69–006

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–145

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

MAY 18, 1999.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on Science,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

MINORITY, DISSENTING, AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 1654]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.

1654) to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002, and for

other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended

do pass.

CONTENTS

Page

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 13

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 14

IV. Summary of Hearings ................................................................................. 15

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 23

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 26

VII. Sectional Analysis and Committee Views ................................................. 27

VIII. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 61

IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 62

X. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 63

XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 64

XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight .............................................................. 64

XII. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 64

XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 64

XV. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 64

XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported ....................... 64
2

XVII. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 66

XVIII. Minority Views ............................................................................................ 67

XIX. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup .................................................... 72

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; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Authorization Act of 1999’’.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Findings.

Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Subtitle A—Authorizations

Sec. 101. International Space Station.

Sec. 102. Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations.

Sec. 103. Science, Aeronautics, and Technology.

Sec. 104. Mission Support.

Sec. 105. Inspector General.

Sec. 106. Total authorization.

Sec. 107. Aviation systems capacity.

Subtitle B—Limitations and Special Authority

Sec. 121. Use of funds for construction.

Sec. 122. Availability of appropriated amounts.

Sec. 123. Reprogramming for construction of facilities.

Sec. 124. Limitation on obligation of unauthorized appropriations.

Sec. 125. Use of funds for scientific consultations or extraordinary expenses.

Sec. 126. Earth science limitation.

Sec. 127. Competitiveness and international cooperation.

Sec. 128. Trans-hab.

Sec. 129. Consolidated Space Operations Contract.

Sec. 130. Triana funding prohibition.

TITLE II—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Requirement for independent cost analysis.

Sec. 202. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 amendments.

Sec. 203. Commercial space goods and services.

Sec. 204. Cost effectiveness calculations.

Sec. 205. Foreign contract limitation.

Sec. 206. Authority to reduce or suspend contract payments based on substantial evidence of fraud.

Sec. 207. Space Shuttle upgrade study.

Sec. 208. Aero-space transportation technology integration.

Sec. 209. Definitions of commercial space policy terms.

Sec. 210. External tank opportunities study.

Sec. 211. Eligibility for awards.

Sec. 212. Notice.

Sec. 213. Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 amendments.

Sec. 214. Innovative technologies for human space flight.

Sec. 215. Life in the universe.

Sec. 216. Research on International Space Station.

Sec. 217. Remote sensing for agricultural and resource management.

Sec. 218. Integrated safety research plan.

Sec. 219. 100th anniversary of flight educational initiative.

Sec. 220. Internet availability of information.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

should continue to pursue actions and reforms directed at reducing institutional costs, including management restructuring, facility consolidation, procurement reform, and convergence with defense and commercial sector systems.

(2) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

must continue on its current course of returning to its proud

history as the Nation’s leader in basic scientific, air, and space

research.
3

(3) The overwhelming preponderance of the Federal Government’s requirements for routine, unmanned space transportation can be met most effectively, efficiently, and economically

by a free and competitive market in privately developed and

operated space transportation services.

(4) In formulating a national space transportation service

policy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

should aggressively promote the pursuit by commercial providers of development of advanced space transportation technologies including reusable space vehicles, and human space

systems.

(5) The Federal Government should invest in the types of research and innovative technology in which United States commercial providers do not invest, while avoiding competition

with the activities in which United States commercial providers do invest.

(6) 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—

(i) is undertaken in a manner that is sensitive to the desire of United

States commercial providers to develop or explore space commercially;

(ii) is consistent with the need for Federal agencies to use space to

complete their missions; and

(iii) is carried out in a manner consistent with United States export

control laws.

(7) 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.

(8) The Deep Space Network will continue to be a critically important part

of the Nation’s scientific and exploration infrastructure in the coming decades,

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should ensure that the

Network is adequately maintained and that upgrades required to support future

missions are undertaken in a timely manner.

(9) The Hubble Space Telescope has proven to be an important national astronomical research facility that is revolutionizing our understanding of the universe and should be kept productive, and its capabilities should be maintained

and enhanced as appropriate to serve as a scientific bridge to the next generation of space-based observatories.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act—

(1) the term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;

(2) the term ‘‘commercial provider’’ means any person providing space transportation services or other space-related activities, primary control of which is

held by persons other than Federal, State, local, and foreign governments;

(3) 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));

(4) the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several States of the Union, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any

other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and

(5) the term ‘‘United States commercial provider’’ means a commercial provider, organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is—

(A) more than 50 percent owned by United States nationals; or
4

(B) a subsidiary of a foreign company and the Secretary of Commerce

finds that—

(i) such subsidiary has in the past evidenced a substantial commitment to the United States market through—

(I) investments in the United States in long-term research, development, and manufacturing (including the manufacture of major

components and subassemblies); and

(II) significant contributions to employment in the United States;

and

(ii) the country or countries in which such foreign company is incorporated or organized, and, if appropriate, in which it principally conducts its business, affords reciprocal treatment to companies described

in subparagraph (A) comparable to that afforded to such foreign company’s subsidiary in the United States, as evidenced by—

(I) providing comparable opportunities for companies described in

subparagraph (A) to participate in Government sponsored research

and development similar to that authorized under this Act;

(II) providing no barriers to companies described in subparagraph (A) with respect to local investment opportunities that are

not provided to foreign companies in the United States; and

(III) providing adequate and effective protection for the intellectual property rights of companies described in subparagraph (A).

TITLE I—AUTHORIZATION OF

APPROPRIATIONS

Subtitle A—Authorizations

SEC. 101. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration for International Space Station—

(1) for fiscal year 2000, $2,482,700,000, of which $394,400,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)—

(A) shall only be for Space Station research or for the purposes described

in section 103(2); and

(B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences

and Applications;

(2) for fiscal year 2001, $2,328,000,000, of which $465,400,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)—

(A) shall only be for Space Station research or for the purposes described

in section 103(2); and

(B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences

and Applications; and

(3) for fiscal year 2002, $2,091,000,000, of which $469,200,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)—

(A) shall only be for Space Station research or for the purposes described

in section 103(2); and

(B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences

and Applications.

SEC. 102. LAUNCH VEHICLE AND PAYLOAD OPERATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration for Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations the following amounts:

(1) For Space Shuttle Operations—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,547,400,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,649,900,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,629,000,000.

(2) For Space Shuttle Safety and Performance Upgrades—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $456,800,000, of which $18,000,000 shall not be

obligated until 45 days after the report required by section 207 has been

submitted to the Congress;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $407,200,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $414,000,000.

(3) For Payload and Utilization Operations—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $169,100,000;
5

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $182,900,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $184,500,000.

SEC. 103. SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration for Science, Aeronautics, and Technology the following amounts:

(1) For Space Science— (A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,202,400,000, of which— (i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth Object Survey;

(ii) $472,000,000 shall be for the Research Program;

(iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar Power technology; and

(iv) $170,400,000 shall be for Hubble Space Telescope (Development);

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,315,200,000, of which—

(i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth Object Survey;

(ii) $475,800,000 shall be for the Research Program; and

(iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar Power technology; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,411,800,000, of which—

(i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth Object Survey;

(ii) $511,100,000 shall be for the Research Program;

(iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar Power technology; and

(iv) $5,000,000 shall be for space science data buy.

(2) For Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $333,600,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other

women’s health issues, and $5,000,000 shall be for sounding rocket vouchers;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $335,200,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other

women’s health issues; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $344,000,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other

women’s health issues.

(3) For Earth Science, subject to the limitations set forth in sections 126 and

130—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $1,382,500,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $1,413,300,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $1,365,300,000.

(4) For Aero-Space Technology—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $999,300,000, of which—

(i) $532,800,000 shall be for Aeronautical Research and Technology,

with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with

$412,800,000 to be for the Research and Technology Base;

(ii) $334,000,000 shall be for Advanced Space Transportation Technology, including—

(I) $61,300,000 for the Future-X Demonstration Program; and

(II) $105,600,000 for Advanced Space Transportation Program;

and

(iii) $132,500,000 shall be for Commercial Technology;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $908,400,000, of which—

(i) $524,000,000 shall be for Aeronautical Research and Technology,

with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with

$399,800,000 to be for the Research and Technology Base, and with

$54,200,000 to be for Aviation System Capacity;

(ii) $249,400,000 shall be for Advanced Space Transportation Technology, including—

(I) $109,000,000 for the Future-X Demonstration Program; and

(II) $134,400,000 for Advanced Space Transportation Program;

and

(iii) $135,000,000 shall be for Commercial Technology; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $994,800,000, of which—

(i) $519,200,000 shall be for Aeronautical Research and Technology,

with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with

$381,600,000 to be for the Research and Technology Base, and with

$67,600,000 to be for Aviation System Capacity;

(ii) $340,000,000 shall be for Advanced Space Transportation Technology; and

(iii) $135,600,000 shall be for Commercial Technology.

(5) For Mission Communication Services—
6

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $406,300,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $382,100,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $296,600,000.

(6) For Academic Programs— (A) for fiscal year 2000, $128,600,000, of which $11,600,000 shall be for

Higher Education within the Teacher/Faculty Preparation and Enhancement Programs, of which $20,000,000 shall be for the National Space Grant

College and Fellowship Program, and of which $62,100,000 shall be for minority university research and education, including $33,600,000 for Historically Black Colleges and Universities; (B) for fiscal year 2001, $128,600,000, of which $62,100,000 shall be for

minority university research and education, including $33,600,000 for Historically Black Colleges and Universities; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $130,600,000, of which $62,800,000 shall be for

minority university research and education, including $34,000,000 for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

(7) For Future Planning (Space Launch)—

(A) for fiscal year 2001, $144,000,000; and

(B) for fiscal year 2002, $280,000,000.

SEC. 104. MISSION SUPPORT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration for Mission Support the following amounts:

(1) For Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $43,000,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $45,000,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $49,000,000.

(2) For Space Communication Services—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $89,700,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $109,300,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $174,200,000.

(3) For Construction of Facilities, including land acquisition—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $181,000,000, including—

(i) Restore Electrical Distribution System (ARC), $2,700,000;

(ii) Rehabilitate Main Hangar Building 4802 (Dryden Flight Research

Center (DFRC)), $2,900,000;

(iii) Rehabilitate High Voltage System (Glenn Research Center),

$7,600,000;

(iv) Repair Site Steam Distribution System (GSFC), $2,900,000;

(v) Restore Chilled Water Distribution System (GSFC), $3,900,000;

(vi) Rehabilitate Hydrostatic Bearing Runner, 70 meter Antenna,

Goldstone (JPL), $1,700,000;

(vii) Upgrade 70 meter Antenna Servo Drive, 70 meter Antenna

Subnet (JPL), $3,400,000;

(viii) Rehabilitate Utility Tunnel Structure and Systems (Johnson

Space Center (JSC)), $5,600,000;

(ix) Connect KSC to CCAS Wastewater Treatment Plant (KSC),

$2,500,000;

(x) Repair and Modernize HVAC System, Central Instrument Facility

(KSC), $3,000,000;

(xi) Replace High Voltage Load Break Switches (KSC), $2,700,000;

(xii) Repair and Modernize HVAC and Electrical systems, Building

4201 (Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), $2,300,000;

(xiii) Repair Roofs, Vehicle Component Supply buildings (MAF),

$2,000,000;

(xiv) Minor Revitalization of Facilities at Various Locations, not in

excess of $1,500,000 per project, $65,500,000;

(xv) Minor Construction of New Facilities and Additions to Existing

Facilities at Various Locations, not in excess of $1,500,000 per project,

$5,000,000;

(xvi) Facility Planning and Design, $19,200,000;

(xvii) Deferred Major Maintenance, $8,000,000;

(xviii) Environmental Compliance and Restoration, $40,100,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $181,000,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $191,000,000.

(4) For Research and Program Management, including personnel and related

costs, travel, and research operations support—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,181,200,000;
7

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,195,000,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,261,600,000.

SEC. 105. INSPECTOR GENERAL.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration for Inspector General— (1) for fiscal year 2000, $22,000,000;

(2) for fiscal year 2001, $22,000,000; and

(3) for fiscal year 2002, $22,000,000.

SEC. 106. 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—

(1) for fiscal year 2000, $13,625,600,000;

(2) for fiscal year 2001, $13,747,100,000; and

(3) for fiscal year 2002, $13,839,400,000.

SEC. 107. AVIATION SYSTEMS CAPACITY.

In addition to amounts otherwise authorized, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration $5,000,000 for

fiscal year 2001 for aviation systems capacity.

Subtitle B—Limitations and Special Authority

SEC. 121. USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

(a) AUTHORIZED USES.—Funds appropriated under sections 101, 102, 103, and

104(1) and (2), and funds appropriated for research operations support under section

104(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.—No funds may be expended pursuant to subsection (a) for a

project, the estimated cost of which to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, including collateral equipment, exceeds $1,000,000, 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 for construction of facilities under

section 104(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 for construction of facilities

under section 104(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 construc-
8

tion, 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 104(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. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.— (1) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than—

(A) 30 days after the later of the date of the enactment of an Act making

appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for

fiscal year 2000 and the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(B) 30 days after the date of the enactment of an Act making appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year

2001 or 2002,

the Administrator shall submit a report to Congress and to the Comptroller

General.

(2) CONTENTS.—The reports required by paragraph (1) shall specify—

(A) 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

(B) the portion of such appropriations which are authorized under this

Act.

(b) FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE.—The Administrator shall, coincident with the submission of each 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 2000, 2001, or 2002 not authorized under this

Act until 30 days have passed after the close of the public comment period contained

in a notice required by subsection (b).

SEC. 125. USE OF FUNDS FOR SCIENTIFIC CONSULTATIONS OR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES.

Not more than $30,000 of the funds appropriated under section 103 may be used

for scientific consultations or extraordinary expenses, upon the authority of the Administrator.

SEC. 126. EARTH SCIENCE LIMITATION.

Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for Earth Science under section 103(3) for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, $50,000,000 shall be for the Commercial Remote Sensing Program at Stennis Space Center for commercial data purchases, unless the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has integrated data purchases into the procurement process for Earth science research by obligating at least

5 percent of the aggregate amount appropriated for that fiscal year for Earth Observing System and Earth Probes for the purchase of Earth science data from the

private sector.

SEC. 127. COMPETITIVENESS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

(a) LIMITATION.—As part of the evaluation of the costs and benefits of entering

into an obligation to conduct a space mission in which a foreign entity will participate as a supplier of the spacecraft, spacecraft system, or launch system, the Administrator shall solicit comment on the potential impact of such participation

through notice published in Commerce Business Daily at least 45 days before entering into such an obligation.

(b) NATIONAL INTERESTS.—Before entering into an obligation described in subsection (a), the Administrator shall consider the national interests of the United

States described in section 2(6).

SEC. 128. TRANS-HAB.

(a) REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE.—No funds authorized by this Act shall be obligated

for the definition, design, or development of an inflatable space structure to replace
9

any International Space Station components scheduled for launch in the Assembly

Sequence released by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on February 22, 1999.

(b) GENERAL LIMITATION.—No funds authorized by this Act for fiscal year 2000

shall be obligated for the definition, design, or development of an inflatable space

structure capable of accommodating humans in space.

SEC. 129. CONSOLIDATED SPACE OPERATIONS CONTRACT.

No funds authorized by this Act shall be used to create a Government-owned corporation to perform the functions that are the subject of the Consolidated Space Operations Contract.

SEC. 130. TRIANA FUNDING PROHIBITION.

None of the funds authorized by this Act may be used for the Triana program,

except that $2,500,000 of the amount authorized under section 103(3)(A) for fiscal

year 2000 shall be available for termination costs.

TITLE II—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS.

Before any funds may be obligated for Phase B of a project that is projected to

cost more than $100,000,000 in total project costs, the Chief Financial Officer for

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall conduct an independent

cost analysis of such project and shall report the results to Congress. 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. 202. 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 (f) and redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections (f) and (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’’.

SEC. 203. COMMERCIAL SPACE GOODS AND SERVICES.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall purchase commercially

available space goods and services to the fullest extent feasible, and shall not conduct activities that preclude or deter commercial space activities except for reasons

of national security or public safety. A space good or service shall be deemed commercially available if it is offered by a United States commercial provider, or if it

could be supplied by a United States commercial provider in response to a Government procurement request. For purposes of this section, a purchase is feasible if it

meets mission requirements in a cost-effective manner.

SEC. 204. COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS.

In calculating the cost effectiveness of the cost of the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration engaging in an activity as compared to a commercial provider,

the Administrator shall compare the cost of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration engaging in the activity using full cost accounting principles with the

price the commercial provider will charge for such activity.

SEC. 205. FOREIGN CONTRACT LIMITATION.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall not enter into any

agreement or contract with a foreign government that grants the foreign government the right to recover profit in the event that the agreement or contract is terminated.

SEC. 206. AUTHORITY TO REDUCE OR SUSPEND CONTRACT PAYMENTS BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.

Section 2307(i)(8) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘and (4)’’

and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘(4), and (6)’’.
10

SEC. 207. SPACE SHUTTLE UPGRADE STUDY.

(a) STUDY.—The Administrator shall enter into appropriate arrangements for the

conduct of an independent study to reassess the priority of all Phase III and Phase

IV Space Shuttle upgrades.

(b) PRIORITIES.—The study described in subsection (a) shall establish relative priorities of the upgrades within each of the following categories:

(1) Upgrades that are safety related.

(2) Upgrades that may have functional or technological applicability to reusable launch vehicles.

(3) Upgrades that have a payback period within the next 12 years.

(c) COMPLETION DATE.—The results of the study described in subsection (a) shall

be transmitted to the Congress not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 208. AERO-SPACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION.

(a) INTEGRATION PLAN.—The Administrator shall develop a plan for the integration of research, development, and experimental demonstration activities in the aeronautics transportation technology and space transportation technology areas. The

plan shall ensure that integration is accomplished without losing unique capabilities

which support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s defined missions. The plan shall also include appropriate strategies for using aeronautics centers in integration efforts.

(b) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a report containing the plan developed under subsection (a). The Administrator shall transmit to the

Congress annually thereafter for 5 years a report on progress in achieving such

plan, to be transmitted with the annual budget request.

SEC. 209. DEFINITIONS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE POLICY TERMS.

The Administrator shall ensure that the usage of terminology in National Aeronautics and Space Administration policies and programs is consistent with the following definitions:

(1) The term ‘‘commercialization’’ means the process of private entities conducting privatized space activities to expand their customer base beyond the

Federal Government to address existing or potential commercial markets, investing private resources to meet those commercial market requirements.

(2) The term ‘‘commercial purchase’’ means a purchase by the Federal Government of space goods and services at a market price from a private entity

which has invested private resources to meet commercial requirements.

(3) The term ‘‘commercial use of Federal assets’’ means the use by a service

contractor or other private entity of the capability of Federal assets to deliver

services to commercial customers, with or without putting private capital at

risk.

(4) The term ‘‘contract consolidation’’ means the combining of two or more

Government service contracts for related space activities into one larger Government service contract.

(5) The term ‘‘privatization’’ means the process of transferring—

(A) control and ownership of Federal space-related assets, along with the

responsibility for operating, maintaining, and upgrading those assets; or

(B) control and responsibility for space-related functions,

from the Federal Government to the private sector.

SEC. 210. EXTERNAL TANK OPPORTUNITIES STUDY.

(a) APPLICATIONS.—The Administrator shall enter into appropriate arrangements

for an independent study to identify, and evaluate the potential benefits and costs

of, the broadest possible range of commercial and scientific applications which are

enabled by the launch of Space Shuttle external tanks into Earth orbit and retention in space, including—

(1) the use of privately owned external tanks as a venue for commercial advertising on the ground, during ascent, and in Earth orbit, except that such

study shall not consider advertising that while in orbit is observable from the

ground with the unaided human eye;

(2) the use of external tanks to achieve scientific or technology demonstration

missions in Earth orbit, on the Moon, or elsewhere in space; and

(3) the use of external tanks as low-cost infrastructure in Earth orbit or on

the Moon, including as an augmentation to the International Space Station.

A final report on the results of such study shall be delivered to the Congress not

later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. Such report shall include

recommendations as to Government and industry-funded improvements to the exter-
11

nal tank which would maximize its cost-effectiveness for the scientific and commercial applications identified.

(b) REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS.—The Administrator shall conduct an internal agency study, based on the conclusions of the study required by subsection (a), of what—

(1) improvements to the current Space Shuttle external tank; and

(2) other in-space transportation or infrastructure capability developments,

would be required for the safe and economical use of the Space Shuttle external

tank for any or all of the applications identified by the study required by subsection

(a), a report on which shall be delivered to Congress not later than 45 days after

receipt of the final report required by subsection (a).

(c) CHANGES IN LAW OR POLICY.—Upon receipt of the final report required by subsection (a), the Administrator shall solicit comment from industry on what, if any,

changes in law or policy would be required to achieve the applications identified in

that final report. Not later than 90 days after receipt of such final report, the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress the comments received along with the

recommendations of the Administrator as to changes in law or policy that may be

required for those purposes.

SEC. 211. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall exclude from consideration for grant

agreements made by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after fiscal

year 1999 any person who received funds, other than those described in subsection

(b), appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1999, under a grant agreement

from any Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process, except as specifically authorized by this Act. 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 the receipt of Federal funds by

a person due to the membership of that person in a class specified by law for which

assistance is awarded to members of the class according to a formula provided by

law.

(c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘grant agreement’’ means

a legal instrument whose principal purpose is to transfer a thing of value to the

recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law

of the United States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or

barter) of property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government. Such term does not include a cooperative agreement (as such term is used

in section 6305 of title 31, United States Code) or a cooperative research and development agreement (as such term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the StevensonWydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).

SEC. 212. NOTICE.

(a) NOTICE OF REPROGRAMMING.—If any funds authorized by this Act are subject

to a reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided to the Appropriations

Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, notice of such action

shall concurrently be provided to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the

Senate.

(b) NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION.—The Administrator shall provide notice to the

Committees on Science and Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the

Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Appropriations of the

Senate, not later than 15 days before any major reorganization of any program,

project, or activity of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

SEC. 213. 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 ‘‘transsonic, 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

‘‘transsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic’’; and

(C) by striking ‘‘laboratory’’ in subsection (c) and inserting in lieu thereof

‘‘facility’’.

SEC. 214. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—In order to promote a ‘‘faster, cheaper, better’’

approach to the human exploration and development of space, the Administrator
12

shall establish a Human Space Flight Commercialization/Technology program of

ground-based and space-based research and development in innovative technologies.

(b) AWARDS.—At least 75 percent of the amount appropriated for the program established under subsection (a) for any fiscal year shall be awarded through broadly

distributed announcements of opportunity that solicit proposals from educational institutions, industry, nonprofit institutions, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, other Federal agencies, and other

interested organizations, and that allow partnerships among any combination of

those entities, with evaluation, prioritization, and recommendations made by external peer review panels.

(c) PLAN.—The Administrator shall include as part of the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration’s budget request to the Congress for fiscal year 2001 a

plan for the implementation of the program established under subsection (a).

SEC. 215. LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.

(a) REVIEW.—The Administrator shall enter into appropriate arrangements with

the National Academy of Sciences for the conduct of a review of—

(1) international efforts to determine the extent of life in the universe; and

(2) enhancements that can be made to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration’s efforts to determine the extent of life in the universe.

(b) ELEMENTS.—The review required by subsection (a) shall include—

(1) an assessment of the direction of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s astrobiology initiatives within the Origins program;

(2) an assessment of the direction of other initiatives carried out by entities

other than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to determine the

extent of life in the universe, including other Federal agencies, foreign space

agencies, and private groups such as the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence

Institute;

(3) recommendations about scientific and technological enhancements that

could be made to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s

astrobiology initiatives to effectively utilize the initiatives of the scientific and

technical communities; and

(4) recommendations for possible coordination or integration of National Aeronautics and Space Administration initiatives with initiatives of other entities

described in paragraph (2).

(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a report on the

results of the review carried out under this section.

SEC. 216. RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

(a) STUDY.—The Administrator shall enter into a contract with the National Research Council and the National Academy of Public Administration to jointly conduct a study of the status of life and microgravity research as it relates to the International Space Station. The study shall include—

(1) an assessment of the United States scientific community’s readiness to use

the International Space Station for life and microgravity research;

(2) an assessment of the current and projected factors limiting the United

States scientific community’s ability to maximize the research potential of the

International Space Station, including, but not limited to, the past and present

availability of resources in the life and microgravity research accounts within

the Office of Human Spaceflight and the Office of Life and Microgravity

Sciences and Applications, and the past, present, and projected access to space

of the scientific community; and

(3) recommendations for improving the United States scientific community’s

ability to maximize the research potential of the International Space Station,

including an assessment of the relative costs and benefits of—

(A) dedicating an annual mission of the Space Shuttle to life and microgravity research during assembly of the International Space Station; and

(B) maintaining the schedule for assembly in place at the time of enactment.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act,

the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the

Senate a report on the results of the study conducted under this section.

SEC. 217. REMOTE SENSING FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

The Administrator shall—

(1) consult with the Secretary of Agriculture to determine data product types

that are of use to farmers which can be remotely sensed from air or space;
13

(2) consider useful commercial data products related to agriculture as identified by the focused research program between the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration’s Stennis Space Center and the Department of Agriculture; and

(3) examine other data sources, including commercial sources, LightSAR,

RADARSAT I, and RADARSAT II, which can provide domestic and international agricultural information relating to crop conditions, fertilization and irrigation needs, pest infiltration, soil conditions, projected food, feed, and fiber

production, and other related subjects.

SEC. 218. INTEGRATED SAFETY RESEARCH PLAN.

(a) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than March 1, 2000, the Administrator and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall jointly prepare and transmit to the Congress an integrated civil aviation safety research and development

plan.

(b) CONTENTS.—The plan required by subsection (a) shall include—

(1) an identification of the respective research and development requirements,

roles, and responsibilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

and the Federal Aviation Administration;

(2) formal mechanisms for the timely sharing of information between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration, including a requirement that the FAA-NASA Coordinating Committee

established in 1980 meet at least twice a year; and

(3) procedures for increased communication and coordination between the

Federal Aviation Administration research advisory committee established under

section 44508 of title 49, United States Code, and the NASA Aeronautics and

Space Transportation Technology Advisory Committee, including a proposal for

greater cross-membership between those 2 advisory committees.

SEC. 219. 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF FLIGHT EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVE.

(a) EDUCATION CURRICULUM.—In recognition of the 100th anniversary of the first

powered flight, the Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary of Education,

shall develop and provide for the distribution, for use in the 2000–2001 academic

year and thereafter, of an age-appropriate educational curriculum, for use at the

kindergarten, elementary, and secondary levels, on the history of flight, the contribution of flight to global development in the 20th century, the practical benefits

of aeronautics and space flight to society, the scientific and mathematical principles

used in flight, and any other topics the Administrator considers appropriate. The

Administrator shall integrate into the educational curriculum plans for the development and flight of the Mars plane.

(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than May 1, 2000, the Administrator shall

transmit a report to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on activities undertaken pursuant to this section.

SEC. 220. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

The Administrator shall make available through the Internet home page of the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration the abstracts relating to all research grants and awards made with funds authorized by this Act. Nothing in this

section shall be construed to require or permit the release of any information prohibited by law or regulation from being released to the public.

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for fiscal

years 2000, 2001, and 2002 for the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. The requested levels for (1) High Performance

Computing and Communications (HPCC) and (2) Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) have been taken out of this bill

and will be dealt with in a separate, Committee-wide information

technology bill. H.R. 1654 contains the following authorizations:

$13,625,600,000 in FY2000; $13,747,100,000 in FY2001; and

$13,839,400,000 in FY2002.
14

By fiscal year: in millions of dollars—

2000 2001 2002

Original authorization ................................................................................. 13,800.0 13,958.2 14,057.0

Less HPCC/IT2 cut ...................................................................................... ¥174.4 ¥211.1 ¥217.6

H.R. 1654 authorization .............................................................................. 13,625.6 13,747.1 13,839.4

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created

in 1958 to help win the Cold War. In 1999, the agency finds itself

working with former Cold War adversaries and undertaking activities in new areas, such as environmental research. The end of the

Cold War and these changes in NASA’s mission have led to considerable budgetary instability during the 1990s. As late as 1992, projections of NASA’s annual budget had it rising to some $20 billion

by the year 2000. However, in 1996, the White House submitted a

request that cut NASA’s budget to $11.6 billion in the year 2000.

This year, the Administration’s FY2000 budget request cuts

NASA’s funding by $87 million from the FY1999 appropriated level

to $13.578 billion, before projecting a funding increase to $13.752

billion in FY2001 and a flat budget of $13.750 billion in FY2003

and beyond. H.R. 1654 addresses the need for stability by providing

NASA with a budget that grows by 1% annually (taking into account the funding levels for HPCC and IT2). Thus, H.R. 1654 is

necessary to provide the agency with the budget stability that it

needs to perform its research and development missions.

Besides its budget instability, NASA is now deeply involved in

the International Space Station. The Clinton Administration invited the Russians to join the program in 1993. Since then, the

Russians have consistently failed to live up to their obligations to

fund and construct up to half of the Station’s habitable volume.

Consequently, the estimated cost to complete the International

Space Station has risen from $17.4 billion to $24.7 billion. Moreover, NASA delayed the first element launch by a year and the

completion date has been delayed by more than two years. As important, the Administration has continually cut funding for the

International Space Station research activities, reducing the ability

of the U.S. scientific community to fully utilize the research potential of the International Space Station. H.R. 1654 restores some of

these budget cuts and contains measures to prevent additional

transfers from Station research to Station development. Thus, the

legislation is necessary to ensure that the International Space Station reaches its full scientific potential.

Finally, the bill makes investments in advanced space transportation technology that will accelerate the development of next-generation, low-cost launch vehicles. The health of U.S. government

and commercial space efforts depends entirely on its ability to reliably and affordably access space. That inability has been used in

the past to justify the use of foreign launch vehicles by U.S. commercial firms, indirectly resulting in the transfer of critical space

technology to potential military adversaries and current commercial competitors. H.R. 1654 will make such transfers less likely

when the investments it makes in space transportation begin to re-
15

sult in new space launch capabilities. Thus, H.R. 1654 is necessary

to improve the health of the U.S. aerospace industry that serves

U.S. civil and national security goals in space.

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held five formal authorization hearings during February and March of 1999 regarding

the Fiscal Year 2000 budget request for the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA).

FY2000 BUDGET REQUEST: THE SCIENCES AT NASA

On February 11, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held its first authorization hearing titled ‘‘FY2000 Budget

Request: The Sciences at NASA.’’ Witnesses included: Dr. Edward

Weiler, Associate Administrator for Space Science, NASA; Dr.

Ghassem Asrar, Associate Administrator for Earth Science, NASA;

Dr. Arnauld E. Nicogossian, Associate Administrator for Life and

Microgravity Sciences and Applications, NASA; and Dr. Claude

Canizares, Chairman of the National Research Council’s Space

Studies Board.

PURPOSE OF THE HEARING

The hearing was intended to profile NASA’s science programs in

the context of the FY2000 budget request. Testimony before the

Subcommittee focused on: (1) new initiatives in the offices of Space

Science, Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, and

Earth Science as laid out in the FY2000 budget; (2) an explanation

of problems occurring within Space Science, Life and Microgravity

Sciences and Applications, and Earth Science programs and

NASA’s plans for resolving them; (3) a summary of the manner in

which the offices of Space Science, Life and Microgravity Sciences

and Applications, and Earth Science and their priorities have

changed in response to the Government Performance and Results

Act; (4) a summary of NASA’s accomplishments during the past

year and those goals it hopes to achieve in FY2000; (5) a summary

of the Space Studies Board’s report ‘‘Supporting Research and Data

Analysis in NASA’s Science Programs’’; and (6) recommendations

about improving the management of research funds within NASA

to ensure that each individual mission’s potential to contribute to

our knowledge base is fully utilized.

KEY ISSUES

Dr. Edward Weiler, Associate Administrator for Space Science,

NASA, began his testimony by profiling several recent Space

Science highlights through the utilization of the Committee on

Science’s multimedia displays in the main hearing room. Visual

graphics were used to display photographs taken by the Hubble

Space Telescope of a collision between an elliptical galaxy and a

spiral galaxy. This phenomenon is of particular interest because of

the resulting birth of stars and the existence of a super-massive

black hole at the center of the galactic collision. Hubble Telescope

pictures were also displayed of the faintest and farthest objects

ever observed by humans. Additional images included Coronal
16

Mass Ejection Events, the Mars Polar Lander, Mars Climate Orbiter, the Mars Global Surveyor, and a new class of stars discovered by the Gamma Ray Observatory. Five new Space Science activities were identified in the President’s FY2000 budget request.

These programs included Mars Network communications capabilities, Mars Micromissions, Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks, Gossamer Spacecraft, and Next Decade Planning.

Dr. Arnauld E. Nicogossian, Associate Administrator for Life and

Microgravity Sciences and Applications, highlighted the major accomplishments of 1998: (1) the results of Neurolab to be presented

in April 1999 at the National Academy of Science’s Symposium on

the Decade of the Brain; (2) the findings discovered from the Mir

studies regarding bone mass loss; (3) research conducted on infectious diseases by the NASA ground-based bioreactor at the NASA/

NIH Center for Three-Dimensional Tissue Culture; and (4) work on

evaluating distant learning, consultation, and surgical training

technology for a potential virtual hospital. He testified that the

most important challenge facing Life and Microgravity Sciences

and Applications will be to develop and sustain their research community while resources are focused on the International Space Station (ISS).

Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Associate Administrator for Earth Science,

described several examples of science and application results within the Earth Science Enterprise’s Topical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), for the first time scientists can: (1) accurately measure precipitation over the global tropical ocean; (2) measure lightning strikes on a global scale; (3) record algae blooms in the world’s

oceans; and (4) bring this data to users such as farmers, fisheries,

and federal agencies by using the Internet. Dr. Asrar summarized

his testimony by stating that the Earth Science Enterprise balances funding across observation, research and data analyses, applications, and advanced satellite technology to ensure the nation

has the tools to answer scientific questions about the Earth.

Dr. Claude Canizares, Chairman of the National Research Council’s (NRC) Space Studies Board, focused his testimony on the

Space Studies Board’s report entitled ‘‘Supporting Research and

Data Analysis (R&DA) in NASA Science Programs.’’ The R&DA

portions of NASA science activities are very important to NASA’s

research and these program’s contributions include a wide range of

NASA science programs. The NRC recommends NASA’s science offices should use various means to improve their overview of R&DA

activities, periodically evaluate their efficiency, and to seek a balance among them. Dr. Canizares concluded his testimony by stating that the Space Studies Board has consistently held that the

best way to assure high quality research at NASA is to: (1) rely

heavily on the peer review process; and (2) keep the authority for

primary science allocation decisions at NASA Headquarters.

FY2000 BUDGET REQUEST: NASA POSTURE

On February 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held its second authorization hearing titled ‘‘FY2000 Budget Request: NASA Posture.’’ NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin

testified regarding the Fiscal Year 2000 NASA budget request.
17

PURPOSE OF HEARING

The objectives for NASA as laid out by the National Aeronautics

and Space Act of 1958 include: expansion of human knowledge; improvement of aeronautical and space vehicles; development of vehicles to travel through space; sharing of knowledge between military

and civilian space communities; international cooperation; and the

preservation of the United States’ role as a leader in aeronautics,

space science, and technology. The Subcommittee on Space and

Aeronautics is responsible for overseeing and authorizing appropriations for all the activities within NASA. The purpose of this

hearing was to receive testimony from the Administrator regarding

the President’s fiscal year 2000 budget request for the agency.

KEY ISSUES

Administrator Goldin testified that the FY2000 budget request of

$13.578 billion will give America a robust space and aeronautics

program. Using the Science Committee’s multimedia displays in

the Committee’s main hearing room, Mr. Goldin’s testimony focused on: (1) the launch of the first two elements of the International Space Station (ISS), the Functional Cargo Block (FGB)

and the Unity node; (2) Space Science highlights included, the

Lunar Prospector, Deep Space 1, the Stardust mission, and the

Chandra observatory; (3) Earth Science highlights included,

Landsat 7, Quikscat, and Pathfinder programs; (4) the current status of the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program’s flagship X–33

project; and (5) information on ISS’s impact on other programs. Mr.

