideration with an 
opportunity for the pros and cons to be explored. And I do feel 
that we should not get involved in a parliamentary situation 
where this bill will be referred to another Committee if it 
contains this language. And I will respectfully suggest that 
the Chairman ought to be concerned about that situation. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California yields 
back his time. Does anyone else seek recognition?
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Walker. I'll be brief. I just want to agree with the 
ranking minority member that we ought not have language in the 
bill that might give us a joint referral. This is a bill that 
we would hope to bring to the floor so that we can move it to 
the Senate for an authorization. I don't particularly want to 
have a joint referral. It does not seem to me that the language 
related to the Federal Aviation Administration is necessary to 
accomplish the intent of the gentleman from California. And I 
think the bill would be better off not burdened with that 
particular language.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Walker. I'll be happy to yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I'll be working in a very cooperative 
spirit with both the ranking member and yourself to make sure 
that we have language that will make sure there isn't a 
referral and we'll fix it before the Full Committee.
    Mr. Walker. That's fine. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back his time? 
The Chair supports the amendment.
    The Chair knows that Mr. Rohrabacher is a man in a hurry 
and very impatient and thus very effective gentleman and he's 
not willing to wait for the Asset-Based Review on our bill to 
determine that the NASA owned KC135 is one of those assets that 
should be transferred to the private sector. I'm not going to 
keep him waiting, and support the amendment.
    The question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. All those in 
favor will signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Opposed, no?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The ayes have it, the amendment is 
agreed to.
    Next on the amendment roster is amendment number nine by 
the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Hilleary. For what purpose 
does the gentleman from Tennessee seek recognition?
    Mr. Hilleary. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Mr. Adams. Amendment offered by Mr. Hilleary.
    Page 50,--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. The 
gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for five minutes in 
support of his amendment.
    Mr. Hilleary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's going to be my 
intent to withdraw this, after I read a brief statement.
    We thought it was a very uncontroversial amendment and when 
we found out this morning there was some controversy with it, 
we'd like to work with the Chair between now and the Full 
Committee markup and possibly reoffer this at the Full 
Committee.
    Mr. Chairman, my amendment updates the Unitary Wind Tunnel 
Plan Act of 1949. This amendment does not ask for the start of 
any new programs, nor does it ask for authorization of any new 
funds. It's my intent to simply update the directive of the 
NASA Administrator.
    Mr. Chairman, this amendment is in accordance with the 
findings of this Committee in Section 2, paragraph 4 of the 
bill before us.
    The Committee finds that, ``the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration must reverse its current trend toward 
becoming an operational agency and return to its proud history 
as the nation's leader in basic scientific air and space 
research.''
    It is my hope we can implement the partnership that 
industry and NASA are interested in developing to find the 
solution to the lack of adequate wind tunnel facilities.
    Specifically, I want to amend the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan 
Act of 1949, which originally declared that the NASA 
Administrator and the Secretary of Defense should jointly 
develop a plan for the construction of ``wind tunnel facilities 
for the solution of research, development, and evaluation 
problems in aeronautics and educational institutions within the 
continental limits of the United States for training and 
research in aeronautics, and to revise the uncompleted portions 
of the Unitary Plan from time to time, to accord with changes 
in national defense requirements and scientific and technical 
advances.''
    The field of aeronautics has received many advances since 
this Act was last amended in 1958, more than four decades ago.
    Our problem is the Committee has heard from the expert 
testimony received during our hearings that the wind tunnel 
facilities in this nation are several decades old.
    The European countries, in a consortium, recently opened a 
new transonic wind tunnel which is technologically superior to 
any in the United States.
    This will have a direct effect on improving the 
competitiveness of European aircraft in the global market.
    As you know, the aerospace industry is the second largest 
exporting industry in this country, second only to agriculture.
    While just a few years ago, the United States aerospace 
industry accounted for around 70 percent of the global market, 
recent reports show that this year, we may drop below 50 
percent.
    This loss of market share costs us billions of dollars in 
trade deficit, and each percentage point of global aerospace 
market lost by our domestic companies translates into about 
44,000 Americans losing their jobs.
    A study conducted by the National Research Council in 1992, 
identified that our current wind tunnel facilities are 
inadequate for maintaining aeronautical superiority into the 
next century.
    In 1994, NASA was directed by Congress to conduct a study 
of the needs and requirements of a national wind tunnel complex 
and appropriated $60 million for its study.
    Last year, Congress appropriated $400 million in advance 
for the construction of new national wind tunnel facilities.
    Earlier this year, this Congress approved continuing 
availability of that appropriation to the end of Fiscal Year 
1997, while allowing $35 million from that account to be spent 
on the study to the end of Fiscal Year 1996. This action by 
Congress was signed into law in April of this year.
    Under my amendment, no action on the wind tunnel is to take 
place until after the phase one study on the current status of 
our nation's wind tunnels is complete.
    Congress has already made it very clear that before the 
first spade of dirt can be turned, there must be an agreement 
in place which includes substantial financial participation 
from both the private aerospace industry and the Department of 
Defense as they will be the primary users and beneficiaries of 
the project.
    Any decision by the Congress to move beyond the phase one 
studies is contingent upon NASA executing a memorandum of 
agreement with both the Department of Defense and the U.S. 
aviation industry, both commercial and military, regarding cost 
shares for construction and utilization of the complex.
    I'm very excited about this study taking place on the 
current status of wind tunnels. I feel the information being 
gathered will be instrumental in maintaining aeronautical 
superiority over the rest of the world.
    Until that study is complete, however, this amendment 
merely attempts to revise language that is no longer consistent 
with today's technology. It is not my intent to have any budget 
implications whatsoever.
    Mr. Chairman, I just want to go through this statement to 
expose the very big problem of inadequate wind tunnels in this 
country because we spend so much of our time talking about the 
space part of NASA, not the aeronautics part of NASA.
    And I would certainly like to reserve my right to reoffer 
this at Full Committee and want to work with the Chairman to 
try to get this language worked out.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. That will happen. Does the gentleman now 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment?
    Mr. Hilleary. Yes, sir, I will.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Without objection. That concludes the 
number of amendments on the roster. Are there any further 
amendments to the bill?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. If not, the Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Texas for a motion.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Subcommittee report 
the bill, H.R. 2043, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1996, 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 agreeing to the 
motion. Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Opposed, no?
    [Chorus of nays.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes 
have it, and the motion is agreed to.
    The Chair would like to thank all Members for their 
patience and their participation today. The Full Committee 
Markup will be held next Tuesday on this legislation. Without 
objection, the Subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., Wednesday, July 19, 1995, the 
Subcommittee was adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.]

    [Additional material follows:]
    
    
        XVI. Proceedings From the Committee Markup of H.R. 2043

                              ----------                              




    FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP--H.R. 2043 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
               ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, FY 1996

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 25, 1995

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:47 a.m., in 
Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert S. Walker 
(chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Walker, Sensenbrenner, Boehlert, 
Fawell, Morella, Weldon of Pennsylvania, Rohrabacher, Calvert, 
Baker, Bartlett, Ehlers, Wamp, Weldon of Florida, Graham, 
Salmon, Davis, Stockman, Gutknecht, Seastrand, Tiahrt, Largent, 
Hilleary, Cubin, Foley, Myrick, Brown, Hall, Traficant, Hayes, 
Tanner, Geren, Roemer, Cramer, Barcia, McHale, Harman, Johnson, 
Minge, Hastings, Rivers, McCarthy, Lofgren, Doggett, Doyle, 
Jackson Lee, and Luther.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Good morning. Pursuant to the 
notice, the Committee on Science is meeting today to consider 
H.R. 2043, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Act, Fiscal Year 1996, as reported by the Subcommittee on Space 
and Aeronautics.
    Prior to moving ahead here, I do want to acknowledge the 
letter that I received on June 28 from the Minority Members 
regarding a proposed rules change. I'm in the process of 
reviewing that letter, having chance gone--having staff look at 
it, and we're going to respond to your concerns after the 
August recess in the context of the proposed Rule 47, as well 
as other rules that might come up. I would tell you that there 
are also some Members of the majority who have indicated an 
interest in looking at some rules changes, and so what we'll 
probably do is schedule a meeting where we'll look at a variety 
of those kinds of rules changes. In the meantime, though, it's 
my intention to protect the rights of Members to exercise their 
rights both in committee and on the floor, and so throughout 
this session today we will not have votes while votes are going 
on on the floor. We hope to move with enough rapidity here 
today that we won't run into that situation on too many 
occasions.
    With that, the Chair would ask unanimous consent for 
authority to recess during the meeting today. Without 
objection.
    The Chair would then proceed with an opening statement. The 
NASA authorization bill before the Science Committee, H.R. 
2043, takes the first bold steps necessary to refocus NASA's 
vision on the knowledge demands facing the American people in 
the next century. This bill is also the most market-oriented 
NASA authorization produced by Congress since NASA was founded 
in 1958. It recognizes the accomplishment of NASA's rich 
history, NASA's acquisition of enormous capabilities to perform 
ever more challenging basic science and space research 
missions, and at the same time H.R. 2043 faces the Nation's 
fiscal crisis head on.
    H.R. 2043 contains 11.547 billion in program 
authorizations, which combined with the International Space 
Station activities previously authorized by H.R. 1601, provide 
a total of 13.662 billion for Fiscal Year 1996. The Committee 
is following the guidance provided by the House Concurrent 
Resolution 67, the Balanced Budget Resolution, in making these 
reductions. Congress is acting on the will of the American 
people, balancing the Federal budget by the year 2002, and if I 
may say, we are doing so willingly and thoughtfully. Hard 
choices had to be made, and H.R. 2043 represents a 
reprioritizing of all the programs with NASA.
    It is not solely for the reason of fiscal austerity, nor 
only to achieve a balanced budget, H.R. 2043 makes these 
reductions. There is a more NASA-specific financial problem 
this bill works to address: chronic underfunding of program 
requirements. The committee has been working since 1992 to 
solve the science bow wave where NASA's program demands have 
exceeded even the most optimistic funding projections.
    Over the last few years, the committee initiated efforts to 
make NASA reduce its program demands on future budgets. Those 
efforts have begun to work. Fiscal Year 1996 request was just 
$140 million shy of matching up projected cost with the budget 
requested to pay the bills, but, as everyone knows, after this 
budget was put to bed, NASA was summoned to reduce outyear 
funding by $5 billion, starting in Fiscal Year 1997. Since it 
boggles the mind to imagine fully funding NASA programs in one 
year that cannot be afforded and won't be supported in the 
President's budget request the next year, the committee has had 
to again resolve a NASA bow wave problem.
    I want to recognize and commend the efforts of the Space 
Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman, Jim Sensenbrenner, Vice 
Chairman Dave Weldon, and Ranking Democrat Ralph Hall for their 
efforts to pass this bill through the subcommittee last week. 
This bill is designed to prevent another NASA bow wave problem 
by setting a clear priority for basic science and a forward-
looking commitment to right-sizing NASA's assets, missions, and 
budgets for the future.
    I believe that the NASA Administrator, Dan Goldin, is 
working toward the same goal. He tirelessly initiated cost-
cutting reviews, the Roles and Missions Studies, Red Teams, 
Blue Teams, and the Functional Workforce Review, the NASA 
Federal Laboratory Review, and the Zero Base Review. The agency 
is constantly looking to achieve the cost-cutting goals set by 
the President and by OMB.
    H.R. 2043 not only strives to solve the problems facing 
NASA in this fiscal climate, it also provides the framework for 
NASA to conduct far-reaching basic science over the large term. 
This bill funds Gravity Probe-B, Cassini, the Advanced X-Ray 
Astrophysics Facility, the Stratospheric Observatory for 
Infrared Astronomy, the Discovery Missions, and others like the 
Small Explorers and the New Millennium.
    H.R. 2043 does not take aim at any of NASA's outstanding 
field centers, whose research excellence is widely distributed 
across the NASA system. We do, however, call on NASA to augment 
its own Zero Base Review, which is focused on the realignment 
of missions among the centers, with an Asset Base Review to 
right-size capital asset base--the capital asset base of NASA 
to meet today's mission set. We believe the Asset Base Review 
will not only identify more specific cost savings than the Zero 
Base Review, but will also provide a more sensible cost-cutting 
approach than the bureaucratically managed reductions in force 
that result in the loss of critical skills while forcing out 
younger engineers and minorities. Instead of closing field 
centers because we don't believe NASA has a plan to achieve its 
budget cuts, H.R. 2043 shows NASA how to find the cost savings 
it needs--in the assets NASA doesn't need.
    We are providing a clear sense of direction that NASA must, 
again, become the world's premier high-risk, basic R&D agency. 
Compare that vision with what we have grown accustomed to 
expect from NASA in recent years: huge inelastic support system 
for each billion dollar program that compete for a shrinking 
base of funds.
    This bill takes a new road: we begin the orderly transition 
towards privatizing the Space Shuttle, having money from a 
single-prime contractor arrangement, and then plowing those 
near-term efficiencies into long-term gains in space 
transportation. The bill fully funds the Reusable Launch 
Vehicle initiative, the Nation's linchpin technology effort to 
overcome foreign launch service competition and permanently 
reduce the overhead price we pay for every mission of NASA, the 
launch itself.
