Summary:

All articles in House section

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
(House of Representatives - May 19, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3304-H3352] {time} 1045 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reynolds). Pursuant to House Resolution 174 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1654. The Chair designates the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) to assume the chair temporarily. {time} 1045 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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, with Mr. Collins (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). 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, 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. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to include for the Record a letter from Administrator Goldin of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in which, among other things, he states ``NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654.'' The letter is as follows: [[Page H3305]] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, May 19, 1999. Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Brown: This letter is to provide NASA's views on H.R. 1654, the ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999,'' authorizing appropriations for FY 2000-2002, as ordered reported by the Committee on May 13, 1999. NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654. The authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the President's request, which is based on a balanced and affordable space and aeronautics program. H.R. 1654 would authorize a total of $13,625.6 million in FY 2000, $13,747.1 million in FY 2001 and $13,839.4 million in FY 2002. As ordered reported, total funding for FY 2000 exceeds the President's request by a net of $47.2 million; total funding for FY 2001 is below the President's request by a net of $82 million. The majority of the additional funding provided is for Life and micro gravity Sciences and Applications, Advanced Space Transportation Technology, and Academic Programs. At the same time, funding authorized in H.R. 1654 reflects significant reductions ($174.4 million in FY 2000, $211.1 million in FY 2001, and $216.6 million in FY 2002) for High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2). While the Administration recognizes that the Committee strongly supports NASA program efforts for which they have recommended augmentations, such additional spending must be evaluated against the imperative to maintain an overall balance in NASA's aeronautics and space research program and against the impacts resulting from the resulting reductions in other critical programs. Failure to fund NASA's HPCC and IT2 activities in a timely manner would be unacceptable. NASA appreciates the Committee's authorization of funding for the International Space Station (ISS) Program consistent with the President's request. That request reflects an Administration policy decision to reduce the level of risk to the ISS with a net increase of $1.4 billion over the next five years, to enhance Station budget reserves and to make NASA's Contingency Plan against potential Russian shortfalls more robust. The Committee's support for these efforts is appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this very important program. While NASA supports those portions of H.R. 1654 that are consistent with the President's request, we have serious objections to several provisions that are contrary to the President's budget. I request that you and the Committee take NASA's objections, outlined below, into consideration as this bill proceeds through Congress. triana NASA and the Administration are greatly disappointed in the Committee's adoption of an amendment (Section 130) terminating the Triana science mission. Triana is good science, was subject to a rigorous peer review process, and will provide the scientific community with valuable research data. We strongly object to the Committee's arbitrary and partisan recommendation to terminate the Triana science mission. In October 1998, after an exacting peer-review evaluation of nine competing proposals, NASA selected the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as the Principle Investigator for the Triana mission. The Conference Report accompanying the FY 1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-276) directed NASA to identify funding for the initiation of Triana as part of NASA's FY 1999 Operating Plan. NASA identified $35 million in the FY 1999 Operating Plan submitted to this and other Committees, and responded to questions thereon. NASA's FY 2000 budget requests $35 million to complete development of Triana, and launch it in December 2000 as a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle. Triana has sound science objectives and will present valuable practical applications in: solar influences on climate; solar wind and space weather; ultraviolet (UV) radiation effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation; cloud microphysical properties and the effect of solar radiation on climate models; and vegetation canopy measurements, detecting changes in the amount of vegetation- leaf structure, or fraction of covered land. NASA is also formulating an Earth Science education initiative using Triana imagery, and is planning to issue an open, competitive solicitation for educational tools and applications this fall. NASA has received inquiries from three commercial firms regarding Triana participation. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography is currently working to structure a commercialization approach. international space station research Section 101 of H.R. 1654 limits the flexibility of the ISS program to accommodate unforeseen requirements by restricting the use of ISS research funds. Should program difficulties result in further schedule delays, such a restriction could result in research equipment being developed prior to the Station's readiness to accommodate it. This could exacerbate the delay by not allowing the flexibility to shift research funds and address Station contingencies. Such restrictions could, therefore, prolong delays in research flight opportunities and further harm the research community intended to be helped. earth science commercial data acquisition Section 126 of H.R. 1654 would require that NASA spend $50 million in FY 2001 and FY 2002 for the purchase of commercial remote sensing data. NASA objects to a mandated minimum level of spending for such acquisitions, at the expense of other research opportunities in the Earth Science enterprise. There is no guarantee that such commercial data will be available for acquisition in such amounts stipulated in the bill. NASA should not be precluded from directing its resources in the most efficient and effective manner. As a matter of policy, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise will not build new missions where commercial data is available at market prices, and the Enterprise has instituted a process under which all Announcements of Opportunity include statements of data buy preferences. The Earth Science Enterprise will release, in the near future, two Requests for Information (RFI's), one for determining sources of