Goldin then continued his testimony with NASA’s future plans.

These plans include: (1) an intelligent synthesis environment at

NASA for research and development; (2) future experiments aboard

ISS once it is completed; (3) a virtual presence throughout the solar

system with a fleet of ever-smaller robotic spacecraft; (4) the Next

Generation Space Telescope; (5) an Interplanetary Internet; (6) future Earth Science programs to help better understand our planet;

(7) developing aeronautical technology to help reduce fatal aircraft

accident rates by a factor of five in 10 years and by a factor of ten

in 20 years; (8) the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology program to

reduce fuel consumption and improve performance; and (9) using

the X–34 vehicle to test scramjet technology at speeds up to Mach

10. The NASA Administrator summarized his testimony by explaining that because NASA doesn’t think small and plans for the

long term, the agency’s budget is an investment in the next millennium.

FY2000 BUDGET REQUEST: HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

On February 25, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held its third authorization hearing titled ‘‘FY2000 Budget

Request: Human Space Flight.’’ Witnesses included: Mr. Joe

Rothenberg, Associate Administrator, Office of Space Flight, NASA;

Mr. Richard D. Blomberg, Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory

Panel; Dr. James D. Richardson, Study Director, Potomac Institute

for Policy Studies; and Ms. Marcia Smith, Specialist in Aerospace

and Telecommunications Policy, Congressional Research Service.
18

PURPOSE OF HEARING

The hearing was intended to profile NASA’s Human Space Flight

program in the context of the FY2000 budget request. Testimony

before the Subcommittee focused on: (1) funding requirements for

the International Space Station (ISS) in FY2000 and beyond; (2)

management challenges in terms of Russia’s continuing failures to

honor its obligations to the ISS partnership; (3) NASA’s plans to

commercialize ISS; (4) the steps NASA is taking to ensure that life

and microgravity science opportunities are maximized during ISS

assembly; (5) the development status of ISS; (6) the prospect for additional changes to the design of ISS through the end of the program; (7) the status and progress of Shuttle upgrade efforts; (8)

changes in the Shuttle workforce composition, including past and

anticipated workforce reductions; (9) the impact on the Shuttle

launch schedule of any additional delays in or changes to ISS assembly sequence; and (10) the status of phase 4 upgrades to the

Space Shuttle.

KEY ISSUES

Mr. Joe Rothenberg, Associate Administrator, Office of Space

Flight, NASA, testified that with the exception of Russia, the International Space Station’s (ISS) partners are delivering their hardware on time. Mr. Rothenberg reported that he has taken management steps to control the annual costs as well as the total cost of

ISS. These included: (1) establishment and budgeting for a more realistic development and assembly complete schedule; and (2) a

Headquarters Center Contractor Cost Management Team which

has weekly insight into prime contractor costs. He assured the Subcommittee that rephasing of the research facility developments has

not cut the research and analysis portion of the budget and the

higher priority facilities, human research, biotechnology, and gravitational biology facilities have been maintained. In order to provide

more research opportunities during assembly Mr. Rothenberg reported that he is reviewing the Space Shuttle manifest and they

have added STS–107 as a dedicated research flight. Mr.

Rothenberg also reported on the accomplishments and status of the

Space Shuttle fleet including: (1) five successful Space Shuttle

flights in 1998; and (2) the super light weight external tank and

the new SSME Block II engine have increased the Space Shuttle’s

performance.

Mr. Richard D. Blomberg, Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory

Panel, summarized the activities of the Aerospace Safety Advisory

Panel. Mr. Blomberg reported that the panel believes that safety

in the short term is well served but raised concerns about the future. These concerns included: (1) scheduled staff reductions will

affect the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS)

programs unless retiring experienced personnel are replaced with

adequately trained staff; (2) the Space Shuttle and ISS are hampered by a dearth of physical resources with which to meet contingencies; (3) the Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) project lacks sufficient operational assets to meet unplanned contingencies (EVA

crews should be provided with additional radiation and meteoroid

shielding, and a better understanding of Russian EVA training pro-
19

cedures and protocols is needed); (4) Space Shuttle and ISS hardware are largely obsolete but not unsafe (newer technology would

likely significantly reduce safety risks); and (5) new General Purpose Computers (GPC) are needed for the Space Shuttle fleet because the existing devices are outmoded and not upgradable.

Dr. James D. Richardson, Study Director, Potomac Institute for

Policy Studies, summarized the Potomac Institute’s study on commercialization of the International Space Station which was completed in early 1997. The study found that commercialization of

human orbital space could yield significant benefits. He reported

that the benefits to NASA’s mission of commercialization include:

(1) better and more affordable space assets; (2) increased utilization

of the Space Shuttle, the ISS, and any future RLVs; (3) release of

NASA’s resources for applications to new science frontiers; (4) leveraged private investment; (5) improved innovation and importation of commercial technology to space endeavors; and (6) increased

public support for space operations. The national benefits of commercialization were listed as: (1) enhancement of U.S. industry

competitiveness; (2) spin-offs of new technologies to non-space industries; and, finally, (3) national prestige. Opportunities for spacebased commercial ventures involved privatization of government

functions of the ISS, commercial research ventures including biomedicine and materials, and near-term commercial opportunities in

education, entertainment, and advertisement. Major problems with

commercialization ventures were cited as high launch and operations costs, low flight frequency, long lead times for launch, and

expensive indemnification against flight failure. The Potomac Institute’s study concluded that a strategy of privatization to commercialization is a logical means of achieving NASA’s goals.

Ms. Marcia Smith, Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, Congressional Research Service, testified that the

Space Station program, as it began in 1984, was originally estimated to cost $8 billion. That program was terminated in 1993 and

replaced with the International Space Station (ISS) program at an

estimated cost of $17.4 billion. However since 1998, that estimate

has risen to between $23.4 billion and $26 billion depending on

whether assembly can be completed by June 2004 or October 2005.

The original completion date was June 2002. The major components of the ISS cost increases include: (1) the Crew Return Vehicle

(CRV) at a cost of $1.04 billion; (2) Russian program assurance, for

which NASA has added $800 million; (3) extra funding to cover

U.S. cost overruns, an example of which was Boeing’s cost overrun

of $828 million; (4) additional cash payments to Russia, including

a $200 million transfer to Russia for ISS cooperation; and, (5) an

estimated $3 billion in costs associated with schedule slips. Ms.

Smith identified two enacted policies that could have increased

costs. The first was the requirement to build the ISS with a flat

budget of $2.1 billion per year and second came the decision to

place the Russians in the critical path of the program. Ms. Smith

concluded her testimony by suggesting that a council on ISS and

commercialization be established to address three fundamental

issues: (1) what is meant by commercialization and privatization;

(2) what goals commercialization or privatization are expected to

meet and how they will be measured; and (3) do all the inter-
20

national partners need to agree on the above or can the answer be

different for each one?

FY2000 BUDGET REQUEST: AERO-SPACE TECHNOLOGY

On March 3, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

held its fourth authorization hearing titled ‘‘FY2000 Budget Request: Aero-Space Technology.’’ Witnesses included: Mr. Sam Armstrong, Associate Administrator, Office of Aero-Space Technology,

NASA and Mr. Gary Payton, Deputy Associate Administrator

(Space Transportation Technology), Office of Aero-Space Technology, NASA.

PURPOSE OF HEARING

The hearing was intended to examine NASA’s Aero-Space Technology Enterprise in the context of the FY2000 budget request.

Testimony before the Subcommittee focused on: (1) NASA’s role in

the Administration’s Aviation Safety Initiative; (2) progress made

on the initiative’s goals to date; (3) the Administration’s termination of NASA’s High Speed Research program and the Advanced

Subsonic Technology program, and the implications these cancellations have for the future of aeronautical research at NASA; (4)

NASA’s three new focused programs in aeronautics, and the rationale for their initiation; (5) the status of, plans, and funding requirements for NASA’s current space transportation technology programs, including X–33 and X–34; (6) the status of, plans, and funding requirements for Future-X; (7) the role of the Advanced Space

Transportation Program as a wellspring of technology for government and commercial application; (8) current plans regarding

NASA support for the commercial space transportation industry,

including VentureStar; and, (9) current plans regarding NASA support for the Department of Defense, including the Military Space

Plane initiative.

KEY ISSUES

Mr. Sam Armstrong, Associate Administrator, Office of AeroSpace Technology, NASA, used the Science Committee’s multimedia displays to highlight the accomplishments of the Office of

Aero-Space Technology. These accomplishments included: (1) the

unmanned Pathfinder aircraft’s record flight to 80,000 feet; (2) high

speed flight research conducted on the TU–144 Russian Supersonic

Transport; (3) improved airport ground handling and taxi instructions for aircraft; (4) development of a laser radar used to detect

clear air turbulence; (5) the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology program; (6) synthetic vision; and (7) the X–34 hypersonic test vehicle.

Mr. Gary Payton, Deputy Associate Administrator (Space Transportation Technology), Office of Aero-Space Technology, NASA, testified that the X–34 hypersonic test vehicle was currently undergoing testing at Dryden Flight Research Center. The Reusable

Launch Vehicle (RLV) program’s X–33 launch site at Edwards AFB

has been completed ahead of schedule and below cost. The X–33

itself is still in a state of assembly and its aerospike engine is running six months behind schedule. Problems with the composite liquid hydrogen tank have forced the first flight to move to the sum-
21

mer of 2000. Mr. Payton further testified that the X–37 has been

selected as the first of the Future-X programs. NASA plans to fly

the X–37 in a Space Shuttle orbiter, deploy the vehicle for 2 to 3

days on orbit, and have it return to Earth under its own command.

Additionally, recent ground tests of the rocket-based combined

cycle engine have produced results that may potentially lead to a

more cost-effective launch system. Mr. Payton summarized his testimony by stating that the main objective of the Office of AeroSpace Technology is to dramatically decrease the cost of space access.

FY2000 BUDGET REQUEST: REGULATIONS AND OPERATIONS

On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

held its fifth and final authorization hearing titled ‘‘FY2000 Budget

Request: Regulations and Operations.’’ Witnesses included Mr.

Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director, Office of Space Commercialization, Technology Administration, Department of Commerce; Ms.

Patti Grace Smith, Associate Administrator, Office of Commercial

Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation; Mr. Bruce L. Mahone, Director, Office of

Space Policy, Aerospace Industries Association; and Mr. Joseph

Rothenberg, Associate Administrator, Office of Human Space

Flight, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

PURPOSE OF HEARING

The hearing was intended to examine the space communications

activities within NASA, regulatory activities at the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, and promotion of commercial space

within the Office of Space Commercialization. All of these were reviewed within the context of the President’s FY2000 budget request. Testimony before the Subcommittee focused on: (1) the Office of Space Commercialization’s progress and plans for promoting

the U.S. commercial space sector; (2) the role of the Office of Space

Commercialization in dealing with commercial remote sensing,

communications satellite export licenses, and related issues; (3) the

problems and challenges facing the U.S. commercial space sector

which may require changes in program funding, policy, legislation,

or international agreements; (4) an assessment of the U.S. commercial launch industry’s state of health and share of the world market; (5) an assessment of the U.S. commercial satellite industry’s

state of health and share of the world market, particularly as it applies to commercial remote sensing; (6) the projected trends in the

U.S. share of the world market for the industries listed above; (7)

any suggested regulatory or legislative actions to help preserve the

U.S. share of the world market for these industries; (8) a brief overview of the Consolidated Space Operations Contract (CSOC) and

the Space Operations Management Office (SOMO); (9) comparing

savings levels anticipated from CSOC prior to the contract award

with currently predicted levels of savings; (10) identifying any barriers to the commercialization of SOMO activities which require

legislative action to correct; (11) highlighting current regulatory activity within the Office of Commercial Space Transportation; (12)

identifying any aspects of commercial space launch which are inhibited by the existence, or lack of, appropriate regulations; (13)
22

specifying required legislative action which would enable such barriers to be removed; and (14) a summary of the manner in which

the different office’s programs and priorities have changed in response to the Government Performance and Results Act.

KEY ISSUES

Mr. Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director, Office of Space Commercialization, Technology Administration, Department of Commerce,

testified that the Office of Space Commercialization conducts activities in four primary areas: (1) policy development; (2) market analysis; (3) international discussions and export promotion; and (4)

outreach and education. Mr. Calhoun-Senghor further testified that

the Office of Space Commercialization has had a major role in the

following achievements in the last year: (1) passage of the Commercial Space Act of 1998; (2) the Administration’s decision to add two

additional signals to GPS; (3) the establishment of the Remote

Sensing Interagency Working Group; and (4) progress towards the

development of new proposals to stimulate private sector investment in new space transportation systems. The Office has begun

a study of space technologies that are likely to have a significant

impact on the commercial market in the coming century. Mr. Calhoun-Senghor reported that within the next 10 years, 1,700 satellites will be launched worldwide, and the space industry will experience a growth of a least 20 percent a year, adding as many as

70,000 new high-technology jobs.

Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Associate Administrator, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,

Department of Transportation began her testimony by thanking

the Committee on Science for passage of the Commercial Space Act

of 1998 (P.L. 105–303). Ms. Smith reported that the current regulatory activities of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation

included: (1) a rule addressing the licensing requirements for

launches from federal ranges; (2) a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) regarding licensing requirements for operations of launch

sites; and, (3) an NPRM for licensing Reusable Launch Vehicles

(RLVs) and reentry vehicles. OCST considers extension of the

launch indemnification legislation the most desired legislation at

this time. Ms. Smith further testified that the U.S. launch market

now includes 47 percent of the world market. Launch revenues

topped $1.1 billion in 1998. The key to the U.S. success has been

the high number of commercial launches to Low Earth Orbit (LEO)

over the past two years.

Mr. Bruce L. Mahone, Director, Office of Space Policy, Aerospace

Industries Association, also testified that the U.S. has nearly 50

percent of the market share for launches. He noted that this percentage did not represent a majority share in actual dollar

amounts. Mr. Mahone estimated that with new heavy-lift launch

vehicles coming on line in the next few years, the U.S. would gain

back much of the heavy lift business and a larger share of the dollar value of the world market. Several areas of concern included:

(1) long-term renewal of the indemnification provisions of the Commercial Space Launch Act; (2) national launch range modernization; and (3) the need for an export control regime in which the
23

U.S. industry can export space hardware quickly but maintain U.S.

national security.

Mr. Joseph Rothenberg, Associate Administrator, Office of

Human Space Flight, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, related his dedication to motivating the Consolidated Space

Operations Contract (CSOC) team to ensure that NASA takes full

advantage of the available commercial communications and operations infrastructure. The Space Office and Management Office

(SOMO) was established in 1995 to address the growing cost of

NASA’s space operations. Mr. Rothenberg reported that the solution to cost growth included: (1) the need to downsize the workforce

and shift the NASA civil service personnel from operations into

R&D; (2) ensure the agency is buying available commercial services

in support of operations; (3) take advantage of continued advances

in technology to reduce operations costs; and, (4) to turn routine

space operations over to the contractors. CSOC has had some difficulties with start-up but NASA continues to estimate that a savings of $1.4 billion will be realized over the 10 year life of the contract. Mr. Rothenberg concluded his testimony by detailing the responsibilities of the SOMO Board of Directors. The directors consist

of representatives from SOMO, Space Science, Earth Science, and

Human Space Flight. Their mission is to ensure the needs of the

user community are being met by both SOMO and CSOC contractors.

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

The Committee met on May 13, 1999, to mark up the bill H.R.

1654, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of

1999. The bill was introduced on May 3, 1999 by Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher. Original cosponsors

included Science Committee Ranking Member Brown, Space and

Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Member Gordon, Mr. Weldon

of Florida, Mr. Cook, Mr. Nethercutt, and Mr. Etheridge. Amendments to the bill were offered in the following order:

1. En bloc amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher to make technical corrections to the Aeronautics Research and Technology Base

funding levels and to require a study by the National Academy of

Sciences to review NASA’s efforts and outside entities’ efforts to determine the extent of life in the universe. Adopted by voice vote.

2. Amendment to restore funding for the HPCC and IT2 Programs offered by Mr. Gordon to restore the funding for HPCC and

IT2 in Space Science, Earth Science, and Aero-Space Technology.

Amendment was withdrawn.

3. Amendment on National Space Grant College and Fellowship

Program offered by Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Udall to increase by

$15.9 million the overall funding level for Academic Programs in

FY2000, from $128.6 million to $144.5 million and designate $25

million for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program. Amendment was withdrawn.

4. Amendment on National Space Grant College and Fellowship

Program offered by Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Miller of California, and

Mr. Udall to increase the funding for the National Space Grant

College and Fellowship Program in fiscal year 2000 from the request level of $13.5 million to $20 million. This amendment did not
24

increase the overall funding of Academics Programs. Adopted by a

voice vote.

5. Amendment on Historically Black Colleges and Universities offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee to designate Minority University Research and Education at $62.1 million in fiscal years 2000 and

2001 and $62.8 million in fiscal year 2002. Within this program,

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) is authorized

at $33.6 million in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 and $34 million in

fiscal year 2002. Adopted by a voice vote.

6. Amendment to promote commercialization of the International

Space Station (ISS) offered by Mr. Cook to direct the NASA Administrator to allocate resources towards encouraging commercial participation in ISS, have his staff consider how their decisions on

policies and program priorities will impact commercial participation in the ISS, and publish an annual list of opportunities for commercial participation in ISS. Amendment was withdrawn.

7. Amendment to conduct a study of the status of life and microgravity research as it relates to the International Space Station offered by Mr. Nethercutt to direct the National Academy of Sciences

and National Academy of Public Administration to review readiness of the life and microgravity science community to maximize

the scientific potential of the Space Station, identify limitations of

the community’s readiness for ISS, and study costs and benefits of

planning an annual dedicated life and microgravity Shuttle mission

during ISS assembly. Adopted by a voice vote.

8. Amendment on Remote Sensing for Agricultural and Resource

Management offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan to direct NASA to

consult with the Secretary of Agriculture to determine types of satellite data which can be useful for agricultural planning and identify commercial remote sensing products which provide such data.

Adopted by a voice vote.

9. Amendment on Remote Sensing for Agricultural and Resource

Management-Information Development offered by Mr. Smith of

Michigan to direct NASA to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture to determine types of satellite data which can be useful for

agricultural planning and identify commercial remote sensing products which provide such data. The amendment directs NASA to develop a plan to inform farmers and other prospective users of these

products. Amendment was withdrawn.

10. Amendment on Integrated Safety Research Plan offered by

Mr. Gutknecht requiring NASA and the FAA jointly prepare and

transmit to Congress an integrated civil aviation safety R&D plan

that defines the roles and responsibilities of each agency, requires

the timely sharing of critical information, and recommends procedures to increase the communication between the agencies’ industry advisory committees. Adopted by a voice vote.

11. Amendment on the 100th Anniversary of Flight Educational

Initiative offered by Mr. Etheridge to instruct the NASA Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary of Education, to develop

an educational curriculum in recognition of the 100th anniversary

of the first powered flight. Adopted by a voice vote.

12. Amendment on Internet Availability of Information offered by

Ms. Biggert requiring the NASA Administrator to post on NASA’s
25

Internet home page, the abstracts of research grants and awards

funded by the agency. Adopted by a voice vote.

13. Amendment to terminate Triana offered by Mr. Weldon of

Florida and Mr. Nethercutt to cancel the Triana satellite, transfer

the Triana funding of $32.6 million to Life and Microgravity

Sciences and Applications, and provide $2.5 million for termination

costs. Adopted by a roll call vote: yea—21 to nay—18.

14. Amendment to terminate the International Space Station (ISS) offered by Mr. Sanford to terminate the ISS and provide $500

million for termination costs. Amendment was defeated by voice

vote and then withdrawn.

15. Amendment to remove limitation on funding for Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) offered by Mr. Larson to remove

the limitation on funding for the UEET, a new focused program,

in the Office of Aero-Space Technology. Amendment was withdrawn.

16. Amendment on aircraft noise reduction technology offered by

Mr. Weiner to provide additional funding for aircraft noise reduction from within the Aeronautical Research and Technology Base

for FY2000–2002. Amendment was defeated by a roll call vote:

yea—17 to nay—17.

17. Amendment to strike Earth Science program limitation to re- move the requirement for NASA to spend $50 million for the commercial purchase of Earth science data unless 5 percent of the

funding for the Earth Observing System and Earth Probes is allocated to commercial data purchases. Mr. Gordon moved to strike

the last word to explain that Mr. Brown had intended to offer the

amendment and asked that Mr. Brown’s comments be made a part

of the record. Amendment was not offered.

18. Amendment to amend the Trans-Hab section offered by Mr.

Lampson to alter the prohibition on funding for Trans-Hab. The

amendment prohibits funding for an inflatable structure (1) to replace any Space Station component or (2) that would otherwise accommodate humans in space; until NASA produces a report.

Amendment was withdrawn.

19. Report Language on Photonics Research offered by Mr.

Capuano to encourage NASA to continue, and seek additional partnerships that merge competitively awarded academic research and

corporate development in a way that strengthens and accelerates

the photonics product development process to directly contribute to

NASA’s defined four strategic enterprises. Agreed to by a voice

vote.

Mr. Rohrabacher moved that the Committee report the bill, H.R.

1654, as amended, to the House, that the staff prepare the legislative report and make technical and conforming changes, and that

the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the

House for consideration. The motion was adopted by roll call vote,

27–13.

The Chairman noted that Committee Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental, minority, or

additional views on the measure. The Chairman asked and received unanimous consent to report the bill in the form of a single

amendment in the nature of a substitute reflecting amendments

adopted during the markup and that, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule
26

XXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 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. 1654.

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

• Authorizes appropriations for all NASA programs for FY2000–

2002;

• Authorizes the International Space Station at the requested

levels for each of the three years;

• Authorizes at the requested levels, Space Shuttle Operations,

Payload and Utilization Operations, Mission Communication Services, Research and Program Management, and Space Communication Services;

• Does not provide funding for High Performance Computing and

Communications and Information Technology for the 21st Century

so that these programs can be authorized in separate Committeewide information technology legislation;

• Provides increases for Space Shuttle upgrades, education, advanced space transportation technology, space science, life and

microgravity research, and the NASA Inspector General;

• Prohibits funding for the Triana satellite;

• Provides $50 million in FY2000 and FY2001 for commercial

Earth science data buys unless NASA demonstrates that it has incorporated commercial data buys into its procurement process;

• Requires NASA to consider the impact on U.S. industry of a

foreign entity providing part of a space mission;

• Prohibits funding for Trans-Hab, an inflatable structure that is

being reviewed by NASA as a potential replacement for the Space

Station’s habitation module;

• Prohibits funding for creation of a government-owned corporation to perform the functions of the Consolidated Space Operations

Contract;

• Requires NASA’s Chief Financial Officer to conduct an independent cost analysis for projects that are expected to cost more

than $100 million before any funds may be obligated for Phase B

work;

• Requires NASA to purchase commercially available space

goods and services to the fullest extent feasible and not to compete

with the private sector;

• Requires an independent study to prioritize Phase III and

Phase IV upgrades within 3 separate categories: safety, applicability to reusable launch vehicles, and those that have a payback period within twelve years;

• Requires NASA to develop a plan for integration of R&D and

experimental demonstration activities for aeronautics and space

transportation technology;

• Defines commercial space policy terms;

• Requires an independent study to identify and evaluate the

benefits and costs of the broadest possible range of commercial and

scientific applications of the Space Shuttle’s external tanks;

• Requires NASA to establish a human space flight commercialization/technology program of ground-based and space-based

R&D in innovative technologies;
27

• Requires a review from the National Academy of Sciences on

international efforts to determine the extent of life in the universe,

enhancements that can be made to NASA’s efforts to determine the

extent of life in the universe, and recommendations on possible coordination/integration of NASA’s initiatives with those of outside

entities;

• Requires a study from the National Research Council and the

National Academy of Public Administration on the readiness of the

life and microgravity research community to use the International

Space Station, limitations the life and microgravity scientists face

in using the Station, and the costs and benefits of planning an annual dedicated life and microgravity Shuttle mission during Station

assembly;

• Requires NASA to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture to

determine commercial remote sensing data products that are useful

to farmers;

• Requires a joint plan on civil aviation safety research and development from NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration;

• Requires NASA to develop an educational curriculum on the

history of flight in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the first

powered flight; and

• Requires NASA to post abstracts from NASA-funded research

grants and awards to its Internet home page.

VII. SECTIONAL ANALYSIS AND COMMITTEE VIEWS

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Act may be referred to as the ‘‘National Aeronautics and

Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999.’’

SECTION 2. FINDINGS

The Congress finds that: NASA should continue to pursue actions and reforms to reduce institutional costs; NASA must continue on its current course of returning to its role as the nation’s

leader in basic scientific, air, and space research; a free and competitive market in privately developed and operated space transportation is important to fulfilling the majority of the federal government’s requirements; NASA should promote the commercial

providers’ pursuit of development of advanced space transportation

technologies; the federal government should invest in the types of

research and innovative technology in which U.S. commercial providers do not invest, while avoiding competition with activities in

which commercial providers do invest; international cooperation in

space exploration and science should be pursued when it satisfies

particular conditions; NASA and DoD can reduce the cost of space

missions by more effectively leveraging their mutual capabilities;

the Deep Space Network will continue to be a critically important

part of the nation’s scientific and exploration infrastructure and

NASA should ensure it is adequately maintained and upgraded;

and the Hubble Space Telescope is an important national astronomical research facility that should be maintained and enhanced

as appropriate to serve as a scientific bridge to the next generation

of space-based observatories.
28

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 contained in section 1201(a) of the

Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)). ‘‘Commercial

provider’’ refers to individuals providing space-related services or

activities whose organization is not under the primary control of

federal, state, local, and foreign governments. ‘‘State’’ refers to the

States of the Union, the District of Columbia, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. ‘‘United

States commercial provider’’ refers to a commercial provider which

is more than fifty percent owned by U.S. nationals or a subsidiary

of a foreign company and the Secretary of Commerce makes particular findings about the subsidiary and the foreign country in

which the company is incorporated or organized.

TITLE I—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATIONS

SECTION 101. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

In FY2000 $2,482,700,000 are authorized of which $394,400,000

shall only be for Space Station research or for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications. The fenced amount is to be administered by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications. In FY2001 $2,328,000,000 are authorized of which

$465,400,000 shall only be for Space Station research or for Life

and Microgravity Sciences and Applications. The fenced amount is

to be administered by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences

and Applications. In FY2002 $2,091,000,000 are authorized of

which $469,200,000 shall only be for Space Station research or for

Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications. The fenced

amount is to be administered by the Office of Life and Microgravity

Sciences and Applications.

Committee views

The International Space Station (ISS) is the centerpiece of

NASA’s Human Exploration and Development of Space (HEDS)

strategic enterprise. An international partnership involving over a

dozen countries, the ISS possesses the potential to enable revolutionary discoveries in a variety of scientific disciplines by fully exploiting the unique environment of microgravity.

While NASA has been working on a space station involving international partners since 1984, the current configuration was established during 1993 and 1994, when the Clinton Administration decided to invite Russia to participate in the program. At the time,

Congress raised concerns about placing Russia in the program’s

critical path and the Administration committed that the United

States would have an independent capability to design, develop, assemble, and operate the station regardless of Russia’s role. Initially, the first element, the U.S.-financed, Russian-built Functional
29

Cargo Block (FGB) was scheduled for launch in November 1997.

ISS was to be completed by June 2002, operate at its full science

capacity for ten years, and cost $17.4 billion between FY1994 and

June 2002 with annual operating costs of $1.3 billion thereafter.

Unfortunately, since late 1995, the Russian government has

failed to provide adequate or timely funding to the Russian Space

Agency so that it can meet its obligations to provide hardware to

the program. Additionally, the Administration did not honor its

commitment to Congress to design and build a space station capable of being built independently of the Russians. NASA and its

partners are dependent on RSA for propulsion, early command and

control, life support, reboost, and assured crew return. NASA also

depends on Russia for long-term logistics support to the ISS. As a

result, Russia is deeply embedded in the critical path and passes

all of its problems on to its other partners. Largely due to the Administration’s failure to honor its commitment to the Congress and

Russia’s failure to meet its obligations to the ISS, the program’s development cost has risen from $17.4 billion to at least $24.7 billion,

according to an outside audit conducted in 1998 at the request of

Congress. (Internal NASA documents attribute $5 billion of this

cost growth to difficulties caused by Russia.) In many ways, even

this figure represents a low estimate of the ISS program’s development cost, since it does not capture the cuts the Administration

has made to the program’s science budgets in order to fund hardware development or the hardware responsibilities that NASA has

convinced other partners to pay for in exchange for increasing their

research opportunities. Finally, the first element’s launch was delayed a year; the third element—the Russian Service Module—is

not expected to be launched until December 1999, nearly 20

months late; and, the assembly complete date is currently not anticipated before October 2004.

In order to address these problems, the Committee has argued

in favor of removing Russia from the ISS critical path by investing

in independent U.S. capabilities, principally by investing in a longterm U.S. propulsion capability capable of replacing the Russian

Service Module. The Administration had previously rejected this

solution, but now has apparently embraced the idea since the

FY2000 budget request includes funding for NASA to develop an

independent U.S. propulsion capability and NASA has begun procuring long-lead items for this module. The Committee also noted

the report of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force of the

NASA Advisory Council in the Spring of 1998, which reported that

the Administration had underfunded the program from its inception and recommended that NASA eliminate program content in

order to keep its costs down. Finally, the Committee has expressed

consistent opposition to continuing Administration cuts to the ISS

research budget, noting the concerns of the National Research

Council, the NASA–NIH Advisory Committee, the Federation of

American Societies for Experimental Biology, the American Society

for Gravitational and Space Biology, and the Association of American Universities Space Science Working Group that such cuts undermine the science community’s ability to maximize the scientific

potential of the ISS. In FY1999, the Committee recommended and

the House of Representatives passed a NASA Authorization which
30

directed that ISS research funds be managed by the Office of Life

and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA) within the

Science, Aeronautics, and Technology appropriations account and

that such funds be protected from additional transfers to ISS development. The FY1999 appropriations bill endorsed this recommendation and directed NASA to separate the ISS into its own

appropriations account in order to prevent unilateral transfers

from science to development within the NASA budget. Despite

these clear signals from Congress, NASA declined to transfer responsibility for managing the ISS research budget to OLMSA in

FY1999.

H.R. 1654 reaffirms Congressional support for ISS by providing

full funding for the International Space Station at the level of the

President’s request and restates Congressional direction and the

priority of science by separating the ISS research budget from ISS

development activities and directing that it be managed by

OLMSA. As later sections of the bill indicate, the Committee is also

endorsing the recommendations of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force to control cost growth through design discipline.

SECTION 102. LAUNCH VEHICLE AND PAYLOAD OPERATIONS

Section 102 (1) and (2). Space Shuttle Operations; Space Shuttle

Safety and Performance Upgrades

Sectional analysis and recommendation

In FY2000 $2,547,400,000 are authorized for Space Shuttle operations and $456,800,000 are authorized for safety and performance

upgrades. Of the amount authorized for upgrades, $18,000,000

shall not be obligated until 45 days after the Section 207 report on

Shuttle upgrades is submitted to Congress. In FY2001

$2,649,900,000 are authorized for Space Shuttle Operations, and

$407,200,000 are authorized for safety and performance upgrades.

In FY2002 $2,629,900,000 are authorized for Space Shuttle Operations, and $414,000,000 are authorized for safety and performance

upgrades. This authorization represents an increase in the Space

Shuttle safety and performance upgrades program of $18,000,000

in FY2000, $24,000,000 in FY2001, and $29,000,000 in FY2002.

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 materials

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.
31

Committee views

Internal budget constraints have limited the agency’s ability to

institute additional safety and performance upgrades to the Space

Shuttle. A recently released study on Shuttle upgrades by the National Research Council (NRC) has commended NASA on the way

the agency prioritizes and implements upgrades. The report, however, does note the NRC’s reservations about the implementation

process for those upgrade programs which would fundamentally

alter the existing mold lines of the Shuttle ‘‘stack.’’

The NASA Administrator has testified that if Shuttle program

managers require additional funds for safety and performance upgrades, they would be provided. To date, Congress has not received

such a request. United Space Alliance, the prime contractor for the

Space Flight Operations Contract (SFOC), has identified a group of

additional upgrades it deems beneficial which are beyond those for

which NASA sets aside approximately $100 million annually. The

Committee encourages NASA to devote the additional resources

provided to high priority upgrades such as the Electric Auxiliary

Power Unit and the Health-monitoring system for the Space Shuttle Main Engine. Other upgrades, which may have applications for

other vehicles as well as the Space Shuttle, could be funded

through the Advanced Space Transportation Technology program.

Some of the increase in funds in the Advanced Space Transportation Technology budget line may be used to fund needed technology risk reduction efforts intended to support long-term Space

Shuttle sustainability, depending upon the results of the study in

Section 207 and further interaction between the Committee and

NASA.

A replacement for the Space Shuttle has not materialized, and

may not before the end of the next decade. Sufficient resources

should be dedicated to safety and performance upgrades to ensure

the safety and integrity of the system. At the same time, such improvements should not be a disincentive to the development of a

Shuttle replacement.

Congress urges the NASA Administrator, in cooperation with the

Space Flight Operations Contractor, to continue to jointly determine the priority for the implementation of Shuttle upgrades. Further, though the Value Engineering Clause currently in effect between NASA and United Space Alliance incentivizes the SFOC contractor to invest in Shuttle upgrades, Congress encourages the

NASA Administrator along with industry to formulate long-term

proposals to properly incentivize reinvestment by contractors beyond the scope of the contract.

The 1998 Annual Report of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

has noted the aging of aircraft associated with the training of this

nation’s astronauts. According to the report, both the Shuttle training aircraft and NASA’s fleet of T–38s are rapidly approaching the

end of their safe service lives with no replacements scheduled. Despite the aging of these aircraft, the report notes the enviable safety record established by NASA and recommends that plans should

be made to replace the Shuttle training aircraft.

The T–38 fleet is in the process of various upgrades which will

allow these aircraft to fulfill their function for the foreseeable future. However, the utilization rate of these aircraft is expected to
32

become greater due to the increased flight hour requirements of an

astronaut corps projected to grow over the next few years. This increase in operational requirements will accelerate the aging of

these aircraft and may adversely affect safety. The Committee

therefore encourages the NASA Administrator to explore options

that would offset the demands of increased flight hour requirements on these aircraft.

Section 102(3). Payload and Utilization Operations

In FY2000 $169,100,000 are authorized; in FY2001 $182,900,000 are authorized; and in FY2002 $184,500,000 are authorized for

Payload and Utilization Operations. This program supports the

processing and flight of Shuttle payloads.

SECTION 103. SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY

Section 103(1). Space Science

Sectional analysis and recommendation

In FY2000 $2,202,400,000 are authorized of which $472,000,000

shall be for the Research Program. The Hubble Space Telescope is

authorized at $170,400,000 an increase of $30,000,000 over the

budget request. In FY2001 $2,315,200,000 are authorized of which

$475,800,000 shall be for the Research Program. In FY2002

$2,411,800,000 are authorized of which $511,100,000 shall be for

the Research Program and $5,000,000 shall be for a space science

data buy. For each of the fiscal years 2000–2002, $10,500,000 are

authorized for the Near Earth Object Survey and $12,000,000 are

authorized for Space Solar Power technology. High Performance

Computing and Communications and Information Technology for

the 21st Century are cut from Space Science in the following

amounts: ¥$43,200,000 in FY2000; ¥$50,600,000 in FY2001; and ¥$51,600,000 in FY2002. These two programs will be dealt with

in a separate, Committee-wide authorization bill on information

technology.

Committee views

NASA’s space science activity encompasses a range of scientific

inquiries and space missions to improve understanding of: (1) the

connection between the Sun and the Earth; (2) the structure and

evolution of the universe; (3) the origins, nature and extent of life

in the universe; and (4) our solar system.