    Similarly, the Earth Observation System--similarly, in the 
Earth Observation System, we take aim at the real potential for 
EOS to become a rigid, top-down, bureaucratic remote-sensing 
data monopoly. The EOS and Mission to Planet Earth reductions 
contained in H.R. 2043 total $324 million, leaving more than $1 
billion to carry out this program. While this is the largest 
single cut contained in the bill, I believe that Mission to 
Planet Earth can be rescoped to achieve its goals in a $1 
billion envelope, much in the same way Space Station was 
redesigned in 1993 to fit a $2.1 billion-a-year cost cap. The 
Space Station program's designed-to-cost effort was also 
greeted with some skepticism on this committee, but the result 
has been to increase its research capability, increase 
international participation, and reduce total program costs, 
including operational costs. I believe NASA can restructure the 
EOS program in the same way, and H.R. 2043 initiates this 
process to achieve a rescoped program with the same profitable 
results as Space Station.
    H.R. 2043's basic research themes are carried throughout 
the bill's support for NASA's leading-edge aeronautics research 
programs. The bill fully funds the most basic of these research 
efforts--the Research and Technology Base, and the High Speed 
Research Programs. These are programs that solve tomorrow's 
aeronautics problems and can open entirely new avenues through 
Earth's skies. The Advanced Subsonic Transportation program 
line increases 6 percent, even though it contains more applied 
research activities to the R&T base or the High Speed Research 
efforts.
    H.R. 2043 also provides authorizations of $6 million for 
the Office of Commercial Space Transportation and the 
Department of Transportation and $457,000 for the Office of Air 
and Space Commercialization at the Commerce Department. In so 
doing, we attempt to clearly define the appropriate role for 
each office, effectively transferring all public policy 
analysis and advocacy functions of OCST to the Commerce 
Department's Space Office. This will clear the way for the 
Department of Transportation to concentrate solely on 
developing the critical safety and insurance regulations and 
licensing and certification procedures which are updated and 
expanded by section 201 of the bill.
    My colleagues, I am very excited about this bill and what 
it will do for our children and our grandchildren. We are not 
only authorizing necessary appropriations, we are appropriating 
ideas from the private sector necessary to further NASA's 
mission. I look forward to today's session and to passage of 
H.R. 2043.
    With that, I'd be happy to recognize the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from California.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And before I start my opening statement about this bill, 
let me just thank you for, first of all, adjusting the schedule 
for meeting this morning to accommodate some problems that I 
had, and, secondly, for your announcement that you were 
planning to consider some rules changes which would alleviate 
some of the problems that came up earlier this year, and I want 
to compliment you for acting without a rule change to actually 
ameliorate the situation very substantially.
    Now today we're meeting to discharge one of our most 
important duties as an authorizing committee, the markup of a 
NASA authorization. While this is always an important task, it 
is doubly so this year when the civil space program is being 
put under extraordinary budgetary constraints. It is critically 
important that we do nothing that would destroy the balance and 
vitality of our Nation's space program.
    The bill before us contains a number of significant funding 
and policy provisions, as the chairman has described. There are 
a number of these provisions with which I can wholeheartedly 
agree. However, I must state my unhappiness by the--with the 
process by which this legislation has been developed and 
considered.
    First, this bill contains a number of policy decisions that 
have been apparently made without the committee having 
established any meaningful public record on the pros and cons 
of the policy options or the potential impacts of the decisions 
made in H.R. 2043. For example, the bill directs NASA to begin 
the transition to Shuttle privatization without any 
documentation from NASA on the potential safety or economic 
impacts of such a move. In addition, the bill directs NASA to 
contract for a review of all of its capital assets without any 
hearings on the results of the previous facility reviews that 
have been conducted by both internal and external groups, the 
magnitude of the likely savings from such a review versus the 
cost and further disruption to NASA involved in undertaking it, 
and so forth. That is not to say that over the years we haven't 
had hearings on these subjects, but they are not up to date and 
have little relevance to the current situation, and, of course, 
are largely unknown to most of the members of this committee.
    Second, H.R. 2043 contains funding for a number of new 
initiatives that were never requested by the President and for 
which no hearings have been held or documentation provided to 
the Members of the committee. I find such an action all the 
more surprising given the stated intention not to fund new 
starts in the Fiscal Year 1996 budget due to the overall 
budgetary constraints.
    Third, this bill makes a premature and, to my mind, unwise 
cut to Mission to Planet Earth that will have the effect of 
destroying the Earth Observing System. I have no quarrel with 
Chairman Walker's decision to seek a review of Mission to 
Planet Earth by the National Academy of Sciences. There is no 
research program that cannot benefit from periodic review. 
However, H.R. 2043 prejudges what the results of the Academy 
review will be in the manner that could trivialize the efforts 
of the dedicated scientists who have given their time to 
undertake the review. Moreover, H.R. 2043 fundamentally 
unbalances the civil space program by singling out one activity 
for deep cuts. It is my understanding that Ms. Harman will 
offer an amendment to restore balance to NASA's activities by 
adding back functions--funding for Mission to Planet Earth, and 
I intend to strongly support that amendment.
    I might insert, parenthetically, the fact that my major 
goal for the entire period in which I was chairman of this 
committee, and continuing to the present time, is to maintain a 
balanced program. This was the thrust of the study that this 
commission--this committee participated in that was chaired by 
Dr. Augustine several years ago, and, basically, the outline 
which was contained in that report gave further weight to the 
need to maintain balance in the program.
    As has been the practice with the other authorization bills 
that have come before the committee, I intend to offer an 
alternative to the committee's version of the NASA 
authorization when the bill is open for amendment. I do so 
because I believe that both the magnitude of the cut made to 
NASA and the unbalanced manner in which that cut is allocated 
are unwise. My bill will attempt to address the major 
difficulties that exist in H.R. 2043. While I, frankly, am 
unhappy with the level of funding for NASA contained in my 
alternate authorization bill, a level of funding equal to that 
provided in the NASA authorization marked up last week by the 
Senate, I believe that it is barely sufficient to maintain a 
viable space program if the cuts are made judiciously, and I 
will have more to say on these topics later in the markup.
    I must say to you that to sponsor an amendment which is 
half a billion or more below a request from the President, 
which I considered inadequate at the time that it was offered, 
is somewhat embarrassing to me, but in recognition of the 
realities that exist today I am going to do that with my 
proposed substitute. And I thank the chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of 
the subcommittee.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would like 
to express my appreciation to you and your leadership of this 
committee in the last 200 days and to the distinguished 
gentlemen from California and Texas for their comments and work 
on behalf of a strong space program. It has been a pleasure 
working with you to bring NASA's programs into line with its 
budget, and I look forward to continuing our bipartisan efforts 
to sharpen NASA's focuses on its strength.
    I am pleased to inform the Full Committee gathered here 
today that the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics favorably 
reported H.R. 2043 with strong bipartisan support. This bill 
continues the process of streamlining NASA's programs within a 
realistic and constrained budget that we began with H.R. 1601, 
the multi-year authorization of the Space Station.
    H.R. 2043 returns NASA's focus to the things which it goes 
best: basic scientific research, cutting-edge technology 
development, and the exploration of space. It achieves 
significant cost savings in NASA's activities by moving the 
agency out of operating large continuous systems such as the 
Space Shuttle and Mission to Planet Earth. Yet, we do not 
eliminate these programs. In fact, we will seek a new 
foundation on which to continue them with the financial support 
of the private sector. Heeding the advice of my esteemed 
colleague from Texas, Mr. Hall, we do cut back; we do not cut 
out.
    For example, the NASA authorization bill begins the process 
of privatizing the Space Shuttle by moving to a single prime 
contractor, which the Kraft Report indicated offered the best 
means of lowering Shuttle cost. At the same time we begin 
restructuring of Mission to Planet Earth so that it takes into 
account the private sector's emerging capabilities, the Image 
Earth from Space, and the potential to introduce new satellite 
technology that radically lowers cost. Those who claim that 
reducing Mission to Planet Earth's budget by slightly more than 
$300 million amounts to a cancellation of the program. I would 
suggest that we do not heed these chicken little claims that 
the sky is falling. The bill authorizes more than a billion 
dollars for Mission to Planet Earth for the single Fiscal Year 
of 1996, hardly a program on the verge of extinction.
    However, I would caution the chicken littles among us, if 
we don't manage to restructure Mission to Planet Earth to 
achieve significant savings now and in the out-years, this 
program will swallow space science, life in microgravity 
sciences, and all the technology programs, such as the Reusable 
Launch Vehicle, that promise to take NASA and the United States 
into the next millennium with now low-cost, high-capability 
systems.
    For those who doubt that what I say will happen, I would 
refer them to Mr. Brown's bill, H.R. 2059, which cuts over $140 
million from the Reusable Launch Vehicle program in order to 
increase Mission to Planet Earth's budget or to the recent 
actions of the Appropriations Subcommittee which closed NASA 
field centers in Maryland, Virginia, and Alabama to meet the 
President's request for Mission to Planet Earth.
    Mr. Chairman, this bill focuses on the future. It 
authorizes a budget of some $11.5 billion for Fiscal Year 1996, 
which brings us to a total authorization of $13.6 billion, when 
combined with the Space Station authorization bill. This 
represents a savings of some $700 million from the Fiscal Year 
1995 appropriation and will enable us to provide our children 
and grandchildren with a balanced Federal budget by the year 
2002.
    Within this authorization, we will provide the technologies 
that lower NASA's long-term cost, the space science missions 
that expand our knowledge about the universe and bring us the 
benefits of new space technology and the life in microgravity 
research that improve life on Earth by helping create new 
medicines and better understanding about natural processes. The 
bill fully funds the major exploration programs such as the 
Cassini Probe to Saturn, the Mars Surveyor program, and the 
Discovery program to perform rapid, low-cost, high-return 
exploration missions, and the New Millennium program to create 
new technologies that radically lower long-term costs. We also 
provide full funding for SOFIA, an airborne astronomy platform 
which our major international partners are contributing 
international funding, and Gravity Probe-B, a major physics 
experiment which is more than 60 percent complete.
    The bill meets the President's request for full funding of 
the Reusable Launch Vehicle program, which could radically 
lower the cost of getting to orbit early in the next century. 
It also comes up to the President's request for research into 
life in microgravity sciences, so that NASA can continue to 
contribute to our understanding of human physiology and 
materials research.
    In short, Mr. Chairman, this bill focuses on those programs 
that will help us build a better future that is technologically 
advanced and fiscally responsible. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank you for the 
work that you've put into this bill and for the openness with 
which you--under which you've operated.
    There's no question that the NASA budget's facing cuts in 
Congress, and even though I'm not happy about cutting one of 
the Nation's most important investments in research and 
development, we're here in the rather unusual situation or 
unique situation. We have Dan Goldin at the head of NASA that's 
giving us good leadership, you know, not only a good guy and a 
great Administrator, but he's a pretty good politician. He was 
appointed by a Republican President and then survived a 
Democratic President appointment. So he's probably the best 
politician among us. He's already shown that.
    [Laughter.]
    So I think we need to take our hats off to him to start 
with because, since 1993, for those of us who are trying to cut 
the budget, he and those with whom he works have cut that 
budget 35 percent, and then, at the request of the 
administration, I believe, took another 5 billion off. So we're 
in a cutting mood and we're being cut; let there be no mistake 
about that. And though we may disagree among ourselves about 
some of the areas where the cuts should be, I think we are 
following the leadership of the chairman and the ranking 
minority, that we are cutting and we're addressing the trend 
that addressed us back in November.
    I know our space program has delivered benefits to the 
American taxpayer since NASA's formation more than 35 years 
ago, and I'm convinced that the space program, and in 
particular the Space Station, are going to continue to make 
very important contributions to the health and well-being of 
our citizens in the years ahead, and that's why I think it's 
important, Mr. Chairman, that we be sensible in the way we make 
these cuts. I know we want to be, and what is sensible to one 
person may be a little bit different to the other, but I think 
there's good faith on this committee that we're trying to get 
to the right destination, and that's what's the greatest good 
for the greatest number.
    As I said at the subcommittee markup--and Mr. Sensenbrenner 
commented on it--cut back, but don't cut out, and I think I 
pitched out several times about the Super Collider, that we 
should have whacked it back, but not cut it out; we'd still 
have it. That goes for the Synfuels Corporation, Clinch River, 
and on and on, to where we've invested billions of dollars and 
then summarily whack them out and they're gone forever. We've 
lost what we put into them. It seems like there ought to be a 
way to keep those things, a thread alive. If they were good to 
start with, probably they're good enough to keep going.
    For some people, the Space Station is their very highest 
priority, and for others it's aeronautics, and for others it's 
Mission to Plant Earth. All of these worthy programs have their 
advocates; they have them on this committee, and then, 
certainly, the resulting coalition has enabled us to preserve a 
strong space program in spite of a lot of budget-cutting 
pressures.
