House Report 106-145 - NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

[House Report 106-145]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

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

R E P O R T

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
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.

(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
(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;
(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--
(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;
(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 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.
(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.

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)''.

SEC. 207. SPACE SHUTTLE UPGRADE STUDY.

(a) Study.--The Administrator shall enter into appropriate
arrangements for the conduct of an independentstudy 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 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 Stevenson-Wydler
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 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;
(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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
result 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 everobserved by
humans. Additional images included Coronal 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.

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.

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
theShuttle 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
procedures 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 space-based 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 international
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 Aero-
Space 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 summer 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
Aero-Space 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) 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 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 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 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
remove 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 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 Committee-wide 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;
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.

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 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 long-term 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 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
ShuttleOperations, 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.
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 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 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
metricidentified 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
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
rate-of-discovery of large NEO's during that period was less
than \1/6\th 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 \1/6\th
the necessary rate to \1/3\rd 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, 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; in-space 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.
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
ISS-based life and microgravity research andtransferred
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. 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 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 Technologyfocused 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 recognizes 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 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

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 lower-cost, 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 exacerbated 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.
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, revolutionary 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.

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 $5,600,000over 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 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 near-term, ``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.

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 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.

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 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 spending 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 onTrans-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 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
Trans-Hab, 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.

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.

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

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 priorities 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 provided 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.

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
ground-based 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
samekinds 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.

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 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 shalldefine 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 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 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 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, pay-as-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 authority\1\............................. 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.

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

* * * * * * *

declaration of policy and purpose

Sec. 102. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(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.]
[(g)] (f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of
the United States requires that the unique competence of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration in science and
engineering systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering
research, development, and demonstration programs designed to
alleviate and minimize the effects of disability.
[(h)] (g) It is the purpose of this Act to carry out and
effectuate the policies declared in subsections (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), [(f), and (g)] and (f).

* * * * * * *

TITLE II--COORDINATION OF AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE ACTIVITIES

* * * * * * *

reports to the congress

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

* * * * * * *

----------

SECTION 2307 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 2307. Contract financing

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) Action in Case of Fraud.--(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(8) This subsection applies to the agencies named in
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), [and (4)] (4), and (6) of section
2303(a) of this title.

* * * * * * *

----------

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 [transsonic 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 [laboratories]
laboratories and centers by the construction of additional
[supersonic] 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 [laboratory] facility
time shall be made in accordance with the public interest, with
proper emphasis upon the requirements of each military service
and due consideration of civilian needs.

* * * * * * *

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.

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 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 space-based,
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.
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.

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.

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.

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 computing 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 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 Teacher-Faculty 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.
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.
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 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

Subtitle B--Limitations and Special Authority

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration should
continue to pursue actions andreforms 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.

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.

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
(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.

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.

(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 ensurethat 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 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.

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.

SEC. 127. COMPETITIVENESS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

SEC. 128. TRANS-HAB.

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.

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.

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.

SEC. 208. AERO-SPACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION.

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.

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.

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.

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'srecommendations 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 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:]
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:]

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 IT \2\ 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
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 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 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.
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?
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.
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-Americansrepresent 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 represent 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.

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 concludes 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.

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 producers 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.''
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.

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
takesfurther 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?
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.

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 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 wouldhope
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 together 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.
[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.

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 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 whoare
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 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 particular 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 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 ofTriana 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.
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 peer-reviewed 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.
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
million 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 suggested 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 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 non-authorized 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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I won't take 5 minutes. I justwant
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
remarks. 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
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
couldand 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.
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.
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 thefuture 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 Security, 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 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 Russianinvolvement 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 3\1/2\ 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.
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 Ultra-Efficient 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 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 long-term 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''.

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 onthe 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.
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. 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 ofwhat
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 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 whatthe 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 portion 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.
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.
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.

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.
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
theflexibility 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.
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 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 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----
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.
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.
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.

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 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.]