Landsat- class observations, and a second for determining sources of tropospheric wind measurements. The Enterprise is also working toward the objective of having each scientific and application research proposal identify the source of data sets required, and including an estimate of the funding requirement for such data sets. This approach is intended to establish a direct dialog between the providers and users of data, and NASA does not have to second-guess the user requirements and unduly constrain the provider's capabilities. Finally, the NASA Inspector General recently released a report on the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and concluded ``additional congressionally directed data buy programs are not warranted.'' trans-hab Section 128 of H.R. 1654 would prevent NASA from further research on inflatable technology, such as Trans-Hab, which would accommodate humans in space. Inflatable module technology offers the potential for significant stowage volume, crew habitability and safety advantages over current approaches for building pressurized space structures using reinforced aluminum. The technology holds considerable potential for advancement of space exploration. NASA shares the Committee's concern that added cost and risk to the ISS should be avoided. NASA desires to continue to explore potential commercial partnering for the development, construction, and use for the ISS Trans-Hab module. We will not pursue the development of a Trans-Hab module for the ISS unless it can be done through a partnership with industry that results in a cost-neutral solution to the baseline cost for the aluminum Habitation module. Additional technical definition and design work is necessary before potential commercial interests can be assured of the viability of the concepts. H.R. 1654 would preclude any work on this very promising set of technologies. ultra-efficient engine technology I am very concerned that Section 103(4) eliminates the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program as a Focused Program. We understand that it is the Committee's intent to permit these activities to be conducted within the R base. We strongly urge the continuation of this effort as a Focused Program. UEET as a Focused Program gives all interested parties-- other Government agencies (e.g., DoD) and the private sector--assurances that resources have been identified to meet defined goals over a specified period of time. Fully 80% of program funding for UEET will be spent in-house, primarily for the operation of test stands and facilities, in coordination with the ongoing DoD program. The UEET Program is designed to address the most critical propulsion issues: performance and efficiency. The primary benefits of these technologies will be to improve efficiency and reduce emissions for a wide range of civil and military applications. Loss of the UEET effort could have major consequences for the future competitiveness of the U.S. aircraft engine industry and the U.S. balance of trade. Research associated with understanding the technical issues of engine emissions supports a major portion of U.S. scientific analysis that provides a basis for informed policy making and U.S. influence on international civil aviation policies. Finally, it should be noted that significant interaction and dependencies have been formed over the years in engine technology efforts between NASA's Space Programs, DoD's Acquisition Programs and DOE's Energy Programs; while the impact of the restriction in H.R. 1654 upon these interdependencies has not yet been completely assessed, there will be implications to U.S. strategic interests in these critical areas. administration proposals H.R. 1654 does not include ten important legislative proposals proposed by the Administration in the draft FY 2000 NASA authorization bill, submitted to the Congress on April 28, 1999. Many of these proposed provisions are legislative ``gap fillers''--providing NASA the same authority already provided to the Department of Defense in title 10 of the U.S. Code and to other civilian agencies in title 41 of the U.S. Code. NASA is covered by the acquisition provisions of title 10, but is frequently overlooked when amendments to that title are enacted. Section 203 of the Administration's bill [[Page H3306]] would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to withhold contract payments based on substantial evidence of fraud. Section 209 would make NASA's claim payment process consistent with procedures already required by other law and with those used by other agencies. Section 210 would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to exempt contractor proposals from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The remaining provisions contained in the Administration's bill address the need to adapt NASA's legal authorities to the world in which we now operate. The role of the commercial sector has been ever increasing. With the support of this Committee, NASA has been changing the way it does business, looking for opportunities to engage in joint endeavors with industry, and attempting to leverage the private sector investment in space and aeronautics research and development. These activities present new and different working relationships and legal hurdles. We are asking the private sector to invest not only money, but also ideas. We must be able to protect these ideas from disclosure to competitors-- foreign as well as domestic--which have not invested their time or capital. In order to attract industry partners and their investments, we must be able to grant them some form of exclusive right to use the software or other inventions arising from their joint endeavor with us before it is released to the general public. Our space program should benefit not only from the increased investment of private capital, but also from the royalties derived from such licensing authority. We must be able to attract more private investment--and thus reduce the cost to the Government--by being able to transfer title to personal property used in our joint endeavors to the partner whom we are asking to invest the capital. I urge the Committee to incorporate these provisions as the bill progresses through Congress. hpcc and it2 As reported, H.R. 1654 deletes all funding for NASA's High Performance Computing and Communication program (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) initiative, including the very important Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE) program. Although the Committee has indicated its intent to hold hearings and mark up a separate, multi-agency, ``computer research'' bill later this year, in the absence of the introduction of a companion measure that fully funds those activities, NASA's support for H.R. 1654 will continue to be qualified. Not authorizing funding requested for NASA's HPCC and IT2 would essentially remove all of the Agency's research in information technology, and severely impact NASA's remaining programs and missions. Both programs are structured to contribute to broad Federal efforts, but also to address NASA-specific computational, engineering, and science requirements spanning many programs. Not authorizing HPCC and IT2 would severely limit NASA's ability to deliver key capabilities needed to support Earth, space, and