    In February of this year, Mr. Chairman, NASA and 
Administrator Goldin released NASA's strategic plan, which I 
recommend that all my colleagues read, if they haven't read it, 
to go through that, because it's a very good plan, very well 
thought out. In developing the plan, NASA spent months reaching 
out to segments of our Nation's population, trying to 
understand what the public really wanted from our Space 
Station. After all, that's the people to whom we have to 
report.
    NASA has identified five major areas which they call 
Strategic Enterprises in this Strategic Plan that the public 
wants to see us address. These include the traditional areas of 
human space flight and space science, all the way to Mission to 
Planet Earth. So we have to realize that the public already 
recognizes that understanding the environment will be important 
for economic reasons, for quality-of-life reasons, for our 
basic survival in the next century. And NASA is in a unique 
position to contribute to this understanding.
    Thus, although many of us may see other things in the NASA 
budget that attract us, we need to recognize that the space 
program today is the sum total of all of these things. I'll 
support Mrs. Harman when she offers her amendment to restore 
some of the funds to Mission to Planet Earth. It just seemed a 
little unfair to me, though I'm not a big Mission to Planet 
Earth guy, that it's unfair to target this program for special 
adverse treatment when the rest of the Nation sees this as an 
appropriate and useful goal for our space program.
    In the end, Mr. Chairman, I hope we'll be able to craft a 
NASA authorization that can be supported by both the House and 
the Senate. I intend to work toward that goal. It's a pleasure 
to support you in this bill. I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.
    Are there other members who wish to include a statement in 
the record at this point? I have a statement here from Mrs. 
Seastrand. Are there additional members who would wish to 
include a statement in the record at this point?
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Seastrand follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. We will now consider H.R. 2043, the NASA 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, as reported by the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. I ask unanimous consent 
the bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any 
point. And I ask the members to proceed with amendments in the 
order of the roster.
    Having said that, the roster would indicate that Mr. Brown 
is recognized for an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try to be 
brief. I am not going to belabor this with the extensive 
efforts to convince the members on your side that this is a 
better bill than yours, and I will not ask for a roll call, but 
this does represent my effort at providing a modest 
contribution to a more balanced bill. I might indicate the key 
features of it.
    First of all, the overall funding level is 13.8 billion, 
which is slightly above that contained in your bill, but it's 
still 443 million below the President's request and it is 
above, 155 above the House--the Space Subcommittee mark. It 
does preserve a balance amongst the major programs. In other 
words, it does not unduly cut, although it cuts some, into the 
Mission to Planet Earth.
    It provides full funding for Space Station, and it funds 
the Advanced Subsonic Aeronautical Research at only 25 million 
below the request, but 30 million above the subcommittee mark. 
It maintains full funding for the science programs, which is of 
high priority to me, including Cassini and a new start for 
SOFIA and the New Millennium program. Also, it provides funding 
for the Infrared Telescope and Gravity Probe-B. It does support 
the Reusable Launch Vehicle start and leverages funding 
authorized for that from--by using some Department of Defense 
funds. As I think you pointed out, however, it is still not as 
large an item as contained in the subcommittee bill. And it 
does provide, in terms of new policy, for an independent base 
closure-style commission in the event NASA appropriations 
continue to fall below the overall level recommended.
    Now these are not partisan differences. I am convinced that 
you, Mr. Chairman, and I share the same goals. At the beginning 
of the year, I was tremendously encouraged by your statement at 
that time that you wanted to continue a budget which had a 
certain dependability and continuity and that roughly kept up 
with the ravages of inflation. I know that you have had to 
change that viewpoint because of your role in the overall 
budget-cutting efforts that are going on in the House, but I 
still believe very sincerely that you were right, and that I 
hope that we can come close to achieving that as we move 
forward.
    I want to make a subtle point about language around here. 
Any bill that cuts something below what you want, that cut is 
considered a gutting amendment, and you have to use that term, 
and this is--I learned this 30 years ago on the floor when I 
observed relatively modest cuts being described as ``gutting 
amendments.'' The cuts here can be described as relatively 
modest. The cuts below the existing program contained in the 
chairman's bill actually only amount to about 4 percent of the 
overall amount of the bill. This is, I can--in some people's 
view, would be considered not unreasonable.
    The reason that I take it so seriously has been made over 
and over again. This agency, NASA, has taken cuts that are more 
than a third of its previous budget, including the last $5 
billion that the President requested, and despite what Mr. 
Walker has said about feeling that that cut was not justified, 
the cuts contained here are on top of these cuts, and it's the 
cumulative impact, 4 percent, 4 percent, 4 percent, adding up 
to now, it will be, 35 to 40 percent that bother me very, very 
much and which my bill seeks to redress ever so slightly.
    Now with those stirring words, I will not go into all the 
other details that I should cover, but I will ask unanimous 
consent to put my statement in the record.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
    Mr. Chairman--Mr. Chairman, what we're talking about here 
is a difference of about 1.2 percent. It is not a major 
difference, but it is a significant difference, and it's a 
significant difference because this committee can no longer 
operate in the abstract in deciding how much money we want to 
fund the various NASA programs.
    I think, if I had my druthers and we didn't have a budget 
resolution and a Budget Committee and an Appropriations 
Committee, the numbers that I have for the various programs 
operating in the abstract would be very similar to the ones 
that Mr. Brown has come up with in his substitute amendment, 
but we don't operate in the abstract and there have been 
limitations placed through the Budget Resolution, through the 
602(b) allocations, on how much money can actually be 
appropriated for NASA, which is a discretionary spending 
program. And that's why it's important for this committee to 
set priorities, so that NASA will have the direction on where 
the money can be spent in the best and most proper manner.
    I would submit that the major change between the Brown 
budget and the subcommittee budget involves the Reusable Launch 
Vehicle and Mission to Planet Earth. The gentleman from 
California hopes that we will be able to leverage some money 
for the Reusable Launch Vehicle from the Department of Defense. 
So he takes about $140 million out of that and hopes that the 
National Security Committee and the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee will be able to find the money for it. I'm not so 
confident about that because we all know the type of cuts the 
Defense Department has endured for a longer period of time than 
the cuts that NASA has endured.
    The fact of the matter is that the Reusable Launch Vehicle 
is the key to reducing the cost of access to space in the next 
century, and I think that gutting the Reusable Launch Vehicle 
concept early on means that the people who are going to be 
sitting in this committee 10 years from now and those who are 
going to be sitting in the other relevant committees at that 
period of time are going to have to come up with a lot more 
money to get American objects into space. And because there's 
more and more commercialization in the launch vehicle market on 
a worldwide base--worldwide basis, if we don't go ahead with 
the Reusable Launch Vehicle, we may very well abdicate the 
commercialization of space to the French, to the Russians, to 
the Japanese, and to our other international competitors. So I 
think that cutting the money out of the Reusable Launch 
Vehicle, on the hope that the other committees will come up 
with this money, is having us chickens eat the seed corn.
    Now, secondly, with regard to Mission to Planet Earth, 
Mission to Planet Earth is a big-ticket item. The projections 
of the total costs of completion of Mission to Planet Earth are 
only slightly less than those projections for the Space 
Station. The Space Station has come under intense scrutiny, 
correctly so, by the administration, by NASA, and by this 
committee, and I think that the cost overruns have been flushed 
out of the International Space Station by a lot of hard work by 
a lot of people, some of whom, like Mr. Roemer, would like to 
kill the project altogether. That hasn't been true for Mission 
to Planet Earth, and what both Mr. Walker and I have said 
earlier on is that, unless we cut out or reduce some of the 
funding base of Mission to Planet Earth early on, we are in for 
Mission to Planet Earth eating up the whole rest of the science 
budget. And what this budget does that has come out of the 
subcommittee gets us on the road to doing that, by bringing in 
the private sector more, by making Mission to Planet Earth 
faster, better, and cheaper, which seems to have escaped both 
NASA and the administration.
    Believe me, if we don't do that, again, the people who will 
be sitting in this room 10 years from now are going to have a 
much more difficult time of dealing with the NASA budget in 
terms of the total context of the budget, and for that reason I 
think that the priority on Mission to Planet Earth that has 
been selected by the gentleman from California is also in 
error, and I would urge the rejection of his amendment.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman--if you'd be kind 
enough to allow me about a one-or two-minute rebuttal, I'll try 
and discourage other speakers on our side, so we can get to a 
vote on this.
    The Chairman. I think we do have other members that are--
that are--that are probably going to seek recognition, but I 
will--I would certainly be happy to do--I think the gentleman 
from Florida was seeking recognition.
    Mr. Brown. Certainly.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. I thank the chairman.
    I speak out as well against the Brown amendment. I am 
concerned about the direction the Brown substitute takes us. 
The Brown amendment represents a--I believe a microcosm of what 
the current Mission to Planet Earth would bring to us, eating 
away at other areas of the NASA budget.
    I am concerned that the Brown amendment fails to include 
provisions directing an agency-wide review of NASA. The current 
administration has asked for a comprehensive review of the 
Shuttle program. I believe that the Shuttle program is not the 
only program that should go under the microscope. I believe the 
same level of scrutiny should be applied to all of NASA's 
programs. The bill before us does this, while the Brown 
substitute fails in this respect. I believe such a review will 
help NASA become a more efficient agency, freeing up money for 
additional activities.
    I share the subcommittee chairman's concerns about the 
Mission to Planet Earth and about adding another 275 million to 
this program. I understand the need to collect data about our 
environment, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not 
cripple other NASA initiatives.
    This program will cost us tens of billions of dollars, as 
currently planned. That is why I believe we must place this 
program under the microscope to find ways to achieve the same 
end with fewer dollars.
    The Brown substitute does not contain the changes to the 
Commercial Space Transportation Act which would update the law 
to reflect the current realities of the marketplace. The 
absence of these changes will seriously inhibit the ability of 
the U.S. commercial space industry to regain the market for 
commercial launches.
    I also share the Chair--the subcommittee chairman's 
concerns about the funding from DOD for the Reusable Launch 
Vehicle, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote against 
the Brown substitute.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Weldon.
    Are there other members that seek recognition on the Brown 
substitute?
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'll just take a moment or so 
of my time and yield to Mr. Brown the additional time that I do 
not use.
    I think that it's good to discuss this amendment, and I 
think Mr. Brown is certainly to be commended for putting it 
into the record and putting his statements into the record, and 
letting all of us have our shots at it. I think--I think his 
amendment is a constructive budgetary proposal that would 
maintain a healthy and a vigorous NASA, and I'm very pleased 
that his amendment provides full funding for the Space Station, 
and I like the fact that it contains funding for the SOFIA 
program, as does the chairman's amendment. It's consistent with 
the philosophy of cutting back, but don't cut out. And even 
though I don't totally agree with the cutback of Reusable 
Launch Vehicle start, I well remember the gentleman from 
California, who's very sincere, very determined in pursuing 
that back even a couple of years ago in the hearings that we 
had on it, but I think it's good that we put this into the 
record and that we carry this along to make some decisions when 
we hit the floor. And I'm sure that the testimony that's being 
rendered here today and the statements we're making will even 
be looked at when this hits the Conference Committee.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time back to Mr. 
Brown to make the statement that he'd instructed--
    Mr. Brown. I thank the gentleman for yielding--
    Mr. Hall. [continuing]. The chairman that he wanted to 
make.
    Mr. Brown. [continuing]. And, as I say, I am trying to 
expedite the matter.
    First, let me thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for his use of the 
compulsory word ``gutting'' in reference to my amendment with 
regard to the Reusable Launch Vehicle. The gentleman knows that 
I am a very strong supporter of that program and have done 
everything possible to encourage it, and I personally think 
that this is merely a way of adjusting or finetuning the 
program to achieve more effective results instead of being a 
gutting amendment, but that's a minor objection.
    There is another point that the gentleman made, and I'm not 
really dealing with the numbers here. The numbers, as I've 
indicated, are precisely those--almost exactly the same as the 
Senate authorizing subcommittee has already passed.
    What I do want to clarify for all the members is that there 
is no language mandating any particular level for this bill in 
the Budget Resolution, and I've looked at the Budget Resolution 
rather carefully, and the funding for Function 250 is described 
on page 65, as I recall. I invite any of you who have a copy to 
read that. It does not set a level for NASA. It sets an overall 
level for Function 250 which contains NASA, NSF, and several 
other programs, but I'm really very interested that all members 
understand the way the budgetary and appropriations process 
functions.
    The Budget Resolution has no effect on authorizations. It 
is not intended to. It constrains appropriations by function, 
but not by detail of particular agencies. The Appropriations 
Committee, in turn, through its 602(b) allocation process, 
mandated in the Budget Act, then assigns those functional 
levels to the various subcommittees of the Appropriations 
Committee. At no point in this process is there a number which 
you can select and say this is a cap on NASA. And when I hear 
these repeated references to we are capped at a certain level 
in this committee, and then I see the Appropriations Committee 
in the House go for a different level, and the Senators go for 
a different level, I wonder what illusionary effects are at 
work here to assume that we have a cap, but nobody else does.