Although the space science activity has enjoyed consistent bipartisan support from the Committee and Congress for several years,

the Committee has expressed concern about some aspects of the research program. Most notably, NASA has a tendency to request insufficient funds to adequately process and analyze data from its

space science missions. Drawing on its engineering heritage, the

Agency sometimes tends to overemphasize building flight hardware

at the expense of funding scientific investigators to maximize the

science potential of NASA’s missions. The flight rate for space

science missions has risen dramatically in recent years, and under

the new budget appears as though it will continue increasing. Yet,

the space science research and analysis budget is flatlined through

2004. As a percentage of the total space science budget, research
33

and analysis is actually falling from 9% in FY1999 to just under

7% in FY2004. Similarly, the space science mission operations

budget is also projected to fall from $139 million in FY1998 to $76

million in FY2004, a decline from 7% of the FY1998 budget to

slightly less than 3% of the space science budget in FY2004. As a

result, the data collected by these missions is often underutilized.

For example, NASA’s budget for data processing and analysis in

the successful Lunar Prospector mission appears inadequate to develop some of the Lunar mineral maps capable of being extracted

from the mission’s data products. Past hearings have drawn attention to this problem, which the National Research Council’s Space

Studies Board reviewed extensively in its 1998 report ‘‘Supporting

Research and Data Analysis in NASA’s Science Programs.’’ As important, when some programs run into development difficulties,

NASA’s generally finds additional resources in the space science

budget by transferring the funds out of its science activities. In

order to prevent the costs of the emergency Hubble Space Telescope

repair mission from adversely affecting other space science programs, the bill contains $30 million over and above the President’s

request to pay for this mission in FY2000.

The Committee understands the critical role photonic research

plays in NASA’s efforts to develop the Next Generation Space Telescope, the Origins program, and the Space Communications program. The Committee notes that NASA has worked with academic

institutions and corporate entities to foster cutting-edge research

and development of photonic-related ideas and technologies. Therefore, the Committee encourages NASA to continue these partnerships and seek additional partnerships that merge competitively

awarded academic research and corporate development in a way

that strengthens and accelerates the photonics product development process to directly contribute to NASA’s defined four strategic

enterprises.

Near Earth Object Survey: The threat to life on Earth due to asteroids is a subject of ongoing debate and discussion. If one of the

many large bodies of rock orbiting the sun should intersect Earth’s

orbit, the results could be potentially cataclysmic. A number of scientific theories tie the extinction of the dinosaurs to an asteroid impact from space. This subject began receiving much more serious

consideration after 1994, when the Shoemaker-Levy Comet

slammed into the surface of Jupiter, creating visible impact sites

about as large as the diameter of the Earth.

The first step to protect against such an event is to find and

catalog these objects as they orbit the sun. In 1995, the Near Earth

Objects Survey Working Group, chaired by the late Dr. Eugene

Shoemaker, examined levels of effort required to conduct such a

survey. The Near Earth Object Survey is currently funded as an

interagency effort at a lower level of funding than that recommended by the group report.

This Committee has had a long-standing concern under both

Democratic and Republican leadership that NASA funding levels to

identify such objects are not sufficient to satisfy the metric identified in the Shoemaker report: the discovery of 90% of near Earth

objects larger than 1 kilometer diameter within 10 years. In testimony before the Subcommittee, NASA has twice committed to
34

achieving the Shoemaker metric (on May 21, 1998 and on February

24, 1999).

The Committee recognizes that the odds of an object larger than

1 kilometer striking the Earth are extremely remote. However, the

consequences—the possible end of human life on Earth—are extremely great. Indeed, in testimony before the Subcommittee on

May 21, 1998, scientists testified that an individual is therefore

more likely to die from an asteroid strike than by being struck by

lightning.

An added benefit of the Near Earth Object Survey program is

that smaller objects which strike much more often are also detected. For example, an object which impacted Siberia in 1908 had

the explosive equivalent of over 1,000 times that of the Hiroshima

bomb—flattening trees over an area twice the size of the Washington Beltway. Such an object is statistically expected to strike the

Earth once per century. The Near Earth Object Survey, according

to NASA researchers, can also discover and catalog these smaller

objects, and potentially warn of an impact early enough to evacuate

the area well ahead of time.

However, the Committee notes with great concern NASA’s failure

to submit a budget for the Near Earth Object Survey that is sufficient to achieve the Shoemaker metric to which NASA has repeatedly committed.

The discovery of near Earth objects (NEO’s) is a linear function.

That is to say, two telescopes of the same type can be expected to

yield twice the discovery rate of one telescope acting alone. This allows a determination to be made of the adequacy of current funding levels to accomplish the necessary NEO detection rate.

The first half of FY1999 ended on March 31st, 1999. The rateof-discovery of large NEO’s during that period was less than 1⁄6th

of what is necessary to discover 90% of large NEO’s in the 10 year

timeframe. At the beginning of fiscal year 1999, NASA’s NEO

budget more than doubled from $1.5 million to $3.5 million annually. This increase allows for additional telescope time to be scheduled. Because of the long lead-time for such scheduling, the new

discovery rate has not yet ramped up to the predicted doubled rate.

Once this rate has doubled, the large NEO discovery rate will double from less than 1⁄6th the necessary rate to 1⁄3rd the necessary

rate.

The Committee therefore concludes that NASA’s current funding

level for NEO detection is about one-third the level necessary to

achieve the Shoemaker metric to which NASA has committed. Accordingly, the funding level is tripled from $3.5 million to $10.5

million.

Space Solar Power technology: In 1997 NASA released its ‘‘Fresh

Look Study’’ of Space Solar Power and NASA reprogrammed $2

million, with the Committee’s encouragement, to continue its analysis of the required technologies and their cost-effective application

for both near-term space applications and long-term energy generation potential. The President’s FY1999 NASA Budget requested $5

million for Space Solar Power as part of the Cross Enterprise Technology program in the Office of Space Science, and Administrator

Goldin indicated during his Posture hearing on February 5, 1998,
35

that NASA planned to request an additional $5 million in FY2000.

Congress then increased this amount to $15 million for FY1999.

The continuing analyses conducted during FY1998 resulted in

roadmaps for critical path technologies for Space Solar Power including: solar power generation; wireless powerless transmission;

power management and distribution; structures, materials, and

controls; thermal management and controls; robotic maintenance

and operations; platform systems; ground segment systems; inspace transportation and infrastructure; and systems integration.

Not surprisingly, a measured program of space solar power technology investments, guided by systems studies and roadmaps,

could nevertheless enable significant interim applications within

five years: ultra-lightweight structures for large aperture in-space

observatories and interferometers; 200 watts/kilogram solar power

generation for government and commercial Earth-orbiting platforms; ground-to-space power beaming for space science; autonomous deployment of space systems; improved in-space servicing of

Earth-orbiting systems; automated ground and space systems operations (vehicle management); cooperative robots for science/exploration missions; and ultra-large lightweight optics.

While the long-term goal of space solar power generation and

transmission to Earth as a new, environmentally-clean form of energy during the 21st century is exciting and worth continued funding, the Committee believes that the shorter-term benefits are sufficient to justify continuing the technology analysis, development,

and demonstration activities begun during FY1999. The Committee

has therefore provided $12 million per year over FY2000–2002 for

this purpose, and will review NASA’s progress on this focused technology effort, including NASA’s level of success in leveraging other

private and public resources, especially those of the Departments

of Defense and Energy.

Summary: These recommendations will result in net increases to

the space science budget, which reflect the Committee’s continuing

prioritization of space science activities. However, the Committee

does note some warning signs in the Space Science enterprise, most

notably in NASA’s inability to constrain continuing cost growth and

program delays in the AXAF observatory and the budgetary disappearance of the New Millennium program, which NASA originally initiated to address its historical inability to develop new

technology for space science. While such problems appear to be at

an early stage, the Committee does want to draw NASA’s attention

to them before they have a significant impact on its budget.

Section 103(2). Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications

Sectional analysis and recommendation

In FY2000 $333,600,000 are authorized, an increase of

$77,400,000 over the budget request. Of this amount $5,000,000

are authorized for sounding rocket vouchers. In FY2001

$335,200,000 are authorized, an increase of $70,000,000 over the

budget request. In FY2002 $344,000,000 are authorized, an increase of $80,800,000 over the budget request. For each of the fiscal

years 2000–2002, $2,000,000 are authorized for breast and ovarian

cancer research and other women’s health issues.
36

Committee views

Funds budgeted for Life and Microgravity Science and Applications involve investigations in Advanced Human Support Technology, Biomedical Research and Countermeasures, Gravitational

Biology and Ecology, Microgravity Research, Space Product Development, Occupational Health Research, Mission Integration, and

Space Medicine. Early in the International Space Station (ISS) program, the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications

(OLMSA) managed the research accounts for the International

Space Station, where much of this research will take place in the

future. Unfortunately, in order to pay for increasing ISS development costs without appearing to overrun its budget projections, the

Administration in the past has cut funding for research into ISSbased life and microgravity research and transferred management

responsibility from the scientific community in OLMSA to the engineering community within the ISS program office. These cuts totaled approximately $462 million between FY1997 and FY1999. In

the FY2000 budget request, the Administration paid some of these

previously transferred funds back into the ISS research account,

and then cut the ISS research budget by another $387 million between FY1999 and FY2004. When all of the budget impacts are

considered, these transfers resulted in a net reduction of $280 million from life and microgravity science and applications activities

between FY2000 and FY2004 when the FY2000 budget request is

compared against the FY1999 budget request.

In the period FY2000–2002, the Committee seeks to restore

$228.2 million of these Administration cuts to science. However,

rather than restoring these funds to the ISS research budget, the

Committee has placed them in the OLMSA budget in order to give

NASA greater flexibility in undoing the damage done to the research community by earlier Administration cuts. In this manner,

the Committee is promoting maximum flexibility to deal with a

constantly changing ISS assembly sequence so that damage to the

science agenda caused by ISS delays is minimized. In addition, to

partially address the two-year gap in flight opportunities that the

life and microgravity research community is experiencing in

FY1999 and FY2000, the bill sets aside $5 million in FY2000 for

OLMSA to use sounding rockets to give life and microgravity researchers more opportunities to fly their experiments in microgravity.

Section 103(3). Earth Science

Sectional analysis and recommendation

In FY2000 $1,382,500,000 are authorized; in FY2001

$1,413,300,000 are authorized; and in FY2002 $1,365,300,000 are

authorized. These authorizations are subject to the limitations in

sections 126 and 130. Section 126 authorizes $50,000,000 in

FY2001 and FY2002 for commercial data purchases of Earth

science data. Section 130 prohibits using funding in the bill for the

Triana program, except for $2,500,000 in FY2000 for termination

costs. High Performance Computing and Communications is cut

from Earth Science in the following amounts: ¥$44,000,000 in

FY2000; ¥$49,500,000 in FY2001; and ¥$55,200,000 in FY2002.
37

This program will be dealt with in a separate, committee-wide authorization bill on information technology.

Program description

NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise (formerly Mission to Planet

Earth) is the largest single component of the U.S. Global Change

Research Program (USGCRP), averaging about 70% of USGCRP’s

total budget. The components of the Earth Science program can be

summarized into four basic categories: (1) Earth Observing System

(EOS); (2) Earth Observing System Data Information System

(EOSDIS); (3) Earth Probes; and (4) Science programs.

Committee views

The Committee remains concerned over problems and delays

which plagued the Earth Science Enterprise in 1998. While scientists did have a successful year with science data made available

to them such as the prediction of El Nino, a new prediction of La

Nina, radar measurements of Antarctica, and cloud measurements

from Hurricane Bonnie, this data came from satellites built by

other countries that included NASA instruments. The Earth Observing System, a series of satellites (AM–1, PM–1, Chem-1, and

others) which represent the flagships of the Earth Science Enterprise, was unable to launch any of the three satellites (AM–1,

Landsat-7, and QuikScat) scheduled for launch in 1998.

The Committee recognizes that the QuikScat delay was due to a

launch vehicle problem and that Landsat-7 was subsequently

launched on April 15, 1999. These delays, however, underscore the

Committee’s concern about the over-reliance on acquiring satellite

data rather than the conduct of scientific research. Indeed, this

concern is epitomized by NASA’s planned acquisition of data that

will be equivalent to the entire Library of Congress every two

weeks during just the AM–1 and Landsat-7 era—before PM–1 and

Chem-1 have even launched.

Section 103(4). Aero-Space Technology

In FY2000 $999,300,000 are authorized; in FY2001 $908,400,000

are authorized; and in FY2002 $994,800,000 are authorized for

Aero-Space Technology. This budget line contains three separate

activities: Aeronautical Research and Technology, Advanced Space

Transportation Technology, and Commercial Technology.

Aeronautical research and technology

Sectional analysis and recommendation

In FY2000 $532,800,000 are authorized with no funds for the

Ultra-Efficient Engine (a decrease of $50,000,000 from the budget

request) and $412,800,000 are authorized for the Research and

Technology Base (an increase of $50,000,000 over the budget request and a decrease of $63,000,000 for HPCC and IT2). In FY2001

$524,000,000 are authorized with no funds for the Ultra-Efficient

Engine (a decrease of $50,000,000 from the budget request),

$399,800,000 are authorized for the Research and Technology Base

(an increase of $50,000,000 over the budget request and a decrease

of $84,200,000 for HPCC and IT2), and $54,200,000 are authorized
38

for Aviation Systems Capacity (a decrease of $5,000,000 from the

budget request). In FY2002 $519,200,000 are authorized with no

funds for the Ultra-Efficient Engine (a decrease of $50,000,000

from the budget request), $381,600,000 are authorized for the Research and Technology Base (an increase of $50,000,000 over the

budget request and a decrease of $85,300,000 for HPCC and IT2),

and $67,600,000 are authorized for Aviation Systems Capacity (a

decrease of $10,000,000 from the budget request). High Performance Computing and Communications and Information Technology

for the 21st Century are cut from Aeronautics in the following

amounts: ¥$87,200,000 in FY2000; ¥$111,000,000 in FY2001; and ¥$110,800,000 in FY2002 (a portion of the cut comes from the Research and Technology Base and a portion comes from the HPCC

focused program within Aeronautics). HPCC and IT2 will be dealt

with in a separate, committee-wide authorization bill on information technology.

Program description

NASA has changed the name of its Aeronautics and Space Transportation Enterprise to Aero-Space Technology with the submission

of its FY2000 budget. The core of NASA’s aeronautical research efforts can be found in the Research and Technology Base where the

focus is leading-edge research in propulsion and structures. In addition, focused programs are structured to provide further research

into programs which NASA deems appropriate. Though NASA

claims that its aeronautical research and technology focused programs are a high priority, the agency’s abrupt cancellation of the

High Speed Research and Advanced Subsonic Technology focused

programs late last year is a direct contradiction. NASA’s claims

that such focused programs are disciplined in terms of duration,

are questionable, particularly in the case of the High Speed Research program. That program was supposed to be completed in

FY2002 until NASA proposed it be extended through FY2007 at a

total estimated cost of over $2.6 billion.

Committee views

Ultra Efficient Engine Technology: NASA’s FY2000 budget request included the Ultra Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) Program, a new start which the agency stated would build on breakthrough technology developed in the High Speed Research, Advanced Subsonic Technology, and Research and Technology Base

programs to spawn a new generation of high efficiency, low-emissions U.S. aircraft. As stated above, NASA has terminated the

High Speed Research and Advanced Subsonic Technology programs

early in FY1999. Therefore, to protect aeronautics research programs in the future it is the view of the Committee that the valuable research that this program encompasses should be pursued

within the Research and Technology Base. These programs include,

Ultra Low NOx combustors and ceramic matrix composite liners;

advanced turbomachinery; low-noise fan, core, and nozzle designs;

advanced materials and structures which includes research into

propulsion and airframe integration; and the system analysis tools

required to validate these technologies. The Committee provides

the funding requirements of this program through FY2002 and rec-
39

ognizes that a long-term funding commitment to meet the technology goals of the program will require cost sharing by the commercial sector.

Aircraft Noise Reduction: With the elimination of the Ultra Efficient Engine Technology program as a focused research program,

the budget for this program has been returned to the Research and

Technology Base. The Committee has avoided imposing any restrictions on how those funds are spent other than to encourage the

agency to continue the research that was proposed. For this reason,

any attempt to redirect some or all of the funds either internally

or externally to that program is counterproductive. In the case of

aircraft noise reduction, NASA’s aeronautical research budget for

this research in FY2000 is $25,000,000. According to NASA, redirecting additional funding to this program would adversely impact other research programs of equal merit.

Aviation Safety: On July 25, 1996, the President established the

White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. On February 12, 1997, the final report of the Commission was delivered

to the President. The principle recommendation of the Commission

was that the focus of government and industry should be to reduce

the rate of accidents by a factor of five within 10 years.

NASA’s role in this effort will be primarily in the area of human

factors research in that the predominance of aviation accidents involve human error. NASA will also be looked upon to provide expertise in areas it has already conducted research in, such as more

efficient terminal area control and advanced air traffic control systems. Originally, the Research and Technology base was to be the

source of funding aviation safety until it became a separate focused

program beginning in FY2002. In testimony before the House

Science Committee in February 1999, the NASA Administrator accelerated this program and changed its priority within the Aeronautics Enterprise.

Aviation System Capacity: NASA’s FY2000 budget also contains

funding for the Aviation Systems Capacity program, which is a

newly created line within the focused programs. This work used to

be carried out within the recently canceled Advanced Subsonic

Technology focused program. The Aviation Systems Capacity program will conduct research into the modernization and improvements to the Air Traffic Management System and the introduction

of new vehicle classes which can potentially reduce congestion.

NASA characterizes the nature of the research in the Aviation System Capacity program as ‘‘modernization and improvements’’ to the

existing air traffic system through efficient and flexible routing,

and scheduling and sequencing of aircraft in all weather conditions.

The Committee has reservations that this research should be a focused program within Aeronautical Research and Technology.

However, since the goals of the Aviation Systems Capacity program are put forth as national goals, the nation’s resources should

be fully utilized to attain them. And, though the FAA is the agency

responsible for the U.S. air transportation system, it may not possess the world-class R&D facilities to achieve them. NASA does.

Therefore, these facilities and expertise should be made available

to the FAA on a reimbursable basis. This legislation takes the first

steps toward a more appropriate division of responsibilities by
40

transferring a small portion of the funding in support of this program from NASA to the FAA.

Advanced space transportation technology

Sectional analysis and recommendation

In FY2000 $334,000,000 are authorized of which $61,300,000

shall be for the Future-X Demonstration Program, an increase of

$30,000,000 over the budget request; and $105,600,000 shall be for

the Advanced Space Transportation Program, an increase of

$50,000,000 over the budget request. In FY2001 $249,400,000 are

authorized of which $109,000,000 shall be for the Future-X Demonstration Program, an increase of $35,000,000 over the budget request; and $134,400,000 shall be for the Advanced Space Transportation Program, an increase of $39,000,000 over the budget request. In FY2002 $340,000,000 are authorized, an increase of

$134,000,000 over the budget request.

Committee views

The Paramount Goal of Cheap Access To Space: After maintaining safety of the Space Shuttle for the astronauts who fly on it, the

Committee continues to believe that the highest priority in federal

civil space transportation is the aggressive, near-term reduction of

the high cost of launching people and cargo into space and returning them to Earth. This Committee has long supported the focused

experimental demonstration of technologies which can lower space

transportation costs, and the development and implementation of

regulatory, procurement, and other policies which foster a free and

competitive market in space transportation services. The Committee believes that both advanced technology and competitive markets are required to dramatically lower space transportation costs.

Inexpensive, reliable, and plentiful access to space is an urgent

as well as important priority for several reasons. One is the pressing need to reduce costs borne by the American taxpayer for ongoing and planned NASA activities in human space flight, space

science, and other R&D programs, as well as meeting broader federal requirements for commercially-developed space transportation

services. Another is the challenge of redressing the growing shortfall in domestic space transportation capacity and reliability, which

has recently been shown to have national security as well as economic implications.

In the longer term, the Committee believes that cheaper, better,

and more capable commercially-developed and operated space

transportation systems are essential to America’s strategic vision of

opening the space frontier to science and commerce.

Advanced Space Transportation Technology—In General: Over

the past two years NASA’s Advanced Space Transportation Technology (ASTT) initiatives have made considerable progress and suffered some setbacks, and now face significant budgetary and organizational (as well as technical and programmatic) challenges.

The Committee continues to appreciate the Administrator’s leadership in this critical activity, as well as the vision and determination of NASA personnel working on these initiatives at NASA
41

Headquarters, Marshall Space Flight Center, other field centers,

and various industry locations, as well as the vital contributions

made by many U.S. Air Force personnel.

Because the Committee believes Advanced Space Transportation Technology is so important, it is providing a total of over $282 million in additional resources to this activity during FY2000–2002

over the runout of the FY2000 budget request. In general, while

the Committee recommends some specific priorities for these funds,

particularly in FY2000 and FY2001, the Committee shares the Office of Management and Budget’s concern that NASA focus the preponderance of its Advanced Space Transportation Technology resources on pursuing experimental technology demonstrations which

will enable near-term cost reductions (‘‘factor of 10’’) in meeting

NASA’s human space flight as well as cargo transportation requirements.

X–33 and X–34: Progress continues to be made on NASA’s two

ongoing reusable launch vehicle advanced technology demonstration projects, the flagship X–33 and smaller X–34 programs, but

both efforts have been frustrated by technical and schedule challenges. The Committee understands that these problems are to be

expected in experimental vehicle programs which are intended to

push the state of the art in one or more technologies on a lowercost, subscale basis. In the case of the X–33 particularly, this has

led to some cost growth which has been absorbed almost entirely

by additional private investment and modest technical content reductions.

The Committee wishes to stress its continuing confidence in the

X–33 and X–34 industry teams which are striving to break down

the technical barriers to cheap access to space, and notes that these

are both industry-led programs. However, the Committee will exercise careful oversight of these important and challenging projects,

including several setbacks that have arisen over the past year. To

the extent that delays or other problems have arisen because of

how NASA initially designed these projects, or has continued to

manage the government’s participation in them, the Committee

will at a later date seek to work with the Administrator to promote

effective reforms of similar future experimental vehicle activities.

Regarding the X–34, the Committee again commends NASA’s decision to purchase a second test vehicle, but is concerned about

NASA’s inability to fund a variable-thrust engine so that the X–34

could serve as a more effective hypersonic test-bed. The Committee

also is worried about the continuing changes in location of the X–

34 test flights, and in particular about reports of efforts by some

NASA field center employees to lobby for such changes.

Despite a slip of over a year and numerous technical and management challenges in the X–33 program, the Committee notes

with favor the continuing financial and management commitment

of the industry team leader, Lockheed Martin, and in particular

Lockheed Martin Skunk Works.

The Committee has stated in the past that the X–33 program has

been under-funded for the quantity and difficulty of technical and

programmatic challenges it faces. For example, the schedule impact

of a December 1998, bonding failure in one of the X–33’s lightweight, multi-lobed composite fuel tanks was dramatically exacer-
42

bated by the lack of sufficient funding for X–33 structural spare

parts.

Future-X: The Committee notes with favor the selection for negotiation in late 1998 of Boeing’s Advanced Technology Vehicle concept as the first Pathfinder-class Future-X advanced technology

demonstrator, the X–37. In particular the Committee is gratified by

NASA’s fruitful cooperation with the Air Force to build on the success of the X–40A Space Maneuvering Vehicle demonstrator, and

by the Air Force’s investment of $19.6 million in improving the X–

37 program. At the same time, the Committee is perplexed about

NASA’s failure to complete negotiations, after more than five

months, with the X–37 industry team on a technically challenging

and aggressively-scheduled project of great and urgent importance

to national security space capabilities as well as to human space

flight cost reduction.

Just as the Air Force has contributed to the X–37, the Committee

wishes NASA to support the Air Force in pursuing a second test

article which can further address both national security and civil/

commercial operability and component technology demonstration

goals.

The Committee is strongly supportive of the frequent (once every

18 months) selection of Pathfinder-class Future-X concepts to meet

the Administrator’s announced intention to ‘‘darken the skies with

X vehicles.’’ For that reason, the Committee is providing Future-X

an additional $30 million in FY2000, $35 million in FY2001, and

access to an overall ASTT increase of $134 million in FY2002.

While the Committee does not want to unduly restrict NASA’s

flexibility in pursuing any meritorious Future-X concepts, the Committee prefers that this additional funding be focused on meeting

what it believes are under-funded challenges in demonstrating innovative concepts and applications of existing system technologies

to produce breakthroughs in the operability of space transportation

systems. In the past the Committee has commended the benefits of

the streamlined, airplane-style operations of the former DC–X program and the low cost-per-test-flight of the X–34, and recommends

that overcoming this fundamental challenge to the commercial

space transportation industry, particularly for and with the emerging reusable launch vehicle companies, be given a higher priority

in ASTT. Furthermore, the Committee recommends that NASA

pursue innovative partnerships, including technical assistance and

procurement outreach, with these emerging commercial space

transportation companies so they can provide NASA credible and

innovative proposals for Future-X vehicles and flight experiments

which will be mutually beneficial if selected for development.

Advanced Space Transportation Program—In General: The Committee continues to believe that among NASA’s most important investments is the ASTT initiative’s analogue to the Aeronautics Research and Technology Base: the Advanced Space Transportation

Program (ASTP). This is the wellspring of subsystem and component technologies and advanced concepts for the focused advanced

technology demonstrations of the RLV and Future-X experimental

vehicle programs, and the seed corn of our future ability to move

into and through the space frontier.
43

The Committee has nearly doubled the ASTP budget in FY2000, increasing the President’s request by $50 million to $105.6 million,

and grows it further to $134.4 million in FY2001. The Committee

notes that these additional funds could be used for two existing and

two new space transportation technology base activities and encourages NASA to do so.

ASTP—RLV Focused: Recent technology content reductions within the RLV technology portion of the X–33 program, the need to reduce technology risk of many proposed longer-term Space Shuttle

upgrades, and the Committee’s long-standing view that NASA

should demonstrate technologies to support multiple competing Reusable Launch Vehicle concepts (possibly including an upgraded

Space Shuttle system) because of the urgent need to reduce the

cost of transporting both humans and cargo into space all lead the

Committee to encourage NASA to use the additional funds provided for ASTP in FY2000 for the existing RLV Focused program.

Furthermore, the Committee expects that NASA will continue

this activity beyond FY2000, since it is clear that the technology

risk of a commercially-developed Shuttle-class RLV will not have

been completely reduced by then. The purpose of this activity

should be to continue to demonstrate flight-weight and flight-performance technologies on a full-scale component or subsystem basis

without building full-scale manufacturing prototypes of elements of

a particular operational system.

ASTP—Rocket Propulsion Operability Demonstrations and Advanced Propulsion Focused: Administrator Goldin and other NASA

and industry officials have testified repeatedly before the Committee that the high cost and limited capabilities of current launch

systems is due in large part to the historical under-investment by

the government and private sector over the past 20 years in both

rocket and more advanced propulsion technologies. Indeed, until

the X–33 program’s XRS–2200 Aerospike and the X–34 project’s

FASTRAC, no ‘‘new’’ rocket engines had been developed in the U.S.

since the Space Shuttle Main Engine in the 1970’s.

To achieve the public goal of price reduction and innovation

through competition, NASA should make the growth of the entrepreneurial commercial space transportation industry a top priority

in its advanced space transportation technology efforts, particularly

with respect to propulsion investments. The Committee encourages

NASA to play a role similar to that of the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics in providing substantial technical assistance

and federal facilities access—on a non-reimbursable basis when appropriate—to United States commercial rocket engine developers,

particular those aiming at enabling the emerging reusable launch

vehicle industry. In addition, NASA may wish to work with industry to bring mature, highly-operable rocket engine technology that

has been developed elsewhere to the United States for domestic

testing and dissemination. The Committee therefore encourages

NASA to use some of the increased funding for ASTP in FY2000

to establish a rocket propulsion operability demonstration activity

at the Marshall Space Flight and Stennis Space Centers.

ASTP—Space Transportation Research: The NASA Administrator

has testified that one of the most exciting and important activities

underway at the space agency is the pursuit of fundamental, revo-
44

lutionary space transportation technologies such as laser launch

and anti-matter propulsion. The Committee strongly believes that

such long-term investments create the technology development and

demonstration opportunities of the next decade and beyond, and

therefore are central to long-term American leadership in space

transportation, and encourages the Administrator to allocate a

small fraction of the additional funds provided to ASTP to the

space transportation research activity based at the Marshall Space

Flight Center.

Future Space Launch Studies: While the Committee has traditionally preferred the building and testing of hardware to the production of paper, the Committee wishes to strongly praise the work

of NASA’s Chief Engineer and the Space Transportation Council in

carrying out the initial two phases of the Space Transportation Architecture Studies, as well as the participation of all industry study

contractors and evaluators.

The Committee shares the sense of urgency expressed by the Executive Office of the President in reaching a decision (by December

1999) between developing an X–38–based Crew Rescue Vehicle capability for the International Space Station or an alternative architecture which also supports redundant, reliable, and low-cost

human crew and cargo transportation to and from the Space Station.

Commercial technology

In FY2000 $132,500,000 are authorized; in FY2001 $135,000,000

are authorized; and in FY2002 $135,600,000 are authorized.

Section 103(5). Mission Communications Services

Sectional analysis and recommendation

In FY2000 $406,300,000 are authorized; in FY2001 $382,100,000

are authorized; and in FY2002 $296,600,000 are authorized.

Program description

This function consists primarily of groundstation, mission control, and ground network interfacing services that NASA uses to

carry out its strategic enterprises.

Committee views

The Committee remains concerned over whether the predicted

savings in the Consolidated Space Operations Contract will materialize as predicted by NASA. The Committee remains further concerned that commercialization and privatization efforts are conducted in a manner consistent with sections 129 and 209.

While NASA has cited the benefits of the Consolidated Space Operations Contract (CSOC), the Committee expressed numerous concerns prior to the contract award that such a large, consolidated effort might limit competition for CSOC subcontracts. The recent solicitation, for example, of a polar connectivity ground station raised

several questions about unfair ties between companies bidding on

the subcontract and the prime CSOC contractor. The Committee

will closely examine the CSOC subcontracting process to ensure a

level playing field for all participants.
45

Section 103(6). Academic Programs

Sectional analysis and recommendation

In FY2000 $128,600,000 area authorized, an increase of

$28,600,000 over the budget request. Of this amount $11,600,000

shall be for Higher Education within the Teacher/Faculty Preparation and Enhancement Programs, an increase of $3,000,000 over

the budget request; $20,000,000 shall be for the National Space

Grant College and Fellowship Program, an increase of $6,500,000

over the budget request; and $62,100,000 shall be for Minority University Research and Education, an increase of $16,200,000 over

the budget request (within this amount $33,600,000 shall be for

Historically Black Colleges and Universities, an increase of

$5,600,000 over the budget request). In FY2001 $128,600,000 are

authorized, an increase of $28,600,000 over the budget request. Of

this amount $62,100,000 shall be for Minority University Research

and Education, an increase of $16,200,000 over the budget request

(within this amount $33,600,000 shall be for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, an increase of $5,600,000 over the budget

request). In FY2002 $130,600,000 are authorized, an increase of

$30,600,000 over the budget request. Of this amount $62,800,000

shall be for Minority University Research and Education, an increase of $16,900,000 over the budget request (within this amount

$34,000,000 shall be for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request).

Committee views

The Committee is committed to providing an adequate level of

funding for NASA’s education program. It is vital to inspiring students in mathematics and science and to reaching out to groups

that are not heavily represented in these fields. The Committee is

pleased to be able to provide a level that is significantly above the

budget request level. H.R. 1654 authorizes 29% more in FY2000

and FY2001 and 31% more in FY2002 than the budget request for

education.

Section 103(7). Future Planning (Space Launch)

Sectional analysis and recommendation

In FY2001 $144,000,000 are authorized and in FY2001

$280,000,000 are authorized.

Committee views

In the President’s FY1998 budget submission for NASA, a ‘‘Future Planning’’ line was created, reportedly by taking funding out

of the Advanced Space Transportation Technology runout. In the

FY1999 budget this planning line—often referred to as a ‘‘wedge’’—

was focused on ‘‘Space Launch,’’ with the announced intention of

setting aside a block of funding over several years for technology

risk reduction or other investments in a ‘‘Next Generation Launch

System.’’

During 1998 substantial controversy erupted within the U.S.

aerospace community over what this Future Planning (Space

Launch) money was actually for: further technology risk reduction
46

or financial subsidies for the proposed, X-33-derived VentureStar

RLV, major life-extending Space Shuttle systems upgrades, continuing investments in post-X-33 experimental technology demonstrations (Future-X), or something else entirely.

Fortunately, recent progress on the NASA-industry Space Transportation Architecture Studies—particularly the proposals by the

‘‘non-primes’’—has begun to focus the debate. While the final conclusions and independent assessment of the Space Transportation

Architecture Studies reports have not been released as of mid-May

in 1999, extensive briefings by NASA and industry lead the Committee to conclude that there are a variety of innovative options for

appropriate federal investments in dramatically reducing NASA’s

cost of human space flight by leveraging private investments in

highly reliable expendable and reusable space launch systems

while maintaining or improving crew safety.

The Committee recommends that NASA continue to work with

industry to rapidly assess its options vis-a`-vis a commercially-developed Cargo/Crew Transfer Vehicle which would benefit from existing industry investments in the Air Force Evolved Expendable

Launch Vehicle, as well as VentureStar and other potential single

or multi-stage fully reusable systems for boosting a Cargo/Crew

Transfer Vehicle to the International Space Station. In that context, the Committee reasserts its belief that NASA should not plan

to spend the current ‘‘wedge’’ funding on future-generation RLV

technologies, but rather focus these resources on solving the nearterm, ‘‘factor of 10’’ cost reduction challenge.

SECTION 104. MISSION SUPPORT

Section 104(1). Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance

In FY2000 $43,000,000 are authorized; in FY2001 $45,000,000

are authorized; and in FY2002 $49,000,000 are authorized. 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.

Section 104(2). Space Communication Services

Sectional analysis and recommendation

In FY2000 $89,700,000 are authorized; in FY2001 $109,300,000

are authorized; and in FY2002 $174,200,000 are authorized.

Program description

This function provides the communications relay services that

NASA uses to carry out its strategic enterprises, both in space and

on the ground. Its primary cost component is the Tracking Data

and Relay Satellite (TDRS) and its affiliated launch costs.

Committee views

The Committee remains concerned over whether the predicted

savings in the Consolidated Space Operations Contract will materialize as predicted by NASA. The Committee remains further concerned that commercialization and privatization efforts are conducted in a manner consistent with sections 129 and 209.
47

Section 104(3). Construction of Facilities

In FY2000 $181,000,000 are authorized; in FY2001 $181,000,000

are authorized; and in FY2002 $191,000,000 are authorized, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. The Construction of

Facilities line provides funding for facilities modifications, upgrades, and minor construction.

Section 104(4). Research and Program Management

In FY2000 $2,181,200,000 are authorized; in FY2001

$2,195,000,000 are authorized; and in FY2002 $2,261,600,000 are

authorized. This budget line funds personnel and related costs,

supporting costs, travel, and research operations support.

SECTION 105. INSPECTOR GENERAL

In FY2000 $22,000,000 are authorized; in FY2001 $22,000,000

are authorized; and in FY2002 $22,000,000 are authorized, an increase of $1,200,000 over the budget request in each fiscal year.

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 106. TOTAL AUTHORIZATION

The bill authorizes a total amount in each fiscal year which is

not to be exceeded. In FY 2000 $13,625,600,000 are authorized; in

FY 2001 $13,747,100,000 are authorized; and in FY 2002

$13,839,400,000 are authorized.

SECTION 107. AVIATION SYSTEMS CAPACITY

In FY 2001 $5,000,000 are authorized for aviation systems capacity within the Federal Aviation Administration. This offsets the

$5,000,000 reduction in FY 2001 from NASA’s budget for aviation

systems capacity. This activity encompasses research into the modernization and improvements to the Air Traffic Management System and the introduction of new vehicle classes which can potentially reduce congestion. NASA characterizes the nature of the research in the Aviation System Capacity program as ‘‘modernization

and improvements’’ to the existing air traffic system through efficient and flexible routing, and scheduling and sequencing of aircraft in all weather conditions.

SUBTITLE B—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, personnel and

travel-related costs in the International Space Station; Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations; 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
48

for projects exceeding $1,000,000 until 30 days have passed following a report to the House and Senate authorizing committees. If

funds under this section are used for grants (to institutions of higher education or to nonprofit organizations whose primary purpose

is the conduct of scientific research) to buy or construct additional

research facilities, title to such facilities shall be vested in the U.S.