aeronautical programs, with impacts such as the following: Cut Earth and Space Sciences and directly impact NASA's ability to use advanced computing technology to further our ability to predict the dynamic interaction of physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the Earth, the solar-terrestrial environment, and the universe; Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's capability to develop low-power, fault-tolerant, high-performance, scaleable computing technology for a new generation of micro- spacecraft; Cut Aero-Space Technology and eliminate critical advances in aeronautics algorithms and applications, software, and computing machinery needed to enable more than 1000 fold increases in systems performance in the 21st century; Cut Aero-Space Technology and limit implementation of the tools and processes for a revolution in engineering practice and science integration in modeling, design, development and execution of all NASA's missions; and, Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks program to develop the critical set of technologies necessary to support potential future decisions on establishing outposts of self-tasking, self-repairing, evolvable rover networks at key sites of scientific interest throughout the solar system. We are preparing a more detailed analysis of additional concerns regarding H.R. 1654, which we believe will hamper our ability to manage our space and aeronautics research programs most effectively. I urge the Committee to consider these concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to submission of this report for the Committee's consideration. Sincerely, Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator. ____ National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, May 19, 1999. Hon. Bart Gordon, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Gordon: This letter is to provide NASA's views on H.R. 1654, the ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999,'' authorizing appropriations for FY 2000-2002, as ordered reported by the Committee on May 13, 1999. NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654. The authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the President's request, which is based on a balanced and affordable space and aeronautics program. H.R. 1654 would authorize a total of $13,625.6 million in FY 2000, $13,747.1 million in FY 2001 and $13,839.4 million in FY 2002. As ordered reported, total funding for FY 2000 exceeds the President's request by a net of $47.2 million; total funding for FY 2001 is below the President's request by a net of $5.3 million and total funding for FY 2002 exceeds the President's request by a net of $82 million. The majority of the additional funding provided is for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, Advanced Space Transportation Technology, and Academic Programs. At the same time, funding authorized in H.R. 1654 reflects significant reductions ($174.4 million in FY 2000, $211.1 million in FY 2001, and $216.6 million in FY 2002) for High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2). While the Administration recognizes that the Committee strongly supports NASA program efforts for which they have recommended augmentations, such additional spending must be evaluated against the imperative to maintain an overall balance in NASA's aeronautics and space research program and against the impacts resulting from the resulting reductions in other critical programs. Failure to fund NASA's HPCC and IT2 activities in a timely manner would be unacceptable. NASA appreciates the Committee's authorization of funding for the International Space Station (ISS) Program consistent with the President's request. That request reflects an Administration policy decision to reduce the level of risk to the ISS with a net increase of $1.4 billion over the next five years, to enhance Station budget reserves and to make NASA's Contingency Plan against potential Russian shortfalls more robust. The Committee's support for these efforts is appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this very important program. While NASA supports those portions of H.R. 1654 that are consistent with the President's request, we have serious objections to several provisions that are contrary to the President's budget. I request that you and the Committee take NASA's objections, outlined below, into consideration as this bill proceeds through Congress. TRIANA NASA and the Administration are greatly disappointed in the Committee's adoption of an amendment (Section 130) terminating the Triana science mission. Triana is good science, was subject to a rigorous peer review process, and will provide the scientific community with valuable research data. We strongly object to the Committee's arbitrary and partisan recommendation to terminate the Triana science mission. In October 1998, after an exacting peer-review evaluation of nine competing proposals, NASA selected the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as the Principle Investigator for the Triana mission. The Conference Report accompanying the FY 1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-276) directed NASA to identify funding for the initiation of Triana as part of NASA's FY 1999 Operating Plan. NASA identified $35 million in the FY 1999 Operating Plan submitted to this and other Committees, and responded to questions thereon. NASA's FY 2000 budget requests $35 million to complete development of Triana, and launch it in December 2000 as a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle. Triana has sound science objectives and will present valuable practical applications in: solar influences on climate; solar wind and space weather; ultraviolet (UV) radiation effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation; cloud microphysical properties and the effect of solar radiation on climate models; and vegetation canopy measurements, detecting changes in the amount of vegetation- leaf structure, or fraction of covered land. NASA is also formulating an Earth Science education initiative using Triana imagery, and is planning to issue an open, competitive solicitation for educational tools and applications this fall. NASA has received inquiries from three commercial firms regarding Triana participation. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography is currently working to structure a commercialization approach. international space station research Section 101 of H.R. 1654 limits the flexibility of the ISS program to accommodate unforeseen requirements by restricting the use of ISS research funds. Should program difficulties result in further schedule delays, such a restriction could result in research equipment being developed prior to the Station's readiness to accommodate it. This could exacerbate the delay by not allowing the flexibility to shift research funds and address Station contingencies. Such restriction could, therefore, prolong delays in research flight opportunities and further harm the research community intended to be helped. earth science commercial data acquisition Section 126 of H.R. 1654 would require that NASA spend $50 million in FY 2001 and FY [[Page H3307]] 2002 for the purchase of commercial remote sensing data. NASA objects to a mandated minimum level of spending for such acquisitions, at the expense of other research opportunities in the Earth Science enterprise. There is no guarantee that such commercial data will be available for acquisition in such amounts stipulated in the bill. NASA should not be precluded from directing its resources in the most efficient and effective manner. As a matter of policy, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise will not build new missions where commercial data is available at market prices, and the Enterprise has instituted a process under which all Announcements of Opportunity include statements of data buy preferences. The Earth Science Enterprise will release, in the near future, two Requests for Information (RFI's), one for determining sources of Landsat- class observations, and a second for determining sources of tropospheric wind measurements. The Enterprise is also working toward the objective of having each scientific and application research proposal identify the source of data sets required, and including an estimate of the funding requirement for such data sets. This approach is intended to establish a direct dialog between the providers and users of data, and NASA does not have to second-guess the user requirements and unduly constrain the provider's capabilities. Finally, the NASA Inspector General recently released a report on the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and concluded ``additional congressionally directed data buy programs are not warranted.'' trans-hab Section 128 of H.R. 1654 would prevent NASA from further research on inflatable technology, such as Trans-Hab, which would accommodate humans in space. Inflatable module technology offers the potential for significant stowage volume, crew habitability and safety advantages over current approaches for building pressurized space structures using reinforced aluminum. The technology holds considerable potential for advancement of space exploration. NASA shares the Committee's concern that added cost and risk to the ISS should be avoided. NASA desires to continue to explore potential commercial partnering for the development, construction, and use for the ISS Trans-Hab module. We will not pursue the development of a Trans-Hab module for the ISS unless it can be done through a partnership with industry that results in a cost-neutral solution to the baseline cost for the aluminum Habitation module. Additional technical definition and design work is necessary before potential commercial interests can be assured of the viability of the concepts. H.R. 1654 would preclude any work on this very promising set of technologies. ultra-efficient engine technology I am very concerned that Section 103(4) eliminates the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program as a Focused Program. We understand that it is the Committee's intent to permit these activities to be conducted within the R base. We strongly urge the continuation of this effort as a Focused Program. UEET as a Focused Program gives all interested parties-- other Government agencies (e.g., DoD) and the private sector--assurances that resources have been identified to meet defined goals over a specified period of time. Fully 80% of program funding for UEET will be spent in-house, primarily for the operation of test stands and facilities, in coordination with the ongoing DoD program. The UEET Program is designed to address the most critical propulsion issues: performance and efficiency. The primary benefits to these technologies will be to improve efficiency and reduce emissions for a wide range of civil and military applications. Loss of the UEET effort could have major consequences for the future competitiveness of the U.S. aircraft engine industry and the U.S. balance of trade. Research associated with understanding the technical issues of engine emissions supports a major portion of U.S. scientific analysis that provides a basis for informed policy making and U.S. influence on international civil aviation policies. Finally, it should be noted that significant interaction and dependencies have been formed over the years in engine technology efforts between NASA's Space Programs, DoD's Acquisition Programs and DOE's Energy Programs; while the impact of the restriction in H.R. 1654 upon these interdependencies has not yet been completely assessed, there will be implications to U.S. strategic interests in these critical areas. administration proposals H.R. 1654 does not include ten important legislative proposals proposed by the Administration in the draft FY 2000 NASA authorization bill, submitted to the Congress on April 28, 1999. Many of these proposed provisions are legislative ``gap fillers''--providing NASA the same authority already provided to the Department of Defense in title 10 of the U.S. Code and to other civilian agencies in title 41 of the U.S. Code. NASA is covered by the acquisition provisions of title 10, but is frequently overlooked when amendments to that title are enacted. Section 203 of the Administration's bill would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to withhold contract payments based on substantial evidence of fraud. Section 209 would make NASA's claim payment process consistent with procedures already required by other law and with those used by other agencies. Section 210 would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to exempt contractor proposals from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The remaining provisions contained in the Administration's bill address the need to adapt NASA's legal authorities to the world in which we now operate. The role of the commercial sector has been ever increasing. With the support of this Committee, NASA has been changing the way it does business, looking for opportunities to engage in joint endeavors with industry, and attempting to leverage the private sector investment in space and aeronautics research and development. These activities present new and different working relationships and legal hurdles. We are asking the private sector to invest not only money, but also ideas. We must be able to protect these ideas from disclosure to competitors-- foreign as well as domestic--which have not invested their time or capital. In order to attract industry partners and their investments, we must be able to grant them some form of exclusive right to use the software or other inventions arising from their joint endeavor with us before it is released to the general public. Our space program should benefit not only from the increased investment of private capital, but also from the royalties derived from such licensing authority. We must be able to attract more private investment--and thus reduce the cost to the Government--but being able to transfer title to personal property used in our joint endeavors to the partner whom we are asking to invest the capital. I urge the Committee to incorporate these provisions as the bill progresses through Congress. hpcc and it2 As reported, H.R. 1654 deletes all funding for NASA's High Performance Computing and Communication program (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) initiative, including the very important Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE) program. Although the Committee has indicated its intent to hold