    And this is the point that I think the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman made and the distinguished chairman 
frequently made. Now what they are saying I think is a 
shorthand expression for the fact that they have decided that 
in the interest of budgetary discipline we need to set limits 
ourselves on what we do. If they would put it that way, I'd say 
God bless you, but don't say it's because you've been assigned 
caps; you haven't been.
    And I thank the gentleman for allowing me to make that 
statement.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members that wish to be 
recognized on the Brown--Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I respect the distinguished 
former chairman's role and I respect the leadership that he's 
given us over the years on major space issues, and I would just 
note that times have changed in the sense that this is a new 
Congress and the people elected a new Congress for a change and 
to set priorities. They did not ask us, basically, to give them 
just 5 percent less of the same old stuff, and, basically, 
while I respect the former chairman greatly, I think that his 
substitute reflects old priorities when we had a much--an 
expanding budget and could spend more money.
    The chairman, basically, does not set us on--the former 
chairman does not set us on a course for a bright future, and I 
believe that the chairman's bill, our current mark that we have 
before us today, is a major step forward in the sense that we 
are setting priorities finally.
    I have two major substantive problems with Mr. Brown's 
substitute. And, first, again, it makes the assumption that the 
government will continue to be the major force in space, that 
the government is going to always be the doer. It's going to do 
space for the American people now and tomorrow and forever, and 
I believe that that basically is a backwards approach. We 
should be looking for finding ways of getting the private 
sector into this--into the commercialization, utilization, 
exploration of space, and that's basically what the Reusable 
Launch program is all about.
    And that leads to my second point, which is, obviously, as 
has been stated, the Brown substitute basically cuts the 
Reusable Launch Vehicle program by $134 million, and that would 
dramatically hold back the development of this technology that 
promises to take us into a new era and bring down the cost of 
getting into space, and, thus, opening up tremendous new 
potential for space.
    So instead of the same old stuff, we do need to focus on 
new technologies, and the Brown substitute, I'm afraid, does 
not do that. It goes in the opposite direction.
    I believe Mr. Brown is basically, I think, assuming that 
NASA will be given $100 million by the Department of Defense 
for Reusable Launch Vehicles, and Mr. Weldon I'm sure will 
agree with me that we didn't put the money into the Reusable 
Launch Vehicle research in the Air Force just to have Mr. Brown 
assume that NASA can take it away. And, indeed, Mr. Weldon--
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I would yield to Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague and 
gentleman and friend for yielding, and I would just like to 
echo that, as chairman of the Research and Development 
Subcommittee for the National Security Committee, I believe 
that the administration did, in fact, underestimate its request 
for the triple-use benefit of Reusable Launch Vehicles--the 
military, the civilian, and commercial sector. We did plus up 
that account, but we didn't plus up the account so that NASA 
could decrease the amount it would make. That was not the 
intent of the National Security Committee. That was not the 
intent of the Research and Development Subcommittee. And if 
this committee wants to take a different posture, then perhaps 
in conference we ought to go back and look at perhaps taking 
some of that money back that we made in a good faith gesture of 
a commitment from both NASA as well as DOD.
    I thank my colleague for yielding and yield back--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. And, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the balance 
of my time, I'd just like to say that it has been very clear, 
Mr. Goldin has been very clear that he wants NASA to take the 
lead in developing and researching this new technology, and Mr. 
Goldin and NASA should be the lead agency, and I believe that 
if we make sure we set our priorities now, that we can set 
America's space effort in the years ahead on the proper course. 
I believe that the chairman's mark does this, and I think the 
substitute, Mr. Brown's substitute, is going back in the wrong 
direction.
    And I thank you very much.
    Mr. Brown. Would the gentleman yield--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
    Mr. Brown. --if he has any remaining time just briefly?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Brown. Just to clarify this business of the 100 
million, the defense authorization bill had this language in 
it: ``$100 million shall be available for a competitive, 
reusable rocket technology program,'' which is what we're 
talking about here. And it also states in the next paragraph: 
``may be obligated only to the extent that the current 
operating plan of the National--of NASA allocates at least an 
equal amount.'' So it's a matching program, each agency funding 
it, but NASA managing it. We're agreed on that, I think.
    Now you used a figure that my amendment cuts 134 million. I 
think that that neglects the contribution of the military, but 
I won't quibble about 100 million; it's so trivial in an 
overall budget like that. My calculation is that I'm cutting 
about 26 million and something of that sort, but that will be 
finally determined by the operating plan that NASA proposes--
provides the committee after we pass the appropriations bills.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, thank you.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members seeking to be 
recognized on the Brown substitute?
    [No response.]
    If not, the chairman is prepared to close the debate.
    I'm--I am grateful that Mr. Brown has brought forward his 
substitute which gives us a general view of where the minority 
seeks to put its priorities. I think that helps engage us in a 
healthy debate. I do believe that the--it also helps 
demonstrate that the differences over the funding are not 
particularly great. The Brown substitute is, in fact, at a 1.2 
percent level above where our particular bill was, but it does, 
I think, give us a sense of priorities that helps us understand 
how we all got to where we are.
    For example, in general space science the Brown substitute 
is actually lower than the bill that we brought out of our 
subcommittee, and while he is higher than the Clinton request 
in space science, we are still higher in ours. There is a major 
area of difference with our bill over the question of Mission 
to Planet Earth, and as the chairman of the subcommittee has 
stated, we do believe that there are some rescoping issues in 
that program that need to be addressed and our budget moves us 
in that particular direction.
    There are differences over the question of the money for 
the Reusable Launch Vehicle, and while it is my understanding 
that the Brown bill wishes to leverage the money that the 
Defense--in the Defense Department, the fact is that we are 
attempting to come up with a very aggressive program that would 
combine both what the Defense Department is doing with what 
NASA is doing, and rather than having NASA trying to leverage--
just taking the money away from Defense to keep the money at an 
even keel, we are--we are hopeful that we can expand this 
program so that we move the program forward.
    I'm also concerned that the--that by starting the CERTIF 
program that we do create in that particular issue a budget bow 
wave that in the out-years could crowd out and force the 
cancellation of Cassini and the AXAF Mission that would be a 
problem under the Brown budget, and so that causes me some 
concern. So I do think that there are some--some questions that 
are raised.
    I would also point out that the kind of amendment that we 
had at the subcommittee level is also raised at--raises a 
question. When Ms. Jackson Lee offered her amendment to 1601 
at--the Space Station bill, had we adopted the Brown substitute 
here, even at its higher levels, it would have, in fact, been a 
figure that under the Jackson Lee amendment would cancel Space 
Station this year. It tells you about the difficulties of 
balancing these things and why it's important to look at these 
things in the overall issue of how much we actually have to 
spend.
    I understand that the chairman has wished--that the 
chairman has made his point about the whole business of the 
budget bill--I'm talking about me [laughter]--that the chairman 
has made his point about the overall budget and that that has 
not been accepted by the ranking minority member. You know, 
there is nothing under the Budget Committee Resolution; the 
ranking member is absolutely correct that there is nothing in 
the Budget Resolution that assigns those numbers to this 
committee. That was--that was--that was a leadership decision 
that was made in this committee. The fact is it has allowed us 
to interact with the appropriators in a rather unique way, and 
I think has made a difference in terms of getting those kinds 
of priorities in place. And it has allowed us to coordinate 
these things in a meaningful way.
    If we simply go and fund programs at levels where we think 
they ought to be and it relates to nothing in the overall 
budget caps or the caps in which the appropriators operate, we, 
in fact, end up doing damage to the programs if those 
priorities are not reflected in the right way. And I think what 
we--what we've ended up with here is a pattern where our 
priorities are being reflected reasonably meaningfully across 
the board.
    And so I would oppose the Brown amendment. I would hope 
that we could, in fact, continue this process of keeping 
ourselves as a meaningful part of the appropriations, as well 
as the budget process.
    With that, the Chair would put the question. Those in favor 
of the Brown amendment will say aye. Those opposed will say no. 
In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The noes have 
it. The substitute is not agreed to.
    Mr. Roemer.
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an Amendment 
No. 2 which I do not intend to offer, but I would like to talk 
about it for one minute, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This--this amendment I understand dealing with commercial 
technology programs, which I think are a very, very important 
connection between NASA and many of our small businesses in 
this country--I understand that the Appropriations Committee 
has funded this program, and I would reserve the right to offer 
this amendment on the floor.
    Simply put, what my amendment would do would be to restore 
some monies to the commercial technology programs to better 
connect the great ideas that NASA has with many of our small 
businesses throughout America. We all brag about and have read 
about, and have even benefitted from, many of NASA's great 
ideas, whether they be velcro, teflon, software products, the 
defense industry, national security, electronics, 
telecommunications products--we just need to continue to make 
sure that these great ideas that scientists at NASA develop are 
sold as products in America and benefit our consumers and 
benefit our economic results as well, too.
    We have been so successful, Mr. Chairman, in this country 
at coming up with great ideas, whether they be great patents, 
great copyright rights, fantastic and stimulating ideas that 
might help us in the future, but too often times the Japanese 
and the Europeans then take our ideas and market them as 
products. And I think this commercial technology program has 
been a conduit between NASA's great ideas, their successful 
scientists, and many of our small businesses. This commercial 
technology program has benefitted over 100 small businesses in 
my State, in Indiana, alone. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll 
withdraw the amendment.
    The Chairman. Okay, the gentleman is--does the gentleman 
wish to offer amendment--the gentleman is not going to offer 
Amendment No. 2?
    Mr. Roemer. I'm not going to offer Amendment No. 2. I would 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, but reserve 
the right to offer that at a later point.
    The Chairman. Without objection, the gentleman will 
certainly have that right. Does the gentleman wish to offer 
Amendment No. 3?
    Mr. Roemer. I do, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Then the gentleman is recognized to offer--
well, I think we will withhold at this point since we have a 
vote on the floor. We'll come back and take Amendment No. 3 
when we return.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 
Amendment No. 3.
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple 
amendment. What I accomplish is budget-neutral. I know that the 
chairman has encouraged us not to increase the deficit in our 
committee markups and hearings over the past seven months.
    My amendment would achieve the balanced objective here by 
moving and taking away $15 million out of hypersonic research 
and technology and taking $15 million away from high-speed 
technology, and putting the $30 million from those two accounts 
into the subsonic account. The reasons I do this, Mr. Chairman, 
are threefold.
    One is, just recently, the trade figures were released--I 
believe it was last Wednesday--showing that the United States 
had record projections for trade deficits with our trading 
allies. We have a trade deficit with the Germans, a trade 
deficit with the Chinese, a trade deficit with the Japanese, 
and one of the few areas where we have a trade surplus is in 
our aeronautical area with the Boeings and the McDonnell 
Douglases and the ancillary aeronautical firms that trade 
overseas, whether it be to Saudi Arabia, whether it be to China 
and Russia in the future, or whether, as announced in The Wall 
Street Journal this morning, that it be with the Taiwanese.
    I certainly think that we need to continue to support this 
industry, especially, getting into my second reason for 
offering the amendment, because the other countries, such as 
the Europeans, are supporting airbus and competing industries. 
The airbus industry gets a host of subsidies, a host of help, a 
host of assistance and aid, and we cannot leave our industry 
high and dry simply to say to them: we don't have the 
wherewithal, we don't have the means, we don't have the 
financial support to help you in an increasingly competitive 
world economy.
    It's not only the airbus that gets substantial amount of 
help; it's new fledgling industries coming from countries such 
as Japan and South Korea that will be developing all kinds of 
new aeronautical products that will be competing with our 
already successful products, and I--and I hasten to add, Mr. 
Chairman, that we used to have in 1970 100 percent of the field 
in aeronautics in our trade balance. Right now our market share 
has shrunk to 50 percent in 1995. I think $30 million going 
into this area would certainly help us with our trade balance 
and certainly help us with respect to our allies' support to 
their industries.
    Let me list off a couple of the things that we accomplish 
by the $30 million. This helps future generations of subsonic 
aircraft. It helps develop advanced materials and composites 
for better efficiency, lower cost, as well as improved safety. 
It will help improve superior wing designs for safety and fuel 
efficiency, and it helps improve acoustics and noise control. 
All of the aeronautics research and development is critical, 
but the subsonics account drives the economy and makes real 
advancements in the future fields possible.
    Finally, the third reason, Mr. Chairman, Hans Morganthal 
used to talk in international politics about real politics, 
about the real world, and I know that you will make some--or 
attempt to make some differences between applied research and 
basic research. I think the real world would say that we need 
to keep up with our allies in terms of their support for their 
industries. I think we need to keep up with the fledgling 
industries that are coming into this field in the world. I 
think we need to keep up in an area where we've had 100 percent 
of the market and we've let that slip to 50 percent over the 
last 25 years. I think this amendment is a small way of 
accomplishing that. It's a budget-neutral way of accomplishing 
that because it takes the $30 million out of two different 
accounts to bring it over to the subsonic area.