The exception is when the Administrator determines that the national program of aeronautics and space activities will be best

served by vesting title in the grantee institution or organization.

SECTION 122. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS

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

limitation.

SECTION 123. REPROGRAMMING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES

This section establishes authority for the Administrator to increase 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 a 30–

day review period by the House and Senate authorizing committees

after the Administrator submits a written report.

SECTION 124. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED

APPROPRIATIONS

This section requires the Administrator to submit reports to the

Congress and the Comptroller General on FY 2000, FY 2001, and

FY 2002 appropriations for programs not authorized under subtitle

A of this bill or that exceed authorized amounts for specific programs. The FY 2000 report is to be submitted within 30 days after

the later of the enactment of an appropriations Act for FY 2000

and the enactment of this Act. The FY 2001 and FY 2002 reports

are to be submitted 30 days after the enactment of an appropriations Act for FY 2001 or FY 2002. Section 124 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 the close of the comment period.

SECTION 125. USE OF FUNDS FOR SCIENTIFIC CONSULTATIONS OR

EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES

This section authorizes the Administrator to use funds appropriated for Science, Aeronautics, and Technology activities, in an

amount not exceeding $30,000 for scientific consultations or extraordinary expenses.
49

SECTION 126. EARTH SCIENCE LIMITATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

$50,000,000 in both fiscal years 2001 and 2002 shall be for the

Commercial Remote Sensing Program at Stennis Space Center for

commercial data purchases. This requirement shall remain unless

NASA integrates data purchases into the Earth science research

procurement process. Integration shall be demonstrated by the obligation of at least 5% of the aggregate amount appropriated in FY

2001 and FY 2002 for the Earth Observing Systems and Earth

Probes for the purchase of Earth science data from the private sector.

Committee views

The Committee has long endorsed the procurement of commercial remote sensing data (commonly referred to as a data purchase)

as an inexpensive, flexible, convenient way of obtaining science

data for Earth Science Enterprise researchers. The procurement of

such data can provide the exact same information to researchers

without requiring the construction of a separate, dedicated satellite. In some cases this can enable the exact same research at

one-hundredth the cost of obtaining the data.

The current Earth Science Enterprise data purchase program is spending $50 million of FY 1997 funds to obtain airborne and satellite data. This program’s funding initiated with the President’s

FY 1997 budget request presented to Congress. The current program seeks data types which have already been endorsed in a scientific peer-review process conducted at Goddard Space Flight Center as useful to Earth Science researchers.

While NASA has stated on at least three occasions that ‘‘data

purchases are now an integral part of NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise data acquisition strategy,’’ (August 7, 1998 letter to Subcommittee; September 10, 1998 testimony to Subcommittee; February 11, 1999 testimony to Subcommittee), NASA still has a ways

to go before this is truly the case. As evidence of such a normalized

data buy effort, two different NASA Associate Administrators for

Earth Science have verbally indicated to Committee staff their intention to spend at least $50 million on commercial data in the

FY1999 budget cycle. As of May 1999, however, it appears that this

will not be the case, as NASA has subsequently indicated that such

funds will not be available.

Moreover, a March 31, 1999 NASA Inspector General report indicates that the data purchase program ‘‘has helped achieve ESE

[Earth Science Enterprise] goals’’ but that ‘‘because the private sector was unaware of the questions NASA scientists seek to answer,

commercial providers could only speculate about the types of products needed by Agency Earth Scientists.’’

Because of this disconnect between commercial data products offered in the FY1997 data purchase program and the baseline

science requirements, the report concludes that future Congressionally mandated data purchase programs would not be warranted.

However, it is precisely because NASA failed to communicate baseline requirements for commercial data, and recognizing the many

benefits to be gained from a properly executed program, that this
50

Committee directs NASA to solicit commercial data in FY2001 and

FY2002, with the implication that NASA should publish with this

solicitation the science data baseline requirements.

The Committee recognizes and commends the current NASA Associate Administrator for Earth Science’s dedication to implementing data purchases as a truly normal way of doing business. Accordingly, to ensure the availability of funds for this effort, section

126 sets aside $50 million in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 unless

NASA spends 5% of the aggregate funding levels identified for

Earth Observing System and Earth Probes satellites on commercial

data alternatives.

It is further the Committee’s view that NASA concerns over the

availability of commercial data to conduct Earth Science are unfounded. This position is supported by the National Academy of

Public Administration’s January 1998 report, ‘‘Geographic Information for the 21st Century,’’ which indicates that the commercial remote sensing industry can address a market of $4 billion annually.

Earlier drafts of section 126 prohibited the expenditure of funds

for Earth Observing System follow-on studies until the Administrator certified that at least $50 million were available for commercial data purchases in FY2000 and FY2002. This restriction had

been drafted out of concern that until commercial data purchases

were truly an ‘‘integral part’’ of acquiring data, they could not be

properly included in future Earth Observing System architectures.

This restriction was subsequently removed in an effort to seek compromise after discussions with the Office of Management and

Budget and NASA and internal discussions among the Committee

staff.

SECTION 127. COMPETITIVENESS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

Requires the Administrator to solicit comment through the Commerce Business Daily 45 days prior to entering into an obligation

to conduct a space mission in which a foreign entity will participate. The foreign participation may be as a supplier of the spacecraft, spacecraft system, or launch system. Solicitation of comment

on the potential impact of such participation is to be used in the

Administrator’s evaluation of the costs and benefits of entering into

an obligation to conduct the space mission. Further, the Administrator shall consider the national interests of the United States as

described in section 2(6) prior to entering into such an obligation.

Committee views

The Committee has supported international cooperation in space

activity for years and continues to do so. When governments were

the only significant organizations undertaking space activity, such

cooperation could be undertaken in a manner to benefit the taxpayers of all the countries involved. In recent years, however, a

commercial space sector has grown. The growth of this industry

also benefits the taxpayers by creating new jobs, creating new

space capabilities useful to consumers, reducing the costs of government space activities, and generating tax revenue. In 1996,

worldwide spending on commercial space activity exceeded spend-
51

ing on government activity for the first time in history. International government-to-government space cooperation may have

consequences for the growth of the U.S. commercial space industry.

Those consequences may be beneficial, but they also may harm

U.S. competitiveness if foreign governments use such activities to

aid their commercial space industries. This section of the bill directs NASA to try and determine those consequences in advance by

soliciting comments through Commerce Business Daily. It also directs NASA to take the broad U.S. national interests (as defined

earlier in the bill) into account prior to starting an international cooperative effort.

SECTION 128. TRANS-HAB

Sectional analysis and recommendation

No funds authorized by this bill shall be used for definition, design, or development of an inflatable space structure (‘‘Trans-Hab’’)

to replace any component on the current Space Station assembly

sequence (released by NASA on February 22, 1999). Further, no

FY2000 funds authorized by this bill shall be obligated for the definition, design, or development of an inflatable space structure for

humans.

Committee views

The International Space Station includes a module specially designed as a crew quarters known as the Habitation module. The

pressure vessel for this module has already been completed and is

in storage awaiting outfitting and integration for launch. The total

cost of the Habitation module is $186.9 million, $17 million of

which has already been spent. In 1997, NASA tentatively began

studying a replacement structure for the Habitation module. Instead of a rigid pressure vessel, NASA conceived of an inflatable

structure known as Trans-Hab, which it has spent approximately

$2.5 million defining. Initially, NASA projected the Trans-Hab

would cost about half the price of the Habitation module, but it has

since raised those estimates. Trans-Hab is now estimated to cost

$250 million, representing a three-fold cost increase just during the

definition phase.

NASA believes that the Trans-Hab would have advantages over

the Habitation module. First, the Trans-Hab is intended to have a

larger pressurized volume, essentially giving the ISS greater storage space. Second, NASA believes that the Trans-Hab would have

additional protection against radiation, although the Habitation

module already meets or exceeds both of NASA’s requirements for

stowage and radiation shielding.

Section 128 prohibits NASA from obligating any funds in FY

2000–2002 to replace a baselined ISS module with an inflatable,

crew-rated structure. It is intended to halt work on Trans-Hab. The

section also prohibits NASA from obligating any funds in FY2000

to define, design, or develop inflatable structures for human use in

order to prevent NASA from continuing Trans-Hab under another

guise. The prohibition is lifted in FY2001 because the Committee

does not want to preclude research and development of inflatable
52

structures for other missions. The Committee is recommending this

action for several reasons.

First, Trans-Hab costs more than the Habitation module. The

taxpayers simply cannot afford costly additions to a program that

is already at least $7.3 billion over budget and more than two

years behind schedule.

Second, the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force and

General Accounting Office both have noted in past reports that continual design changes this late in the development process have

contributed to cost growth in the ISS program. By halting TransHab, the Committee is promoting fiscal and engineering discipline

on a program that often appears to be out of control. At a time

when outside experts are recommending cutting content to meet

cost goals, it makes no sense to add content that increases costs.

Third, NASA has never successfully designed, developed, or operated an inflatable, crew-rated structure. Thus, the Trans-Hab involves increased cost, technical, and programmatic risk to the ISS

program at a time when the Station is suffering from too much uncertainty caused by Russia’s instability. Additionally, because

NASA has little experience with such structures, the projections of

cost and benefits are immature. Given the ISS program’s history,

the benefits of Trans-Hab are likely to be less than advertised

while its costs are likely to grow above the $250 million NASA currently anticipates.

Fourth, the Committee has made clear its dissatisfaction with

the Office of Human Space Flight’s practice of cutting the ISS

science budget in an effort to fund hardware. NASA currently

funds Trans-Hab activities outside of the ISS budget. This might

be interpreted as an attempt to artificially deflate the true costs of

the Space Station and raises concerns about the credibility of

NASA’s past justification for transferring funds out of science accounts to pay for hardware, since the agency appears able to find

resources when it plans to use them for hardware but not when it

needs them to minimize its cuts in the ISS research budget. The

Committee believes that repaying past Administration cuts to the

ISS science budget is a higher priority than funding new flight

hardware.

Finally, the Trans-Hab appears to be a technical solution in

search of a problem. Since the existing Habitation module either

meets or exceeds the ISS requirements, there is no reason to contemplate its replacement. NASA initially argued that Trans-Hab

would benefit future attempts to mount a human expedition to

Mars. After the White House and Members of Congress reaffirmed

their opposition to a human expedition to Mars until after the

Space Station is successfully completed, NASA dropped that justification for the effort and began justifying Trans-Hab as a safety

enhancement. However, if NASA were truly concerned about safety, it might be better served by using additional resources to shield

the Service Module against the threat of orbital debris, since the

Service Module does not meet minimum NASA standards for safety

in this area, whereas the existing Habitation module does meet or

exceed existing requirements for radiation shielding.
53

SECTION 129. CONSOLIDATED SPACE OPERATIONS CONTRACT

Sectional analysis and recommendation

No funds authorized by this Act shall be used to create a government-owned corporation to carry out the functions of the Consolidated Space Operations Contract.

Committee views

The President’s National Space Policy stipulates that NASA will

‘‘seek to privatize or commercialize its space communications operations no later than 2005.’’ In an attempt to pursue this strategy,

and in an effort to reduce costs, NASA has consolidated and

streamlined these ground support efforts into one contract known

as the Consolidated Space Operations Contract (CSOC).

While the Consolidated Space Operations Contract has created

one overarching infrastructure to conduct communications, NASA

has not yet demonstrated true privatization or commercialization of

this function. Awarding one government contract in place of 16 existing contracts certainly signifies consolidation. However, NASA

cannot be said to have privatized this function until the private

sector sells services to the government instead of systems. Merely

awarding contracts to industry to build or operate hardware does

not satisfy the criteria for privatization.

To encourage NASA to pursue truly commercial solutions, this

section prohibits the use of a government-owned corporation. This

concept, first described by NASA in written testimony provided for

a March 11, 1999 hearing, would create a government-owned corporation that utilizes existing NASA assets. Such a setup, however,

would not represent true privatization because of continued government ownership of those assets. Moreover, the continued use of existing equipment by a government entity which would actually

compete with private interests would actively discourage commercial development of a more efficient space communications infrastructure.

NASA requested that the Committee only restrict the pursuance

of a government-owned corporation to the terms described in the

March 11, 1999 testimony. This testimony explains that NASA is

currently investigating a number of options for ‘‘commercialization,’’ including a government corporation. The testimony further

states that if the investigation should conclude that such a setup

would be feasible, ‘‘enabling legislation will be required.’’

Because such a government corporation fails to meet the criteria

for true commercialization as defined in section 209 on commercial

space definitions (i.e., it does not presuppose privatization), NASA

should not pursue this option as part of its study. Accordingly, this

section prohibits NASA from proceeding with an approach which

could interfere with the natural evolution of the commercial space

communications industry, and therefore potentially raise future

space commercialization service costs to the federal government.
54

SECTION 130. TRIANA FUNDING PROHIBITION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

No funds authorized by this Act may be used for the Triana program, except $2,500,000 of FY2000 funds may be used for termination costs.

Committee views

This section, was part of an amendment offered at the Committee markup by Rep. Dave Weldon and Rep. George Nethercutt. The

full amendment terminated the Triana satellite within the Earth

Science Enterprise and transferred $32,600,000 of FY2000 funds to

the Life & Microgravity Sciences and Applications program.

$2,500,000 in FY2000 funds are reserved for termination costs.

The Triana satellite was conceived by the Vice President of the

United States, who first announced it in a speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on March 13th, 1998. Triana was initially announced as an Earth-pointing camera to provide live pictures of the Earth for the Internet. After its announcement, the

satellite evolved to include a science mission. The science payloads

were selected by NASA scientists after the decision to proceed with

Triana had already been made.

TITLE II—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SECTION 201. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS

This section requires the NASA Chief Financial Officer to conduct independent cost analyses of projects estimated to cost in excess of $100,000,000 in total project costs, and to report the results

of the analyses to Congress. The cost analysis is to occur before the

project enters Phase B. 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 202. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

AMENDMENTS

This section strikes Section 102(f) of the National Aeronautics

and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451) which declares that NASA’s

efforts be directed toward the development of advanced automobile

propulsion systems. This section also amends Section 206(a) of the

1958 Act to require the President 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. This change is made

in order to give the Administration adequate time to prepare the

report.

SECTION 203. COMMERCIAL SPACE GOODS AND SERVICES

This section seeks to encourage the continued growth of the U.S.

commercial space sector by directing NASA to purchase commercially available space goods and services to the fullest extent feasible and not to compete with the private sector, except as required
55

for reasons of national security or public safety. The section also

defines the conditions under which a space good is to be treated as

commercially available.

SECTION 204. COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS

This section defines the mechanism by which NASA will determine whether it is more cost-effective to perform a function internally or to out-source it to the private sector. Generally, it directs

NASA to compare the price a private-sector will charge the government to perform an activity with the full-cost of doing the same activity internally.

SECTION 205. FOREIGN CONTRACT LIMITATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

Prohibits NASA from entering into agreements or contracts with

foreign governments which grant the foreign government the right

to recover profit in the event that the agreement or contract is terminated.

Committee views

NASA contract NAS15–10110 governs NASA’s relationship with

the Russian Space Agency when NASA pays the Russian Space

Agency for various space goods and services. Section I.8 of the contract discusses the rights of the U.S. Government and the Russian

Government in the event that either party decides to terminate the

contract. One paragraph grants the Russian Space Agency the

right to seek to recover lost ‘‘profits’’ in the event that NASA terminates the contract for convenience. Setting aside the definition of

‘‘profit’’ in a contract between governments and the appropriateness

of accepting an obligation on the part of the American taxpayer to

compensate a foreign government for lost profit in the event that

the American government needs to terminate such a contract,

NASA rarely gives U.S. contractors such charitable terms. This section prohibits NASA from entering into any contracts with a foreign government in which terminated the contract.

SECTION 206. AUTHORITY TO REDUCE OR SUSPEND CONTRACT

PAYMENTS BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FRAUD

This section amends 10 U.S.C. 2307(h)(8) which deals with actions that certain federal agencies can take in the case of fraud by

a contractor. Currently this section applies to the Department of

Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy,

and the Department of the Air Force. The section allows these entities to suspend or reduce contract payments when there is a substantial evidence that the request of a contractor for advance, partial, or progress payment under a contract awarded by that agency

is based on fraud. This amendment would add NASA to the list of

agencies that can use this authority.

SECTION 207. SPACE SHUTTLE UPGRADE STUDY

This section directs the Administrator to make arrangements for

an independent study to reassess the priority of all Phase III and

Phase IV Shuttle upgrades. The study shall establish relative pri-
56

orities of the upgrades within 3 categories: (1) upgrades for safety;

(2) upgrades that may have applicability to reusable launch vehicles; and (3) upgrades that have a payback period within the next

12 years. The study is to be transmitted to Congress within 180

days after enactment of this Act.

SECTION 208. AERO-SPACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY

INTEGRATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

This section requires the Administrator to develop a plan for integrating the activities (research, development, and experimental

demonstrations) of aeronautics transportation technology and space

transportation technology. The plan must ensure that unique capabilities are not lost. The report is to be transmitted to Congress

within 90 days after enactment of this Act and annually thereafter

for 5 years.

Committee views

In H. Rept. 105–233, which accompanied H.R. 1275, the Committee stated: ‘‘* * * there are good historical reasons for the marriage of NASA’s aeronautics and advanced space transportation efforts. In many ways, NASA’s efforts to promote cheap access to

space are akin to its historic role of promoting technological leadership in aviation, including building a strong cooperative relationship with industry.’’

In written testimony before the Committee on March 3, 1999, Associate Administrator for Aero-Space Technology Spence Armstrong

indicated that the Aeronautics Research and Technology Base and

Advanced Space Transportation Program were to be merged to create greater synergies between the advanced structures, materials,

guidance and controls, and propulsion technologies of future experimental air- and spacecraft. Furthermore, Administrator Goldin has

testified repeatedly that to achieve NASA’s goals for opening the

space frontier, space transportation systems must become more like

airplanes in terms of safety, reliability, operability, and cost.

Finally, given the trend in commercial aviation towards commodity manufacturing, NASA’s aeronautics research and flight test

centers are left with an industrial partnership base that is less interested in maximizing the adoption of new technologies. Commercial space transportation, however, is at the early stages of industrial evolution, and could benefit tremendously from the unique expertise and capabilities of NASA’s Aeronautics R&D team.

The Committee therefore is directing NASA to develop a plan for

fully integrating the Aeronautics and Advanced Space Transportation Technology portions of the Aero-Space Technology Enterprise, and to report back annually to the Congress on its progress

in bringing the resources of the Aeronautics research centers to

bear on the challenges of advanced space transportation technology.

SECTION 209. DEFINITIONS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE POLICY TERMS

Requires the Administrator to ensure that the usage of terminology in NASA policies and programs is consistent with the pro-
57

vided definitions for (1) commercialization, (2) commercial purchase, (3) commercial use of federal assets, (4) contract consolidation, and (5) privatization.

SECTION 210. EXTERNAL TANK OPPORTUNITIES STUDY

(a) Requires the Administrator to enter into arrangements for an

independent study to identify and evaluate the benefits and costs

of a broad range of commercial and scientific applications stemming from retaining the Shuttle’s external tanks in Earth orbit

after the Shuttle is launched. The study shall evaluate (1) the use

of privately owned external tanks as a venue for commercial advertising, (2) the use of external tanks to achieve scientific or technology demonstration missions, and (3) the use of external tanks

as low-cost infrastructure in Earth orbit (including augmentation of

the Space Station) or on the Moon. A report on the study shall be

submitted to Congress within 90 days after the date of enactment

of this Act. The report shall include recommendations as to government and industry improvements to the external tank which would

maximize its cost effectiveness.

(b) Requires the Administrator to conduct an internal study

based on the conclusions of the independent study. The internal

study shall review what would be required for the safe and economical use of the external tank for applications identified in the

independent study. The internal study shall look at improvements

to the current external tank and other in-space transportation or

infrastructure capability developments. The report shall be submitted to Congress within 45 days after the report in subsection (a)

is submitted to Congress.

(c) Requires the Administrator to solicit comment from industry

on what, if any, changes in law or policy would be required to

achieve the applications identified in the independent study. The

comments shall be submitted to Congress within 90 days after the

report in subsection (a) is submitted to Congress.

SECTION 211. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS

This section requires the Administrator to exclude from consideration for grant agreements, for a period of five years, any person

who received funds (appropriated for a fiscal year after FY1999) for

a project not subject to a competitive, merit-based award process.

This shall not apply to federal funds received by a person due to

membership in a class specified by law for which assistance is

awarded according to a formula provided by law.

SECTION 212. NOTICE

If any funds authorized by this bill are subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice be given to the House or Senate

appropriations committees, notice shall concurrently be provided to

the House and Senate authorizing committees. If any program,

project, or activity of NASA is preparing to undergo any major reorganization, the Administrator shall notify the House and Senate

authorizing and appropriating committees no later than 15 days

prior to such reorganization.
58

SECTION 213. UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949 AMENDMENTS

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.

SECTION 214. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

Sectional analysis and recommendation

This section requires the Administrator to establish a Human

Space Flight Commercialization/Technology program of groundbased and space-based research and development in innovative

technologies. At least 75% of the amount appropriated for such program shall be awarded through broadly distributed announcements

of opportunity. The Administrator shall include as part of NASA’s

budget request to Congress for FY2001, a plan for the implementation of the program.

Committee views

In the FY2000 budget request, the White House Office of Management and Budget added $20 million in FY2001 for NASA’s

Human Space Flight program to conduct a ‘‘commercialization/technology’’ program. NASA provided no information about this augmentation of its outyear budget, but discussions with OMB determined that the White House intends NASA to use the funds, which

increase to $50,000,000 in FY2003, to introduce the principles of

‘‘faster, cheaper, better’’ which have governed reforms in NASA’s

science programs. The Committee agrees that the Human Space

Flight program has escaped or avoided the same kinds of reforms

that NASA has made most successfully in space science to result

in ‘‘faster, cheaper, better’’ programs and endorses the White House

budget augmentation by explicitly authorizing it and directing the

Administrator to develop a plan for submission with the FY2001

budget to establish a ‘‘Human Space Flight Commercialization/

Technology program of ground- and space-based research and development of innovative technologies. The section also directs that

at least 75 percent of the amount appropriated for the program

shall be awarded through competitive bidding.

SECTION 215. LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

Sectional analysis and recommendation

Section 215 directs the Administrator to make arrangements for

the National Academy of Sciences to review international efforts to

determine the extent of life in the universe and enhancements that

can be made to NASA’s efforts to determine the extent of life in the

universe. The review is to look at NASA’s astrobiology initiatives

within the Origins program and other entities’ initiatives, including

the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute. The review is

also to include recommendations about possible enhancements to

NASA’s initiatives and possible coordination or integration of

NASA’s initiatives with those of outside entities.
59

Committee views

NASA is concurrently running two initiatives related to the

search for life in the universe. Its Origins program is a broad effort

to look for other places in the universe with conditions that appear

to be amenable to supporting life. Its astrobiology programs focus

more on the mechanics of life itself as opposed to the environment

in which it is created. Progress in one initiative has the potential

to assist research in the other initiative. The recent debate over

evidence of microbial life on Mars and the possibility that Jupiter’s

moon Europa is covered with oceans capable of sustaining life are

just some of the recent developments in these areas.

SECTION 216. RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

Section 216 was added as an amendment offered by Representative Nethercutt to H.R. 1654 during the Committee’s markup of the

bill. The measure directs NASA to enter into a contract with the

National Research Council (NRC) and National Academy of Public

Administration (NAPA) to conduct a joint review of the readiness

of the science community to maximize the International Space Station’s research potential, identify limitations of the community’s

readiness for ISS, and study the costs and benefits of planning an

annual dedicated life and microgravity Shuttle mission during ISS

assembly.

Committee views

For some time, NASA has transferred funds out of its International Space Station (ISS) research budgets and into hardware

development to pay for cost growth in the development program,

most of which has resulted from the need to compensate for Russia’s continuing failures to live up to its obligations to the ISS partnership. This has raised concerns in the scientific community and

within the Science Committee that the research community will

not be prepared to fully utilize the ISS for science when the facility

becomes available, largely because the preparatory work that must

be undertaken will have been underfunded. To address this issue,

last year the Science and Appropriations Committees both recommended that NASA undertake a Shuttle mission dedicated to

life and microgravity science in FY1999 to fill in the two-year gap

in flight opportunities created by delays in the ISS assembly sequence. The appropriations process increased NASA’s FY1999

budget to accommodate the mission, but NASA declined to undertake it, citing cost concerns and the impact such a flight might

have on the International Space Station. However, NASA offered

Congress three different estimates of the cost of performing such

a mission.

The NRC and NAPA have conducted joint studies in the past on

issues involving both science and policy issues, which makes them

appropriate for this review, given both its scientific and fiscal aspects. Their review is also intended to generate recommendations

for improving the readiness of the scientific community to use the

International Space Station, including conducting an assessment of

the costs and benefits of conducting an annual Shuttle mission
60

dedicated to life and microgravity research while the International

Space Station is being assembled. The study will assist NASA, the

White House, and the Congress in making decisions about funding

priorities as ISS is built.

SECTION 217. REMOTE SENSING FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

Section 217 was added to the bill as an amendment offered by

Mr. Smith of Michigan during the Committee’s markup of H.R.

1654. The Committee has long encouraged the use of commercial

remote sensing data by NASA. Studies conducted by Rand Corporation and described in testimony before the Subcommittee on Space

and Aeronautics on September 10, 1998, describe numerous other

government agencies which can benefit from such commercial products. Moreover, many private citizens who are constituents of such

agencies can also benefit.

One example which epitomizes such a would-be beneficiary of

commercial remote sensing data is the agricultural community.

NASA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have an existing agreement to study agricultural uses of commercial data at

the Stennis Space Center, NASA’s lead center for commercial remote sensing. NASA has further announced 13 research grants

under the NASA-USDA partnership on May 10, 1999.

Within the context of such agreements, NASA is directed to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture to determine types of satellite data which can be useful for agricultural planning, both from

commercial sources and radar imagery satellites such as LightSAR

and RADARSAT. The radar imagery, in particular, provides data

which has direct application to determining crop yields.

One particular benefit from this data would be the determination

of international crop yields, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere. Farmers would be able to assess the global crop production

months before they must make their own selection of crops to plant

that season. This would enable them to grow additional crops of

which a global shortfall exists, and avoid crops which are overabundant.

SECTION 218. INTEGRATED SAFETY RESEARCH PLAN

Section 218 was added to the bill as an amendment offered by

Mr. Gutknecht during the Committee’s markup of H.R. 1654. This

section requires both agencies to jointly prepare and transmit to

Congress an integrated civil aviation safety research and development plan in order to enhance the effectiveness of joint NASA/FAA

undertakings by ensuring proper coordination between the agencies

and that resources are used in the most cost-effective manner. The

plan shall define the roles and responsibilities of each agency, require the timely sharing of critical information, and recommend

procedures to increase the communication between the agencies’ industry advisory committees.

In the past, joint FAA and NASA research efforts have produced

valuable aviation safety technology. Currently, the FAA and NASA

are engaged in 18 joint safety projects and tasks. Both agencies are

working to achieve the national safety goal of reducing the fatal

aviation accident rate by 80% in ten years. The FAA and NASA
61

have different roles in these efforts. However, it is imperative that

the agencies clearly delineate the research undertaken by each

agency so that their goals can be achieved in the most efficient

manner.

SECTION 219. 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF FLIGHT EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVE

Section 219 was added to the bill as an amendment offered by

Mr. Etheridge during the Committee’s markup of H.R. 1654. The

100th anniversary of the first powered flight will occur in 2003,

which presents a unique opportunity for stimulating interest in

math, science, and engineering in our schools. This legislation instructs the NASA Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary of Education, to develop an educational curriculum in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the first powered flight. The

subjects are to include the history of flight, the contribution of

flight to global development in the 20th century, the practical benefits of aeronautics and space flight to society, the scientific and

mathematical principles used in flight, and other topics the Administrator considers appropriate.

Plans for the development and flight of the Mars plane are to be

integrated into the curriculum, which will necessitate that the

NASA Administrator provide for the distribution of the curriculum

for use in the 2000–2001 academic year and thereafter. Further,

the NASA Administrator shall transmit a report to the Committee

on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on activities

undertaken pursuant to this section not later than May 1, 2000.

SECTION 220. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

Section 220 was added to the bill as an amendment offered by

Ms. Biggert during the Committee’s markup of H.R. 1654. This section requires the Administrator to make available through NASA’s

Internet home page, abstracts of all grants and awards made with

funds authorized by this Act. This requirement shall not apply to

information prohibited by law or regulation from being released to

the public.

VIII. COST ESTIMATE

Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of

a public character to contain: (1) an estimate, made by such committee, of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out such

bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in which it is reported, and

in each of the five fiscal years following such fiscal year (or for the

authorized duration of any program authorized by such bill or joint

resolution, if less than five years); (2) a comparison of the estimate

of costs described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph made by

such committee with an estimate of such costs made by any Government agency and submitted to such committee; and (3) when

practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level for

the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate levels

under current law. However, House Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(3)(B)

provides that this requirement does not apply when a cost estimate
62

and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional

Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the report

and included in the report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause

3(c)(3). A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of

the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted prior to the

filing of this report and is included in Section IX of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report that accompanies a measure providing new

budget authority (other than continuing appropriations), new

spending authority, or new credit authority, or changes in revenues

or tax expenditures to contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and, when

practicable with respect to estimates of new budget authority, a

comparison of the total estimated funding level for the relevant

program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under current law.

H.R. 1654 does not contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that

the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 1654

does authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in

the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained in section IX of this report.

IX. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, May 17, 1999.

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,

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. 1654, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kathleen Gramp (for

federal costs) and Lisa Cash Driskill (for the state and local impact).

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 1654—National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999

Summary: H.R. 1654 would authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for fiscal

years 2000 through 2002 and establish federal policies related to

those activities. The bill also would authorize an additional $5 million for 2001 for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) research

on aviation systems capacity. Under this bill, NASA would be directed to prepare several reports, including studies regarding the
63

space station, the space shuttle, remote sensing data, and civil

aviation. Some of those reports would have to be prepared in consultation with the FAA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and

the Department of Education. Other provisions would impose conditions on NASA’s expenditures and procurement practices.

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1654 would result in discretionary

spending totaling $41 billion over the 2000–2004 period. The legislation would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, payas-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 1654 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs

on state, local, or tribal governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1654 is shown in the following table. For the

purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized in the bill will be appropriated by the start of each fiscal year

and that outlays will follow the historical spending patterns for

these activities. CBO estimates that the costs incurred by other

agencies to participate in certain studies would not be significant.

The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 250 (general science, space, and technology) and 400 (transportation).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending by NASA under current law:

Budget authority1 .................................................... 13,665 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated outlays .................................................... 13,670 5,195 718 285 0 0

Proposed changes:

Authorization level 2 ................................................. 0 13,626 13,752 13,839 0 0

Estimated outlays .................................................... 0 8,480 13,004 13,558 5,250 697

Spending under H.R. 1654:

Authorization level 1, 2 ............................................ 13,665 13,626 13,752 13,839 0 0

Estimated outlays .................................................... 13,670 13,675 13,722 13,843 5,250 697

1 The 1999 level at the amount appropriated for NASA for that year

2 The authorization level proposed for 2001 includes $5 million for aviation capacity research at the FAA.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.

Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: H.R.

1654 contains on intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

Some of the money authorized by the bill would be for research and

development at academic institutions, including public colleges and

universities.

Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would impose

no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp; Impact

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Cash Driskill.

Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

X. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

H.R. 1654 contains no unfunded mandates.
64

XI. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report to include 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

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report to contain a summary of the oversight findings and recommendations made by the House Government Reform

Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such findings and recommendations have been submitted to the Committee

in a timely fashion. The Committee on Science has received no

such findings or recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform.

XIII. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the House of Representatives requires

each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public

character to include a statement citing the specific powers granted

to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by

the bill or joint resolution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution

of the United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R.

1654.

XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

H.R. 1654 does not establish, or authorize the establishment of,

any advisory committee.

XV. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 1654 does not relate to the terms

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1).

XVI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) 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 italic,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

TITLE I—SHORT TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND

DEFINITIONS

* * * * * * *
65

DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE

SEC. 102. (a)***

* * * * * * *

ø(f) 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.¿

ø(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.

ø(h)¿ (g) It is the purpose of this Act to carry out and effectuate

the policies declared in subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), ø(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

øJanuary¿ 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 øcalendar¿

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.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 2307 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

§ 2307. Contract financing

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) ACTION IN CASE OF FRAUD.—(1)***

* * * * * * *

(8) This subsection applies to the agencies named in paragraphs

(1), (2), (3), øand (4)¿ (4), and (6) of section 2303(a) of this title.

* * * * * * *
66

UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949

* * * * * * *

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

øtranssonic and supersonic¿ transsonic, 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 ølaboratories¿ laboratories and centers

by the construction of additional øsupersonic¿ transsonic, 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 ølaboratory¿ 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.

* * * * * * *

XVII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On May 13, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee favorably reported the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Authorization Act of 1999, by a rollcall vote of Yeas–27; Nays–13;

and recommends its enactment.
(67)

XVIII. MINORITY VIEWS

Although H.R. 1654 contains a number of positive positions, the

bill as reported out of the Committee is flawed. We believe that it

needs revision if it is to provide a constructive guide for the nation’s civil space program.

One of the bill’s most egregious problems is the way it has been

politicized by an amendment that would terminate the Triana

earth observation spacecraft project. The Triana project was competitively awarded and its scientific content has been peer-reviewed. It offers important scientific and educational benefits. It is

being managed by one of the nation’s most distinguished research

institutions—the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. However, all

those positive aspects apparently are outweighed in the eyes of the

Majority by the fact that the Triana project originally was proposed

by the Vice President. It is deeply disturbing that the Majority has

been willing to turn legislation that traditionally has been non-partisan into a vehicle for a partisan attack on the Vice President.

Such tactics should have no place on a Committee charged with the

bipartisan stewardship of America’s space and aeronautics activities.

There are several other provisions that should be reexamined

and modified before H.R. 1654 is ever enacted into law. Among

these are the bill’s prohibition against any funding for the High

Performance Computing and other information technology initiatives contained in the President’s request. The Chairman has provided assurances that authorizations for those activities will be

forthcoming in a separate bill; we wish to emphasize that the removal of those funds from this bill should not be read as any negative judgment as to their importance, and we support their inclusion in NASA’s budget.

Another area of concern is the bill’s prohibition against any funding for the Ultra Efficient Engine Technology focused program.

Long-term R&D efforts in engine technology, including the construction of engineering models when appropriate, are vitally important to both our national security and to our continued competitiveness in worldwide aerospace markets. We should not abandon

those efforts. In addition, we support NASA’s aviation safety and

system capacity research, as well as research directed towards aircraft noise and emissions reduction.

More broadly, we believe that aeronautical research and development activities will remain appropriate and critical elements of

NASA’s overall mission for many years to come. The Federal government needs to maintain its commitment to aeronautical R&D

and to the facilities needed to support that R&D. In that regard,

we view the plan requested in Section 208 as one which should be

focused on identifying those opportunities where the synergy between aeronautical and space transportation technologies could be
68

enhanced through integration. We do not view it as signaling any

diminution of the Committee’s support for a robust, long-term aeronautical R&D enterprise at NASA, and it should not be interpreted

as such.

An additional problem with the bill is the inclusion of the Earth

Science Limitation in Section 126. While we strongly support the

development of a healthy and growing U.S. commercial remote

sensing industry and the goal of commercial data purchases when

appropriate, we believe that the earmarks contained in Section 126

are both ill-advised and ultimately unworkable. The provision as

written will needlessly disrupt NASA’s vital Earth Science research

program while doing little to advance genuine commercialization.

In the area of Human Space Flight, the bill’s message is mixed.

On the one hand, the bill contains a provision (Section 214) offered

by the Minority to encourage the identification of innovative technologies that could help make the human exploration and development of space ‘‘faster, cheaper, and better’’. Following the model of

NASA’s New Millennium and Discovery program, we believe that

the Human Exploration and Development of Space (HEDS) enterprise needs to ‘‘cast its net’’ widely to capture promising technologies being conceived and developed at universities, industry,

other Federal laboratories, and of course at NASA Centers. We believe that a series of ground-based, and where appropriate spacebased, experiments could do much to enhance our capabilities and

reduce the cost of human space exploration.