hearings and mark up a separate, multi-agency, ``computer research'' bill later this year, in the absence of the introduction of a companion measure that fully funds those activities, NASA's support for H.R. 1654 will continue to be qualified. Not authorizing funding requested for NASA's HPCC and IT2 would essentially remove all of the Agency's research in information technology, and severely impact NASA's remaining programs and missions. Both programs are structured to contribute to broad Federal efforts, but also to address NASA-specific computational, engineering, and science requirements spanning many programs. Not authorizing HPCC and IT2 would severely limit NASA's ability to deliver key capabilities needed to support Earth, space, and aeronautical programs, with impacts such as the following: Cut Earth and Space Sciences and directly impact NASA's ability to use advanced computing technology to further our ability to predict the dynamic interaction of physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the Earth, the solar-terrestrial environment, and the universe; Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's capability to develop low-power, fault-tolerant, high-performance, scaleable computing technology for a new generation of micro- spacecraft; Cut Aero-Space Technology and eliminate critical advances in aeronautics algorithms and applications, software, and computing machinery needed to enable more than 1000 fold increases in systems performance in the 21st century; Cut Aero-Space Technology and limit implementation of the tools and processes for a revolution in engineering practice and science integration in modeling, design, development and execution of all NASA's missions; and, Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks program to develop the critical set of technologies necessary to support potential future decisions on establishing outposts of self-tasking, self-repairing, evolvable rover networks at key sites of scientific interest throughout the solar system. We are preparing a more detailed analysis of additional concerns regarding H.R. 1654, which we believe will hamper our ability to manage our space and aeronautics research programs most efficiently. I urge the Committee to consider these concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to submission of this report for the Committee's consideration. Sincerely, Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act. First, I wish to commend Chairman Rohrabacher for his efforts in developing H.R. 1654. I believe that he made a serious effort to include a number of positive provisions in the bill and to work with the minority. Thus, while it was by no means a perfect bill, I thought that H.R. 1654 was a reasonably constructive piece of legislation as introduced. In fact, I was a [[Page H3308]] cosponsor of the bill as introduced, with the understanding that we would continue to work to improve its provisions. At this point I have to say that I do not think that H.R. 1654 is ready for floor consideration. I have not reached this position easily. As a supporter of NASA, I want to provide a solid, fiscally responsible foundation for the space agency's activities. I also want to make sure that we do not micromanage NASA in ways that will hurt its ability to carry out its programs effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, I think that H.R. 1654 falls short of the mark in meeting these two goals. The NASA Administrator has sent over a letter outlining a number of serious concerns with the NASA bill. Let me discuss just a few of them. First, there is the absence of any funding for NASA's information technology programs. While we have received some assurance from the chairman of the Committee on Science that authorization of these programs will be done at a later date, I remain concerned. NASA needs to be on the cutting edge of information technology R if it is to deliver missions that are both cost-effective and innovative. Second, H.R. 1654 would prohibit the Ultra Efficient Energy Technology focused program. That program is a new program that is critical to maintaining NASA's capabilities for long-term aircraft engine R It also is critical to maintaining the competitiveness of the U.S. aeronautics industry. Moreover, the UEET program will offer important benefits to military aviation by conducting important R into improved engine performance. I am afraid that H.R. 1654 attempts to micromanage NASA's aeronautics R efforts in ways that can do real damage over the long term. Third, the bill as amended at full committee would cancel the Triana scientific mission. Triana is an Earth observing spacecraft that would deliver both scientific and educational benefits. This mission was selected out of nine competing proposals, and it has undergone scientific peer review. It already was funded in last year's VA-HUD appropriations conference report. If we cancel it now, we would waste $40 million, which is more than it would cost to save it. Fourth, H.R. 1654 has a provision that would have the effect of holding NASA's Earth science research program hostage to a ``data buy'' earmark. While I support a healthy commercial remote sensing industry, the bill's provisions will do real harm to NASA's programs while doing little to help grow industry. It is a misguided and ultimately unworkable position. Fifth, the bill would prohibit NASA from spending any money on the Trans-Hab or other innovative inflatable structure technologies. While I am as careful with taxpayers' dollars as anyone, I do not believe that we should prohibit NASA from doing research to improve our space program. H.R. 1654's Trans-Hab prohibition would keep NASA from getting the data Congress will need if we are to make informed decisions on these innovative technologies. Mr. Chairman, I raise these issues not to diminish the efforts of Chairman Rohrabacher in drafting this bill. I simply believe the bill we have before us today is not ready for prime time. I think that the bill needs more work. I intend to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1654 on final passage, and I would urge my colleagues to also oppose the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. 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. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for allotting me this time. Mr. Chairman, today the House is considering H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 1999, which I am pleased to sponsor. I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member, for his spirit of cooperation during the process. I am saddened, however, that he is unable to cosponsor the bill and vote for it at this time, but I do understand that there are some areas of disagreement and perhaps some areas that he feels that was not dealt with in the way that he would prefer for it to be dealt with, and I am sorry for that. But I do think that we do have a spirit of cooperation among the members of the subcommittee, and I am trying my best to maintain that spirit as well as the spirit of cooperation among the staffs on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the work that they put in to trying to put this bill together, although the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) cannot support it at this time. It contains one or two controversial provisions, surely. This bill, however, is overwhelmingly bipartisan. At least it was my intent to make it bipartisan. It includes several provisions and modifications that actually came from the Democratic side. Furthermore, I plan to offer a manager's amendment which will make a few additional refinements, including one that specifically addresses the concerns of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) who has put a tremendous amount of effort into a project that is very meaningful to his district. This is not a perfect bill, and I admit that. We have asked for an open rule because we want the House to work its will on this legislation. To the degree that we have an open rule and to the degree there are disagreements, I would hope that the open rule would provide us a way of coming to grips with some of the disagreements that are still in place. If any government agency belongs to the American people, surely it is NASA. I am committed to NASA's programs and policies, to make sure that they are reflecting the priorities of the people in the United States as reflected here in the House of Representatives, the people's House. Even so, I believe this piece of legislation is a solid piece of legislation because it sends three messages which are supported by the overwhelming majority of the Committee on Science and I believe the House itself. First, we tell the President and the appropriators that America's civil space agency should be rewarded for the sacrifices and reforms that it has made over the past several years by providing it a steady increase of 1 percent a year, if you take into account the information technology program that we are authorizing separately. Secondly, H.R. 1654 sets realistic overall funding levels and real priorities to guide appropriators. We focus additional resources on areas that our hearing record shows are underfunded and which have bipartisan support, including life and microgravity research, advanced space transportation technology, space science, and education. Third, H.R. 1654 pushes NASA to stay on the road to reform, especially on space privatization and commercialization. We do not want to destabilize the International Space Station or set up programs just to keep people busy. This bill does not micromanage NASA, but it does set clear goals and guides NASA towards them. Mr. Chairman, in closing let me just say that the other body has already marked up a NASA authorization bill and it should be reported to the floor for consideration soon. So after we complete our business today, I hope we can aggressively move forward to negotiate compromises with the Senate and, for the first time since 1992, enact a NASA authorization into law this year. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a leader in education in this body. {time} 1100 Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an exciting opportunity I think that this NASA authorization bill provides our Nation's schools to promote math and science education. However, first I would like to say how disappointed I am that this bill has fallen victim I think to some partisan wrangling because it really did start out as a bipartisan bill. It is my hope that, as we go forward to an eventual conference that will take place with the other body, which will pass a bipartisan bill out of their committee, hopefully, very soon, that we can once again act in a bipartisan way and send a bill to the President that he will sign. [[Page H3309]] With the exception of the conflict over Triana and some other issues, the committee I think has put together a pretty decent bill. I appreciate the majority's willingness to work with me on my concerns in the area of education and to accept the amendments in those areas that I offered in committee, and I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their help. I will vote for H.R. 1654, with the hope and faith that a bipartisan conference report can be brought back before this body before this year is out. I am proud to discuss an important education initiative contained in this legislation. This bill directs NASA to develop an educational initiative for our Nation's schools in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the first powered flight, which will take place on December 17, 2003. On that date in 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright took their dream of powered flight from the drawing board of their Ohio bicycle shop to the Crystal Coast of North Carolina. It was there at a place called Kitty Hawk that the Wright brothers' dream took flight. On that day, our world was changed forever. The anniversary of this historic accomplishment provides an excellent opportunity for our Nation's schools to promote the importance of math and science education. And as a North Carolinian and a former educator, I am proud to bring recognition to the Wright brothers and their fantastic accomplishment. As a former North Carolina superintendent of schools, I worked for many years to help improve math and science education in our State. America's future will be determined by the ability of our citizens to adapt to the changes in technology that would dominate life in the 21st century. Recent studies show, unfortunately, that America's students are falling behind their counterparts around the world in the areas of math and science. 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 these important areas. It is no longer good enough for our children to simply be able to read, write, add, and subtract. If today's students are going to succeed in tomorrow's jobs, a firm foundation in math and science is required and it is an imperative. The Committee on Science has taken a leading role in starting a national dialogue on math and science education. One of the most difficult challenges we face has been to interest students in participating in the most challenging math and science courses. That is not unique. It happens in every State. Such a lack of interest could spell doom down the road as fewer students enter the teaching profession in these important areas. And even fewer are prepared for the jobs of the 21st century. The 100th anniversary of Flight Educational Initiative is intended to use the history of flight, the benefit of flight on society, and the math and science principles used in flight to generate interest among students in math and science education. As a young boy, like most Americans, the space program captured my imagination. Unfortunately, today video games and other distractions are more likely to occupy the time of our young people than the space program. However, the 100th anniversary of flight and NASA's plans to send a plane to Mars to coincide with that date provides an excellent springboard to recapture our young people's interest in the space program and in math and science education. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for bringing this bill, authorizing our Nation's space program, to the floor on the same day that the new Star Wars trilogy has opened in our Nation's theaters. Just as the Star Wars movie has captured the imagination of a generation of Americans, NASA and the 100th anniversary of Flight Educational Initiative will help our students sore in math and science education. 