    So I would encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
    The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Roemer, has correctly 
described the fact that he is reducing two accounts to provide 
an additional increase in the advanced subsonic technologies 
program. I point out that the AST program in our bill is 
increased by 6 percent at a time when practically everything 
else in NASA is being reduced, and not just below a baseline, 
but reduced below the 1995 appropriation, and that the move to 
further reduce the other, more high-risk research accounts to 
fund the AST disturbs me as we are refocusing NASA to its basic 
research, its high-risk research area.
    I believe the AST program constitutes corporate welfare; so 
does the CBO. The CBO contends that the benefits from the R&D 
of this program fall almost exclusively to aircraft 
manufacturers, their suppliers, and the airlines. And a review 
of NASA's budget request yields programmatic descriptions of 
AST elements which don't lend themselves to be interpreted 
otherwise.
    But despite how you may judge the merits of this program, a 
near 30 percent increase from Fiscal 1995 appropriations at a 
time when we seek to refocus NASA toward basic research is 
unwarranted. H.R. 2043 funds the program at $133 million for 
Fiscal 1996, an increase slightly more than 6 percent. The 
Roemer amendment would increase it 30 percent, at the expense 
of the research and technology base which has already been 
reduced some $65 million from Fiscal 1994 and the high-speed 
research program as well. These two research programs that the 
gentleman from Indiana seeks to further reduce are those that 
are essential to the development of the next generation of 
aircraft. So what the gentleman from Indiana does is proposes 
to fund something today at the expense of something that might 
be very necessary tomorrow in order to continue exporting 
American-made aircraft overseas.
    Now we've heard one theme in support of the Roemer 
amendment: that if it isn't passed and we don't put more money 
in this program, the American aerospace industry would 
surrender its leadership to foreign state-subsidized companies. 
Does that mean we have to underwrite our aerospace industry in 
order to be competitive? I would hope not. We all want to see 
American manufacturers outperform their competition, but I 
don't think we need to utilize the types of methods that the 
foreign governments have done with their aerospace industry.
    What the Roemer amendment seeks to do is to plus-up the AST 
program almost 30 percent. Our bill increases AST 6 percent 
over last year's funding level, but allows for increases in 
expenditures, provided the cost of utilization of Federal 
facilities is reimbursed--reimbursed by those who benefit from 
the research. I think that's the way we ought to be doing 
business. It's the way that shares the risk with industry, and 
I don't think we need to cut the other accounts to provide them 
$30 million more.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time. Are there other members that wish to be recognized on the 
Roemer amendment?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. I would like to speak briefly in support of the 
Roemer amendment, and I do so for a number of reasons. It does 
illustrate the very difficult choices that we have to make 
under the constraints that we are told are necessary at this 
particular time, and it's highly debilitating on the programs 
to have to make the kind of cuts that we're making.
    I had, of course, in my own substitute restored the funding 
that Mr. Roemer's amendment proposes to restore, along with a 
number of others, but to do that I had to go above the so-
called caps that the chairman had set for what we could do here 
and go up to the level included--up to the level of the Senate 
authorization bill, which has already been passed by the 
subcommittee. But we are, apparently, not at liberty to make 
these kinds of changes in this committee.
    Let me recount a brief anecdote. I came in last night on a 
plane from California, and for the first time in my experience 
the plane had to make three passes at the field before it 
landed. And I was a little unnerved at seeing us almost hit the 
ground and then zoom off again, and I was told in a comforting 
voice from the cockpit that there were problems on the ground, 
that he had been ordered to take off again before he could 
land. Now it is in an effort to avoid problems of that sort 
that we are doing research on improved air terminal traffic 
management, which is included in this particular item that Mr. 
Roemer seeks to increase to a slightly higher level.
    I think every member of this committee ought to be 
supportive of that kind of research, which is only part, of 
course, of the research that is included in this bill. The 
other programs, of course, are aimed at keeping America's 
leadership role in the commercial market in terms of aircraft 
development, but we have to look at these, as we all know and 
have discussed in this committee, as part of a larger system, 
and that larger system includes the terminals and the system 
for managing aircraft on the ground, as well as improving the 
quality of the aircraft in the air.
    I was struck last night by the need for doing this kind of 
thing and the possible impact that the failure to do so might 
have on Members of Congress, and I wasn't the only one on the 
plane. So while I don't normally make ad hominem arguments like 
this, I would like to do so in this case, in the hopes of 
influencing a few people whose concerns for their own lives 
might lead them to support this additional research.
    The Chairman. Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am concerned about increasing the funding here because I 
think there's a number of programs that NASA is funding that 
goes beyond basic research, like the Interior Noise Reduction 
Program, the Technology Integration and Environmental 
Assessment, Composite Wing, Fly by Light, Powered by Wire, 
Community Noise Impact--and I can't speak for all of those, but 
in the area of Composite Wing I know that we have approximately 
180 A-6 aircraft that are flying on composite wing today. The 
B-2 is a composite wing aircraft. The Beech Starship, which 
over 50 were built, is a composite wing aircraft. The F-22 
employs--employs composites. The 777, Boeing 777, has an 
impanosure, a horizontal stabilizer, that is a composite wing.
    This, for example, is not a basic research item. We have 
aircraft that are in the air now that are flying. And so I 
think we kind of walk a fine line between basic research and 
applied research, but I think that increasing the funding here 
is overstepping what basic research is, and I think it would be 
better applied to supersonic aeronautics, other areas that are 
truly basic research. And so I would oppose the Roemer 
amendment.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Are there other members that wish to be 
recognized on this amendment?
    [No response.]
    If not, the Chair is prepared to close the debate. The 
gentleman from California raises the point that our lives may 
be at stake in this amendment. The Chair has also been waved 
off a couple of times when he's been flying in. It turned out 
it was just bad piloting, not--not problems on the ground, and 
I'm not so certain that Mr. Roemer's amendment solves that 
particular problem.
    Mr. Roemer. If it will get me your vote, Mr. Chairman--
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. You'll--you'll take up the issue of bad 
piloting, too?
    The gentleman's amendment seeks to increase an applied 
research program at the expense of two other basic research 
programs in the field of aeronautics. His very laudable goal is 
for the U.S. aerospace industry to retain the leadership which 
it has held for so long. Unfortunately, while that may be his 
goal, this is a step backwards rather than forwards. To 
increase the funding and focus in applied research programs 
such as AST perpetuates the very practices which have caused 
our leadership to deteriorate. Basic research is NASA's forte; 
that's what NASA does well, and that's where we ought to be 
directing the effort, so that we can maintain our leadership in 
the future. NASA is the right place to open up new 
possibilities in the field of aeronautics. That's the step 
forward and that's the steps that we ought to be taking. In the 
subcommittee bill we direct the money in a way that allows us 
to take those steps forward.
    With that, the Chair will put the question. Those in favor 
of the amendment will say aye. Those opposed will say no. In 
the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
    Mr. Roemer. I'd ask for a roll call vote, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Indiana requests a roll 
call vote. The clerk will call the roll. A ``no'' is heard from 
the back room before the clerk can--
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker.
    The Chairman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fawell.
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Barton.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Baker.
    Mr. Baker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wamp.
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mr. Salmon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman.
    Ms. Stockman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stockman votes no.
    Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht 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. Largent.
    Mr. Largent. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Largent votes no.
    Mr. Hilleary.
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin.
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Foley.
    Mr. Foley. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick.
    Mrs. Myrick. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hayes.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Tanner.
    Mr. Tanner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. Geren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Roemer.
    Mr. Roemer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Roemer votes yes.
    Mr. Cramer.
    Mr. Cramer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cramer votes no.
    Mr. Barcia.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Harman.
    Ms. Harman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Harman votes yes.
    Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Mr. Minge.
    Mr. Minge. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Minge votes aye.
    Mr. Olver.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes aye.
    Ms. McCarthy.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ward.
    Mr. Ward. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ward votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes aye.
    Mr. Doggett.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Luther.
    Mr. Luther. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Luther votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, how am I 
recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon is not recorded.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    [Laughter.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Mr. Salmon. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Salmon is not recorded.
    Mr. Salmon. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, yes, 13; no, 24.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    [The roll call on Roemer amendment follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. Ms. Harman is recognized for the next 
amendment.
    Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment, I 
believe, is in the packet.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Harman. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that we discussed 
this amendment at the subcommittee level, where I did not ask 
for a vote. I have added some clarifying language to it to make 
clear that it is deficit--or budget-neutral, and would not 
present it for discussion.
    In another context, I am known as the ``mother of 
lockbox,'' and with regard to Mr. Sensenbrenner's comments 
earlier, I would like to be known here as the ``mother of 
chicken little.'' And you may not know this, but chicken 
little's mother told him not to overstate--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Harman. Yes, I--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Looking at your dress, we will refer to 
you as ``the little red hen'' from now on.
    Ms. Harman. Thank you.
    [Laughter.]
    Well, little red hen and her mother understood that they 
should not overstate the consequences of certain actions, but 
they should not understate them, either, and in that context I 
offer this amendment to restore funding for the Mission to 
Planet Earth.
    In subcommittee I read a statement from NASA Administrator 
Goldin in support of full funding of the Mission for Planet 
Earth. I'd just like to read briefly two excerpts from other 
statements on this subject now.
    The first of them, from Senator Burns, who chairs the 
Senate Space Subcommittee, the counterpart to our subcommittee, 
says, ``Mission to Planet Earth is NASA's $7 billion satellite 
program aimed at studying how the oceans, land, and atmosphere 
work as a system in order to understand and predict global 
climate change. For those of us representing farm States, 
weather and water are our lifeblood. Mission to Planet Earth 
promises dramatic improvements in our ability to predict 
climate change and manage our scarce water resources. If those 
expectations are met, the program will easily pay for itself in 
lives and property saved and improved water management.''
    And the second statement, excerpts of the statement, is 
from Senator Pressler, chairman of the Senate Commerce 
Committee, on introducing the NASA Authorization Act for this 
Fiscal Year in the Senate in which full funding for Mission to 
Planet Earth is included, and he says and I quote:
    ``I believe Mission to Planet Earth may be NASA's most 
important and relevant program. The satellite data from Mission 
to Planet Earth will deliver direct benefits to the taxpayer in 
contrast to the speculative spinoffs promised by other space 
activities. For this reason, the bill fully funds this activity 
at the requested level of $1.36 billion.''
    Mr. Chairman, we've discussed this in the past, and I've 
certainly heard your views and those of Mr. Sensenbrenner. Let 
me just briefly add a few points.
    First of all, as chicken little's mother or Red Riding 
Hood's mother would say, in a balanced form, we don't gut 
Mission to Planet Earth by these cuts, but this is what we do 
by these cuts or what would happen: Mission to Planet Earth's 
space segment would be effectively cancelled, both EOS PM, 
which is designed to enable fundamental improvements in long-
term climate and short-term weather prediction, would be 
cancelled and so would EOS Chemistry, designed to provide 
unique and critical measurements of ozone and pollution. EOS's 
common spacecraft would be cancelled, thereby eliminating the 
comprehensive and integrated nature of Mission to Planet Earth. 
And, finally, EOS DIS, which is EOS Data and Information 
System, would be effectively eliminated and replaced with 
nonintegrated ground systems for individual missions.
    I think that these decisions on our part are premature in 
light of the fact that the National Academy of Science is 
presently studying Mission to Planet Earth at your request, and 
in light of the fact that already $10 billion in projected 
funding through the year 2000 have been--has been cut by the 
Clinton administration. Let's remember that this is a program 
that developed in the Reagan and Bush administrations. It has 
enormous support in many of our communities, and it will yield 
enormous results both in terms of weather prediction, so that 
we can avoid tragedies caused by hurricanes, and so forth, and 
in terms of the ability, as the Senators have stated, to plan 
orderly economic development in farming and other things. And 
so--and, finally, it would also yield benefits for true 
scientific risk assessment, which many of us on this committee 
strongly support.
    In conclusion, I suggest that cuts are appropriate, but we 
should be even-handed. These cuts proposed in your bill to 
Mission to Planet Earth are premature and disproportionate.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    The gentleman from Maryland is--
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, I have at the desk an amendment 
to Ms. Harman's amendment. Might I ask that it be distributed 
and I be given time to support it?
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. Shall I wait until the 
amendment--
    The Chairman. Yes, let's have the amendment distributed. 
The gentleman will withhold.
    The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for a unanimous 
consent request.
    Mr. Ehlers. Well, Mr. Chairman, I regret that I was 
detained in getting back here. I'd like to have unanimous 
request to have the record show that, had I been present, I 
would have voted no on the Roemer amendment.
    The Chairman. The record will so state.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Maryland.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, it's been suggested that the 
mark prejudges the results of the study from the National 
Academy of Sciences. I think that it's more appropriate to say 
that, considering the restraints of the legislative agenda, 
that it was necessary to, in a sense, anticipate the results of 
the study.
    What--what my amendment does--and it follows immediately 
after the language of the--Ms. Harman's amendment--is simply to 
add a paragraph saying, ``Limitation on Obligation and 
Expenditure.'' And what it does is to recognize that it would 
be appropriate to wait for the results of the--of the study 
before making definitive decisions about how the money shall be 
spent, and that, No. 2 under that, the Administrator then has 
an obligation to look at the report, to study the report, and 
to--and to make a recommendation to the Congress as to how the 
monies ought to be spent.