On the other hand, the bill as a provision (Sec. 128) that would

appear to send a message to NASA that the Committee does not

wish to encourage such innovations. While directed at legitimate

concerns that TransHab should not be developed without proper

justification, cost controls, and Congressional oversight, the provision would seem to rule out activities that would allow Congress

to make informed decisions on the merit of the TransHab concept.

We are encouraged that the bill adds additional funding for

NASA’s educational programs. However, the funding level in the

bill is still below the Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation for this account.

We also are encouraged that the bill includes additional space

science funding for the emergency Hubble Space Telescope (HST)

repair mission. We sought the inclusion of such additional funding

to ensure that HST remains productive without having NASA have

to cannibalize the rest of the space science program. With the constrained budgets inherent in the ‘‘faster, cheaper, better’’ approach,

there is less margin provided in the budgets for unexpected problems. Since space research can never be totally free of such unexpected problems, we recognize that in the future the Committee

may have to consider whether provision of additional resources is

necessary to ensure that the ongoing space science and Space Shuttle programs are not unduly disrupted by events beyond NASA’s

control, such as recent industry-wide launch failures.
69

Finally, we think it important to note that when funding allocations or programmatic priorities not specified in the underlying bill

are included in the Committee report, they do not represent any

consensus of the Committee, and they should not be viewed as such

by the affected agency.

GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

JERRY COSTELLO.

DEBBIE STABENOW.

ZOE LOFGREN.

NICK LAMPSON.

LYNN N. RIVERS.

MARK UDALL.

BART GORDON.

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON.

SHEILA JACKSON LEE.

JIM BARCIA.

DAVID WU.

LYNN WOOLSEY.

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO.

ANTHONY D. WEINER.

BOB ETHERIDGE.
(70)

DISSENTING VIEWS

I commend my colleague, the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, for

the significant effort he has made in bringing forward a comprehensive NASA Authorization Act. Yet, section 128 of his efforts

omits TransHab, a proposed replacement for the International

Space Station habitation module. TransHab is important enough to

the space program and to the Ninth Congressional District of Texas

that I feel the need to file these dissenting views.

NASA is currently reviewing the technical issues surrounding

the TransHab structure. TransHab appears to have a number of

highly desirable qualities and technologies that make it an attractive candidate both for International Space Station consideration

and for potential commercial applications such as significant crew

safety advantages over the currently baselined habitation module.

NASA, therefore, should be permitted to continue research to develop and design TranHab and to contribute some modest amount

of technology maturation funding, if required, to develop a commercial partnership. Several companies have already shown their interest by responding to a TransHab concept solicitation.

NASA plans to pursue this concept only if the difference in cost

between the Hab and the TransHab can be mitigated by commercial participation. I, therefore, recommend that we authorize

TransHab but postpone the obligation of funds for its design or development or any other inflatable replacement for International

Space Station components scheduled for launch until the NASA

Administrator provides the House Committee on Science and the

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with

a report that includes the following: an independently validated

cost and schedule estimate for proposed design or development program, a description of the procurement approach to be used, and

a funding plan with increments tied to the achievement of clearly

defined programmatic milestones.

In closing, I am very concerned that we not do anything in this

bill that would preclude NASA from doing the research necessary

to determine the viability of TransHab or any other inflatable concepts.

NICK LAMPSON.
(71)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

I commend my colleague, the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, for

the significant effort he has made in bringing forward the NASA

Authorization Act. I would, however, like to express my concerns

regarding the amount of funding dedicated to Aircraft Noise Reduction Technology Research at NASA.

While I commend NASA for their efforts in this field, the time

has come to increase funding for noise reduction research to a level

commensurate with the problem. As our skies become more and

more crowded, airplane noise presents a more sigificant concern to

the weary residents surrounding our nation’s airports. An increase

in funding for this technology would allow NASA to support negotiations on Stage IV noise reductions—the next generation of aircraft noise control efforts currently being developed.

As Aircraft Noise Reduction efforts reach this next level of development, aircraft designers and manufacturers, standards writers,

and government decision-makers must be armed with the best information available. Higher funding for this family of technologies

is clearly the most important signal this Congress can send that it

takes this problem seriously.

ANTHONY D. WEINER.
(72)

XIX. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

MARKUP ON H.R. 1654, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

Thursday, May 13, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in Room

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER [presiding]. The Committee on

Science will be in order.

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science is meeting today

to consider the following: first, H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization

Act of 1999; second, H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of

1999; third, H.R. 1656, the Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy Technology Authorization Act of 1999; fourth,

H.R. 1742, the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research

and Development and Science Advisory Board Authorization Act of

1999; sixth, the—excuse me, fifth, the EPA Office of Air and Radiation Authorization Act of 1999, and, last the NIST Authorization

Act of 1999.

I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point, and, without objection, it is so ordered. Let me

also say that it is my hope that this morning we will be able to

finish at least the first two bills, and if we get done with those, it

is not my intention to bring the Committee back this afternoon but

to recess the Committee, and we will find a mutually aggreable

time, either tommorrow if we have votes or next week, to act on

the rest of the bills and report them out to the Floor for action. So,

if we get done with the first two bills, the members can get a pass

for this afternoon, which I think would be welcomed by most.

H.R. 1654

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The first bill we will take up this

morning is H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 1999. This

is a 3-year authorization covering the activities of our Civil Space

Program in Fiscal Years 2000, 2001, and 2002. When combined

with a separate authorization for NASA’s high performance com-
73

puting and communications activities, this bill represents an annual 1 percent increase for NASA over the President’s request.

The bill provides full funding for the International Space Station

and fences the station’s research account so the science community

will be prepared to use the station when it is completed. Section

128 of the bill also prohibits NASA from continuing to spend money

on Trans-Hab, a possible replacement for the station’s habitation

module, because Trans-Hab costs more, and we simply don’t have

the money. The bill contains modest increases for Space Science,

Life and Microgravity research, space transportation technologies

and full funding for Earth science and shuttle operations. Within

the aeronautics budget, the bill cancels the Ultra-Efficient Engine

Technology Program rather than creating a new start for this focus

program, the bill redirects the engine technology funding into our

research and technology base where fundamental aeronautic research is conducted.

In addition, the bill contains several policy provisions, most notably, some definitions for commercial space activity so that various

Government agencies will mean the same thing when they use

terms such as ‘‘commercialization and privatization.’’ There is a

mandated study for the shuttle external tank, possibly as a supplement to our orbital research capabilities. A second study will review and prioritize various shuttle upgrades in order to assist the

Congress and the Administration in making policy about the shuttle’s future in coming years.

We do have a few amendments on the roster this morning, so I

won’t go into greater detail, but before moving forward, I do want

to mention some good news. The Senate Commerce Committee has

introduced and marked up its NASA authorization for the next 3

fiscal years as well. In the past, the Senate has not moved so

quickly on our Space Program, so I take this as an encouraging

sign that we will be able to send an authorization to the President

for signature this year, which will be the first time, I think, in 5

to 7 years. So, with that, let me yield to the gentleman from Texas,

Mr. Hall, for his opening statement.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will yield in a moment

to the Ranking Democrat. I have good news too. George Brown,

who has been quite ill, is at home; he’s doing well; he’s been to his

office, and he’s up and around and expressed a desire to thank all

of you for your——

[Applause.]

And I like an awful lot about the bill that we have here, but I’m

going to like them better if we get some amendments on it. [Laughter.]

I yield to Bart Gordon.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you. Good morning. Since we have a very

busy markup schedule, I will be brief in my remarks. I believe that

H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 1999, while by no means

free of problems, is a reasonable constructed piece of legislation, as

introduced, and I ask to co-sponsor it. I appreciate the willingness

of the Subcommittee Chair to work with the minority to address

some of our concerns with the original draft of the bill. I think that

our discussions prior to its introduction by the Chairman have led
74

to an improved bill. I am particularly pleased that bill, as introduced now, allocates additional funding for NASA’s education programs. As you know, members on this side of the aisle have been

very supportive of these programs, and we appreciate your willingness to respond to our concerns over the funding levels in the draft

bill, and I appreciate the Chairman’s agreement to include a provision that I requested to increase the funding for NASA’s TeacherFaculty Preparation Enhancement Program. This program offers

important benefits to our primarily undergraduate colleges and

technical institutions and can lead to long-term research opportunities for the students and the faculty of these schools.

Now, while I have agreed to co-sponsor H.R. 1654, I am still concerned about some aspects of the bill. One issue is the removal

form the bill of all the funding for the High Performance Computing Program and the Administration’s Information Technology Initiative. I understand the funding for these activities is being removed from all the authorizing bills in the Committee’s jurisdiction, and I hope that we will be able to get a better and additional

clarification from Chairman Sensenbrenner today regarding his intentions in this matter.

Another area of concern is the limitation that has been put on

the Earth Science Program in this bill. Although the provisions

may be well intended, I believe that including the limitation will

do real damage to the ongoing Earth Science Program while doing

little to help the commercial remote sensing sector.

Finally, I am puzzled by actions taken in the Aeronautics budget

to eliminate NASA’s main Aircraft Engine Technology Program and

to cut money form NASA’s Aviation System Capacity Research Program. These actions do not appear to reflect any consensus derived

form our hearing, either in the Space Subcommittee or in the Technology Subcommittee. I’m sure that we will discuss these matters

during the markup, so I will not dwell anymore on them at this

time.

In closing, I, again, want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee and of the full Committee for their willingness to work

with us on this bill, and I look forward to a productive markup, but

I would also like to ask unanimous consent to place George

Brown’s statement in the record.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, and, without objection, all members may place opening statements in the record at

this point in time.

[The statements of Mr. Brown and Mr. Lampson follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

While I do not intend to make a lengthy statement, I would like to offer a few

comments on H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 1999. As you know, I have

long been a strong supporter of the nation’s civil space program, and I remain so.

Our activities in space have offered countless benefits to our citizens and have done

much to bring the world’s peoples closer together. We need to work hard to ensure

that our space program continues to deliver those benefits.

More broadly, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—NASA—has

been a very important part of the nation’s research and development infrastructure.

We need to do all we can to maintain its health and vitality. In that regard, I believe that H.R. 1654, while by no means a perfect bill, does represent a positive signal that the Science Committee supports an active and robust civil space program

and a healthy commercial space sector. I thus am supporting H.R. 1654 as introduced.
75

I of course have long supported increases to NASA’s budget, and I am encouraged

that this bill does increase NASA’s overall funding. In addition, I am pleased that

both the Administration’s multiyear funding plan and this bill support investments

in advanced space transportation. Improved space transportation will allow us to do

more in space, and to do it at reasonable cost.

In addition, the Majority has been willing to include several provisions that I

sought to have included in the bill. Among them are findings on the importance of

maintaining the Hubble Space Telescope and enhancing it as appropriate. We have

gained much of importance from Hubble during its years of operation, and we need

to ensure that it remains productive until the next generation of space observatories

are on orbit. In that regard, I think we need to give serious consideration to enhancing it as appropriate so that it can serve as a scientific bridge to those future observatories, especially in the areas of near-infrared observations.

At the same time, we need to make sure that NASA has the necessary resources

to do needed servicing of Hubble without having to cannibalize the rest of the space

science program. That is why I sought inclusion of additional funding to cover the

science costs of the extra Hubble servicing mission. At the end of the day, NASA

will probably also need additional funding to cover the unexpected delays to the

AXAF observatory resulting from unrelated launch vehicle problems, as well as to

cover some of the Shuttle-related costs. As I have learned over the years, space research is not trouble-free, and we have to ensure sufficient reserves are available

to deal with the unexpected.

NASA has worked hard to develop an exciting, effective, and balanced space

science program, and I believe that Congress does not wish to see that balanced program unravel as a result of the current temporary problems. I see the extra money

I have sought to include as an early signal of this Committee’s commitment to a

healthy space science program.

Another area of concern to me is the Deep Space Network (DSN). I know that

NASA needs no encouragement from me to ensure that this critically important infrastructure is maintained. Yet I think that it is important to signal that this Committee recognizes the importance of the DSN for NASA’s existing and planned solar

system exploration missions—and that we want to make sure that upgrades required to satisfy future requirements are done in a timely manner.

Finally, H.R. 1654 includes a provision that I asked be included relating to innovative technologies for the human exploration and development of space. It is my

strong belief that we need to apply the lessons of ‘‘faster, cheaper, better’’ to NASA’s

human space flight programs if we are ever going to get beyond low Earth orbit.

In that regard, I think we need to cast the net widely for new, innovative technologies that can dramatically reduce the cost of human space exploration. I think

that NASA’s space science program has set a good example by means of its New

Millennium and Discovery programs, and I have sought to mimic that approach in

the provision included in the bill.

While there are other things I like about H.R. 1654, I do have an obligation to

point out some of the areas where I have problems with the bill. While I doubt that

all of them will be dealt with at today’s markup, I hope that at least some will be.

First, I would note the elimination of any funding for the High Performance Computing and Information Technology initiatives. Chairman Sensenbrenner has given

his assurances that it is his intention to move standalone legislation in the near future. However, I remain concerned that the absence of these programs from the

NASA bill could inadvertently send the wrong signal to the Appropriations committee. I thus want to make it abundantly clear that I support these programs.

Next, I believe that the Earth Science limitation included in the bill is ill-advised

and ultimately unworkable. I think it should be removed. I am puzzled by the prohibition against NASA’s aircraft engine focused technology program. I think that the

arguments for continuing that research program are as compelling as the arguments

for having NASA pursue research in space transportation engines. We should not

walk away from our national commitment to aviation engine research. Similarly, we

should not let a proper concern for cost discipline in the Space Station program inadvertently result in the stifling of all work on promising concepts such as inflatable

crew structures.

Likewise, I do not understand why the Majority would propose cutting NASA’s

research in aviation system capacity—an area that NASA has been involved in productively for many years. And of course, I think we can never go wrong in investing

in programs that promote science education. Finally, although I believe that the provisions in the bill regarding international cooperation represent an improvement

over those in the earlier draft bill, I would like to hear from NASA and our international partners on the potential impact of the proposed provisions on future cooperation.
76

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Rohrabacher,

and Mr. Gordon for their efforts in bringing this bill to us today, and I look foward

a productive markup.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. NICK LAMPSON

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the Committee has chosen to include a total of $25

million for new space shuttle upgrades in this bill.

The space shuttle is the most capable and versatile launch vehicle in the world.

No other vehicle—either in use or in development—can do it what it does: Payload

deployment; On-orbit assembly and research; Crew transfer; Satellite retrieval and

repair; and Cargo return.

Because the shuttle is exposed to atmospheric flight for only a few minutes during

a mission, the flight has only expended 25% of its design life. Like the reliable aircraft that meet our nation’s commercial and military needs—the 737 and B–52 for

example—the Space Shuttle’s performance and reliability improves with upgrades.

Upgrades have been a critical part of the Shuttle program since its inception. Better management of the program by NASA and USA—along with upgrades—have led

to significant improvements. In FY92, the annual Space Shuttle budget was $3.9 billion—today it is $3 billion.

The Space Shuttle’s on-time launch record is nearly perfect over the last three

years.

To continue this trend, investments in upgrades that increase safety and efficiency—and drive technology—are critical. As has been proven with commercial and

military aircraft, technology upgrades extend the life of aircraft—and spacecraft—

and return great value to the taxpayer. The $25 million in FY00 will allow the purchase of long-lead items so that the

NASA and USA team can begin the process of further upgrading the Space Shuttle.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GORDON. And, Mr. Chairman, finally, in conclusion, let me

just say that the normal regular order in most committees is to a

Subcommittee markup followed by a full Committee markup. It allows an opportunity to vent various issues; to let people—you

know, make sure that we’re not having unintended circumstances

and consequences so we get the very best bill. It is of course the

prerogative of the majority to decide whether they wanted to do

that or not. In this Committee, we’ve decided not to do it, but I do

want to report to our members that after a very cordial and good

faith discussion with the Chairman and his staff, that we’ve come

to an agreement to have good notice—at least 10 days—if possible,

with a full draft before major markups particularly when you have

several bills as coming up today. We can’t do our job, either the minority or really members of the majority who aren’t in the leadership there to look over the bills.

I think that, as I say, a good faith agreement has been developed. The majority has fulfilled that in this case. I want to say

thank you for that, and I want to remind our members that we

have a responsibility back; that when we have amendments and we

have concerns, we need to give them timely notice, and if we’ll all

work together on this, we’re going to have better legislation, and

I think that we’ve got a good agreement, and I thank you for that,

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GORDON. Yes, sir.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. First, let me thank the gentleman

from Tennessee. We had been working and soothing over some of

the rough points that have come up at earlier markups, and I think

we are on a good track. The bills have been available for circulation

for a good period of time, and the Democrats have reciprocated in

giving us their amendments in time for us to be able to review the
77

amendments and come back with comments on that, and I think

that we are narrowing the issues and thus able to speed up consideration of the legislation.

With respect to Subcommittee markups, there have been a considerable number of Subcommittee hearings, although not legislatively focused, on the President’s budget request, and it has been

my feeling as far as the authorization bills are concerned that having a Subcommittee markup as well as a Full Committee markup

would be a duplication of effort since the issues would largely be

the same. And, furthermore, since the Appropriations Committee is

going to be doing its thing so that we are able to have an August

recess according to the speaker’s admonition on the first day of the

session, that we ought to make all deliberate speed to get our authorization bills out in order to influence what the Appropriations

Committee does. So, I take responsibility for the call in not having

Subcommittee markups on these authorization bills, but I think

that it has been for good and sufficient reason.

Without objection, the bill is read the first time and open for

amendment at any point.

[The information follows:]

H.R. 1654

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space

Administration Authorization Act of 1999’’.

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Findings.

Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Subtitle A—Authorizations

Sec. 101. International Space Station.

Sec. 102. Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations.

Sec. 103. Science, Aeronautics, and Technology.

Sec. 104. Mission Support.

Sec. 105. Inspector General.

Sec. 106. Total authorization.

Sec. 107. Aviation systems capacity.

Subtitle B—Limitations and Special Authority

Sec. 121. Use of funds for construction.

Sec. 122. Availability of appropriated amounts.

Sec. 123. Reprogramming for construction of facilities.

Sec. 124. Limitation on obligation of unauthorized appropriations.

Sec. 125. Use of funds for scientific consultations or extraordinary expenses.

Sec. 126. Earth science limitation.

Sec. 127. Competitiveness and international cooperation.

Sec. 128. Trans-hab.

Sec. 129. Consolidated Space Operations Contract.

TITLE II—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Requirement for independent cost analysis.

Sec. 202. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 amendments.

Sec. 203. Commercial space goods and services.

Sec. 204. Cost effectiveness calculations.

Sec. 205. Foreign contract limitation.
78

Sec. 206. Authority to reduce or suspend contract payments based on substantial

evidence of fraud.

Sec. 207. Space Shuttle upgrade study.

Sec. 208. Aero-space transportation technology integration.

Sec. 209. Definitions of commercial space policy terms.

Sec. 210. External tank opportunities study.

Sec. 211. Eligibility for awards.

Sec. 212. Notice.

Sec. 213. Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 amendments.

Sec. 214. Innovative technologies for human space flight.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration should continue to

pursue actions and reforms directed at reducing institutional costs, including

management restructuring, facility consolidation, procurement reform, and convergence with defense and commercial sector systems.

(2) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration must continue on its

current course of returning to its proud history as the Nation’s leader in basic

scientific, air, and space research.

(3) The overwhelming preponderance of the Federal Government’s requirements for routine, unmanned space transportation can be met most effectively,

efficiently, and economically by a free and competitive market in privately developed and operated space transportation services.

(4) In formulating a national space transportation service policy, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration should aggressively promote the pursuit

by commercial providers of development of advanced space transportation technologies including reusable space vehicles, and human space systems.

(5) The Federal Government should invest in the types of research and innovative technology in which United States commercial providers do not invest,

while avoiding competition with the activities in which United States commercial providers do invest.

(6) 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—

(i) is undertaken in a manner that is sensitive to the desire of United

States commercial providers to develop or explore space commercially;

(ii) is consistent with the need for Federal agencies to use space to

complete their missions; and

(iii) is carried out in a manner consistent with United States export

control laws.

(7) 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.

(8) The Deep Space Network will continue to be a critically important part

of the Nation’s scientific and exploration infrastructure in the coming decades,

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should ensure that the

Network is adequately maintained and that upgrades required to support future

missions are undertaken in a timely manner.

(9) The Hubble Space Telescope has proven to be an important national astronomical research facility that is revolutionizing our understanding of the universe and should be kept productive, and its capabilities should be maintained

and enhanced as appropriate to serve as a scientific bridge to the next generation of space-based observatories.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act—

(1) the term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
79

(2) the term ‘‘commercial provider’’ means any person providing space transportation services or other space-related activities, primary control of which is

held by persons other than Federal, State, local, and foreign governments;

(3) 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));

(4) the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the several States of the Union, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any

other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; and

(5) the term ‘‘United States commercial provider’’ means a commercial provider, organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is—

(A) more than 50 percent owned by United States nationals; or

(B) a subsidiary of a foreign company and the Secretary of Commerce

finds that—

(i) such subsidiary has in the past evidenced a substantial commitment to the United States market through—

(I) investments in the United States in long-term research, development, and manufacturing (including the manufacture of major

components and subassemblies); and

(II) significant contributions to employment in the United States;

and

(ii) the country or countries in which such foreign company is incorporated or organized, and, if appropriate, in which it principally conducts its business, affords reciprocal treatment to companies described

in subparagraph (A) comparable to that afforded to such foreign company’s subsidiary in the United States, as evidenced by—

(I) providing comparable opportunities for companies described in

subparagraph (A) to participate in Government sponsored research

and development similar to that authorized under this Act;

(II) providing no barriers to companies described in subparagraph (A) with respect to local investment opportunities that are

not provided to foreign companies in the United States; and

(III) providing adequate and effective protection for the intellectual property rights of companies described in subparagraph (A).

TITLE I—AUTHORIZATION OF

APPROPRIATIONS

Subtitle A—Authorizations

SEC. 101. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration for International Space Station—

(1) for fiscal year 2000, $2,482,700,000, of which $394,400,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)—

(A) shall only be for Space Station research or for the purposes described

in section 103(2); and

(B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences

and Applications;

(2) for fiscal year 2001, $2,328,000,000, of which $465,400,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)—

(A) shall only be for Space Station research or for the purposes described

in section 103(2); and

(B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences

and Applications; and

(3) for fiscal year 2002, $2,091,000,000, of which $469,200,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)—

(A) shall only be for Space Station research or for the purposes described

in section 103(2); and

(B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences

and Applications.

SEC. 102. LAUNCH VEHICLE AND PAYLOAD OPERATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration for Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations the following amounts:
80

(1) For Space Shuttle Operations—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,547,400,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,649,900,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,629,000,000.

(2) For Space Shuttle Safety and Performance Upgrades—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $456,800,000, of which $18,000,000 shall not be

obligated until 45 days after the report required by section 207 has been

submitted to the Congress;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $407,200,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $414,000,000.

(3) For Payload and Utilization Operations—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $169,100,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $182,900,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $184,500,000.

SEC. 103. SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration for Science, Aeronautics, and Technology the following amounts:

(1) For Space Science—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,202,400,000, of which—

(i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth Object Survey;

(ii) $472,000,000 shall be for the Research Program;

(iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar Power technology; and

(iv) $170,400,000 shall be for Hubble Space Telescope (Development);

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,315,200,000, of which—

(i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth Object Survey;

(ii) $475,800,000 shall be for the Research Program; and

(iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar Power technology; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,411,800,000, of which—

(i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth Object Survey;

(ii) $511,100,000 shall be for the Research Program;

(iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar Power technology; and

(iv) $5,000,000 shall be for space science data buy.

(2) For Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $301,000,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other

women’s health issues, and $5,000,000 shall be for sounding rocket vouchers;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $335,200,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other

women’s health issues; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $344,000,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other

women’s health issues.

(3) For Earth Science, subject to the limitations set forth in section 126—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $1,415,100,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $1,413,300,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $1,365,300,000.

(4) For Aero-Space Technology—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $999,300,000, of which—

(i) $532,800,000 shall be for Aeronautical Research and Technology,

with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with

$475,800,000 to be for the Research and Technology Base;

(ii) $334,000,000 shall be for Advanced Space Transportation Technology, including—

(I) $61,300,000 for the Future-X Demonstration Program; and

(II) $105,600,000 for Advanced Space Transportation Program;

and

(iii) $132,500,000 shall be for Commercial Technology;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $908,400,000, of which—

(i) $524,000,000 shall be for Aeronautical Research and Technology,

with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with

$484,000,000 to be for the Research and Technology Base, and with

$54,200,000 to be for Aviation System Capacity;

(ii) $249,400,000 shall be for Advanced Space Transportation Technology, including—

(I) $109,000,000 for the Future-X Demonstration Program; and
81

(II) $134,400,000 for Advanced Space Transportation Program;

and

(iii) $135,000,000 shall be for Commercial Technology; and (C) for fiscal year 2002, $994,800,000, of which— (i) $519,200,000 shall be for Aeronautical Research and Technology,

with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with

$466,900,000 to be for the Research and Technology Base, and with

$67,600,000 to be for Aviation System Capacity; (ii) $340,000,000 shall be for Advanced Space Transportation Technology; and (iii) $135,600,000 shall be for Commercial Technology.

(5) For Mission Communication Services—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $406,300,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $382,100,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $296,600,000.

(6) For Academic Programs—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $128,600,000, of which $11,600,000 shall be for

Higher Education within the Teacher/Faculty Preparation and Enhancement Programs;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $128,600,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $130,600,000.

(7) For Future Planning (Space Launch)—

(A) for fiscal year 2001, $144,000,000; and

(B) for fiscal year 2002, $280,000,000.

SEC. 104. MISSION SUPPORT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration for Mission Support the following amounts:

(1) For Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $43,000,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $45,000,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $49,000,000.

(2) For Space Communication Services—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $89,700,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $109,300,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $174,200,000.

(3) For Construction of Facilities, including land acquisition—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $181,000,000, including—

(i) Restore Electrical Distribution System (ARC), $2,700,000;

(ii) Rehabilitate Main Hangar Building 4802 (Dryden Flight Research

Center (DFRC)), $2,900,000;

(iii) Rehabilitate High Voltage System (Glenn Research Center),

$7,600,000;

(iv) Repair Site Steam Distribution System (GSFC), $2,900,000;

(v) Restore Chilled Water Distribution System (GSFC), $3,900,000;

(vi) Rehabilitate Hydrostatic Bearing Runner, 70 meter Antenna,

Goldstone (JPL), $1,700,000;

(vii) Upgrade 70 meter Antenna Servo Drive, 70 meter Antenna

Subnet (JPL), $3,400,000;

(viii) Rehabilitate Utility Tunnel Structure and Systems (Johnson

Space Center (JSC)), $5,600,000;

(ix) Connect KSC to CCAS Wastewater Treatment Plant (KSC),

$2,500,000;

(x) Repair and Modernize HVAC System, Central Instrument Facility

(KSC), $3,000,000;

(xi) Replace High Voltage Load Break Switches (KSC), $2,700,000;

(xii) Repair and Modernize HVAC and Electrical systems, Building

4201 (Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), $2,300,000;

(xiii) Repair Roofs, Vehicle Component Supply buildings (MAF),

$2,000,000;

(xiv) Minor Revitalization of Facilities at Various Locations, not in

excess of $1,500,000 per project, $65,500,000;

(xv) Minor Construction of New Facilities and Additions to Existing

Facilities at Various Locations, not in excess of $1,500,000 per project,

$5,000,000;

(xvi) Facility Planning and Design, $19,200,000;

(xvii) Deferred Major Maintenance, $8,000,000;

(xviii) Environmental Compliance and Restoration, $40,100,000;
82

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $181,000,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $191,000,000.

(4) For Research and Program Management, including personnel and related

costs, travel, and research operations support—

(A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,181,200,000;

(B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,195,000,000; and

(C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,261,600,000.

SEC. 105. INSPECTOR GENERAL.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration for Inspector General—

(1) for fiscal year 2000, $22,000,000;

(2) for fiscal year 2001, $22,000,000; and

(3) for fiscal year 2002, $22,000,000.

SEC. 106. 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—

(1) for fiscal year 2000, $13,625,600,000;

(2) for fiscal year 2001, $13,747,100,000; and

(3) for fiscal year 2002, $13,839,400,000.

SEC. 107. AVIATION SYSTEMS CAPACITY.

In addition to amounts otherwise authorized, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration $5,000,000 for

fiscal year 2001 for aviation systems capacity.

Subtitle B—Limitations and Special Authority

SEC. 121. USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

(a) AUTHORIZED USES.—Funds appropriated under sections 101, 102, 103, and

104(1) and (2), and funds appropriated for research operations support under section

104(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.—No funds may be expended pursuant to subsection (a) for a

project, the estimated cost of which to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, including collateral equipment, exceeds $1,000,000, 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 for construction of facilities under

section 104(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.
83

The aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated for construction of facilities

under section 104(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 104(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. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—

(1) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than—

(A) 30 days after the later of the date of the enactment of an Act making

appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for

fiscal year 2000 and the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(B) 30 days after the date of the enactment of an Act making appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year

2001 or 2002,

the Administrator shall submit a report to Congress and to the Comptroller

General.

(2) CONTENTS.—The reports required by paragraph (1) shall specify—

(A) 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

(B) the portion of such appropriations which are authorized under this

Act.

(b) FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE.—The Administrator shall, coincident with the submission of each 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 2000, 2001, or 2002 not authorized under this

Act until 30 days have passed after the close of the public comment period contained

in a notice required by subsection (b).

SEC. 125. USE OF FUNDS FOR SCIENTIFIC CONSULTATIONS OR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES.

Not more than $30,000 of the funds appropriated under section 103 may be used

for scientific consultations or extraordinary expenses, upon the authority of the Administrator.

SEC. 126. EARTH SCIENCE LIMITATION.

Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for Earth Science under section 103(3)

for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, $50,000,000 shall be for the Commercial Remote Sensing Program at Stennis Space Center for commercial data purchases, unless the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has integrated data purchases into the procurement process for Earth science research by obligating at least

5 percent of the aggregate amount appropriated for that fiscal year for Earth Observing System and Earth Probes for the purchase of Earth science data from the

private sector.

SEC. 127. COMPETITIVENESS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

(a) LIMITATION.—As part of the evaluation of the costs and benefits of entering

into an obligation to conduct a space mission in which a foreign entity will participate as a supplier of the spacecraft, spacecraft system, or launch system, the Administrator shall solicit comment on the potential impact of such participation

through notice published in Commerce Business Daily at least 45 days before entering into such an obligation.
84

(b) NATIONAL INTERESTS.—Before entering into an obligation described in subsection (a), the Administrator shall consider the national interests of the United

States described in section 2(6).

SEC. 128. TRANS-HAB.

(a) REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE.—No funds authorized by this Act shall be obligated

for the definition, design, or development of an inflatable space structure to replace

any International Space Station components scheduled for launch in the Assembly

Sequence released by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on February 22, 1999.

(b) GENERAL LIMITATION.—No funds authorized by this Act for fiscal year 2000

shall be obligated for the definition, design, or development of an inflatable space

structure capable of accommodating humans in space.

SEC. 129. CONSOLIDATED SPACE OPERATIONS CONTRACT.

No funds authorized by this Act shall be used to create a Government-owned corporation to perform the functions that are the subject of the Consolidated Space Operations Contract.

TITLE II—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS.

Before any funds may be obligated for Phase B of a project that is projected to

cost more than $100,000,000 in total project costs, the Chief Financial Officer for

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall conduct an independent

cost analysis of such project and shall report the results to Congress. 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. 202. 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 (f) and redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections (f) and (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’’.

SEC. 203. COMMERCIAL SPACE GOODS AND SERVICES.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall purchase commercially

available space goods and services to the fullest extent feasible, and shall not conduct activities that preclude or deter commercial space activities except for reasons

of national security or public safety. A space good or service shall be deemed commercially available if it is offered by a United States commercial provider, or if it

could be supplied by a United States commercial provider in response to a Government procurement request. For purposes of this section, a purchase is feasible if it

meets mission requirements in a cost-effective manner.

SEC. 204. COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS.

In calculating the cost effectiveness of the cost of the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration engaging in an activity as compared to a commercial provider,

the Administrator shall compare the cost of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration engaging in the activity using full cost accounting principles with the

price the commercial provider will charge for such activity.

SEC. 205. FOREIGN CONTRACT LIMITATION.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall not enter into any

agreement or contract with a foreign government that grants the foreign government the right to recover profit in the event that the agreement or contract is terminated.
85

SEC. 206. AUTHORITY TO REDUCE OR SUSPEND CONTRACT PAYMENTS BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.

Section 2307(i)(8) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘and (4)’’

and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘(4), and (6)’’.

SEC. 207. SPACE SHUTTLE UPGRADE STUDY.

(a) STUDY.—The Administrator shall enter into appropriate arrangements for the

conduct of an independent study to reassess the priority of all Phase III and Phase

IV Space Shuttle upgrades.

(b) PRIORITIES.—The study described in subsection (a) shall establish relative priorities of the upgrades within each of the following categories:

(1) Upgrades that are safety related.

(2) Upgrades that may have functional or technological applicability to reusable launch vehicles.

(3) Upgrades that have a payback period within the next 12 years.

(c) COMPLETION DATE.—The results of the study described in subsection (a) shall

be transmitted to the Congress not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 208. AERO-SPACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION.

(a) INTEGRATION PLAN.—The Administrator shall develop a plan for the integration of research, development, and experimental demonstration activities in the aeronautics transportation technology and space transportation technology areas. The

plan shall ensure that integration is accomplished without losing unique capabilities

which support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s defined missions. The plan shall also include appropriate strategies for using aeronautics centers in integration efforts.

(b) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a report containing the plan developed under subsection (a). The Administrator shall transmit to the

Congress annually thereafter for 5 years a report on progress in achieving such

plan, to be transmitted with the annual budget request.

SEC. 209. DEFINITIONS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE POLICY TERMS.

The Administrator shall ensure that the usage of terminology in National Aeronautics and Space Administration policies and programs is consistent with the following definitions:

(1) The term ‘‘commercialization’’ means the process of private entities conducting privatized space activities to expand their customer base beyond the

Federal Government to address existing or potential commercial markets, investing private resources to meet those commercial market requirements.

(2) The term ‘‘commercial purchase’’ means a purchase by the Federal Government of space goods and services at a market price from a private entity

which has invested private resources to meet commercial requirements.

(3) The term ‘‘commercial use of Federal assets’’ means the use by a service

contractor or other private entity of the capability of Federal assets to deliver

services to commercial customers, with or without putting private capital at

risk.

(4) The term ‘‘contract consolidation’’ means the combining of two or more

Government service contracts for related space activities into one larger Government service contract.

(5) The term ‘‘privatization’’ means the process of transferring—

(A) control and ownership of Federal space-related assets, along with the

responsibility for operating, maintaining, and upgrading those assets; or

(B) control and responsibility for space-related functions,

from the Federal Government to the private sector.

SEC. 210. EXTERNAL TANK OPPORTUNITIES STUDY.

(a) APPLICATIONS.—The Administrator shall enter into appropriate arrangements

for an independent study to identify, and evaluate the potential benefits and costs

of, the broadest possible range of commercial and scientific applications which are

enabled by the launch of Space Shuttle external tanks into Earth orbit and retention in space, including—

(1) the use of privately owned external tanks as a venue for commercial advertising on the ground, during ascent, and in Earth orbit, except that such

study shall not consider advertising that while in orbit is observable from the

ground with the unaided human eye;

(2) the use of external tanks to achieve scientific or technology demonstration

missions in Earth orbit, on the Moon, or elsewhere in space; and
86

(3) the use of external tanks as low-cost infrastructure in Earth orbit or on

the Moon, including as an augmentation to the International Space Station.

A final report on the results of such study shall be delivered to the Congress not

later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. Such report shall include

recommendations as to Government and industry-funded improvements to the external tank which would maximize its cost-effectiveness for the scientific and commercial applications identified.