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. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am very pleased to rise to speak in favor of the bill as presented to the House. The Committee on Science has done a very careful job of analyzing the needs of the NASA program and has come up with a workable allocation of funds. There are two areas in particular I want to mention. One relates to the work that I put into the science policy study (Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New Science Policy; published by GPO) last year under the auspices of the Science Committee and which has been adopted by the committee and by the House of Representatives. In that study, we emphasized the importance of basic research to the future of this Nation. And I am pleased to say that NASA continues, under this bill, to maintain a strong basic research program. There has been some criticism that the Space Station has decimated the basic research program at NASA. That is not true. They are continuing with their basic research efforts and they continue to make important discoveries both in space and on this planet. One of the important parts of this issue, of course, is to make sure that the results of basic research are available to the public, to companies who may make use of it and, that this may benefit the general public in many ways. The second point I want to make is that I believe NASA has done an excellent job of adding to the education of our students in this Nation regarding math and science. That is an area of great need. We must improve our math and science programs in elementary and secondary schools. It has to be done in a coordinated, thoughtful, careful way as we work toward that goal. But in the meantime NASA, through its supplementary programs, has aided greatly in the education of students of this Nation. In particular, they have developed experiments that students can do at home or in their schoolroom by accessing NASA data on the Internet and using the results of NASA's satellite research, or data from their Mars Rover, to use in their experiments. This has provided a meaningful, lifetime experience for kids in the elementary and secondary schools. They learn from the Internet what has happened, and they can then use this directly to come to the same scientific conclusion that the NASA scientists operating the experiment have reached. I rise today in support of H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act. I believe it is a good bill that will continue to support NASA in its science and exploration endeavors while maintaining balance and cost- effectiveness within its priorities. This morning, I would specifically like to address the opportunity provided through this bill to continue NASA's strong and vital emphasis on education initiatives. As we have discussed earlier this year, our Nation is at a critical juncture in its efforts to provide our children with the quality education that they will require to succeed in the technology-driven economy and culture of tomorrow. To do this, we must find innovative ways to excite and encourage young students about the possibilities open to them through an understanding of mathematics and the sciences. I am not talking strictly about career opportunities, but as consumers, parents and citizens. NASA has clearly demonstrated their dedication to this responsibility through the multitude of individual programs which they offer to students from grade school to grad school and, importantly, to their teachers. In FY 1998 alone, NASA reached over two million students and over a hundred thousand teachers. Of those, all but a fraction of these students and teachers were at the K-12 level. It is at this level that it is so critical to engage our young people, and it is also at this point that our education system is in need of the most assistance. NASA is offering their help, and they are doing so through the use of inquiry-based methods and real-life applications. I would also like to highlight that, in developing their educational programs, NASA has shown insight into the complexity of their subject material and the need to balance it with state and regional agendas. To best serve its ``customers'', NASA collaborators with external organizations such as the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education, discipline-specific professional associations, [[Page H3310]] and State education coalitions to develop materials for local use ``when and where appropriate''. As another indication of their commitment to providing relevant and useful information, NASA solicits evaluations of their programs from its users, the teachers in the classroom. In closing, it is my hope that other Federal agencies would follow the example set by NASA in its education goals. As Dan Goldin, the NASA administrator, testified at a recent Science Committee hearing on this issue, ``It is our education system that will prepare our future workforce to design and use [the tools for our future]''. By supporting this bill, you will enable the continued development and support of these crucial programs. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend from Tennessee for yielding me time to speak this morning. NASA's mission is one of exploration, discovery, and innovation. The innovation of new technology and the continued understanding of our planet and solar system has led to many advances in science that have benefitted our country and our economy. When we fund NASA activities, we fund our future. We fund the development of new technologies, and we push our educational limits. Because of this, NASA and their continued innovation has made us the world leader in space exploration. I stand today, though, reluctantly in support of H.R. 1654 because I do have some serious concerns with some of the provisions and possible amendments to the bill. First, I applaud the Committee on Science for crafting a bill that does look to increase funding for NASA. However, I am very disappointed that they removed any funding for the continued development study of the Trans-Hab program from the Johnson Space Center. The Trans-Hab is a proposed replacement for the International Space Station habitation module and uses new inflatable structural technology to house a larger living and work space in the limited payload of the Space Shuttle. As drafted, this bill would hinder the development and eliminate the option of this new technology which would give our astronauts more space to work and to live. One of NASA's greatest assets

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
