F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman from Tennessee would tap his predecessor on the shoulder and tell him to discipline his staff a little bit more, not calling people who are on the Committee on Science and dealing with the issues of setting priorities in good faith the names that appeared in the paper this morning.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman from Tennessee is rewriting history a bit. We gave them a draft of the bill. Before it was introduced there were 13 separate changes made to the text of the bill at the request of the minority, as has been the policy of this chairman of the Committee on Science, to try and narrow some issues and to be as bipartisan as possible and where there is a disagreement, to be able to fight those out and to debate the issue on the merits. Now we did not call anybody any names during the committee markup or afterwards, and it wrecks the bipartisan nature of dealing with NASA and supporting NASA when I pick up the Washington Post this morning and see the Vice President's spokesman calling the majority party a bunch of dinosaurs because we have a disagreement over the Triana program. Our priority is to put money that my colleagues want to go into Triana into medical research, and that was the amendment that was adopted when the Committee on Science marked this bill up. This may be a legitimate disagreement where we think we should put more money into medical research and less into Triana. But dealing with the budget, and that is what an authorization bill is, is dealing with priorities. I will lay my priorities against my colleague's priorities, the gentleman from Tennessee, but he ought to tell his former senator and his spokesman that when we have got a disagreement in priorities let us not devolve into name calling.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, when I read the Washington Post this morning, I learned that the Vice President's spokesman had called the majority a party of troglodytes because we think it is more important to spend $32 million on medical research than on funding the Vice President's late night inspiration for a multimillion-dollar screen saver called Triana. Personally, I do not think that making medical research a higher priority is a reason to descend into name calling. I am disappointed, however, that the minority in this Chamber has decided to transform a matter of priority-setting into a partisan political dispute. I thought better of them. That is why I have worked for the last 2\1/2\ years to mend fences and to build a sense of bipartisanship on the Committee on Science. For the majority members of the Committee on Science, that meant compromising with the minority and trying to bridge the differences between us. I thought we had made a good-faith effort to do that. In developing the NASA authorization bill in committee, we made 13 separate changes to accommodate the minority even before the bill was introduced. We rewrote findings on international cooperation that the committee endorsed for 4 years. But when the minority changed its mind, we changed the language at their request. We added findings on the importance of the Deep Space Network at the request of the minority. We added findings on the Hubble space telescope at the request of the minority. We changed language authorizing upgrades to the Space Shuttle and prohibited obligation of those Shuttle funds pending a report, at the request of the minority. We added funding for space science to offset the added costs associated with an emergency repair mission for the Hubble space telescope, at the request of the minority. We delayed implementation of the small demonstration program of space science data purchases until fiscal year 2002, at the request of the minority. We reduced the level and details of increased funding for advanced space transportation, at the request of the minority. We changed the language requiring NASA to conduct earth science data purchases, at the request of the minority. That did not satisfy them. But they made no effort to meet us halfway. We changed the requirement that NASA consider the impact of its international missions on the competitiveness of the U.S. space industry, at the request of the minority. We removed two positions related to the consolidated space operations contract, at the request of the minority. We rewrote a section directing NASA to begin prioritizing Shuttle upgrades, at the request of the minority. We added a new section establishing in law a White House technology program for human space flight, at the request of the minority. By the way, if we were interested in making this a partisan bill at the Vice President's expense, we never would have done any of that. In the committee markup, we accepted an amendment increasing funding for space grant universities, by the minority. We accepted an amendment increasing funding for historically black colleges and universities, at the request of the minority. We accepted an amendment changing NASA's educational responsibilities, at the request of the minority. We accepted an amendment on report language, at the request of the minority. And for the last week, the subcommittee chairman and I have been working with other minority members to add or change report language and develop colloquies to support their goals. How does the minority respond to all of these efforts? Its presidential candidate calls us troglodytes. Democrats withdrew their names as cosponsors of the bill and withdrew their support increasing NASA's budget over the President's request, and the minority mobilizes to defeat the bill along partisan lines, at the same time complaining that we should add more money, add more money, to some of these other programs. Now, I would hope that we can rise above such tactics and agree to disagree on the one issue that still divides us. This bill increases NASA's funding over the level of the President's request and contains many changes requested by the minority. It should be passed on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller). (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a 3-year authorization for our civil space program. When combined with separate legislation authorizing government-wide programs and high performance computing and information technologies, that represents a 1 percent annual increase over NASA's budget requests. The bill provides full funding for the baselined International Space Station, which moved from a dream to a reality last year with the successful launch of the first two elements. At the same time, the bill promotes fiscal and programmatic responsibility by prohibiting NASA from adding content to the program in a costly new structure called Trans-Hab. Together, this constraint and the 3-year authorization will provide the Space Station with the stability it needs to achieve the same success fiscally that the program is demonstrating technically. The bill also includes modest funding increases in areas of key scientific research. In the past few years the administration has cut some $742 million out of life and microgravity research accounts in NASA. This bill restores some $228 million of that over 3 years to take a small step towards ensuring that the science community is prepared to maximize the research potential of the International Space Station. It also contains increases for space science to put the Near Earth Object Survey back on track, to promote research in space solar power that will have applications here on Earth, and to offset the cost of NASA's emergency Hubble Space Telescope repair mission. More importantly, the bill increases funding for NASA's work in advanced space transportation technologies. Last year we learned the perils of launching U.S.