(b) REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS.—The Administrator shall conduct an internal agency study, based on the conclusions of the study required by subsection (a), of what—

(1) improvements to the current Space Shuttle external tank; and

(2) other in-space transportation or infrastructure capability developments,

would be required for the safe and economical use of the Space Shuttle external

tank for any or all of the applications identified by the study required by subsection

(a), a report on which shall be delivered to Congress not later than 45 days after

receipt of the final report required by subsection (a).

(c) CHANGES IN LAW OR POLICY.—Upon receipt of the final report required by subsection (a), the Administrator shall solicit comment from industry on what, if any,

changes in law or policy would be required to achieve the applications identified in

that final report. Not later than 90 days after receipt of such final report, the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress the comments received along with the

recommendations of the Administrator as to changes in law or policy that may be

required for those purposes.

SEC. 211. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall exclude from consideration for grant

agreements made by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after fiscal

year 1999 any person who received funds, other than those described in subsection

(b), appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1999, under a grant agreement

from any Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process, except as specifically authorized by this Act. 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 the receipt of Federal funds by

a person due to the membership of that person in a class specified by law for which

assistance is awarded to members of the class according to a formula provided by

law.

(c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘grant agreement’’ means

a legal instrument whose principal purpose is to transfer a thing of value to the

recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law

of the United States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or

barter) of property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government. Such term does not include a cooperative agreement (as such term is used

in section 6305 of title 31, United States Code) or a cooperative research and development agreement (as such term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the StevensonWydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).

SEC. 212. NOTICE.

(a) NOTICE OF REPROGRAMMING.—If any funds authorized by this Act are subject

to a reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided to the Appropriations

Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, notice of such action

shall concurrently be provided to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the

Senate.

(b) NOTICE OF REORGANIZATION.—The Administrator shall provide notice to the

Committees on Science and Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the

Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Appropriations of the

Senate, not later than 15 days before any major reorganization of any program,

project, or activity of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

SEC. 213. 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 ‘‘transsonic, 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

‘‘transsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic’’; and
87

(C) by striking ‘‘laboratory’’ in subsection (c) and inserting in lieu thereof

‘‘facility’’.

SEC. 214. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—In order to promote a ‘‘faster, cheaper, better’’

approach to the human exploration and development of space, the Administrator

shall establish a Human Space Flight Commercialization/Technology program of

ground-based and space-based research and development in innovative technologies.

(b) AWARDS.—At least 75 percent of the amount appropriated for the program established under subsection (a) for any fiscal year shall be awarded through broadly

distributed announcements of opportunity that solicit proposals from educational institutions, industry, nonprofit institutions, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Centers, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, other Federal agencies, and other

interested organizations, and that allow partnerships among any combination of

those entities, with evaluation, prioritization, and recommendations made by external peer review panels.

(c) PLAN.—The Administrator shall include as part of the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration’s budget request to the Congress for fiscal year 2001 a

plan for the implementation of the program established under subsection (a).

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The first amendment on the roster

is one by the Subcommittee Chair, the gentleman from California,

Mr. Rohrabacher. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The Clerk. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher.’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read, and the gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The information follows:]

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1654 OFFERED BY MR. ROHRABACKER

Page 13, line 13, strike ‘‘$475,800,000’’ and insert ‘‘$412,800,000’’.

Page 14, line 4, strike ‘‘$484,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$399,800,000’’.

Page 14, line 22, strike ‘‘$466,900,000’’ and insert ‘‘$381,600,000’’.

Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.

(a) REVIEW.—The Administrator shall enter into appropriate arrangements with

the National Academy of Sciences for the conduct of a review of—

(1) international efforts to determine the extent of life in the universe; and

(2) enhancements that can be made to the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration’s efforts to determine the extent of life in the universe.

(b) ELEMENTS.—The review required by subsection (a) shall include—

(1) an assessment of the direction of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s astrobiology initiatives within the Origins program;

(2) an assessment of the direction of other initiatives carried out by entities other

than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to determine the extent

of life in the universe, including other Federal agencies, foreign space agencies, and

private groups such as the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute;

(3) recommendations about scientific and technological enhancements that could

be made to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s astrobiology initiatives to effectively utilize the initiatives of the scientific and technical communities;

and

(4) recommendations for possible coordination or integration of National Aeronautics and Space Administration initiatives with initiatives of other entities described in paragraph (2).

(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a report on the

results of the review carried out under this section.
88

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank Bart Gordon and the Committee staff on both sides for helping to put this

bill together, and I want to thank Bart and all the other members

who co-sponsored this bill, and I would hope that others do sign up.

H.R. 1654, as introduced, is dramatically different from its original draft thanks to a lot of good ideas, again, coming from both

sides of the aisle. We have agreed to many of those and to accept

a number of the amendments put forward on the Democratic aside.

Mr. Gordon and I have already discussed developing a bipartisan

manager’s amendment in coordination with Chairman Sensenbrenner and Mr. Brown to perfect this bill when it goes to the

Floor.

At the last markup, I suggested that members should approach

Subcommittee Chairmen with proposals before coming before a

Committee mark, and let me note that several members took me

up on that suggestion, and we have done our very best to accommodate those members who did concerns, so we’ve developed a cooperative relationship.

In particular, we are actively negotiating compromises regarding

concerns on the Democratic side with the Earth Science limitation

provision, and that’s something is ongoing negotiations. I also

spoke with Dan Golden Tuesday night, and he agreed to work with

me as we continue this process on the Floor and in the conference

with the Senate. So, I would hope that we don’t lose momentum

on all these good faith negotiations by fighting over some amendments that don’t necessarily need to be fought over, but if we do,

that is of course part of the Democratic process, and compromise

and negotiation is, as well, part of the Democratic process.

I want to praise Mr. Larson, in particular, for coming to me last

week to talk about his concerns, and as we go to the Floor, I believe that both of our sides in this discussion have been satisfied,

and we are going to go out of our way to try to make sure that Mr.

Larson’s concerns are taken care of. I also want to thank Mr.

Etheridge and Ms. Jackson Lee and Mr. Capuano, several other

Republican members and their efforts and their staffs, as well, to

work out compromises with the Subcommittee staff.

Briefly, my en bloc amendment does two things. First, it makes

a technical correction to the level of funding for the Aeronautics

Research and Technology base removing the HPCC and IT awarded money that was already taken out of the aeronautics top line.

If we don’t fix this, then we’re telling NASA to cut an Administration priority like aviation safety or to overfund the research base.

Secondly, my amendment also requires that the NASA Academy

of Sciences review NASA’s Original Program and other research

into the study of the extent of life in the universe. The amendment

asks for the Academy’s recommendations on how NASA can enhance these efforts. This is clearly the kind of advice we want the

Academy to provide NASA and to Congress, so I would ask my colleagues for support of this as well.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I understand that some amendments will

be offered today which I had hoped to handle through, as I say, negotiations and compromise. Again, I would hope that the Earth

Science limitation provision and Trans-Hab amendments could be
89

withdrawn and other solutions found, but we will continue to try

to work on a cooperative basis on those problems.

So, I will continue to negotiate in good faith, and we’ve reached

some compromises, and I think we can be very proud that we have

a working relationship that is a bipartisan working relationship in

this Committee and the Subcommittee, and, with that, I yield back

the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

The question is on the adoption of amendment number one by

the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.

All those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR SMITH

I support Chairman Rohrabacher’s amendment and appreciate

his including language that calls for the National Academy of

Sciences to conduct a review of international efforts to determine

the extent of life elsewhere in the universe and of enhancements

that can be made to NASA’s Origins program.

The review will address a number of important areas including

the direction of astrobiology within the Orgins program and activities of other government agencies and private groups in searching

for life elsewhere in the universe. The review also will make recommendations on ways to integrate these efforts.

I urge the Committee to adopt the amendment.

Amendment number two is by the gentleman from Tennessee,

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, as your staff has been notified, I do

not intend to ask for a vote on my amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Well, does the gentleman offer

his amendment.

Mr. GORDON. Yes, I would.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr. Gordon.’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read, and the gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The information follows:]
90

Page 11, line 6, strike ‘‘$2,202,400,000’’ and insert ‘‘$2,245,600,000’’.

Page 11, line 16, strike ‘‘$2,315,200,000’’ and insert ‘‘$2,365,800,000’’.

Page 11, line 24, strike ‘‘$2,411,800,000’’ and insert ‘‘$2,463,400,000’’.

Page 13, line 3, strike ‘‘$1,415,100,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,459,100,000’’.

Page 13, line 4, strike ‘‘$1,413,300,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,462,800,000’’.

Page 13, line 6, strike ‘‘$1,365,300,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,420,500,000’’.

Page 13, line 8, strike ‘‘$999,300,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,086,500,000’’.

Page 13, line 10, strike ‘‘$532,800,000’’ and insert ‘‘$620,000,000’’.

Page 13, line 24, strike ‘‘$908,400,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,019,400,000’’.

Page 14, line 1, strike ‘‘$524,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$635,000,000’’.

Page 14, line 17, strike ‘‘$994,800,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,105,600,000’’.

Page 14, line 19, strike ‘‘$519,200,000’’ and insert ‘‘$630,000,000’’.

Page 19, line 13, strike ‘‘$13,625,600,000’’ and insert ‘‘$13,800,000,000’’.

Page 19, line 14, strike ‘‘$13,747,100,000’’ and insert ‘‘$13,958,200,000’’.

Page 19, line 15, strike ‘‘$13,839,400,000’’ and insert ‘‘$14,057,000,000’’.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the Committee’s actions toward the Administration’s proposed Information

Technology for the 21st Century initiative and towards the HPCC

initiative. As you know, today’s NASA bill deletes all the funding

for these programs. A similar action was taken in the NOAA bills

considered 2 weeks ago. We touched on this issue at the earlier

markup, and we were told that a larger information technology authorization bill would be done toward the middle of the year, and

I understand that you have sent a letter to the Chairman of the

Appropriations Committee stating your intention to move a 5-year

authorization sometime in May.

However, before I can agree to the action proposed for this markup, I believe we need to have some clarification on how we will proceed. Therefore, I’d like to ask the Chairman the following questions: What is the timetable for action on an information technology authorization? What is the Appropriations Committee to

make of our timetable? What would the Chairman have the Appropriations Committee do with these accounts in the interim? What

is the scope of the bill’s be? Will we deal just with the new proposal

for IT2 or will it be included—will we include all the programs,

both proposed and ongoing? And if funds are subsequently authorized for these programs in a separate bill, will we go back and raise

the overall authorization for these agencies from which the funds

were deleted? I cannot agree to an approach that does not increase

the overall authorization levels for the affected agencies to accommodate the information technology programs. And, finally, what

role will the majority have in the drafting of the legislation of these

programs and in the organization and focusing of the hearings associated with these programs? I think the Chairman——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield? As spelled

out in the Committee’s views and estimates and in my letter to

Chairman Young, which I ask unanimous consent to be included in

the record at this point, I believe that the Committee should look

holistically at computer research budgets of all the agencies under

our jurisdiction.

[The information follows:]
91

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC, May 11, 1999.

Hon. C.W. BILL YOUNG,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,

H–218, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN YOUNG: I am writing to inform you of the Science Committee’s

actions on authorizing funding for computing and information technology research

and development. This year, the Administration has proposed substantial increases

for the High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) program and a

new initiative, which includes HPCC funding, entitled Information Technology for

the 21st Century (IT 2).

After reviewing the Appropriations Committee’s recommendations, I have reached

the conclusion that a single comprehensive long-term authorization for research on

the fundamental science and engineering issues which form the foundation of our

Nation’s information economy is preferable to a short-term piece-meal approach. I

have therefore excluded from our current round of authorization bills funding for

HPCC and all increases associated with the IT2 initiative. Instead, this month, I

plan on introducing a single five-year bill to authorize computing and information

technology research across all agencies within the Science Committee’s jurisdiction.

The Science Committee remains committed to supporting the basic research needed to help ensure America maintains its preeminent position as the world’s leader

in the development and use of information technology. I look forward to working

with you over the next few weeks to make sure the Nation’s IT basic research needs

are met.

Sincerely,

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,

Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I intend to propose a 5-year authorization for information technology research programs across all the

relevant agencies within our jurisdiction. Now, we have some drafting problems with the bill, but the bill will be introduced before we

break for the Memorial Day recess. It is my intention to have the

Subcommittee of this Committee hold hearings on this legislation

in the month of June. We will see how quickly the Subcommittee

can have a complete record. If the Subcommittees move promptly,

there is no problem, as far as I’m concerned, to have a Subcommittee and full Committee markup on this legislation before we break

for the 4th of July recess.

The minority will be fully involved in the focusing of these hearings and fully involved in the drafting of whatever final product we

send to the Floor of the consideration of the full House of Representatives as we have done with the other bills that have been

considered by this Committee. So, there will be full minority input.

Finally, it is my intention to wrap all of the ongoing programs

as well as the new IT programs in this bill just as we did with the

Next Generation Internet bill, which was one of the crown jewels

of this Committee’s action in the last Congress.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay, the amendment is withdrawn.

The third amendment on the roster is one by the gentleman from

North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge. For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina seek recognition?

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I would withdraw that amendment and speak to it on the next one.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Then we get to amendment

number four which is by the gentleman from North Carolina, the

gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, and the gentleman from
92

Colorado, Mr. Udall. For what purpose does the gentleman from

North Carolina seek recognition?

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654——’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And, without objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The information follows:]

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1654 OFFERED BY MR. ETHERIDGE, MR. GARY MILLER OF

CALIFORNIA, AND MR. UDALL OF COLORADO

Page 15, line 15, insert ‘‘, and $20,000,000 shall be for the National Space Grant

College and Fellowship Program’’ after ‘‘Enhancement Programs’’.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say at the

start how much I appreciate your willingness to work on these

broad issues of science and math education in America and the

hearings we’ve had thus far. This Committee, under your leadership and the leadership of the Ranking Member and others, has

really taken a leading role in my opinion in opening the national

dialogue on the status of science and math education in this country.

This Committee and other organizations who have testified have

struggled with the issue of how to improve the quality of math and

science education and also how to promote it among our young people. As you know, recent studies have shown that our high school

graduates are falling behind their counterparts in other countries

in the areas of science and math, and last month, the Electronic

Association released a report that found that the number of 3 graduates receiving post-secondary in engineering, computer science,

math, business information systems, and physics have declined to

5 percent between 1990 and 1996 with nearly a 10 percent decline

in Bachelor’s degrees. We really are facing a major potential problem for the competitiveness in the 21st century.

I was disappointed when the Administration proposed a $38 million cut in NASA education and academic programs for next year.

NASA has significant and successful educational efforts that should

be strengthened not weakened. I was proud to co-sponsor legislation introduced by the Ranking Member to increase the authorization levels for these important programs, and I applaud the Chairman for providing in his mark a significantly higher authorization

than the Administration’s request, and I appreciate that. However,

the bill before us still represents a $10 million cut in these important priorities. In my opinion, that’s the wrong—this is the wrong

time to reduce funding for efforts that are so vital to promoting

math and science education in our schools, colleges, and universities.

Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to offer an amendment this morning—the previous amendment—that would have increased funding

for NASA’s education and academic initiatives by $5.9 million over

the Fiscal Year 1999 levels from $138.6 million to $144.5 million.

This amendment would have directed all of that increase to the
93

Space Program. Anticipating that this amendment would not have

been accepted by the majority and in light of the long agenda that

we face this morning, I am instead offering what I believe is a very

important amendment to this bill with the help of my colleagues,

Representatives Miller and Udall of—Miller of California and Udall

of Colorado.

This amendment would earmark $20 million for space grants

within the bill’s authorization level for these programs. As you

know, Mr. Chairman, there is over 700 space grant consortium

members operating in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and

Puerto Rico. The K–12 Educational Assistance Program, student

scholarships and research at many of our colleges and universities

is focusing on aerospace and other programs that will engage our

children and challenge them to become engineers, scientists, and,

yes, astronauts.

Space Grant is a cost effective program, because it requires a two

for one match for every federal dollar that is spent on this program. I know first-hand how important this program has been and

the impact that it has made in North Carolina’s programs. Space

Grant plays an important role in preparing our students for the

high-tech nature of the global economy they face today and the tremendous economy we’re going to face in the 21st century. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. We are prepared to accept this

amendment. I think that it is constructive, and this program has

a good one since it was first authorized 12 years ago. I would point

out that the amendment does not increase the total authorization

of this bill; it merely fences some of the money in the education account to make sure that NASA spends it on this program rather

than something else.

So, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I

hope it is speedily adopted.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my

time, and ask that my remarks be included in the record.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection.

[The statement of Mr. Etheridge follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BOB ETHERIDGE

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, let me start by

saying how much I appreciate your willingness to work on the broad issue of science

and math education in America. This committee, under your leadership and that of

the Ranking Member and others, has taken a leading role in opening a national dialogue on the status of science and math education in America. This committee and

organizations in this field have struggled with the issue of how to improve the quality of math and science education, including how to promote interest in science and

math among our young people.

As you know, recent studies have shown that our high school graduates are falling behind their counterparts in other countries in the areas of science and math.

Last month the American Electronics Association released a report that found that

the number of graduates receiving post secondary degrees in engineering, computer

science, math, business information systems and physics declined by five percent between 1990 and 1996, with a nearly ten percent decline in bachelors degrees. We

are facing a potential crisis that if not addressed could devastate our economy and

global competitiveness in the 21st Century.

I was very disappointed when the Administration proposed a $38 million cut in

NASA education and academic programs for next year. NASA has significant and
94

successful education efforts that should be strengthened not weakened. I was proud

to cosponsor legislation introduced by the Ranking Member to increase the authorization levels for these important programs, and I applaud the Chairman for providing in his mark a significantly higher authorization than the Administration’s request. However, the bill before us still represents a $10 million cut in these important priorities. In my opinion, this is the wrong time to reduce funding for efforts

that are so vital to promoting math and science education in our schools, colleges

and universities.

Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to offer an amendment this morning that would have increased funding for NASA’s education and academic initiatives by $5.9 million over the FY 1999 level from $138.6 million to $144.5. This amendment would

have directed all of that increase to the Space Grant Program. Anticipating that this

amendment would not have been accepted by the majority, and in light of the long

agenda we face this morning, I am instead offering what I believe to be a very important amendment to this bill. This amendment will earmark $20 million for Space

Grant within the bill’s authorization level for these programs.

As you know Mr. Chairman, there are over 700 Space Grant Consortia members

operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The K thru 12

educational assistance programs, student scholarships and research at many of our

colleges and universities focusing on aerospace and aeronautics helps engage our

children and challenge them to become engineers, scientists and astronauts. Space

Grant is cost effective by requiring a two-to-one local match for each federal dollar

spent. I know first hand the impressive performance of North Carolina’s Space

Grant effort.

Space Grant plays an important role in preparing our students for the high tech

nature of the global economy that exists today, and I believe it is worthy of this

earmark and modest funding increase.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, although I would like to see more done in this area

I do understand the tight budget we are operating under, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on these issues in the future.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Michigan.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would strike the

last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You’re recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate very much your accepting this

amendment. This is a very, very important program. As we have

heard continually before this Committee, we have great needs in

the area of math and science and people trained in technology that

are able to take the jobs that are available today, and what we see

through the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program

is an effort to both provide teacher training as well as hands-on

programs to excite young people about science.

I want to take just a moment to commend the Michigan Space

Grant Consortium that I’m very involved with, and we have been

working together on hands-on science efforts through something

called the Great Space Adventure, which they host in my district

at various locations, and we’ve had thousands of children and parents who have come forward and are participating, working with

NASA, having an opportunity to get first-hand experience about

the fact that science can be fun and exciting, and we hope that they

will be encouraged to take careers in those areas.

I’m also pleased and want to thank members of this Committee

that joined me in signing a letter to the appropriators just a while

back in March. We had over 50 members of both parties signing

a letter in support of this increase in funding. So, I appreciate my

colleagues who introduced it and to the Chairman for accepting it.

I think that the Space Grant Consortium is a very, very important

program for helping us meet our goals as it relates to math and

science education.

Thank you; I yield back my time.
95

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the——

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Who seeks recognition?

Mr. UDALL. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this provides needed support for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program managed by NASA. I believe that this program

deserves special consideration because of its unique use of NASA’s

assets for education and public services purposes.

I’m joining Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Miller in offering this amendment to fence off $20 million for NASA’s Space Grant Program

from funds this bill allocates to space education. This is needed to

prevent the termination of planned program expansion and the loss

of much needed fellowships for students.

The funding level set by the amendment is on par with the $19.1

million appropriation for Fiscal Year 1999. Since its inception,

NASA’s National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program has

served hundreds of thousands of students and teachers, increasing

public awareness and appreciation for NASA and its mission by

acting as the logical interface for NASA with America’s colleges

and universities.

The contributions of the Space Grant Program are especially important in two areas. It has a direct impact on education at the

pre-K through graduate level especially in science and math, and

it contributes to science literacy across the United States, which is

essential to our Nation’s success in the next century.

I’m particularly proud of our program in Colorado. The Colorado

Space Grant Consortium works with over 600 K through 12 teachers in my state each helping them to inspire students in science,

math, and technology. Student from colleges and universities

throughout Colorado are working together to develop the Citizen

Explorer Satellite Mission for a launch in December of this year,

1999. This mission is designed to involve K through 12 students

throughout Colorado, this country, and the world.

With over 700 Space Grant Consortium member institutions in

every state, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,

the Space Grant Program is cost effective, matching each federal

dollar with $2 of local funding. Given the importance we as a nation place on education and especially given the emphasis we in

this Committee have placed on the importance of science and math

literacy, this is an investment that makes sense.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of our amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the adoption of

the amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina.

Those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment by the

gentlemowan from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. For what purpose does

she seek recognition?
96

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the

desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654——’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for

5 minutes.

[The information follows:]

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1654 OFFERED BY MS. JACKSON-LEE OF TEXAS

Page 15, line 15, insert ‘‘, of which $62,100,000 shall be for minority university

research and education, including $33,600,000 for Historically Black Colleges and

Universities’’ after ‘‘Enhanced Programs’’.

Page 15, line 16, insert ‘‘, of which $62,100,000 shall be for minority university

research and education, including $33,600,000 for Historically Black Colleges and

Universities’’ after ‘‘$128,600,000’’.

Page 15, line 18, insert ‘‘, of which $62,800,000 shall be for minority university

research and education, including $34,000,000 for Historically Black Colleges and

Universities’’ after ‘‘$130,600,000’’.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much, and I’d like

to offer an amendment that deals with the issue that we’ve heard

a lot about in this Committee and that is education and opportunities for minority institutions and in particular Historically Black

Colleges and Universities.

We have all heard the haunting statistics about the lack of minority participation in the scientific arena. We know that only 14

percent of all students enrolled in graduate science or engineering

programs are minorities and that, of those, only 6 percent are African-American, only 4 percent are Hispanic. We also know that

those minorities that are enrolled in the science graduate programs

are more likely to work in the social or life sciences than in the

hard sciences or engineering.

The situation is even worse once those students graduate. African-Americans and Hispanics make up less than 6 percent of the

total science and engineering workforce, yet they make up almost

23 percent of the population. Furthermore, minorities who work in

the hard sciences or in engineering tend to have much higher unemployment rates than do their white counterparts. We cannot

allow this to remain, and we must encourage our scientific agencies, like NASA, to engage the minority community in order to rectify this particular problem.

As I noted earlier, we’ve had many hearings that suggested advocacy for increasing the opportunities for minorities in science; in

fact, there was a great deal of enthusiasm. NASA has had these

programs in the past, and they have been successful. Dan Goldin,

himself, has supported the idea of focusing on encouraging minorities to participate in the hard sciences.

In my own district, of course, near the Johnson Space Center, I

can assure you that once minorities are introduced to the sciences

there is a great deal of enthusiasm as evidenced by the numbers

or the increasing numbers of minority astronauts who have been

a great service to encouraging interest in what can be done with

science training.
97

This amendment is a reasonable one that preserves a proportion

of overall education dollars that HBCUs and minority-servicing institutions received last year. Furthermore, it proportionally tracks

NASA’s academic programs overall in the outyears providing funding for those important programs through Fiscal Year 2002. With

this amendment, HBCUs and Hispanic-serving institutions will

have the stable funding necessary to allow them to continue to do

good work.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I’d be happy to yield, Mr. Chairman, as I

conclude——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. We are prepared to accept this

amendment. Let me say that there’s no increase in the total authorization. This merely fences some funds within that authorization, so we’re not busting any budget here.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I thank the Chairman very much, and I

think the importance of embracing the dollars in particular for

these institutions will be extremely helpful, and I think we’ll see

an enormous results from this sort of emphasis. With that, Mr.

Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman yields back the

balance of her time.

For what purpose does the other gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.

Johnson, seek recognition?

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to speak on this amendment as well as the one we

just adopted. There is a dire need to get the minority community

more engaged in science and engineering, and the African-Americans and Hispanics are vastly underrepresented in the hard science

and engineering workforce, making up less than 6 percent of those

who work in these fields, and it is true that even though Hispanics

and African-Americans represent over 20 percent of our total workforce, the NASA programs have been one of the most effective ones

in getting the attention of young people. As I Chair the Science and

Technology braintrust of the Congressional Black Caucus and

therefore have a number of interim meetings other than our annual meeting, bringing astronauts and several other employees

from NASA to schools throughout my district, that is the one area

that really does get their attention, and its academic programs

have been successful in getting young children excited about

science, and through the use of grants and scholarships have

helped college students finance their education in the hard sciences

and engineering. We ought to make sure that those who live in underprivileged areas and attend minority-serving institutions can

utilize these tremendous programs.

The amendment is a reasonable one that preserve the proportion

of overall education dollars back to the historically black colleges

and universities and minority-serving institutions received last

year, and, furthermore, it proportionately tracks NASA’s academic

programs overall in the outyears providing funding for these important programs through Fiscal Year 2000.

With this amendment, the historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving institutions will have the stable funding necessary to

allow them to continue this work. African-Americans only rep-
98

resent 6 percent of the students enrolled in graduate level science

and engineering programs and Hispanics only 4 percent even

though most of those enrolled in these social or life sciences can be

better served with more programs directed toward getting them

into these fields. And, so we should be working proactively to motivate minority youngsters and to pursue the hard sciences and to

help them get through school when they choose to pursue careers

in engineering and science research.

So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for supporting this

amendment, and I yield back.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman yields back the

balance of her time.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.

Those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

The next amendment on the roster, number six, is by the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cook. For what purpose does he seek recognition?

Mr. COOK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. After——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Do you have an amendment at the

desk?

Mr. COOK. Well, after discussions with NASA, I have decided to

withdraw the amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay.

Mr. COOK. Hopefully, NASA will have a little time to understand

this a little bit better. I would like to be able to offer this again,

perhaps, on the Floor, but, for now, I withdraw the amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is withdrawn.

Now, the next amendment, number seven, is by the gentleman

from Washington, Mr. Nethercutt. For what purpose does he seek

recognition?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the

desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr.

Nethercutt.’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read, and the gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The information follows:]

Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

(a) STUDY.—The Administrator shall enter into a contract with the National Research Council and the National Academy of Public Administration to jointly conduct a study of the status of life and microgravity research as it relates to the International Space Station. The study shall include—

(1) an assessment of the United States scientific community’s readiness to use

the International Space Station for life and microgravity research;

(2) an assessment of the current and projected factors limiting the United

States scientific community’s ability to maximize the research potential of the

International Space Station, including, but not limited to, the past and present

availability of resources in the life and microgravity research accounts within
99

the Office of Human Spaceflight and the Office of Life and Microgravity

Sciences and Applications, and the past, present, and projected access to space

of the scientific community; and

(3) recommendations for improving the United States scientific community’s

ability to maximize the research potential of the International Space Station,

including an assessment of the relative costs and benefits of—

(A) dedicating an annual mission of the Space Shuttle to life and microgravity research during assembly of the International Space Station; and

(B) maintaining the schedule for assembly in place at the time of enactment.

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act,

the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the

Senate a report on the results of the study conducted under this section.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is

a rather simple amendment. It requires NASA to contract with the

National Research Council and the National Academy of Public Administration to conduct a study of the status of Life and Microgravity research as it relates to the International Space Station.

I’ve had meetings, my staff and I both, with members of the space

science community this year who are deeply concerned about the

long-term viability of their discipline. As a result of delays in the

assembly of the International Space Station, the research mission’s

face significant long-term gaps in research continuity.

The Associate Administrator for Life and Micro has reported that

the number of primary investigators is increasing in Fiscal Year

1999 from 726 to 800. Flight opportunities are decreasing during

the ISS assembly. I have doubts, Mr. Chairman, about whether

this community can be sustained with the budget, and the staff has

prepared here a chart that shows the declining administration of

ISS research budgets; Fiscal Year 1999 through 2000, and it’s a

precipitous decline over the next years up to 2004.

The first step I think we need to do then is to address the funding level for Life and Microgravity, and Mr. Weldon and I will be

pressing an amendment a little while later moving some $33 million or thereabouts from the Triana Program. But the second step

is to refocus our efforts to ensure that a robust scientific community exists when the station is completed. Congress tried to remedy

this concern last year appropriating additional funds for a shuttle

mission dedicated to Life and Micro research. As the Chairman and

the Committee members know, NASA declined to fly that mission

claiming high cost, scheduling difficulties, and complications with

ISS assembly. So, what this amendment does is provide the detailed study that Congress needs in order to evaluate the trade-offs

between more research, the ISS schedule, and shuttle costs.

Two recent reports, Mr. Chairman, have demonstrated a need for

such research. The NASA/NIH Advisory Subcommittee released

their recommendations on flight opportunities bridging to Space

Station. They recommend at least one shuttle mission per year

with a majority of Life Sciences payload that will be flown prior to

ISS completion. In April, the National Research Council reported

similar findings. They noted, and I quote this, ‘‘It is clear that regular access to space is essential to meet the science goals enunciated by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences. It is not

clear that there are budget provisions of flight opportunities to provide the needed access to space for researchers.’’ The NRC con-
100

cludes by noting that, quote, ‘‘We have not assessed the likelihood

that NASA can make significant progress in meeting its scientific

goals with such a minimal flight level, and to the contrary we have

called NASA’s attention to the need to provide additional space lab

class flights prior to Space Station assembly completion.

So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, passage of this amendment will

enable NRC and NAPA to work together to make that assessment

and to determine how best to address the potential science shortfall

during ISS assembly.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentlemen yield?

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Yes, sure.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I believe this is a very constructive

amendment, and I would hope that the Committee would adopt it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my

time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time is yielded back. The question is on accepting the amendment of the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Nethercutt.

All those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

The next two amendments are by the gentleman from Michigan,

Mr. Smith. I understand he plans on offering one and not the

other. So, for what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan rise,

and would he please say which number——

Mr. Smith of Michigan. I have an amendment at the desk

marked number eight, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay, the clerk will report amendment number eight.

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654——’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read, and the gentleman from Michigan is recognized

for 5 minutes.

[The information follows:]

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1654 OFFERED BY MR. SMITH OF MICHIGAN

Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. REMOTE SENSING FOR AGRICULTURE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

The Administrator shall—

(1) consult with the Secretary of Agriculture to determine data product types

that are of use to farmers which can be remotely sensed from air or space;

(2) consider useful commercial data products related to agriculture as identified by the focused research program between the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration’s Stennis Space Center and the Department of Agriculture; and

(3) examine other data sources, including commercial sources, LightSAR,

RADARSAT I, and RADARSAT II, which can provide domestic and international agricultural information relating to crop conditions, fertilization and irrigation needs, pest infiltration, soil conditions, projected food, feed, and fiber

production, and other related subject.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this is language that we

included in a previous authorization bill for NASA, one that wasn’t

taken up by the Senate and passed into law, but it did pass the

House with this amendment. It relates to remote sensing and the

advantages that remote sensing can offer to our agricultural pro-
101

ducers in this country in terms of the availability of information related to crop production.

If our farmers can know and have estimates of crop production

especially in the Southern Hemisphere, we can adjust our planning. This amendment calls on the Administrator of NASA to coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture—consult with the Secretary of Agriculture in developing the kind of information that

might be available.

And I would just point out to you, Mr. Chairman, and to this

body that we are now able to estimate crop yields within a deviation of plus or minus 10 percent 60 days before harvest, and when

you consider that most of these feed grain crops have a 90- to 100-

day growth season, that’s especially significant. It will give us the

ability to predict shortages of food in the world and also aid our

farmers in deciding how much of what crop to plant.

I have met with the Agricultural Committee and our Ag Committee Chairman, Larry Combest, and in my amendment, marked

number nine, we are deleting the part B that says let us get this

information to farmers, because the Chairman of the Agricultural

Committee, Mr. Combest, has agreed that if a Floor amendment is

made that is reasonable to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate in this effort and make this information available to farmers.

So, this is just sort of half of the amendment. I will withdraw

amendment marked nine and hope the Committee will accept this

amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I will yield.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I think that this is constructive

amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman not pursuing amendment number nine with would delay this bill as a result of the sequential referral to the Committee on Agriculture. This amendment is consistent with Committee policy promoting maximum

commercial data use of data that is assembled in States. So, I

would hope that the Committee would adopt this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the

amendment numbered eight by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.

Smith.

Those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment

is agreed to.

Amendment number nine will not be offered. The next amendment on the roster is by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Gutknecht. For what purpose does he seek recognition?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr. Gutknecht.’’
102

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read, and the gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The information follows:]

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1654

OFFERED BY MR. GUTKNECHT

Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. INTEGRATED SAFETY RESEARCH PLAN.

(a) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than March 1, 2000, the Administrator and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall jointly prepare and transmit to the Congress an integrated civil aviation safety research and development

plan.

(b) CONTENTS.—The plan required by subsection (a) shall include—

(1) an identification of the respective research and development requirements,

roles, and responsibilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

and the Federal Aviation Administration;

(2) formal mechanisms for the timely sharing of information between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration, including a requirement that the FAA–NASA Coordinating Committee

established in 1980 meet at least twice a year; and

(3) procedures for increased communication and coordination between the

Federal Aviation Administration research advisory committee established under

section 44508 of title 49, United States Code, and the NASA Aeronautics and

Space Transportation Technology Advisory Committee, including a proposal for

greater cross-membership between those 2 advisory committees.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires more

integrated safety research planning by both NASA and FAA. Over

the years, joint FAA and NASA research efforts have produced valuable aviation safety technology. Both agencies support the national goal to reduce fatal aviation accident rates by 80 percent

over the next 10 years. The agencies are currently engaged in 18

joint safety projects and tasks.

Recognizing that FAA and NASA have different and evolving

roles and separate approaches to achieving shared goals, it is imperative that the agencies have a common understanding of the expectations of how the research undertaken by each agency will enable them to achieve their goals.

The amendment that I am offering seeks to enhance the effectiveness of their coordination efforts and to ensure the agency resources are being used to the most cost effective manner by requiring the agencies to jointly repair and transmit to Congress an integrated civil aviation safety research and development plan. The

plan shall define the roles and responsibilities of each agency; require the timely sharing of critical information and recommend

procedures to increase the communication effort between the agencies industry advisory committees.

As you know, this Committee takes its oversight responsibilities

very seriously, and this amendment takes further steps to protect

our Nation’s investment in aviation safety research and development, and I appreciate your support.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I’d be happy to yield.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. This, too, is a constructive amendment, and I hope it is adopted. The gentleman yield back the balance of his time?
103

Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the

amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Gutknecht.

Those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Oppose, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

The next amendment is number 11 by the gentleman from North

Carolina, Mr. Etheridge. For what purpose does he seek recognition?

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the

desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr. Etheridge.’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read, and the gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.

[The information follows:]

Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF FLIGHT EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVE.

(a) EDUCATION CURRICULUM.—In recognition of the 100th anniversary of the first

powered flight, the Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary of Education,

shall develop and provide for the distribution, for use in the 2000–2001 academic

year and thereafter, of an age-appropriate educational curriculum, for use at the

kindergarten, elementary, and secondary levels, on the history of flight, the contribution of flight to global development in the 20th century, the practical benefits

of aeronautics and space flight to society, the scientific and mathematical principles

used in flight, and any other topics the Administrator considers appropriate. The

Administrator shall integrate into the educational curriculum plans for the development and flight of the Mars plane.