    It's my understanding that, if at that time the Congress 
agreed with the Administrator, that there could be informally a 
letter sent authorizing him to proceed with his recommendation. 
In the event that there was an element of disagreement between 
the Congress and the Administrator, paragraph (c) allows for 90 
legislative days in which the Congress could then proceed to 
enact specific legislation that would serve as a guide to the 
Administrator on how these funds were to be appropriated, were 
to be spent. I believe that this is a relatively 
noncontroversial amendment, acceptable, I believe, to Ms. 
Harman and to the chairman. And with that, sir, I would yield 
back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Would the gentleman from Maryland wish to 
yield to the gentlelady from California for purposes of 
allowing her--of course, I can recognize her on the Bartlett 
amendment--
    Mr. Bartlett. I would be happy to yield.
    Ms. Harman. I'll just take a moment, Mr. Chairman.
    I'd like to commend Mr. Bartlett for his very constructive 
role here and to say that, certainly, my view is that our 
action here is premature. It is not that it is--I forget what 
the other word was that you used, but that we're--that it is 
prejudicial, but it--I forget what word you used. But, at any 
rate, I think it's premature and I think the National Academy 
of Sciences is a very competent body to reassess this program, 
and I'm very comfortable fencing this money until that study is 
concluded.
    I would have two technical questions which I'd like to put 
to you or to the chairman about this amendment and would hope 
we could get some answers, but I am certainly enthusiastic 
about it.
    The Chairman. Okay, well--
    Ms. Harman. If I could find it--they just relate, Mr. 
Chairman, to what the definition of ``legislative day'' is for 
purposes of understanding this amendment; and, secondly, what 
the definition of ``formal request'' is in another part of this 
amendment.
    The Chairman. Well, legislative days are days in which the 
House is in session.
    Ms. Harman. Does that include days in which the Senate's in 
session? I just want to be clear that we understand. The other 
body--
    The Chairman. Yes, it does.
    Ms. Harman. Okay. And what does ``formal request'' mean?
    The Chairman. Well, my guess is that this would be in the 
form of a reprogramming request since the appropriations 
process will be finished by the end of that time.
    Ms. Harman. But we would have, would we not--I know this is 
premature--we would have--this money would be authorized and 
perhaps appropriated, and it would be fenced, so it would have 
to be re--I'm confused by what that means.
    The Chairman. Under the language of the amendment, as I 
understand it, none of the funds would be authorized until all 
of these steps had been taken, and the formal request, since by 
that time we would assume that the appropriations process would 
be completed, that that formal request would be in the--
probably in the form of a reprogramming request for the monies, 
because, obviously, under your amendment you don't increase the 
ceilings. So that now--
    Ms. Harman. Right.
    The Chairman. The Administrator would have to come back and 
say where he was going to cut other monies in order to fund 
Mission to Planet Earth if, in fact, that were his choice. And 
so that--that would be, in effect, a reprogramming request, 
would be the formal request from the Administrator.
    Ms. Harman. Is--I would just ask Mr. Bartlett if that could 
be--because we're talking, I thought, about authorizing funds, 
but fencing them--and I agree with you about the offsets, Mr. 
Chairman--fencing them until certain steps have been taken.
    Mr. Bartlett. It's the language--reclaiming my time, the 
language of the amendment says that none of the funds 
authorized by subsection (a) shall be available for obligation 
or expenditure until--
    Ms. Harman. Right.
    Mr. Bartlett. So we have these--the nuances of these 
different words, yes, thank you.
    Ms. Harman. Thank you.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept 
the Bartlett amendment, and the reason I'm prepared to do so is 
that this, in effect, postpones a decision on, No. 1, the 
expenditure of funds above the subcommittee reported bill on 
Mission to Planet Earth until some future time, and it also 
requires the NASA Administrator to specifically state in a 
reprogramming request where he intends to take the money out 
of.
    The concern that I have with not being specific is that 
NASA could very easily fall into the trap of stretching out 
programs that it has. This is the slippery slope that has 
discredited NASA's financial management in the past and will 
continue to discredit NASA's financial management in the future 
unless it's stopped, either by Congress or by NASA or both. 
Stretch-outs mean that the time of completion of the projects 
will be delayed. The infrastructure, which includes the 
engineers on the payroll, will be there at the same cost, and 
the longer we stretch these programs out, the longer the meter 
will be ticking and the most cost overruns that NASA will 
experience, and the more the existing programs will be placed 
in jeopardy.
    So it seems to me that what the Bartlett amendment does is 
force Mr. Goldin to make a determination on whether or not a 
stretch-out would be fatal to existing NASA programs in order 
to get more money into Mission to Planet Earth. So he's going 
to have to make that decision before we do. I'm willing to 
accept the Bartlett amendment and force him to make that 
decision, but I think that it's a decision that's going to have 
to be made because, again, as I said in my opening remarks, we 
don't legislate here in the abstract; we're legislating here 
with a finite number of dollars, and we're going to have to set 
priorities, and this means that the Administrator will 
recommend priorities and then it will be up to us to determine 
whether we agree or disagree with those priorities.
    I yield back the balance--
    Ms. Harman. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield to the gentlelady from 
California.
    Ms. Harman. I--I agree with the thrust of your remarks. I 
have always agreed with them, and I am worried, as you are, 
about one program gobbling up another program, and I am in 
favor of a balanced NASA. I think that, as you do, that what 
Mr. Bartlett is offering helps make sure that this does not 
occur--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Are you--are you going to accept the 
Bartlett amendment?
    Ms. Harman. --and I would accept the Bartlett amendment to 
my amendment.
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from Maryland.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Oh, I'm sorry.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just briefly want 
to commend Mr. Bartlett for crafting what I consider to be a 
very sensible, responsible amendment that is going to allow 
science to prevail.
    Thank you, Mr. Bartlett.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Morella.
    Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I thoroughly 
support the Bartlett amendment and the underlying Harman 
amendment, and I am also quite aware of the problems which Mr. 
Sensenbrenner has enunciated with regard to the bow wave effect 
and the difficult managerial problem that we have at NASA.
    May I just again, for portatory reasons more than anything 
else, say that that problem will never be solved as long as 
NASA does not have a stable budget expectation. You cannot 
create a management plan for what you're doing if at the end of 
each year the underlying assumptions under which you made that 
budget plan are changed, and that's been happening to NASA now 
for the last 10 years. You--we've all experienced it, those of 
us who have been here for 10 years, on the Space Station. 
They--not the authorizing committee in that case, it was the 
Appropriations Committee redesigned the Space Station year 
after year. The five-year projections by the administration for 
NASA have changed each year, and it is that indeterminate 
situation that causes NASA probably to erect a little cushion 
of, we'll say, somewhat more on their agenda than they know 
they can expect, in the hope that they can get a little more 
money than what experience has shown that they're likely to 
get.
    Now the--the positive effect, aspect of what we're doing is 
we're all thinking in long-term budgetary terms. We're adopting 
five-year, seven-year, and in the case of the President ten-
year budget plans which we hope will create some stability, 
will create a glide slope on which we can depend. I would be 
delighted if we could do that. It has never happened yet.
    And I would just urge that we, instead of castigating NASA 
for their flaws--and they are many and we want to keep them 
under close review--we should recognize that we play a part in 
this also, and seek to provide that stability which I know the 
chairman has announced support for, and I've said before, and 
Mr. Sensenbrenner has indicated before, that the program badly 
needs, if we are going to maintain our leadership in space 
amongst the nations of the world.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I 
thank you for yielding. I'll be brief.
    Let me say at the outset I would have had a problem 
supporting the original Harman amendment, but I think the 
perfecting amendment by Mr. Bartlett is well considered and 
places the appropriate controls on this funding to allow us to 
revisit the issue, and I say that in spite of the shortsighted 
decision of the Lockheed-Martin Company to move 2,000 jobs in 
this program out of southeastern Pennsylvania. So I will 
support the Bartlett amendment.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Is there anyone else who wishes to be 
recognized? Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I supported the gentlelady from California's amendment in 
subcommittee, and I think it made a lot of sense then. I think 
Mr. Bartlett's amendment might be the best that we can do in 
full committee, and I would support Mr. Bartlett's amendment to 
the gentlelady's amendment because I think it's very important 
to continue this program. This program has a great deal of 
effect on the development of future telecommunications 
technology, of predicting weather. Predicting weather affects 
about 25 percent of the GDP in the United States of America. 
And for those reasons, I think it's important to work on and 
support the compromise that's been worked out here.
    I would say, just as an aside, in reflecting upon Mr. 
Brown's remarks, that we will continue to be faced with these 
programs with a decline--these programs and their funding 
levels as we face the declining NASA budget. We have tried to 
delay and deflect those decisions by separating the 
authorization into two separate authorizations, one on Space 
Station, one on the rest of NASA. We have tried to do it now by 
fencing this EOS language. In the future it's going to be more 
and more difficult to have a balanced NASA and continue to have 
a Space Station and every other thing that we want to put into 
NASA. We're going to have to make some tough choices.
    It's been said before, I think, that we've got to make 
those tough choices. We can't deflect them onto other people, 
and I think this is the best compromise that can be worked out 
at this point, but I think this one has a tendency to 
potentially fall apart in the future.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time. Are there other members who wish to be heard on the 
Harman amendment or the underlying--the underlying Harman 
amendment or the Bartlett amendment thereto?
    [No response.]
    If not, the Chair is prepared to close the debate. The--the 
Chair is going to accept the Bartlett amendment and then the 
Harman amendment as modified, if the Bartlett amendment is 
accepted. But I do want to make it clear exactly what's 
happening here. We are--we are at that point authorizing no 
additional funds for Mission to Planet Earth. We will allow 
additional funds to be considered in the future, should--after 
the report of the--the NAS report, and it seems to me that is--
that is something which is positive here, because we want to 
take that report seriously, but the Administrator will have to 
come back with a reprogramming request in order to have 
additional money allocated.
    The other thing that strikes me as being helpful about the 
approach that the gentlelady and the gentleman have worked out 
is the fact that I do believe that probably when we have 
finished conference with the Senate, and so on, that we will 
probably have an appropriation that will be somewhat higher in 
this program than what we are presently--have in this bill. And 
so, therefore, this would accommodate a somewhat higher--higher 
funding profile.
    But I want to get to the question somewhat raised by Mr. 
Roemer and also raised by Mr. Brown. We need a funding profile 
for this program which is sustainable. If we don't have a 
funding profile for this program which is sustainable, at some 
point the whole thing is going to collapse because we're not 
going to have money for--for all kinds of big programs. We have 
attempted in what we put forward in the subcommittee bill to 
come up with a funding profile that we believe takes us to a 
sustainable level out through the completion of this program, 
and I think this committee has an obligation to move in that 
direction.
    Secondly, we are trying to do the same thing in programs 
like Space Station. Space Station--this committee approved a 
seven-year authorization. That is an attempt to have a 
sustainable program for that entire period of time. I've had 
very positive conversations with the authorizers on the Senate 
side about that bill. I think we might be able to achieve that, 
and it seems to me moves us in the direction. I would 
ultimately like to do big programs, including Mission to Planet 
Earth, in that way, but they have to be within a funding level 
which is sustainable.
    We also need to recognize with this amendment, and with the 
potentials that this amendment holds, that this committee may 
be faced with some--some very crucial decisions on that 
reprogramming. If you assume the full amount of this 
reprogramming request, we already know what the appropriators 
did when they had to assume the full funding level for Mission 
to Planet Earth. It cost us field centers. It cost us the 
Cassini program. It cost us the SOFIA program, most of the 
science programs. So when they reprioritized in order to handle 
this program, it was not something that I felt comfortable with 
as chairman of the authorizing committee.
    If you assume that what the Administrator would do is not 
go target programs in the same manner, but go for an across-
the-board kind of approach to this--just understand that would 
cut the human space flight account by $105.7 million, meaning 
that $40 million would come out of Space Station. So it's a 
sustainable program that we've designed for Space Station--
would be undercut by this approach. We would take $115 million 
out of science, aeronautics, and technology. We would take 
$37.5 million out of space science, life in--the life programs, 
and so on, would take $9.7 million; aeronautics taking $17.5 
million; mission support would take $52.4 million. And so the 
Administrator is going to have a very tough thing to do to 
implement this, and we just need to understand that accepting 
this approach we are not necessarily accepting any more money 
for Mission to Planet Earth unless the Administrator decides 
specifically to make some very tough decisions with regard to 
other programs.
    Now having said that, the Chair is prepared to--to accept 
both the Bartlett and the Harman amendment. We would put the 
question first on the Bartlett amendment. Those in favor will 
say aye.
    Those opposed will say no.
    The ayes have it. The question is now on the Harman 
amendment as amended by the Bartlett amendment. Those in favor 
will say aye.
    Those opposed will say no.
    The ayes have it. The Harman amendment is--is agreed to.