-built payloads on foreign rockets. In the last 6 months we have seen a string of launch failures that have reminded us how critical reliable, low-cost access to space is for our economy, our scientific endeavors, and our national security. H.R. 1654 accelerates and increases the funding for NASA's programs to develop a new generation of space transportation vehicles. The NASA administrator and the head of the U.S. Space Command have both said frequently that this must be a high national priority. H.R. 1654 ensures that it is. We have developed this bill on a bipartisan basis and reached agreement on a wide range of issues. I think our efforts to work together come through in the bill's list of bipartisan original cosponsors and its bipartisan endorsement by the Committee on Science last week. There are a few remaining points on which the majority and minority disagree, and I want to thank Members of both parties for working together to iron out most of these over the past few days. For now we may have to agree to disagree on the few outstanding issues that remain, but they should not get in the way of such a sound and comprehensive bill upon which to build our future in space. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that handled this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Texas, what is the penalty of that multilateral agreement if any of the partners does not fulfill its agreed-upon obligations?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, how many defaults of the Russians is the gentleman from Texas willing to accept? They have already cost us $5 billion. How many more and how much money is the gentleman willing to agree for cost overruns caused by the Russians not fulfilling their obligations?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, with that understanding, I am prepared to accept the amendment as well. It is a constructive addition.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, part of this amendment is in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. Has the gentleman from Michigan obtained the consent of the chairman of that committee to offer this amendment today?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the vice chairman of the committee. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) the vice chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased, for once, to support, in the spirit of bipartisanship, a Roemer amendment on the Space Station. What this amendment does is that it kicks the Russian government out of the partnership, but it allows NASA to make contracts with Russian aerospace contractors or the Russian space agency, which is a government entity, and thus makes Russia and its aerospace firms a subcontractor rather than a partner. Mr. Chairman, I supported bringing Russia into the partnership when it occurred 6 years ago because I thought it would save money, it would bring the Space Station on line earlier, and allow the United States and the other partners to take advantage of Russia's tremendous expertise in constructing spacecraft as well as in long-term human space flight. Unfortunately, this arrangement has not worked out as everyone had hoped. The time has come for a redefinition of the arrangement. Six years ago the administration promised that Russia would not be in the critical path. It said that Russia would be in an enhancing and not an enabling role. Unfortunately, Russia is in the critical path. Whose fault it is, I do not know, and it is not relevant at this time. But every funding and every construction deadline that Russia has set for itself and agreed to its other partners with since 1996 has been missed by the Russians. They are 100 percent in not living up to their agreements, and that has cost the American taxpayers a lot of money. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has said it costs the American taxpayers $4 billion. I would say it cost $5 billion. The time to prevent further hemorrhaging because of Russia's repeated defaults is at hand, and the Roemer amendment proposes to do so. The last promise that Russia broke was at the end of last month. It broke its promise to decide by April to deorbit the Mir Space Station if it did not come up with outside funding to support Mir by April 30. Russia did not come up with the funding, and it has not decided to deorbit Mir. It is obvious that Russia cannot afford two space stations. If Mir stays up, it will not have the money to fulfill its further agreements for the International Space Station. The Russians made that decision, and it is time for the American Congress to respond in kind. By removing Russia as a partner but not as a contractor, we can still get the benefits of the international cooperation that the administration seeks. Russia has played the role of contractor successfully. It has been a miserable failure in being a partner with the United States, Canada, Japan, and the European space agency. Two years ago when the NASA authorization bill was on the floor of the House, the House approved a bill that contained the Sensenbrenner- Brown amendment, which required NASA to develop a plan to remove Russia from the critical path. The CAV task force appointed by the NASA administrator recommended eliminating long-term dependence on Russia in its April, 1998, report by developing an independent U.S. propulsion capability. NASA echoed those recommendations in a July, 1998, briefing to the White House. At that time, the White House rejected the task force and NASA recommendations, but later reversed itself. NASA has initiated long- lead procurements for an independent propulsion capability in fiscal 1999. Their fiscal 2000 request does include funding for an independent U.S. propulsion capability, but NASA has not signed a contract to develop this capability, which is still in its study phase. I would just like to point out that the American people are also fed up with Russia's defaults. Florida Today took an online poll. Only 22 percent of those surveyed wanted to keep Russia as a partner. Thirty- two percent wanted to end Russia's partnership, and 46 percent wanted to reduce Russia's role but not kick it out of the program completely. The Roemer amendment does what the 32 percent and the 46 percent of the people in the Space Coast and Florida want to see done, and I would urge its adoption.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, these are also two very constructive additions and we are prepared to accept them as well.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. This is kind of a tough act to follow, but this is going to be an easier sell than the last amendment that the gentleman from Ohio sold to us. It is my understanding that these amendments relate to a buy- American provision and a utilization of abandoned buildings provision in the bill. Am I correct in that assumption?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a very good buy-American amendment, and we accept it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of the bill (H.R. 1654) to reflect the actions of the House, and that the Clerk be directed to make the following specific changes: In the instruction to strike in the amendment by Mr. Traficant to section 103(4)(A)(i) the phrase ``focused program, and'', and to apply the same instruction to strike to section 103(4)(B)(i) and section 103(4)(C)(i) with respect to fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of the bill to reflect the actions of the House.