(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than May 1, 2000, the Administrator shall

transmit a report to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on activities undertaken pursuant to this section.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am

proud to offer an amendment today that directs NASA to develop

an education curriculum for our Nation’s schools in recognition of

the 100th anniversary of flight—of powered flight, that is, and I

want to thank Mr. Rohrabacher and the Ranking Member for their

help with this.

This would take place on December 17, 2003 when this Nation

will celebrate the 100th anniversary of powered flight, and it provides an excellent opportunity for our Nation’s schools to promote

the importance of math and science education for our students.

having been there for many years, I know how you can excite students with special items that really get their attention.

And as we watch the sun rise on the dawn of a new millennium,

it has never been more important to encourage our children to

excel in the areas of math and science education. In the 21st century, it will no longer be good enough for our children simply to be

able to read, write, add, and subtract. If today’s students are going

to succeed in tomorrow’s job, a firm foundation in math and science

education is important.

This Committee, under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and the

Ranking member and others, have taken a leading role—as I said
104

earlier this morning—in helping to improve the national dialogue

on improving math and science education, and one of the most important challenges we face with all the distractions in modern life

has been the interesting of students particularly in science and

math curriculums. Too many of them spend their time with video

games, et cetera. Such a lack of interest could spell doom down the

road as fewer and fewer students enter the teaching profession or

other fields that prepare them for the future.

The 100th Anniversary of Flight Education initiative that’s being

introduced today is intended to use the history of flight through

practical benefits of flight in our society and the mathematics and

science, the principles that are used in flight, to help generate an

interest among our children in math and science education.

However, the 100th anniversary of flight and NASA’s plan to

land a plane on Mars to coincide with that date, can be a tremendous tool in our classrooms to regenerate our children’s interest in

math science education and help our teachers.

Mr. Chairman, I’m committing to seeing that our children soar

in the area of math and science education and urge the adoption

of this amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I will yield, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. This is a constructive amendment.

Obviously, NASA should be in on the ground floor in commemorating the 100th anniversary of flight, and I would hope that it would

be agreed to.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I yield back.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the

amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.

Those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Th next amendment is by the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms.

Biggert. For what purpose does the gentleman from California, Mr.

Miller seek recognition?

Mr. MILLER. I’d just ask for unanimous consent to include my

statement into the record.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection.

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GARY MILLER

Thank you Chairman Sensenbrenner.

I would like to add to the comments of my colleague, Representative Etheridge

in support of this amendment.

The Space Grant Program seeks to use the considerable assets of NASA in the

states for education and public service purposes. It provides fellowships and scholarships for students, supports curriculum devlopement, facilitates interaction among

faculty and scientists, encourages college and university capability enhancement,

and funds science and technology lectures, demonstrations, exhibits, periodicals, and

outreach activities.

I believe this program is important for two reasons. First, it has a direct impact

on education at the K through graduate levels, especially in science and math. Secondly, it contributes to science literacy in this nation, which is essential to our nation’s success in the next century.

I am particularly proud of how well the program has worked in California. The

Space Grant Consortium has been an innovative leader in California, bringing to-
105

gether community-based alliances composed of educational institutions, industry

and the government, to work together on projects which are both related to space

and are of community importance. Furthermore, the student-mentor process involved in the alliance projects has shown significant results in workforce preparation and community-based education and outreach.

I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.

Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Members of the Committee.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Biggert, seek recognition?

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mrs. Biggert.’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read, and the gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized

for 5 minutes.

[The information follows:]

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1654 OFFERED BY MRS. BIGGERT

Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

The Administrator shall make available through the Internet home page of the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration the abstracts relating to all research grants and awards made with funds authorized by this Act. Nothing in this

section shall be construed to require or permit the release of any information prohibited by law or regulation from being released to the public.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment I offer

today would require NASA to make available on the Internet all

abstracts relating to research grants and awards with the funds

that are authorized by this bill. Currently, NASA does not provide

such information on its Website. I think this is good Government

amendment that will allow the public to more easily access research grants and awards funded by the Federal Government. This

change will make Government research services more accessible,

more efficient, and easier to use.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back

the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the

amendment of the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. BIGGERT.

Those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no

They ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

And now we’ll get to some controversy. [Laughter.]

For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida, Dr. Weldon,

seek recognition?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at

the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered to Dr. Weldon of

Florida——’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Weldon, is recognized for 5 minutes.
106

[The information follows:]

Page 12, line 11, strike ‘‘$301,000,000’’ and insert ‘‘$333,600,000’’.

Page 13, line 2, strike ‘‘section 126’’ and insert ‘‘sections 126 and 130’’.

Page 13, line 3 strike ‘‘$1,415,100,000’’ and insert ‘‘$1,382,500,000’’.

Page 26, after line 5, insert the following new section:

SEC. 130. TRIANA FUNDING PROHIBITION.

None of the funds authorized by this Act may be used for the Triana program,

except that $2,500,000 of the amount authorized under section 103(3)(A) for fiscal

year 2000 shall be available for termination costs.
107
108

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment terminates Triana; provides $2.5 million for termination costs, and

transfers the remaining $32.6 million to Life and Microgravity

Sciences and Applications.

For the sixth year in a row, the Administration has proposed a

smaller budget for NASA asking its scientists, engineers, and astronauts to do more with less. In the face of this shrinking budget,

Triana stands out as an unbearable, misuse of NASA’s scarce dollars.

My many questions about this program can be summarized with

two simple concerns. Number one, Triana just isn’t necessary, and,

number two, this program does not represent the best science that

NASA can get for its precious budget dollars. I now describe those

concerns to you.

According to the Washington Post, the Triana satellite was literally dreamed up in the middle of the night by Vice President

Gore. NASA soon found itself saddled with a $75 million program

which has been described as nothing more than a screensaver because of the satellites supposed educational inspirational benefits.

Never mind that the National Space Society called Triana——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, this is

an announcement that the House will be meeting for legislative

business in 15 minutes. So, it is not a roll call, and the gentleman

may proceed.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Never mind that the National Space Society called Triana, quote, ‘‘an inappropriate doubling of NASA’s

educational spending.’’ Never mind that an identical view of the

Earth could be patched together from existing satellite images and

that many sites on the Internet already provide images of the

Earth from space.

Naturally, the satellite’s objectives evolved over time, and the

current manifestation now emphasizes a science mission to retroactively justify Triana. Never mind that the new scientists while

reporting on the science mission as it stands today pointed out

that, quote, ‘‘Many researchers doubt its scientific merit.’’ Of

course, according to NASA, that science was peer-reviewed. I will

certainly concede that if NASA launches any satellite, surely their

can be some scientific merit that can be justified. However, the fundamental question is, is this the best science that NASA can get

for $75 million of taxpayer money? And, quite simply, that question

has not been answered, Indeed, I believe it hasn’t even been asked.

I would like to talk about real honest-to-goodness peer-reviewed

science. Life and Microgravity Science and Applications brings benefits of space right down to Earth in the area of biological research,

medicine, chemical, and physical research. When we hear about experimental cancer drugs under development in space, that is Life

and Microgravity Science. Its research is conducted on the shuttle

and should eventually be conducted on the Space Station, yet the

Administration has already cut $462 million out of Life and Microgravity Research and plans to cut another $200 million over the

next 4 years. A dedicated shuttle flight, STS–107, will conduct Life

and Microgravity Research. Unfortunately, according to NASA documentation, the mission might lose 1,500 pounds of scientific research equipment because of Triana. Even if it does not, who
109

knows how much more scientific knowledge could result from other

self-contained modules or even different satellites if STS–107

weight did not include 8,800 pounds for Triana.

This is why my amendment cancels Triana and transfer the

money to Life and Microgravity Science Applications. Life and

Microgravity must be a higher priority than a multimillion dollar

screensaver. Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, maybe

NASA can’t stand up to the White House, but the United States

Congress certainly can. We must end this program now, and let

NASA get back to the many challenges it faces, I, therefore, urge

support for my amendment.

And to conclude, many of you, Democrats and Republicans alike,

last year, signed onto a letter calling for an increase in the NASA

budget. Many of you actually worked on getting signatures on that

letter. The Administration has not put forward a proposal for a flat

budget or an increased budget but another decrease and on top of

that has put forward this proposal to devote $75 million towards

this program.

Many of us spend a great deal of our time trying to get significantly smaller amounts of money for important NASA priorities to

our states and districts. Examples include some of the educational

programs many on this committee have argued for. I know one of

the areas that I continually have to fight for are shuttle upgrades,

programs that will improve the efficiency and safety of shuttle operations. Seventy-five million dollars constitutes a significant

amount of money that could be used if it were to be applied

there——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman, and I encourage

all my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman

from Tennessee rise?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I am

disappointed——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed with this

Triana killing amendment. Of course there will be lots of reasons

offered why Triana should be killed. Opponents who are trying to

will say that it is simply a political stunt for the Vice President’s

election campaign. Somehow, I don’t think, though, the Vice President needs to depend upon a little remote sensing satellite to ensure his election in 2002 particularly since this satellite will not be

launched until after the election.

They will also say that we can’t afford Triana in the current constrained NASA budget. Well, that didn’t stop the majority from

going over the President’s request for NASA by some $220 million

in Fiscal Year 2000 in order to fund their favorite programs.

They will also argue in the past the Vice President isn’t qualified

to propose new missions like Triana for NASA. Well, if we’re going

to use this qualification as a metric, I’d just like to point out the

following: after examining the committee’s records, it turns out the

Vice President spent more time dealing with science issues during

his time in the House—including this Committee as a Chairman of
110

a Subcommittee—and Senate than almost 90 percent of the current

Committee members. Now, if we’re willing to believe that we have

the confidence to pass judgment on NASA’s program and even propose our own initiatives, but somehow we don’t extend that same

presumption to the Vice President who has more experience than

most us.

Another argument has been made that Triana is bad science, and

it has not been peer-reviewed. In fact, the science mission was selected after a rigorous peer-review of nine competing proposals, and

the work is going to be carried out by the Scripts Institution of

Oceanography. Moreover, I would point out that the concern of

peer-review hasn’t stopped Members of Congress from proposing

new programs when it suits them.

I recall Chairman Rohrabacher, last Congress, had hundreds of

millions of dollars inserted into the NASA authorization bill, because he wanted a second single-stage-to-orbit rocket program even

before the current billion dollar test program has demonstrated the

concept’s feasibility. I don’t remember any great concern over lack

of peer-review at that time.

And if the argument is that Triana hasn’t been peer-reviewed because it hasn’t been compared to other possible use of the money,

such as another shuttle research mission, I wonder if members are

willing to follow that argument to its logical conclusion; that is, is

Chairman Rohrabacher willing to let NASA’s Space Science Program peer-review the extra money he put into the bill for space

solar power and more space transportation research programs? And

if the Space Science Office says they had a better use for the

money, for example, Hubble or for a Mars probe, would the Chairman be willing to go along with these findings?

Let’s be honest. This really is a political effort to sink this par- ticular program which in turn will sink this bill. This is a $75 million program of which $40 million has already been spent, but $35

million is what is left. The NASA Director, Dan Goldin, called me

last night. He told me that this was an important mission for

NASA, so important that he would recommend that the bill be vetoed if it’s taken up. So, the truth here is this is simply a political

effort to sink a program that’s goign to sink the bill.

This Committee can do better. This Committee has made a good

effort to have a consensus, nonpartisan bill; there’s been compromises made, and we’ve moved forward. It’s really unfortunate

that we can’t continue this. Life and science certainly is important,

but keep in mind the President recommended an 18 percent increase over the Fiscal Year 1999 budget, so that is given priority.

Let’s recognize what this is, and let’s try to move above it; this

Committee deserves to do better. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.

I can’t believe what I’ve heard, that the NASA Administrator and

the Administration and apparently some people on the other side

of the aisle are willing to sink an entire NASA authorization bill

with authorizations for Space Station, for Life and Microgravity,

and other education programs and other programs over whether or

not there is an inclusion of money for the Triana Program. That

certainly has got priorities completely mixed up, and I would hope
111

that the gentleman from Tennessee would reconsider his position

on this.

This is the first time the Science Committee has had an opportunity to examine and debate the Triana Program. As you know,

we reported out and passed an authorization bill in April of 1997.

That was a 2-year authorization bill that never was passed out of

the United States Senate, so as a result, NASA was unauthorized

for the last 2 Fiscal Years. This is the first time since the Vice

President proposed the Triana Program on March 13, 1998 that we

have had a chance to debate this issue and to vote on it, and to

say that we’ve got to close our mind on it and never have an opportunity to determine whether or not this is the proper way to spend

NASA’s dollars, I think is very short-sided and certainly brings this

Committee out of the loop.

Now, my concern with the Triana Program is not who sponsored

it. My concern is, is that apparently the peer-review process that

this Committee has been quite proud of supporting was not utilized

in determining how—or whether to build Triana but was utilized

in determining how to build Triana. So, we didn’t have a peer-review on the building of Triana for the decision on going ahead, we

just had a peer-review once we decided to go ahead down at NASA

on how to build it.

That’s not the way to figure out how to use NASA’s dollars to the

best possible manner. I support the gentleman’s amendment. I

think that he’s telling us that it is better to stick the money in Life

and Microgravity than to continue on supporting this program

which has never been considered by this Committee prior to now.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.

Hall.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HALL. I thank you, sir, and I understand your position. I understand Mr. Gore’s position and certainly Mr. Gordon’s. I just

think that this is something that we probably haven’t spent enough

time on together. It’s something that historically you have always

cooperated and helped to work out. I can’t say $35 million or $38

million isn’t a lot of money, but we’re dealing here with a lot of

amendments, a solar amendment involving a couple hundred million additional dollars, an SNC amendment with $214 million, the

ATP with $55 million, and a lot of others. This isn’t a large item,

and it’s not a large enough item to derail this Committee and to

call for action on the part of the President that would put us back

to the tables working together. I’m just very hopeful that you all

can work this out.

You know, the Weldon-Nethercutt amendment is attractive to me

in that it shifts some money to allow for microgravity science, but

the fact is, though, that the base bill already increase Life and

Microgravity by $45 million in Fiscal Year 2000, and that’s an 18

percent increase which is about as much as I could expect and as

much as I could hope for over the President’s request. That also

translates into about a $38 million increase for Life and Micro

which is a 14 percent increase over the Fiscal Year 1999 level.
112

So, it seems that in my—I urge that—I’m going to vote to support the gentleman’s from Tennessee’s position, but I’d like very

much for you all to spend more time together and see if this can’t

be worked out. It’s important. I can’t downgrade the importance of

it nor the genuine interest of the two who have the amendment.

I just think that we ought to get together and do a little more

work. It seems to me that impeachment, Kosovo, and all of those

things have robbed us of the time that we normally spend together

working these things out. I yield back my time.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Nethercutt.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Thank you. I’m pleased to join with Mr.

Weldon in sponsoring this amendment for the simple reason that

I think we need to look at what transferring this money will do

good as opposed to looking at it as a negative for the Vice President.

That isn’t my purpose, but my purpose is to put more money into

research, and if we cut this one project, we’re enabling hundreds

of new primary investigators to receive funding, and I think that’s

critically important. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I know the challenges we fight on that Committee to find

enough money to do all the things that need to be done let alone—

we can’t afford to waste money is my point. And in NIH research,

in NASA research, and medical research, we’re on the brink, literally of curing diseases. Tremendous opportunities out there, but

we need researchers, and we need a continuity of research dollars,

and this will provide that.

I think it’s critically important that we not try to bootstrap this

particular project which looks to me like has been done. When we

had testimony here from NASA, there was I think, a clear indication that what NASA did was look at what instrumentation could

be put on this satellite after it was given the go ahead to proceed.

So, it’s bootstrapping the research onto a project that was not peerreviewed ahead of time, and I think that’s the wrong way to run

the agency and to run this particular program.

We can do—I heard Mr. Gordon talk about the cost and others

mention the cost. We’re really not talking about just $30-some odd

million or a $75 million program; we’re talking about $175 million

probably when you look at the cost to launch and the cost of additional add-ons to this particular project.

So, I think we need to use some common sense here and really

err on the side of medical research and microgravity research that

is underfunded in my judgment, especially in today’s world, where

we have such great opportunities to cure diseases.

So, I am proud to support the amendment; proud to author it

with my friend, Mr. Weldon, and I think it’s sensible, so I urge my

colleagues to support it, and I yield back my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the adoption of

the amendment——

Mr. GORDON. I don’t think we’re quite through, Mr. Chairman.
113

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Well, the gentleman from

Tennessee has already spoken.

Mr. GORDON. I think Eddie Bernice——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition?

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern about this is while we indicate we’re saving

money, it does not really save any money. It puts it in the budget

that’s already over what was recommended by the Administration,

and some might argue that NASA hasn’t put enough money into

Space Station research and that the Committee needs to increase

the funding for station research. Whether or not that’s true, this

amendment would not fix that problem.

Under this amendment, the Triana money wouldn’t be applied to

the Space Station account. It is clear that this amendment would

wind up wasting the taxpayers’ money, and this is because more

than $40 million of the $75 million—more than half to be spent on

Triana—will have already been spent by the time this amendment

ever takes effect. I think it’s an irresponsible way to deal with this

program, and, perhaps, if it had broad discussion in the Subcommittee, it would have had a great deal more understanding of

it.

The authors of the amendment are proposing to waste $40 mil- lion in taxpayers’ money so that they can add $35 million to a

NASA program that doesn’t need the money. It doesn’t really sound

to me like this is fiscal responsibility, and I would urge that we defeat this amendment, Mr. Chairman, meaning no affront to anyone.

I just think it’s an irresponsible amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman yields back the

balance of her time. Further discussion on the amendment? the

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Smith is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, I would just—Mr. Chairman, would

like to express that my hope that Republicans would not vote for

this amendment, because it was the brainchild of Al Gore, but also

I would hope that the Democrats wouldn’t simply fall in line and

vote for this because it’s the Vice Presidents, who is running for

President.

This project was not part of the original NASA recommendation.

It simply is the brainchild of Al Gore. He suggested it to NASA.

NASA has sprung to attention and started taking other funds to

accommodate this particular mission of Triana. It seems to me

that, based on the knowledge and information that I have been

given, other satellites could accommodate the same kind of goals,

the same kind of imagery as is suggested in this program. The initial cost was around $27 million. Now it has sprung up to an estimate of $70 millions, in addition to the launch cost.

We have been shortchanging the Life and Microgravity efforts

over the last 4 years. And even though, Mr. Hall, you suggest that

this bill does increase it, it still doesn’t replace what has been lost

over the last 4 years, it seems to me and with what has been sug-
114

gested by Mr. Nethercutt, that we are on the cutting edge of so

many research possibilities, it just seems like it’s a much better

bang for the buck with this amendment than without it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina seek recognition?

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. And I yield to Mr. Gordon of Tennessee.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. Let me just briefly repeat that I think Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Rohrabacher have been—and their staff have been very cooperative in

working with the minority and our staff in trying to produce a constructive, good bill here. And that’s the reason that I cosponsored

it. It would not be perfect to my mind, but this is the legislative

process. We have tried to put together a good, constructive bill.

And I think they have done that in good faith.

It is really a shame, here at the end, to undo all of that work.

And I have to agree with Mr. Smith when he says that we should

vote on this amendment on its merits and not whether it’s proposed by Vice President Gore or not. And that’s what has been

done. If you look at it, there has been a peer-review of the project.

Dan Goldin, the head of NASA, said it is an important project and

it’s important to the mission and it’s recommended that this bill be

vetoed if it is not moved forward with.

So I would say Mr. Weldon that we continue this discussion.

That he withdraw this amendment with a chance to—as I have

withdrawn amendments—with an opportunity to deal with this on

the floor. I don’t want to get into further discussion that discusses

partisanship that may or may not be here. It’s just that we have

a good bill. We’ve come a long way. We don’t need a curve ball at

the last to undo all of the good work that’s been done.

Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GORDON. Yes—well, Mr. Etheridge has the time.

Mr. HALL. To Mr. Smith, I would answer that he really puts me

in a predicament when you bring politics into this because, you

know, there may just accidentally be a Bush Democrat or two on

here that’s going to vote for——

[Laughter.]

A Tennessee amendment. I yield back my time. [Laughter.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time belongs to the gentleman

from North Carolina.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Would the gentleman from North Carolina yield?

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I yield.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I very much enjoy working with the gentleman from Tennessee and I commend him on his spirit of bipartisanship and I do enjoy working with my colleagues on the other

side of the aisle on the myriad issues that we have to wrestle with.

In particular, Mr. Lampson from Tennessee—from Texas, he and

I are frequently working together on station and shuttle issues.

But I will respectfully request that we have a vote on this issue

because this program has proceeded without authorization and I
115

think this is—you know, we got rid of a king 200 years ago and

for the Vice President to have a dream and NASA to just proceed

with this without the Congress speaking on something of this size,

I think it’s inappropriate. And I am shocked and amazed, frankly,

that the Administration would threaten a veto over something like

this. And I yield back to the gentleman from North Carolina would

give me additional time, I would like to ask my friend from Florida

if he would set this as a precedent that we have votes on all nonauthorized bills, programs, that might be put before this Committee? [Laughter.]

If the gentleman from North Carolina would again yield,

certainly——

[Laughter.]

Certainly I’m not about the business of establishing far-reaching

precedents for this Committee and I think that’s in the jurisdiction

of the Chairman and the Ranking Member. But I believe it’s very,

very appropriate for us to speak on this issue.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I yield back the balance of my time. [Laughter.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. The question is on

agreeing to the amendment of the gentleman from Florida, Dr.

Weldon.

Those in favor, will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it.

Mr. GORDON. We’d like a roll call vote on this.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The ayes have it.

Roll call is ordered. Those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed

will vote no. And the clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes yes. Mr. Boehlert.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. Mr. Smith of Texas.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. Aye.

The CLERK. Mrs. Morella votes yes. Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Barton.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Calvert.

Mr. CALVERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Calvert votes yes. Mr. Smith of Michigan.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Weldon of Florida.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Weldon votes yes. Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Aye.
116

The CLERK. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mr. Ewing.

Mr. EWING. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Ewing votes yes. Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon votes yes. Mr. Brady.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Cook.

Mr. COOK. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Cook votes yes. Mr. Nethercutt.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Nethercutt votes yes. Mr. Lucas.

Mr. LUCAS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes yes. Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Kuykendall.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Kuykendall votes yes. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mrs. Biggert.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. Mr. Sanford.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Metcalf.

Mr. METCALF. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Metcalf votes yes. Mr. Brown.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes no. Mr. Barcia.

Mr. BARCIA. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Barcia votes no. Ms. Johnson.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Rivers.

Ms. RIVERS. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Rivers votes no. Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes no. Mr. Doyle.

Mr. DOYLE. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Doyle votes no. Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no. Ms. Stabenow.

Ms. STABENOW. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Stabenow votes no. Mr. Etheridge.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Etheridge votes no. Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. No.
117

The CLERK. Mr. Lamspon votes no. Mr. Larson.

Mr. LARSON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Larson votes no. Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr Weiner.

Mr. WEINER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner votes no. Mr. Capuano.

Mr. CAPUANO. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano votes no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there additional members in the

room who desire to cast their votes? The gentleman from South

Carolina, Mr. Sandford.

The CLERK. Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Sandford votes yes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr.

Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes yes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Additional members in the chamber

who desire to vote or any members who want to change their

votes? If not, the clerk will report.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, yes, 21; no, 18.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is agreed to.
118
119

The next amendment on the roster is number 14 by Mr. Sandford

to terminate the International Space Station. For what purpose

does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition?

Mr. SANFORD. I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654, offered by Mr. Sandford.’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read.

[The information follows:]

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1654 OFFERED BY MR. SANFORD

Page 8, line 18, through page 9, line 24, amend section 101 to read as follows:

SEC. 101. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

(a) TERMINATION.—The Administrator shall terminate the participation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the International Space Station.

(b) TERMINATION COSTS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration for carrying out subsection (a) $500,000,000

for fiscal year 2000.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the gentleman from South

Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the Chairman. And I would say, before I

say word one on the amendment itself, let me be the first to recognize the fact that I’m new to the Science Committee. And I think

that brings some pluses and some minuses. I think on the plus

side, it brings new perspectives, a new way for looking at things.

the minus would be I don’t a tenth of the depth of experience or

knowledge on science-related issues that a whole host of members

on this Committee do have.

But I would say that—and I would say for that reason I’m not

going to call for a recorded vote. But on the plus side, from the

standpoint of new perspectives, as one new to the Science Committee, looking at the space station, to me, from the outside, looking

in, it would seem to be putting good money after bad. And I would

say that for a couple of different reasons.

One, I would say that, you know, our major partner in this arrangement is in deep trouble. And that’s most recently witnessed

by the fact that, you know, Yeltstin fired his prime minister. There

are a whole host of uncertainties going on in Russia. And, therefore, as a business person looking at any king of arrangement, you

would say you would want certainly. When you’re talking about

$100 billion or $50 billion, you want certainly. that is something

not possible in Russia right now. So I think that a number of people could very legitimately say, you know, we ought to have a space

station, but not now, not a this time, with this partner. So I raise

objection one there.

Second objection that I would have would be one that we all

struggle with in Congress. And that’s the struggle of priorities. And

that is, while there are a host of goods that might come out of a

space station, what has to be measured against those goods is

goods here on Earth. And what I’m hearing, what I’m seeing suggests that it may not be overwhelming. And I think it has to be

overwhelming when you’re talking about the sums of money that

we’re talking about.
120

I would say, on that front, if you look at, you know, there’s a big

hole in Texas right now where there was going to a Superconducting Supercollider. It was found wanting on that priority list

and therefore was abandoned. This amendment would suggest the

same for the space station.

And let me just give you a couple of articles that I’ve recently

seen that point to what I’m talking about. Here’s one entitled: ‘‘The

Biggest Waste of money in the History of Mankind.’’ And it goes

on to detail, you know, ‘‘the scientific community has not shared

NASA’s vision of an orbiting superlaboratory. In July, the American Society for Cell Biology declared that’’—I can’t even pronounce

the word—‘‘crystallography experiments in microgravity have no

serious contributions to analysis of protein structures in the development of new pharmaceuticals.’’ It goes on to say, ‘‘The American,

European, Canadian, and Japanese physical societies have also expressed their disdain.’’ It goes on to say, ‘‘The experiments already

performed aboard Mir Space Station seemed to support their pessimistic views.’’

It brings as well in a story of how the Howard Hughes Medical

Institute—and I think this goes back to the issues of setting priorities—for $507 million last year in grant medical research and

other activities—in other words, for the cost of 2 shuttle flights—

produced extraordinary results, published in a number of scientific

journals. This article talks about how there are no substantive scientific findings to date as a result of the space station.

Another articles that I have here: ‘‘Space Station Vulnerable to

Debris: NASA Leaves Off Shields to Fast-Track Projects.’’ ‘‘NASA

is to waive a safety requirement for the International Space Station in a bid to get to orbit earlier.’’ And when they talk about the

shields, ‘‘Allen Lee, the Associate Director of the United States

General Accounting Office,’’ who testified before the Senate in early

May or late April, ‘‘said that the shields wouldn’t be ready for a full

3 years. The ISS partners themselves said that there was a 24 percent chance of the space station being hit by space debris.’’ Now a

1 in 4 chance—is that the kind of thing that you want to rush

when you talk about a $100 billion project?

Another article here in the Sunday Times of London, April 4,

1999. ‘‘NASA has been accused of jeopardizing scientific experiments on the International Space Station in its latest bid to bail

out cash-starved Russia.’’ Here it talks about how Keith Cowing, a

space consultant and former NASA worker who helped design the

ISS, says that giving Russia money will put the scientific experiments on the space station at risk. The article details how there

were to be two launches to reach the space station. Russia is only

able to afford one. Therefore, NASA will front them the money, but

that money will come out of the science budget, which is the whole

reason for——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, seek recognition?

Mr. HALL. To speak against the amendment.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.
121

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I won’t take 5 minutes. I just want to

say, shades of Tim Roemer. [Laughter.]

The same situation where I’m very fond of the author and I just

don’t understand the amendment. But, you know, it got Roemer a

promotion to the Intelligence Committee, so that—

[Laughter.]

But we—I hope we do have a record vote. I think the gentleman

would be entitled to one and I yield back my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HALL. I do yield.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Let me endorse the gentleman’s re- marks. We’ve already spent $20 billion on the space station. There

are two elements in orbit now. Now is the time not to cancel it.

And, you know, I certainly would not want to send some of the elements that are not in orbit to Charleston to put in a museum as

an example of the foolishness of the Congress spending $20 billion

and then canceling the program. And I yield back to the gentleman

from Texas.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan seek recognition?

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. To speak on the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, from you

the status of the Russian contribution and effort? And I would yield

for that information if you’ve got it.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, if the gentleman would yield.

As the gentleman knows, I’ve kind of made a career of trying to

force the Russians to live up to their commitments, both in terms

of financing as well as in terms of delivery of equipment. And I can

tell the gentleman from Michigan, they have batted 100 percent.

They’ve broken every promise that they’ve made.

The service module, which is a couple of years late, has been

rolled out and will shortly be shipped. And, if the service module

is up by the end of September, the currently agreed to assembly

schedule can be met. If the Russians are much behind the 30th of

September, then there will have to be a complete reworking of the

assembly schedule and I shudder to think of what the additional

costs of that will be.

The Administration ignored cries by this Chairman and this

Committee to get the Russians out of the critical path. They are

now paying the price for that. I think that we are less dependent

upon the Russians now than we have been in the past. I have always said we shouldn’t be dependent upon them at all. The Administration has made a mistake that I think they are recognizing. The

program is progressing. I think that we will be able to be proud

of the station when it is completed. We have got to keep the pressure on and, you know, I certainly intend to continue doing that.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. chairman.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Well, it would be my—reclaiming my

time—it would be my concern to pursue better—more and better
122

information, but I have been told, from the standpoint of medical

research, that the money could be much more effectively and efficiently used on the ground rather than in space—on a space station. I have been told—and I would like the answers which have

not been forthcoming to me, in terms of whether the space station

is more of a headline, if you will, an exciting type of venture, as

opposed to something that can really contribute to the well-being

of this country and the world and I intend to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The—who seeks recognition? The

gentlewoman from California, Ms. Woolsey, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to speak for

the amendment, as Tim Roemer in a skirt. [Laughter.]

And I support this——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized

under those conditions. [Laughter.]

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. I support the Sandford

amendment and, first, though, I’d like to acknowledge that it is

very important that NASA has valuable work, that they do push

the envelope of technology in reaching out to space, but I believe

that the project of the space station has cast too large a shadow

over NASA in general and our national budget in particular.

When the space station was proposed in 1984, the estimated

price tag was about $8 billion, which is a lot of money. Now that

price has risen more than a dozen times and adds up to at least

$100 billion over the life of the project. This is literally outrageous

and let’s see what we could do with that much money, Mr. Chairman. We could fund the National Institute of Health for 16 years,

provide low-income heating assistance for thousands of families,

fund child immunization programs, clean up our Superfund sites,

fund drug-prevention programs, provide Head Start to more children in need, pay for our debts to the United Nations, and provide

a tax cut for middle-income Americans.

Now those who are so inclined could also take this same amount

of money and purchase 40 B–2 bombers and 3 nuclear aircraft carriers. I would not vote for either, but they could and they would

have the money to do it.

I don’t question the ability of our outstanding engineers and scientists who would bring this project to reality, but I believe that,

in this case, it is misplaced priorities. With the many needs here

on Earth, the space station is just too expensive and it’s not complete. We need to shore up our Social Security System and protect

Medicare and Medicaid. We need to educate our children and clean

up our environment. We need to get our spending priorities

straight and I support eliminate the funding for the space station.

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I urge my colleagues to support the Sandford

amendment and save $21 billion now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman yields back the

balance of her time.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman.
123

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida seek recognition?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. And I will use the entire 5 minutes. We

have had this debate over and over again in this Committee and

on the Floor of the House and, with every year, we accumulate

more and more votes in support of the space station. One of the obvious reasons for that is what the Chairman just said. We’ve got

$20 billion invested. There is a huge amount of hardware in the

space station processing facility in my congressional district at

Kennedy Space Center that is ready to go. We have the first two

elements up there. There is nothing that excites children in America more than when you talk to them about a space station and our

manned space flight program and, for the sake of the preservation

of time, I’d be very happy to yield to the gentleman of Texas if

you’d like to add to my comments.

Mr. LAMPSON. I would indeed. Thank you very much to the gentleman from Florida. Just a few comments. You were just commenting on education. I was a teacher and I still remember the excited look in the kid’s eyes in classes in junior high and high school

when I was teaching and they saw what we did in space many,

many years ago.

But a couple of comments that have been made along the way

I think deserve some very short, quick comments. One of them:

We’re throwing good money after bad. We know that for every

$1.00 we spend in space, we get a $9.00 return on Earth. That

doesn’t sound like bad money and certainly not a bad return.

Certainty? You want certainty from Russia? Sure, we want certainty from Russia, but we also would like to have certainty from

new science which we don’t have. That’s why we’re—that’s why

we’re experimenting. That’s why we’re trying to build something

and hope for a greater return. And I think that there’s no question

but that we’re getting a return that goes much beyond science

when we’re working with not just Russia, but the many other nations that we’ve built a partnership and a relationship with that

otherwise wouldn’t be there had it not been for our efforts as far

as science is concerned.

So there are many reasons why we should continue to support

this station. Just to echo the words that Mr. Weldon just said

about the amount of equipment that is already sitting on the

ground ready to be put into space. In fact, if we turned this off

now, we’d have to spend additional billions of dollars to stop the

project. We lose even more and you don’t have the gain that we expect. And I’ll yield back my time. Thank you very much.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman and I yield back.

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, seek recognition?

Ms. JOHNSON. I’d strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The woman is recognized for 5 minutes.
124

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today seems to be

bringing about a day that I seek more than usual. I don’t relish a

lot of speaking. However, we’ve come this far because our

foremothers and forefathers thought about what was needed in the

future and our research. I think we’ve gone too far to decide that

we know all the answers and we don’t need to look for any more

and, therefore, we’re scrapping major research projects.

We are expected, as members of this Committee, to be a little bit

more open minded. We cannot count all of the lives we’ve affected

and made better by the current space research outcomes in health

technologies and many, many commercial goods. We cannot afford,

Mr. Chairman, to forget about what we need to do for the future,

just as people before us were willing to take their chance to see

what basic research and peer research could bring forward.

I recognize, with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, we know full

well the status of the income and the economic situation of Russia.

I hope that we don’t scrap looking for new techniques for health

care and commercial goods because Russia does not have the

money right now. We can always spend our dollars in a way that

many of us will feel would be better, but I don’t think we need to

shut the door to the future just because it costs a lot of money.

What would the future bring if we were not willing to invest in it

to see what it could bring?

It is unconscionable to me to get into these research projects and

then scrap them. We have committed ourselves to the research

community of this nation that we would look at the next 10 years

to enhancing their ability to do research, not stopping it. My district became a victim to the Supercollider and I still am sorry that

we didn’t have the foresight to fund that project and so are most

of the scientists in this nation and around the world. I hope we

don’t make that mistake again today, Mr. Chairman. And I yield

back the balance of my time.

But I would ask and urge that we not vote this space station

down and close the door to our future. Thank you.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.

Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. GORDON. Very quickly, I want to concur with the sentiment

expressed by my Chairman earlier that the space station has

gone—or the shuttle has gone down a bumpy road, but there has

been so much money and time and scrutiny spent by the country,

by the Committee, by NASA, that it is too late to turn back and

I think that we have a program that can be something that the

United States can be proud and I would hope that we would

support——

Mr. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GORDON. Yes, I yield.

Mr. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just to follow up on those comments, let me suggest that the points made by

the gentlelady from California are very valid. These are choices

that we made and I would certainly acknowledge that those are

hard choices to choose between issues of housing and Social Secu-
125

rity, but we have a surplus now in the budget and I think my good

friend from South Carolina noted the Supercollider, the hold in the

ground, is evidence of that when we make mistakes like that, we

live to regret them.

I do a lot of work with the University of Houston. Dr. Paul Chu

led a superconductivity laboratory. I wish we had that superconductivity program to enhance the enormous work that he is

doing that is so needed around the world.