    The next amendment is the Lofgren amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the 
amendment is in the packet.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. The lady is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    I don't think this should be a highly controversial 
amendment, nor should it be divided from one side of the aisle 
to the other. The bill already provides that the Administrator 
may not close fields until after the asset-based review 
provided for in section (c), and I agree with that.
    The reason why I've suggested this amendment is that it is 
possible to reconfigure your way into essentially the same 
thing without saying it's a closure, and I think both the 
majority and the minority want to make sure that we get a 
report that follows the review of assets that has the plan 
before this goes forward. And if we do not make it clear that 
reconfiguring to the extent that the major enterprise of the 
centers also needs to be subsequent to an asset review, then I 
think we will not accomplish, or potentially may not 
accomplish, our goals.
    The amendment wouldn't affect any of the time tables in the 
bill. It doesn't affect any of the money in the bill. It's 
budget-neutral. The intention is basically to support what is 
already in the bill. It is not meant as a criticism of the 
Administrator, nor do I think is the section (c) meant to be a 
criticism, but just a reflection of our need to at least have 
that asset-based review, which I think is very sound, occur 
before major changes are made.
    And, with that, I would hope that we could approve this 
even on a voice vote on a bipartisan basis.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I hate to spoil the gentlelady's day, 
but the problem with this amendment is that it does not allow 
the Administrator to implement the zero-based review that has 
been going on in NASA as a way of providing the $5 billion of 
savings that the President directed the NASA Administrator to 
come up with in the out-years of the budget.
    I think that the procedure that is outlined in subsection 
(c) of the bill is adequate to provide congressional approval 
of the proposed closing of any center, but I really think that 
we tread into the position of congressional micromanagement of 
NASA, which ended up after all causing huge cost overruns in 
the Space Station program by not allowing the Administrator to 
more adequately and more sharply define the missions of the 
NASA centers.
    So because of this effect of the gentlewoman's amendment on 
the NASA Administrator's ability, basically, to manage his own 
program, I would hope that this amendment be rejected, and 
would yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I'm happy to yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. In checking with both the minority and 
majority staff, I--my staff was not apprised of any concern 
that this would prevent the restructuring required for the 
budget that Mr. Goldin has currently underway.
    What--the reason why I brought this forward--and this could 
occur to anybody who has NASA facilities in their state. You 
could end up with a restructuring that affects a basic mission 
that is way beyond what is currently envisioned and never 
really have a report back. It could be--and I don't think 
that's what our committee wants or what the Congress wants.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, reclaiming my time, the 
gentlewoman thinks that this committee and the subcommittee 
which I chair will be somewhat lax in their oversight over 
NASA--
    Ms. Lofgren. That was not my intent, sir.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. And this chairman has never had the 
reputation of giving Mr. Goldin a pass on anything.
    Ms. Lofgren. I--my comments were not meant as criticism, 
sir, but they are--the reason why we have an asset-based review 
and the closure in here is because we need our positions to be 
identified in law, and that is why I've offered the amendment. 
And I'm hopeful that in our interest of representing our 
constituents, we can--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Reclaiming my time, the real problem in 
the gentlewoman's--
    The Chairman. The gentlelady--oh, I'm sorry.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. It's my time.
    The Chairman. No, I'm sorry.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Reclaiming my time, the real problem in 
the gentlewoman's amendment is sub-subsection (2) which 
prohibits the Administrator from reconfiguring any NASA field 
center in a manner which would change the enterprises of such 
center. Now if that isn't a straitjacket, I don't know what it 
is.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time. Are there other members that wish to be heard on the 
Lofgren amendment?
    [No response.]
    If not, the Chair is prepared to close the debate.
    I share the concern that the gentleman from--the gentleman, 
Mr. Sensenbrenner, has raised. NASA has been asked by OMB to 
find $4 billion in savings not tomorrow, but yesterday, and the 
fact is the Administrator is going about doing this and some of 
what he is talking about is restructuring a number of these 
centers. Now that's what the zero-based review is all about, to 
cut costs without cutting missions or closing centers, and, you 
know, I don't think we ought to be in the way of allowing the 
Administrator to proceed on that ground. I think that that 
would undercut him in a very, very significant way.
    On the other hand, the purpose behind the asset review that 
we have in here is to prevent the closing of NASA field centers 
based upon any kind of political criteria. Decisions like that 
should at least be based on the useful assets of the center and 
their contribution to the overall NASA mission. In other words, 
if a center should be closed, it should only be closed because 
there's nothing important left to do there.
    And so I think that the asset review works in harmony with 
the zero-based review, but I don't believe that we ought to 
stand in the way of the Administrator doing what is necessary 
under the zero-based review to effect the cost savings 
beginning today and moving us forward. And so my concern is 
that the gentlelady's amendment does get in the way of allowing 
the Administrator the latitude he needs in order to move us 
forward. The specific language is the reconfiguration language 
that she has in--if the purpose behind her language was to 
simply stop the closing of field centers, that would not be a 
problem here for us, but the reconfiguration question is, in 
fact, a very real problem for the agency, we would believe.
    With that, the Chair will put the question. Those in favor 
of the Lofgren amendment will say aye. Those opposed will say 
no. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
    Ms. Lofgren. Not a roll call vote, but a division, could we 
just--
    The Chairman. Yes, the gentlelady requests a division on 
her amendment. Those in favor of the Lofgren amendment will 
signify by raising their hand.
    [Show of hands.]
    The clerk will count.
    Those opposed--does the clerk have a count? Those opposed 
will raise their hand.
    [Show of hands.]
    The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Yeses, 6; no, 23.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The next amendment on the list is Mr. Hilleary.
    Mr. Hilleary. Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is in 
the packet.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Hilleary. Mr. Chairman, it's my hope that this truly 
will be noncontroversial. It's a--it's just a very few 
technical changes in the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949. 
And for those on the committee who are not familiar with that 
act, this was basically an act that authorized wind tunnels in 
the post-World War II period that just made sure that we were 
going to keep our post-World War II edge in aerospace, and 
that--the result has been accomplished. We've had the vast 
majority of the lion's share of the world aerospace market up 
until recently, and up until recently we had about 70 percent 
of it. And now we've begun to fall below--we may this year fall 
below 50 percent, and what we're hoping is these are very, 
very--just very technical changes. This is just going to lay 
the groundwork for future authorization of new wind tunnels, 
and this is something that NASA believes that we need to have 
new wind tunnels. A consortium of European companies and the 
governments have built new wind tunnels, and that's one of the 
reasons we've begun to lose our--part of our world market 
share.
    And what--to put that down into real terms for this 
country, every time we lose one percentage point of the global 
aerospace market, we lose about 44,000 jobs in this country. So 
what this does is just simply update some of the language, 
mostly putting in language that would apply to technology of 
today and the--they could look at the--each Member can look at 
the very small changes in wording in the amendment itself.
    I'd just like to say that there is a study going on now 
which has been funded, which was voted on by this Congress, 
which will determine the plan for any new wind tunnel 
authorization that would take place, and it's our hope that 
that will give us a good memorandum of agreement between the 
NASA Administrator, between DOD and certain industry--
industries, aerospace industry officials, that will come up 
with a plan that will be conducive to actually getting it 
reauthorized in this committee and the full Congress.
    I yield back my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman--the gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time. Are there additional members who wish to 
be heard on the Hilleary amendment? Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the work that the 
gentleman is doing on wind tunnels, and, obviously, he's given 
the matter a lot of study and he is correct in that this is a 
very important factor in our continued superiority in the 
aerospace industry.
    I have only procedural problems with this in the sense that 
I don't really understand the effect that this would have, and 
I regret--and I've said this before, and I'm using this 
amendment as an opportunity to make the point again--that we 
haven't had the opportunity to have hearings on items of this 
sort, which change underlying basic legislation and on which we 
ought to have the views from industry and from the 
administration and others who would be involved.
    Now I'm prepared to believe that the gentleman has on his 
own made these kinds of efforts to establish the position and 
that what he's presented to us is a consensus. I'm going to 
accept that on faith and not object to the bill, but I would 
like to have his assurances that he will try to establish a 
little better framework or base for establishing the need for 
this and the direction that he's going, and that if he has 
neglected by oversight to do so, that perhaps we could correct 
this in the further progress of his language in conference with 
the Senate.
    Mr. Hilleary. If I could just answer the gentleman, there 
were hearings on this in which industry leaders indicated a 
need for this wind tunnel and as well as the NASA Administrator 
indicated a need for this, and we are in the very embryonic 
stage of this and we will continue to develop that and answer 
the concerns of the gentleman.
    Mr. Brown. Well, I'm well aware of the need for wind 
tunnels. We're hoping to get a couple of them built in 
California. But I'm not aware of the hearings that the 
gentleman mentioned, and if the gentleman knows of such 
hearings, I'd like to have him cite the hearings so that I 
could review them.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Brown, would you yield for--so I could ask 
a question?
    Mr. Brown. I yield to the lady.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
    I was wondering, Mr. Hilleary, whether or not--I don't have 
the act that this would amend before me, but whether this would 
include upgrades in addition to existing wind tunnels, as well 
as new development. I agree very much that the--our economic 
competitiveness will be damaged because of the lack of wind 
tunnels, and already that's happening. We have to go to Europe 
for testing, and we should have the state of the art right here 
in the United States. But I also understand that with a much 
more modest investment we could do an upgrade that wouldn't get 
us to where we want to be, but would get us to about 80 percent 
of where we want to be, and I don't see that as where I want to 
end up. But the question is, would this allow for at least that 
kind of upgrade while we're pursuing state of the art?
    Mr. Brown. I yield to the gentleman if he wishes to respond 
to--
    Mr. Hilleary. I'll just say to the gentlelady that this is 
not authorizing in any way, and that very well may be the end 
result, upgrading existing wind tunnels, but that's what this 
study, part of what this study will show, hopefully, is our 
different options in the way we're going to proceed. And so 
we'll just have to wait and see on authorization any further 
steps, I think, until that study is--
    Ms. Lofgren. It wouldn't preclude looking at that, is what 
I'm saying.
    Mr. Hilleary. No, Ma'am, it would not preclude it.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, sir.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak in 
favor of the amendment. Anything that speaks favorably toward 
wind tunnel construction in this country I think should be 
accepted. Whether it's built in California or in Tennessee, we 
certainly need to assist the aerospace industry, and, 
hopefully, the aerospace industry will also involve themselves 
in construction of new wind tunnel facilities and someday we 
can talk about some appropriations on wind tunnel design and 
construction.
    Mr. Brown. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Calvert. Certainly.
    Mr. Brown. I also have no objections to be--the wind 
tunnels being in Tennessee or California. I might prefer 
California, but the process is the important thing. [Laughter.] 
It ought to be done on a reasonably competitive peer-reviewed 
basis.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members who wish to be--
Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a technical 
question:
    Unless I have a defective bill or misunderstand, I don't 
see where this fits. It says, ``On page 50, after line 19, 
insert,'' and that doesn't seem like an appropriate place. It's 
also labeled section 215. There's already a section 215 in the 
bill. I'd appreciate it if that could be clarified or 
corrected.
    Mr. Hilleary. If the gentleman will yield--are you 
referring to this, the amendment itself, and where it would be 
inserted?
    Mr. Ehlers. Where--
    Mr. Hilleary. This is for the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act. 
It's not the bill under consideration.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Michigan raises a valid 
point. The gentleman from Tennessee drafted his amendment in 
good faith based upon the way the bill had been introduced. It 
has been modified somewhat since. The problem that the 
gentleman from Michigan is referring to can be corrected as a 
part of the technical corrections that would take place. The 
gentleman meant to insert his amendment at the end of the bill.
    Are there other--are there any other questions or comments 
with regard to the gentleman from Tennessee's amendment?
    [No response.]
    If not, the Chair is prepared to close the debate. The 
gentleman's amendment does go far toward updating the Unitary 
Wind Tunnel Act of 1949. It was last amended in 1958, but today 
will enter the hypersonic age. When this act was first adopted, 
the sound barrier had just been broken about two years earlier. 
The Nation needed new transonic and supersonic research 
facilities. Today, as we expand our knowledge in the field of 
hypersonics, this amendment underscores our commitment to basic 
research and may justify initiatives in the future to provide 
new hypersonic facilities to the Department of Defense and to 
America's aerospace industry. And so, therefore, the Chair 
accepts the gentleman's amendment.
    With that, the Chair will put the question. Those in favor 
of the gentleman's amendment will say aye.
    Those opposed will say no.
    The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a technical 
amendment at the desk.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, during the Space and 
Aeronautics Subcommittee markup of this legislation Mr. Brown 
raised a question about the language of my amendment to the 
privatization of microgravity parabolic flight services. The 
specific concern was that the amendment's language directing 
the FAA to expedite its licensing of commercial microgravity 
parabolic flight service operators might trigger a subsequent 
referral to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 
The technical amendment before you now strikes the entire 
subsection dealing with FAA regulation.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. This is a very good strike one, and the 
subcommittee is prepared to accept it.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Are there any other members that wish to be 
recognized on the gentleman from--Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment?
    [No response.]
    If not, the Chair is prepared to close the debate. The 
gentleman from California is offering this amendment in the 
nature of a technical correction, and this amendment was 
adopted in the subcommittee. At that point Mr. Brown did 
correctly point out that this amendment might cross 
jurisdictional lines. It, indeed, does, and so, therefore, the 
gentleman from California is withdrawing the amendment at this 
point and correcting--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman--
    The Chairman. So that we get the bill back to fully 
jurisdictional in our purview.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, would you be willing--
    The Chairman. I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. To send a letter to the FAA Administrator 
about this matter, so we can speed up the delay on--
    The Chairman. The gentleman has my assurance on that.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. With that, the Chair will put the question. 
Those in favor of the Rohrabacher amendment will say aye. Those 
opposed will say no. The ayes have it. The amendment is 
adopted.
    Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for a parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Brown. I'll postpone it until we get to the 
appropriate--
    The Chairman. Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment that I--staff I assume will be circulating.
    The Chairman. The Chair--staff will distribute the 
amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed?
    The Chairman. Well, the gentleman--let's--let's have the 
amendment distributed and then the gentleman will be 
recognized.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman.
    Members of the committee, this amendment, hopefully, will 
not be--will be noncontroversial. It is an amendment that does 
not affect any direct dollar amounts in the bill, but rather 
deals with the GLOBE program, the Global Observations to 
Benefit the Environment, which this full committee voted on in 
the past on the NOR reauthorization, and which included that 
authorization in that bill.
    This amendment also puts our bill into a consistent pattern 
with the appropriation bill that will be voted on later on this 
week. As we move to cut back the funding for the Mission to 
Planet Earth, our bill specifically prohibits any funds from 
being used for the GLOBE program.
    The appropriators allow that decision to be made by NASA. 
What my amendment will do will be to follow suit and allow that 
decision to be made by NASA as opposed to having us, in effect, 
micromanage.
    This amendment is a bipartisan amendment that I'm offering 
with Mr. McHale. As members of this committee know, when I 
spoke on this issue in the past, use of the Internet by our 
schools is one of the highest priorities of the new Speaker. 
And, in fact, Speaker Gingrich has come out publicly in favor 
of this program, which is why I offer the amendment on a no 
authorization bill.
    In addition, Vice President Gore has made this technology 
effort one of his highest priorities, and, in fact, to date, we 
have 1,500 schools across the country who are now participating 
in the GLOBE program. And, in fact, I did a quick count and we 
have some 187 schools in the districts of 27 Members of this 
committee who are currently Internet members through the GLOBE 
network.
    It is a program that will not be without end. It is 
designed to encourage private sector dollars and eventually be 
totally operated by the private sector as opposed to the public 
sector. We are not saying the program has to proceed. What we 
would say in this amendment is we will leave that up to NASA. 
As NASA reconfigures how they're going to spend their dollars 
as they shrink, especially in light of the decrease in the 
Mission to Planet Earth funding, they will be able to make a 
decision as to whether or not--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. This program should continue.
    I'll be happy to yield to the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The subcommittee is reluctantly prepared 
to accept this amendment, if we can get it out of the way 
before going to vote.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman for his 
reluctant consideration.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. I thank--I thank the subcommittee Chair for 
that, but I did give the members an assurance--give members an 
assurance that we would not do any voting, voice voting or any 
other thing, while there was a vote on on the floor. So the 
committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
    When the committee went into recess, we were considering 
the Weldon amendment on GLOBE. Are there additional members 
that wish to be recognized on the Weldon amendment?
    Mr. McHale. I do, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. McHale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I very strongly support the Weldon amendment. I've been 
privileged to cosponsor the amendment with my colleague, Mr. 
Weldon.
    I am told that the number of votes that we get on this 
issue will be inversely proportional to how long I speak on the 
subject. So I'm going to keep this exceptionally brief.
    [Laughter.]
    The gentleman's time has expired.
    [Laughter.]
    The gentleman, Mr. Weldon, made the strongest point when he 
indicated that the language in his amendment simply brings the 
bill in line with the current language as proposed by the 
appropriators. I'm not going to advocate the GLOBE program, 
although I strongly believe in it; I think Mr. Weldon has done 
that job quite well. The question here is whether we will 
continue the existing language in the Science mark which would, 
without a sense of priority, abolish the GLOBE program or, in 
the spirit that's been described by the chairman of the full 
committee on several occasions, work with the appropriators in 
seeking common language and a common financial base in order to 
provide the support for the program that I think is correct.
    The Weldon amendment will strike the language of the 
Science mark, bring the bill in line with the appropriations 
bill, and I think move the process forward while allowing NASA 
the opportunity and, in fact, the obligation to develop a sense 
of priorities. We can work hand-in-glove with the appropriators 
and the Weldon amendment does that. I encourage all of the 
members, particularly those on my side of the aisle, to support 
Mr. Weldon's amendment.
    The Chairman. Well, the gentleman's time has expired. Any--
anyone else seeking recognition on the Weldon amendment?
    [No response.]
    If not, the Chair will put the question. Those in favor of 
the Weldon amendment will say aye. Those opposed will say no. 
The ayes have it. The amendment carries.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note to the 
committee that I was unavoidably detained in hearings being 
held on the Waco matter in the Judiciary Committee, as a Member 
of the Judiciary Committee, and if I had been present in the 
room at the time that the Roemer amendment was offered, I would 
like to have my vote recorded at the place of that vote as an 
aye.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's comments will be noted.
    Ms. Jackson-Lee. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman, Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have 
an amendment that I think is relatively noncontroversial, but 
before I--
    The Chairman. This amendment needs to be distributed. The 
staff will distribute the amendment, and the gentleman will 
withhold for a moment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Barcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The current language in the bill, as currently drafted, 
would basically preclude CIESIN from negotiating--negotiating 
or completing any contracts with NASA or Federal agencies, and 
I would just like to, before I begin explaining the amendment, 
compliment the chairman on his sensitivity and open-mindedness 
about the--my concerns on this issue, and to say that, of 
course, given the nature of the deficit reduction in the 
Congress overall, as well as the specific cuts in NASA, of 
course, CIESIN will recognize it must be very competitive and 
be so in a very, I think, open bidding process.
    But we think that we have made, I think, great strides in 
terms of CIESIN's accomplishments, and I'd like to take a 
moment just to say that the amendment that I have would make 
clear that funding the CIESIN project is subject to NASA's 
discretion as to the appropriateness of the project relative to 
the overall data mission of the Mission to Planet Earth, and, 
of course, we know that that area is also going to be subjected 
to significant cuts.
    But the amendment clarifies that CIESIN is allowed to be a 
NASA contractor under the EOS DIS to develop the integration of 
earth-observing science with economic, social, and health data. 
The government has already invested some $70 million in this 
project, and we would like to try to retain as much of that 
work and that infrastructure as we can.
    CIESIN has been recognized in terms of the successes it's 
had in data management, and, for example, recently received 
the--I think some accolades from the Smithsonian Institution 
museum and a number of other agencies that have indicated that 
CIESIN's work is very much appreciated in the scientific 
community.
    CIESIN's track record to date has also, in terms of 
database management, has been utilized more than all eight 
other DAC facilities combined. So I think that we've got a very 
good start on, I think, assisting NASA and other Federal 
agencies in compiling and distributing, as well as analyzing, 
scientific data, and it would be my hope that we might be able 
to see CIESIN continue. We recognize that, given the current 
environment, that we may have to do so in a privatized fashion. 
We may see CIESIN become more aggressive at promoting its 
services and do so more as a private entity, which it has been 
as a consortium.
    But I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, on your 
assistance in terms of recognizing the dilemma that we find 
ourselves in in terms of the CIESIN facility and program up in 
Michigan, and also to thank you for your gracious cooperation 
on trying to work out language that the committee would feel 
comfortable in--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The subcommittee is happy to accept your 
amendment. I think this makes CIESIN a much more constructive 
agency than it's been in the past.
    The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield to me?
    Mr. Barcia. Absolutely.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I just do want to make the point that this amendment will 
be acceptable to the Chair as well. The gentleman has worked 
with us to try to work out the amendment.
    Just so that we are very clear, this amendment does 
anticipate the privatization of CIESIN. The gentleman has 
brought to me some legislation aimed at moving CIESIN in that 
direction. What this amendment would do is simply assure that a 
privatized CIESIN would still be able to obtain contracts 
following a full and open competition, and would also not in 
any way jeopardize the rights of any party under contracts that 
presently exist. That's what we're--that's what we're 
attempting to achieve with this amendment, but it needs to be 
clarified that this does not anticipate a continued funding 
stream out of NASA for CIESIN other than what they obtain 
through--
    Mr. Barcia. The open bidding contract--
    The Chairman. Through their open bidding process. And, with 
that understanding, I think the gentleman has done a valuable 
work on behalf of CIESIN here. We're moving in the direction 
that most of us feel comfortable, and I thank him for--for 
working with us.
    Mr. Barcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will say this 
amendment will address the concern we had with the two-year 
contract in which CIESIN is in the first year. So that resolves 
that issue--
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Barcia. Thank you.
    The Chairman. By unanimous consent, we grant the gentleman 
one additional minute so he can yield to the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Brown. Will the gentleman yield to me?
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    Mr. Brown. Let me just add my support for the gentleman's 
amendment and to compliment the gentleman for his long and 
persistent effort to maintain a strong and improving program at 
CIESIN. Having worked with him in this effort over the years, 
past several years, I am aware of the many steps that CIESIN 
has taken to achieve a world class capability there. I think 
that while it has been uncomfortable sometimes to be forced to 
move in the direction that CIESIN has moved because of a cutoff 
of funding, in the long run the operation may emerge as a 
stronger and more effective organization, and I certainly will 
do everything I can to help the gentleman.
    The Chairman. The Chair is prepared to put the question--
oh, the gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just very briefly, I would like to go on record as 
supporting this amendment and supporting the Consortium for 
International Earth Science Information Network. I think 
they've done a marvelous job in the last two years of coming up 
to speed, and it's very important that they be allowed to 
continue their work and cooperate with NASA on a competitive 
basis.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Are there any further members that wish to be 
recognized?
    [No response.]
    If not, the Chair will put the question. Those in favor of 
the gentleman from--Mr. Barcia's amendment will say aye. Those 
opposed will say no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed 
to. Are there any further amendments?
    [No response.]
    Hearing none, the question is on the bill, H.R. 2043, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996, as amended. Those in favor will say aye. 
Those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the 
ayes have it. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, before putting the question, 
before moving to report the bill, I'd like to make a 
parliamentary inquiry. My staff keeps thrusting the rules of 
the committee in front of me and asking me to make certain 
inquiries about them. And I want to ask if the Chair's intent 
is not to insure that the provisions of Rule 21(b) with regard 
to report language not containing any matter which indicates a 
funding level more explicitly than the text of the bill, that 
will be observed in the process of preparing the report?
    The Chairman. Did the--in just a moment, after we have the 
gentleman's motion, I will, in fact, recognize Mr. 
Sensenbrenner for a motion that, pursuant to the rules, we'll 
permit us to go forward with the report in accordance with the 
rules.
    Mr. Brown. And let me--let me hasten to offer the motion, 
Mr. Chairman. I move that the committee report the bill, H.R. 
2043, as amended, to make technical and conforming amendments, 
prepare the legislative report, and that the chairman take all 
necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for 
consideration.
    The Chairman. The committee has heard the motion. Those in 
favor will say aye. Those opposed will say no. The ayes have 
it. The motion is agreed to. Without objection, the motion to 
reconsider is laid upon the table.
    Mr. Brown. And, Mr. Chairman, I further move that the 
Members have three legislative days to submit supplemental 
minority and additional views in which I will explain why I 
voted no.
    The Chairman. With objection--without objection.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I recognize Mr. Sensenbrenner for a motion.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee 
adopt as a part of the legislative report on H.R. 2043 the 
summary chart which the Members have before them.
    The Chairman. The question is on the motion of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin. Those in favor will say aye. Those 
opposed will say no. The motion is agreed to.
    [The Summary Chart follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, an inquiry? This is in sort of a 
parliamentary inquiry, if the Chair will indulge me. I've been 
looking at this chart for several days, and out of deference to 
my age and declining capabilities in terms of seeing, I wonder 
if we could have this chart put in a form which is slightly 
more readable for the older Members of the committee.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Either that or we'll come up with some 
technology that will allow--
    Mr. Brown. Use--use the computer technology to expand that 
slightly.
    The Chairman. That's not a bad idea, and as I say, maybe we 
can have some new technology that will get us by the burden.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move, pursuant to Clause 1, 
Rule 20, of the House of--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 H.R. 2043 or a similar Senate bill.
    The Chairman. The Chair--the committee has heard the 
motion. Those in favor will say aye. Those opposed will say no. 
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
    This concludes our Committee markup on the measure H.R. 
2043, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act, 
Fiscal Year 1996. The Chair declares the committee adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:08 p.m., the committee adjourned subject 
to the call of the Chair.]

    [Additional material follows:]