I think the other point that needs to be made, while we have a

surplus, we need to acknowledge that the space station, albeit Russia has had its problems, has consistently worked under a 5-year

plan, of which they have maintained their budget. Whenever there

is an overrun, there is a response immediately by NASA and the

Administration or the Administrator. And, in fact, we have proven

that the International Space Station has been successful in research dealing with HIV, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and, of

course, the most recent analysis, of which most people had a little

chuckle, but aging with Dr. John—with Senator John Glenn.

So I would hope that we would likely view our future as intertwined with the success of the International Space Station. It does

good work. It does it in a fiscally sound manner. And, as well, what

regrets we’d have to have open space in places like Huntsville, the

Kennedy Space Center area, the Johnson Space Center area, and

look back sadly and wish what could have been. And I hope, Mr.

Chairman, that we will vote this amendment down. I thank the

gentleman for yielding.

Mr. GORDON. Again, Mr. Chairman, I can concur with your recommendation that this amendment be rejected.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition?

Mr. DOYLE. Move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognizing for 5

minutes.

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to say a few

words on this space station. As we on this Committee have followed

this issue and we’ve learned of repeated delays and cost overruns

on the part of our Russian partners for 4 years, I’ve been a disciple

of Mr. Roemer on this issue and have voted to terminate the ISS.

And—but I’ve been reconsidering my position on this issue and I

want my good friend Mark Sanford to know—who is my good

friend and I have a tremendous amount of respect for—that it has

nothing to do with your authoring of the amendment versus Mr.

Roemer offering the amendment.

But I’d like to suggest to my colleagues that I think at this point,

this far down the road, that it just may be inappropriate to pull

the plug on the project. We do have two important modules of the

station in space. We spent $20 billion on this project. I do have serious concerns about the project. The Russian economy is in shambles and question their ability and commitment to fund a space station. But I think that terminating the entire ISS at this point

might be too drastic of a move.

Mr. Chairman, I can imagine at some point we may have to decide whether to exclude the Russians from the project and continue

ahead with our other international partners, all of whom have
126

made satisfactory contributions so far. But I think it would be rash

to pull the plug on a $20 billion investment when we’ve come so

far. I know Russian delays have cost us a few billion dollars and

even when you add the cost savings, we’ve enjoyed as a result of

adding them at the beginning of the project, the bottom line of Russian involvement in the program will be a net loss to the American

taxpayer.

But I do—I’ve come to feel that terminating the International

Space Station outright will leave us nothing for our investment

and, thus, I’m going to reconsider my previous position and will

vote against terminating the International Space Station. I urge

my colleagues that have done similar in the past 4 years to reconsider their positions.

Mr. HALL. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, I will.

Mr. HALL. I certainly admire a man who can reconsider, particularly when he reconsiders to come to my way of thinking. [Laughter.]

I think another of—your judgment is not just based on those

things that you’ve submitted, but I happen to know that you’re

aware of the fact that the present chairman and I went to Mr.

Goldin about 31⁄2 or 4 years ago and he suggested the cuts in the

budget that had to happen and that Mr. Goldin showed good faith

with this Committee, with this Congress, with the American people

and did cut that budget 32 or 33 or 34 percent, probably more than

any other budget’s been cut on this Hill. And I know you took that

into consideration.

I seriously do admire you and thank you. It takes courage to take

a position and it takes more courage to change that position when

you get further information. I yield back my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOYLE. Yes.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I’d just like to point out that not terminating

something now because of an investment that we’ve gotten hooked

into is exactly my point. It really shows that, here in the Federal

Government, when you get—the camel gets its nose under the tent,

the camel’s in that tent and will be there and that’s where we are.

So that’s one of the reasons I still disagree with this.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the adoption of

the amendment by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Sanford.

Those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The Chair is in doubt and the clerk will call the roll. Those in

favor will vote aye and those opposed will vote no. The clerk will

call roll.

Mr. SANFORD. Wait. Wait. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. In the

same way that the International Space Station captures the imagination of a child, I would like to imagine that I lost this vote by

one and, therefore, would ask that we not call for a recorded vote.

[Laughter.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman withdraw the

amendment? And then we have a deal.

Mr. SANFORD. I will as long as I can offer it on the Floor.
127

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman will definitely have a

chance. The amendment is withdrawn. [Laughter.]

The next amendment is number 15 by the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Larson.

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I’m going to withdraw the amendment and would seek to—move to strike the last word for the purpose of asking a clarifying question.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me

first also indicate that I have remarks and, in the purpose of brevity, I would like to seek unanimous consent——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection.

[The statement of Mr. Larson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN LARSON

I want to express my appreciation for the hard work Chairman Rohrabacher has

dedicated to this bill and thank him for his willingness to listen to my concerns.

However, I am still deeply concerned that this bill includes language that might

prohibit NASA from moving forward with a research and development program essential to maintaining America’s competitive position in the global economy and our

national defense.

Specifically, I refer to language that would prohibit funds to be used for the UltraEfficient Engine Program. The Administration has recommended that this Committee fund this program at $50 million per year over the next five years, as General

Spence M. Armstrong, Associate Administrator of NASA, testified to the Space Subcommittee on March 3, 1999.

However, I am at a loss to explain why the reservations about the execution of

this program used to justify this language were not raised during this hearing so

that members might have had an opportunity to discuss this course of action.

This program is focused to develop the next-generation of aerospace propulsion.

I am concerned that the language in this bill will have a negative impact on not

only the future competition of the United States’ commercial air fleet, but specifically on the development of our next generation tactical military aircraft.

The focused approach of this program has facilitated NASA’s coordination with

the Department of Defense on long-term R+D programs, specifically the Integrated

High Performance Turbine Engine Program.

I respect the position of the Chairman Rohrobacher, and appreciate the fact while

the bill would prohibit a coordinated research effort, he has recognized the individual elements of this program important enough to fund in the Research and Technology Base.

However, the UEET effort involves bold, revolutionary technologies that must be

integrated into a demonstration model engine over the next 5 years in order to validate this technology. To accomplish this, NASA remains committed to seeking industry cost sharing for this effort. But, for industry to consider cost sharing, the program must have clearly stated goals and long-term stability.

While a UEET demonstration engine would not be targeted for specific commercial applications, it could possibly be used for defense applications.

Any practical commercial developments as a result of this program would be 10–

15 years away, and would be developed with private funds.

NASA believes that for these reasons, particularly the multi-year commitment

needed to achieve technology goals, that the UEET program should be conducted as

a Focused Program, and is prepared to work with the Committee on Science to ensure a long-term funding commitment to the UEET effort to achieve its stated technology objectives.

Mr. Rohrabacher, I would like to clarify that the language regarding UEET in this

bill is not prejudicial to NASA’s ‘‘working on’’ a demonstration, engineering model

engine to validate these technologies, and that the Committee recognizes that a

long-term funding commitment to meet the UEET technology goals will be necessary

to attract cost sharing by the commercial sector.

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, let me start by thanking Mr. Rohrabacher for taking an extraordinary amount of time and effort to
128

work with both his staff and mine and the Administrator of NASA

to deal with some language that, to say the least, was somewhat

disconcerting to me with respect to the Ultra-Efficient Engine technology within the bill. But I know, after several conversations with

both he, his staff, and the Administrator of NASA that we all share

a deep and abiding concern for the bold revolutionary technologies

that can be attributed to this demonstration project, engineering

model engine over the long term that will be beneficial to us both

militarily and also, I daresay, commercially, as we seek in this

country to continue to compete against Airbus.

I do have a clarifying answer through you, Mr. Chairman, that

I would ask Mr. Rohrabacher. And, with your permission, I would

proceed.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The answer is yes. Does the gentleman from California request the gentleman from Connecticut to

yield to him?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, as soon as he poses the question.

Mr. LARSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rohrabacher, what I would

like to do is clarify that the language regarding the—what is commonly referred to as the UEET proposal in this bill is not prejudicial to NASA, not prejudicial in the extent that in working on a

demonstration engineering model engine to validate these technologies and technology that the Committee recognizes as a longterm funding commitment to meet UEET technology goals, it will

be necessary to attract the cost-sharing by the commercial sector

that we all seek.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The answer to—will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LARSON. Yes, I do.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The answer to the gentleman’s question is

yes and it is the intention of the Subcommittee Chairman to work

with that gentleman to move this project along in the direction that

he is seeking and we’ll work on the way to the Floor and I appreciate his cooperation and we will both try—I think that we have

mutual aims in mind.

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield

back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. The next amendment is number 16 by Mr.

Weiner. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek

recognition?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr. Weiner.’’

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is

considered as read.

[The information follows:]

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1654 OFFERED BY MR. WEINER

Page 13, line 14, insert ‘‘, including $35,000,000 for aircraft noise reduction technology’’ after ‘‘Technology Base’’.

Page 14, line 5, insert ‘‘, including $35,000,000 for aircraft noise reduction technology’’ after ‘‘Technology Base’’.

Page 14, line 23, insert ‘‘, including $35,000,000 for aircraft noise reduction technology’’ after ‘‘Technology Base’’.
129

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think I’ll take

the full 5 minutes. This amendment is intended to add additional

funding for noise reduction research done at NASA. We have done

an admirable job in this Committee—and I commend Chairman

Rohrabacher and the Chairman of the Full Committee and others

who have struck a balance between providing flexibility for NASA

in funding the research and technology base and our efforts to try

to put our imprint on specific items that we feel are important.

What my amendment would do is take a portion of the $475 million research and technology base, including some of the additional

money that’s added in under this budget, and allocate $10 million

in Fiscal Year 2000, $10 million in Fiscal Year 2001, and $20 million in Fiscal Year 2002 to be allocated for research and technology

and noise reduction research.

There are several elements that I think make this an important

statement for this Committee to make at this time. First is the

FAA Authorization Bill that’s moving through this House is going

to invariably, under any scenario, increase the amount of air traffic

in the years to come. In fact, in some airports, it’s going to increase

it dramatically because there’s proposals to lift the caps on the

amount of traffic that can come in and out of those airports.

Secondly, there are negotiations going on presently, both in Europe and here domestically, on figuring out the next element in

noise reduction of commercial aircraft, what’s called stage four

technology is being developed now. And this is a time that not only

FAA, but NASA should be involved in helping with this technology.

And, third, there have been admirable efforts made to try to leverage private research. And I think that this would give NASA

the ability to send a message to the private sector that we are not

going to tell them to do a loan, but we are going to seek to help,

as well. It should be noted that, you know, at NASA’s request to

OMB and the internal machinations that go on there, wanted additional funding for noise reduction. And I understand that there is

a philosophical question about whether that should be done at

NASA or whether it should be done at FAA.

I think in the jurisdiction of this Committee, we should make it

clear, frankly, that the good works that have been done at NASA

up until now, including those that have been spun off from the

Ultra-Efficient Engine research should be continued and enhanced.

We have to recognize—some of us who live in the shadow of airports—recognize the importance of commerce value that those airports bring. But we also have to recognize in this context that

NASA’s doing important work on making sure that those aircraft

that come in and out of our communities do so in a way that is as

quiet as possible.

This is a relatively small amount. It is a minute fraction of the

overall research and technology base. It is a zero-sum amendment

in that there isn’t an additional allocation. All that I seek to do is

to take $10 million and move it from this $475 million research

and technology base and put it into the research for noise reduction.
130

I want to publicly thank Chairman Rohrabacher, who I called

this morning to explain my amendment and by the time I was off

the phone he had explained to me my amendment and has done

an extraordinary amount and also to my other Chair, the gentlewoman, Congresswoman Morella, for her assistance as well. And I

would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This is something that we can do here in this Committee that may, frankly,

make the skies and those of us on the ground a little bit quieter

and, putting aside what we may do in the FAA authorization to

come in terms of increasing air traffic, this is an opportunity for

us to increase the research in noise reduction.

And I yield back my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman yields back his time.

The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.

The gentleman’s amendment is well-intentioned but, unfortunately, is going to have some detrimental side effects. NASA intends to spend $25 million for aircraft noise reduction over the period of this authorization bill. The gentleman’s amendment fences

$35 million or $10 million more than NASA intends to spend. And

it is not a total plus-up or increase in the NASA appropriation,

which is good. What the downside is is that NASA has indicated

that if the amendment is adopted, it will result in the termination

of emissions work and research into rocket-based combined cycle

technology.

I think that we’ve got to have a balanced program. The emissions

research and the combined cycle technology research are important, although funded at a lesser scale. The gentleman’s amendment will mean that we aren’t going to have any of that for the

next 3 years and I don’t think that that is a wise idea. So I would

hope that the Committee would vote down this amendment, even

though it is well-intentioned, and yield back the balance of my

time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I also rise in opposition to the amendment

and also commend the gentleman for being highly motivated. In

Orange County, we are now in the middle of a major fight on

whether or not El Toro Marine Base should become an airport and

the biggest opposition to making it an airport is coming because

people are afraid of noise. And they have every right to be concerned about that. People who live near airports have a right to be

concerned about that.

And the gentleman is not offering a radical amendment. It is

only a $10 million shift. Just to note, we just learned about this

within the last 48 hours and perhaps we could have worked more

closely with the gentleman had we known about this $10 million

request earlier.

Also, $10 million, even though $10 million is a small sum, it just

isn’t left under the pillow by the tooth fairy. It has to come from

somewhere. And it is, in this case, as the Chairman noted, it’s coming from a pot of money that will either be spent—come out of one

of three places. Number one, it would come out of the money that

Mr. Larson is looking for or it will come out of the money that Mr.
131

Sensenbrenner just noted is coming out of emissions control research or the rocket-based combined cycle engine, which is something Mr. Goldin has as one of his highest priorities to help develop

this, which is aimed at helping both the commercial aerospace industry in terms of both commercial jets but also spacecraft. So I

reluctantly oppose the amendment.

Mr. WEINER. Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will.

Mr. WEINER. I’m just—so we understand the magnitude of what we’re talking about here. I’m talking about a $10 million move

from a $475 million pot that I think that the Chairman has shown

judgment that we want to leave NASA with some flexibility. But

I think, on the other side, we then, I think, lose the ability to say

in this room, surgically, what is going to happen as the result of

such a tiny, incremental move.

I think that NASA is going to do what NASA is going to do when

we allocate monies in this kind of a soft way. And so I think to ascribe a specific result from here, I believe that, you know, in the

context of a $475,800,000 allocation, to find an additional $10 million—and I happen to believe—and the reason that the amendment

was offered in this order—is that the research that’s currently

being done on the Ultra-Efficient Engine that you just had a colloquy about may wind up—you may wind up being able to take a

portion of that and say, you know what—this is technology that

we’re developing that not only produces the Ultra-Efficient Engine,

but it makes a quieter engine as well.

And so I think that it is not entirely correct for Mr. Goldin or

for someone in this room to say, well, as a result of this, less than

1⁄2 of 1 percent cut, if I did the math right, we are going to see

these dramatic changes in policy that the Chairman of the Full

Committee and the Chairman of the Subcommittee referred to. I

just don’t believe we can say that.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, what we’re talking

about—what we’re basing this analysis on is what Dan Goldin and

the Administration has given us as to their plans of how they plan

to spend that money. And they’re—we didn’t just dream this answer up for you. I mean, they said this is where that $10 million

would come from. And, although it’s not specified in the bill, yes

there is a $475 million, you know, spending package there, but that

is something that NASA has already worked through and designated where they want that money to come from. So it’s not—you

know, I know it’s hard to comprehend that we’ve got a full package

we’re giving NASA. They also already have plans for that. And

that’s where they tell us that would come from.

And I agree with you that perhaps if they don’t spend all that

money the way Mr. Larson would have them spend the money, perhaps they might be able to use that, but I think that Mr. Larson

has already indicated—and I think we have—that it would be perhaps better to spend that money developing that Ultra-Efficient

Engine as the people who are involved in that project deem that

it’s the most effective way of spending money in the development

of that engine.

And I certainly would be willing to work with the gentleman and

report language and trying to see that if there is money available
132

that it is directed that way and that we put that in the report language. And would be willing to work the Chairman on that as well.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Michigan,

Ms. Rivers.

Ms. RIVERS. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Ms. RIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to associate with the

remarks of Mr. Weiner and do indeed support his amendment. For

those of us who live in an area with a major airport, the tension

created by the economic gains the airport represents versus the

quality of life problems for people who live in that area are terrible.

And what we find ourselves doing is we find ourselves perpetually

in a debate around economic expansion versus quality of life for

people who are living on the ground. We are going to have to address this issue.

Typically, the FAA puts money in their budget. It is not enough.

We are not moving fast enough. We know, as Mr. Weiner said, we

know that there will be an increase in air traffic either by legislation or simply through increased economic growth. It has a tremendous impact on people on the ground. It can’t be discounted. And

what it tends to do is provide a barrier to economic growth. And

so I think we should look very carefully at amendments like this

one and others to address what is a very real problem for a significant number of districts across this country.

We have an airport noise caucus which has attracted a significant number of members because this is a continuing problem and

a very real problem all over the country. And so I would hope that

members would support this amendment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentlelady—would the gentlelady

yield?

Ms. RIVERS. Yes, I would, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Ms. ROHRABACKER. Let me just say that if this money is available, as Mr. Weiner is suggesting, perhaps, when all is said and

done, out of this pot of money, there may be some money available

because some money that perhaps was supposed to be spent in

some area didn’t get spent. I would certainly support report language that would indicate that, if there is money left over in that

pot, that it do—that it does go toward this noise reduction. We are

only talking about a $10 million increase of $25 million that have

already been expended.

Let me also note one other factor. The FAA should also be responsible for this. This is—we should also make sure that we’re not

draining money from research projects for what the FAA should

also be putting in. So I would be happy to work with the gentleman

to make sure that, if there is money left over in that pot, that it

goes to meet the gentleman’s needs.

Ms. RIVERS. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Certainly.

Ms. RIVERS. One of the problems, one of the tensions between the

FAA budget and this particular proposal is that a significant por-
133

tion of the FAA goes for remediation that is done on the ground,

things that are meant to address the problem as they exist. Resource—research is to address the problem as we expect it to grow.

And I think we need to address both aspects of the problem.

Mr. WEINER. Would the gentlelady yield on that point.

Ms. RIVERS. I would yield. Yes.

Mr. WEINER. First, I want to commend the gentlelady for her

work on the noise reduction caucus. One of the things that we have

grown increasingly concerned about FAA’s role in this is that FAA

is a revenue agency. They are an agency that has increasingly

viewed themselves that way. NASA, to their eternal credit, is a research agency. They are an agency that understands thinking not

just this year, not just thinking about how we get United States

Air Flight 17 to land, but also thinking about where we are going

to be in 15 or 20 years.

So I think it is very important that both agencies have a role and

that, frankly, some of us are very concerned and we’re going to express that concern in the context of the FAA authorization, that

the FAA is not doing nearly what they should be on this point. I

thank the gentlelady for her yield.

Ms. Rivers. Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the

amendment by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.

Those in favor will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The noes appear to have. The noes have it and the——

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Roll call is requested. Those in favor

will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no and the clerk will call the

roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. Mr. Boehlert.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Smith of Texas

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. No.

The CLERK. Mrs. Morella votes no. Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Barton.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Calvert.

Mr. CALVERT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Bartlett.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Weldon of Florida.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. No.
134

The CLERK. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Ewing.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon votes no. Mr. Brady.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Cook.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Nethercutt.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas.

Mr. LUCAS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mr. Green.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Kuykendall.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. Mrs. Biggert.

Mrs. BIGGERT. No.

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Sanford.

Mr. SANFORD. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Sanford votes no. Mr. Metcalf.

Mr. METCALF. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Metcalf votes no. Mr. Brown.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Hall.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes yes. Mr. Barcia.

Mr. BARCIA. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Barcia votes yes. Ms. Johnson.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Yes.

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes.

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Rivers.

Mr. RIVERS. Yes.

The CLERK. Ms. Rivers votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Doyle.

Mr. DOYLE. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Stabenow.

Ms. STABENOW. Yes.

The CLERK. Ms. Stabenow votes yes. Mr. Etheridge.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Yes.
135

The CLERK. Mr. Etheridge votes yes. Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Weiner.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano.

Mr. CAPUANO. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano votes yes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there members in the chamber

who desire to vote or change their votes?

Mr. COOK. Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Utah.

The CLERK. Mr. Green is not recorded.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. This is Mr. Cook.

The CLERK. I’m sorry. Mr. Cook.

Mr. COOK. I vote no.

The CLERK. Mr. Cook votes no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. GREEN. How am I recorded as voting?

The CLERK. You are not recorded, sir.

Mr. GREEN. No.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.

Smith.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I vote no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.

Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I vote aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California,

Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye.

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York, Mr.

Weiner.

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, you’re not recorded.

Mr. WEINER. I’m aye, please.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Any members in the chamber who

desire to vote or to change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.

How is Mr. Hall recorded?

Mr. HALL. I vote aye.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.

Hall, votes aye.

Clerk will report.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 17 no and 17 yes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is not agreed

to.
136
137

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. We—the next amendment is number

17.

For what purpose the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon,

seek recognition?

Mr. GORDON. Strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown was going to propose an

amendment today to eliminate section 126. As you know, he

couldn’t be here. For that reason, I will briefly sum up his position

and that is that he is opposed to section 126 and I understand that

NASA also is opposed and I would ask that his remarks be made

a part of the record.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, so ordered.

[The statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

It was my intention to offer an amendment to strike Section 126 of HR 1654. It

is not because I am opposed to the concept of commercial data purchases—far from

it.

As the principal author of the 1992 Land Remote Sensing Policy Act, I think that

it is clear that I support the development of a healthy and vibrant commercial remote sensing industry. In spite of some of the failures suffered by the remote sensing industry over the last year or so, I believe that its long-term prospects are good.

However, I strongly believe that Section 126 of the NASA bill is ill-conceived and

ultimately unworkable. I am afraid that it will result in needless disruption of

NASA’s Earth Science research program, while doing little to actually promote the

commercial remote sensing industry. Furthermore, I believe that the approach

taken in Section 126 will have the effect of forcing geographical and/or corporate

‘‘earmarks’’ on NASA. It is bad policy to force NASA to buy data just to buy data.

Thus I oppose Section 126 and I understand that NASA does too.

I hope that by the time this bill becomes law, we will have corrected this situation.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The last amendment is number 19

by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lampson.

[The information follows:]

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1654 OFFERED BY MR. LAMPSON

Page 25, lines 15 through 26, amend section 128 to read as follows:

SEC. 128. TRANS-HAB.

(a) LIMITATION.—No funds authorized by this Act shall be obligated for the design

or development of an inflatable structure—

(1) to replace any International Space Station components scheduled for

launch in the Assembly Sequence released by the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration on February 22, 1999; or

(2) that would otherwise be capable of accommodating humans in space,

until the conditions specified in subsection (b) have been met.

(b) CONDITIONS.—Before funds are obligated as described in subsection (a), the

Administrator shall provide to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate

a report that, at a minimum includes—

(1) an independently validated cost and schedule estimate for the proposed

design or development program;

(2) the procurement approach to be used; and

(3) a funding plan with funding increments tied to the achievement of clearly

defined programmatic milestones.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek recognition?

Mr. LAMPSON. To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
138

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was planning on offering an amendment to the National Authorization Act of 1999 to

modify section 128 of the Act, but instead I will not do so at this

time. The language, as drafted in section 128 will essentially eliminate any potential funding or even consideration for the definition,

design, or development of Trans-Hab, a proposed replaced for the

International Space Station’s habitation module or other promising

concepts for the use of new inflatable structure technology to provide a much larger living and working volume. H.R. 1654’s proposed language would preclude any work on this very promising set

of technologies and would be highly undesirable.

The amendment that I was planning to introduce would not have

obligated funds for the design or development of any inflatable

structures that would replace station components scheduled for

launch until the NASA Administrator provided to the House Committee on Science and the Senate Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation a report that, at a minimum, includes

an independently validated cost and schedule estimate for the proposed design or development program, the procurement approach

to be used, and a funding plan with funding increments tied to the

achievement of clearly defined programmatic milestones.

NASA is currently reviewing the technical issues surrounding

the Trans-Hab structure, which appear to offer potentially significant crew safety advantages over the currently baselined habitation module. The Trans-hab approach has a number of highly desirable qualities and technologies that make it an attractive candidate for International Space Station consideration and also for

potential commercial applications.

And the one thing that I consider—or that I continue to hear

from astronauts in my district is that they need more space in

space. But the way that this bill’s language is written doesn’t even

give them the opportunity to consider development. But to tie the

hands of NASA scientists just to keep them from finding better

ways of doing. Now this Committee has held NASA to a high

standard and to prove time and time again that they are doing the

most for the least, I don’t see this action as either cost-effective or

scientifically sound.

And I’ve been informed that NASA’s approach would be to pursue this concept only if the difference in cost between the Hab and

the Trans-Hab can be mitigated by commercial participation. And

I truly believe that NASA needs the flexibility to contribute some

modest amount of technology maturation funding, if required, to

develop a commercial partnership. Several companies have responded to a Trans-Hab concept solicitation, which imply a high

level of interest.

But I strongly believe that this Committee should provide NASA

with the capability of continuing research to develop and design a

structure that could offer significant crew safety advantages over

the currently baselined habitation module. Without the benefit of

a Subcommittee markup, members of this committee have not had

the opportunity to air this issue and, instead, any discussion of developing Trans-Hab has been prohibited.
139

You know, Mr. Chairman, just a few minutes you made a comment when discussing Triana. You made a statement that we

should not close our minds and remove this Committee’s involvement from review of programs like Triana. It can be applied to this

just as well.

And, that being said, while I am encouraged by some talk, even

from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we should

request a hearing or perhaps other consideration on Trans-Hab and

allowing NASA the opportunity to present its case, in the meantime, I will be withholding my support for this bill. While I support

many of the provisions of this bill and it’s otherwise a basically

good bill—obviously I support Space Shuttle upgrades and space

stationing and microgravity science, I am very discouraged that

NASA did not have the opportunity to present its case before this

Committee or the Space Subcommittee prior to markup. And I’d

hope that we’d work in the next few days, Mr. Chairman, to find

the language to keep the opportunity for consideration of this and

other projects open.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. That concludes the number of

amendments that have been noticed on the roster. Are there any

further amendments?

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman,. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be very brief. I just

wanted to make a follow-up comment on Mr. Weiner’s amendment.

In Colorado, we have a significant aircraft noise problem with our

new airport, Denver international. And the stage four engine development I think is very, very important to us. And I would suggest

that the more we can do to work here and give NASA the tools to

invest up front in the technology that would help us solve this

problem, the more I think we ought to get behind it. Right now in

Colorado and I think all over the country, the gentlewoman from

Michigan talked about this, we’re spending money on lawsuits and

delays and a lack of investment. And I think those costs are ones

that we don’t really want to incur. so I would urge——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL. I would yield.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This Subcommittee Chairman still stands

ready to work with Mr. Weiner and work on this language. If he’s

willing to work with us, we’ll work with him. This did come up late

and it was, you know, it was a late-minute type of thing and we’ll

work with him on report language and such and if NASA doesn’t

have to sacrifice some other things that I’m sure even Mr. Weiner

supports—some of these other things like emissions research, et

cetera—we’ll work with him to try to see that this plus-up that he’s

interested in gets through in report language.

Mr. UDALL. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Rohrabacher, I really appreciate your willingness to work on this important issue. And, if

I didn’t men it, we have this sixth runway that we can’t build right

now because of the problems around aircraft noise in Colorado. And

I’m sure you’ve probably been delayed in Denver trying to get home
140

to California, so this would help you get back and forth more expeditiously.

Ms. JOHNSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. UDALL. Yes, I would yield.

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, what I don’t want to see is money

transferred—as I heard mentioned the possibility would be earlier—from emissions research. Of curse, Dallas has the best airport

in this country and maybe in the world. And we support noise control. But we also have one of the most successful rail systems in

the area and we have more cars than anybody, I believe, in the nation. And we’ve got to care for our environment or we’re going to

lose all of our highway funds. So I just don’t want to see us go into

the emissions research fund to put more into the noise abatement

funds and it leaves us in somewhat of a lurch, in a sense, if we

have to start drawing one fund against another. But I want you to

know that, while I can agree with that need, I don’t want it to

come from the emissions fund.

Mr. WEINER. Would the gentlelady yield on that point?

Ms. JOHNSON. Is it Mr. Udall’s time?

Mr. UDALL. I would yield.

Mr. WEINER. Well, I just want to iterate that I support Ms. Johnson’s position entirely and the idea this is a zero-sum game, but

that sum is $485 million of which we’re saying let’s have, as we

say, in Brooklyn a little ‘‘pisha’’ amount to try to add to this important program. And I want to—I want to thank again the Chairman

of the Subcommittee for his willingness to work on this, but by no

means should my amendment or a vote in favor of my amendment

be interpreted as wanting to reduce the valuable program that you

alluded to.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further amendments to

the bill?

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. That’s right. Go ahead.

Mr. GORDON. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I hoped that we would have been

confining debate to amendments that were offered, rather than

keeping on going on and on and on at the end of the bill, but go

ahead. You are recognized for 5 minutes. [Laughter.]

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly concur with Mr.

Udall and Mr. Weiner. I think that they have a good proposal and

with the caveats that Ms. Johnson put forth I am sure that we’re

going to see good faith as we have in the past from Mr. Rohrabacher and that we’ll work through to a resolution of that.

I would also like to see that good faith extended to Mr. Lampson,

in that Mr. Rohrabacher and I both went to Houston some time

back to see this particular Trans-Hab project. I don’t want to speak

for him, but I think we were both impressed. But I would also say

it is late in the season and that just to be better is not good

enough. I think it has to be significantly better. There’s a high bar

that needs to be put forth. But I do think that it is worth reviewing. And just as our Chairman pointed out we should not close our
141

minds on Triana, certainly we won’t close our minds on this situation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman. No, no. I’m done with that one.

[Laughter.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Are there further amendments to the bill. I’m trying to get to the gentleman from Massachusetts if the chatter will—hearing none, it is now time to go to

report language. And the very patient gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to keep it

very brief. Photonics research is important and it should be continued. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]

[Applause.]

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman offer the report

language contained in the packet.

Mr. CAPUANO. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay, the gentleman—without objection, the report language is considered as read and, without objection, it is agreed to. Hearing none, so ordered.

[The information follows:]

REPORT LANGUAGE TO H.R. 1654 OFFERED BY HON. MICHAEL E. CAPUANO

Relevant Account: Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Photonics Research.—The

Committee understands the critical role photonic research plays in NASA’s efforts

to develop the Next Generation Space Telescope, the Origins program, and the

Space Communications program. The Committee notes that NASA has worked with

academic institutions and corporate entities to foster cutting-edge research and development of photonic-related ideas and technologies. Therefore, the Committee encourages NASA to continue these partnerships and seek additional partnerships

that merge competitively awarded academic research and corporate development in

a way that strengthens and accelerates the photonics product development process

to directly contribute to NASA’s defined four strategic enterprises.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further suggestions for report language?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No, this is not report language.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If there are no further suggestions

for report language, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California for a motion to report the bill.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And, Mr. Chairman, I do so and I also send

our best wishes to Ranking Member Brown and we are very

pleased that his health is improving and we look forward to him.

He’s a man I deeply admire as everyone here knows.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report the bill, H.R.

1654 as amended. Therefore, I move to instruct the staff to prepare

the legislative report to make technical and conforming amendments and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the

bill before the House for consideration.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the Chair notes the presence of

a reporting quorum. The question is on the motion to report the bill

favorably.

Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.

Opposed, no.

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the bill is favorably reported.

All members will have two subsequent calendar days in which to

submit supplemental minority or——
142

Mr. GORDON. Roll call vote, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. The question is on reporting

the bill favorably. A roll call is ordered. Those in favor of reporting

the bill favorably will signify by saying aye. Those opposed no. And

the clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes yes. Mr. Boehlert.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Smith of Texas.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. Aye.

The CLERK. Mrs. Morella votes yes. Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Barton.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Calvert.

Mr. CALVERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Calvert votes aye. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Aye

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye. Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARLETT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mr. Weldon of Florida.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Weldon votes aye. Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mr. Ewing.

Mr. EWING. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Ewing votes yes. Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon votes yes. Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Brady votes yes. Mr. Cook.

Mr. COOK. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Cook votes yes. Mr. Nethercutt.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Nethercutt votes yes. Mr. Lucas.

Mr. LUCAS. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes yes. Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Kuykendall.

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Kuykendall votes yes. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mrs. Biggert.

Mrs. BIGGERT. Aye.

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. Mr. Sanford.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Metcalf.
143

Mr. METCALF. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Metcalf votes yes. Mr. Brown.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Hall.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes no. Mr. Barcia.

Mr. BARCIA. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Barcia votes no. Ms. Johnson.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Hastings.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Rivers.

Ms. RIVERS. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Rivers votes no. Ms. Lofgren.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Doyle.

Mr. DOYLE. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Stabenow.

Ms. STABENOW. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Stabenow votes no. Mr. Etheridge.

Mr. ETHERIDGE. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Etheridge votes no. Mr. Lampson.

Mr. LAMPSON. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Lampson votes no. Mr. Larson.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner.

Mr. WEINER. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner votes no. Mr. Capuano.

Mr. CAPUANO. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. Capuano votes yes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there additional members in the

chamber who would like to cast their votes or change their votes.

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert.

The CLERK. Mr. Boehlert votes yes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.

Hall.

Mr. HALL. I vote aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes yes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.

Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye.

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
144

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Any additional members in the

chamber? The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. LOFGREN. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Connecticut,

Mr. Larson.

Mr. LARSON. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Larson votes yes.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Anybody else wish to cast their vote

or change their vote?

Mr. SANFORD. I vote no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from South Carolina,

Mr. Sanford, votes no.

The CLERK. Mr. Sanford votes no.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, yes, 27; no, 13.
145
146

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the motion to favorably report

is agreed to. All members will have two subsequent calendar days

in which to submit supplemental minority or additional view on the

measure. Without objection, bill will be reported——

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to give notice that the minority will file minority views.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. You don’t have to do that. You know,

that’s a matter of right. Can I get through the housekeeping and

I’ll recognize you.

Without objection, the bill will be reported in the form of a single

amendment in the nature of a substitute reflecting amendments

adopted here today. Without objection, the staff will be instructed

to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and, without

objection, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 22 of the rules of the House,

the Committee authorizes the Chairman to offer such motions as

may be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate

on the bill. Without objection, all of those unanimous consents are

agreed to and the gentleman from Texas is recognized to strike the

last word.

Mr. HALL. I thank you and I thank you for your patience today

and for your guidance of this Committee. It is my hope that we’re

able to work out some of the difficulties that we’ve—have held us

up and have caused us to delve into the political realm today. I

hope that we can work out the situation that the gentleman from

Tennessee has worked on. And I’d like to yield to Ms. Jackson Lee

a minute of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman very much. Let me

quickly say that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership.

I thank Mr. Hall. But I think today we sort of pierced the heart

of bipartisanship. I hope we can work out the gentleman from Tennessee’s issue and I hope that we don’t close down a 40 person job

effort with great research on the Trans-Hab of Mr. Lampson’s

point. I hope we can give NASA the hearing and have it rehabilitated because I think we would not want to leave this room with

that hanging in abeyance and I hope that we’ll have the opportunity to conference on the Floor of the House to reconstruct ourselves on both of those issues. I yield back and I thank the gentleman.

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Before recessing the Committee, the

Chair would like to make this statement relative to scheduling.

We’ve had a full day’s work today and it is my intention not to

come back after lunch. If the House has votes tomorrow, I would

like to reconvene the Committee at 9:30 tomorrow morning. Whether or not the House has votes I think depends upon whether the

supplemental will be ready for a vote. And if the supplemental is

not ready for a vote, the House, obviously, will not be having votes

tomorrow and we will not be meeting at 9:30 and we will have to

find a mutually agreeable time next week in which to continue to

mark up on the other bills that have been noticed.

We will consult with the minority to see what is a mutually

agreeable time prior to setting it, but, in order to maintain flexibility because we don’t know what’s going on across the street in

the Capitol, it will be the Chair’s intention to recess now, subject

to the call of the Chair. But the Chair is going to consult with the
147

minority and everybody’s going to get ample notice. So, you know,

lest there be any suspicion that the Chair is about ready to pull

a fast one, that’s not going to happen.

So, without objection, the Committee is recessed, subject to the

call of the Chair.

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Committee recessed subject to the

call of the Chair.]

Æ