(House of Representatives - May 19, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3304-H3352] {time} 1045 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reynolds). Pursuant to House Resolution 174 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1654. The Chair designates the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) to assume the chair temporarily. {time} 1045 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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, with Mr. Collins (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). 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, 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. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to include for the Record a letter from Administrator Goldin of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in which, among other things, he states ``NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654.'' The letter is as follows: [[Page H3305]] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, May 19, 1999. Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Brown: This letter is to provide NASA's views on H.R. 1654, the ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999,'' authorizing appropriations for FY 2000-2002, as ordered reported by the Committee on May 13, 1999. NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654. The authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the President's request, which is based on a balanced and affordable space and aeronautics program. H.R. 1654 would authorize a total of $13,625.6 million in FY 2000, $13,747.1 million in FY 2001 and $13,839.4 million in FY 2002. As ordered reported, total funding for FY 2000 exceeds the President's request by a net of $47.2 million; total funding for FY 2001 is below the President's request by a net of $82 million. The majority of the additional funding provided is for Life and micro gravity Sciences and Applications, Advanced Space Transportation Technology, and Academic Programs. At the same time, funding authorized in H.R. 1654 reflects significant reductions ($174.4 million in FY 2000, $211.1 million in FY 2001, and $216.6 million in FY 2002) for High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2). While the Administration recognizes that the Committee strongly supports NASA program efforts for which they have recommended augmentations, such additional spending must be evaluated against the imperative to maintain an overall balance in NASA's aeronautics and space research program and against the impacts resulting from the resulting reductions in other critical programs. Failure to fund NASA's HPCC and IT2 activities in a timely manner would be unacceptable. NASA appreciates the Committee's authorization of funding for the International Space Station (ISS) Program consistent with the President's request. That request reflects an Administration policy decision to reduce the level of risk to the ISS with a net increase of $1.4 billion over the next five years, to enhance Station budget reserves and to make NASA's Contingency Plan against potential Russian shortfalls more robust. The Committee's support for these efforts is appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this very important program. While NASA supports those portions of H.R. 1654 that are consistent with the President's request, we have serious objections to several provisions that are contrary to the President's budget. I request that you and the Committee take NASA's objections, outlined below, into consideration as this bill proceeds through Congress. triana NASA and the Administration are greatly disappointed in the Committee's adoption of an amendment (Section 130) terminating the Triana science mission. Triana is good science, was subject to a rigorous peer review process, and will provide the scientific community with valuable research data. We strongly object to the Committee's arbitrary and partisan recommendation to terminate the Triana science mission. In October 1998, after an exacting peer-review evaluation of nine competing proposals, NASA selected the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as the Principle Investigator for the Triana mission. The Conference Report accompanying the FY 1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-276) directed NASA to identify funding for the initiation of Triana as part of NASA's FY 1999 Operating Plan. NASA identified $35 million in the FY 1999 Operating Plan submitted to this and other Committees, and responded to questions thereon. NASA's FY 2000 budget requests $35 million to complete development of Triana, and launch it in December 2000 as a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle. Triana has sound science objectives and will present valuable practical applications in: solar influences on climate; solar wind and space weather; ultraviolet (UV) radiation effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation; cloud microphysical properties and the effect of solar radiation on climate models; and vegetation canopy measurements, detecting changes in the amount of vegetation- leaf structure, or fraction of covered land. NASA is also formulating an Earth Science education initiative using Triana imagery, and is planning to issue an open, competitive solicitation for educational tools and applications this fall. NASA has received inquiries from three commercial firms regarding Triana participation. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography is currently working to structure a commercialization approach. international space station research Section 101 of H.R. 1654 limits the flexibility of the ISS program to accommodate unforeseen requirements by restricting the use of ISS research funds. Should program difficulties result in further schedule delays, such a restriction could result in research equipment being developed prior to the Station's readiness to accommodate it. This could exacerbate the delay by not allowing the flexibility to shift research funds and address Station contingencies. Such restrictions could, therefore, prolong delays in research flight opportunities and further harm the research community intended to be helped. earth science commercial data acquisition Section 126 of H.R. 1654 would require that NASA spend $50 million in FY 2001 and FY 2002 for the purchase of commercial remote sensing data. NASA objects to a mandated minimum level of spending for such acquisitions, at the expense of other research opportunities in the Earth Science enterprise. There is no guarantee that such commercial data will be available for acquisition in such amounts stipulated in the bill. NASA should not be precluded from directing its resources in the most efficient and effective manner. As a matter of policy, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise will not build new missions where commercial data is available at market prices, and the Enterprise has instituted a process under which all Announcements of Opportunity include statements of data buy preferences. The Earth Science Enterprise will release, in the near future, two Requests for Information (RFI's), one for determining sources of Landsat- class observations, and a second for determining sources of tropospheric wind measurements. The Enterprise is also working toward the objective of having each scientific and application research proposal identify the source of data sets required, and including an estimate of the funding requirement for such data sets. This approach is intended to establish a direct dialog between the providers and users of data, and NASA does not have to second-guess the user requirements and unduly constrain the provider's capabilities. Finally, the NASA Inspector General recently released a report on the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and concluded ``additional congressionally directed data buy programs are not warranted.'' trans-hab Section 128 of H.R. 1654 would prevent NASA from further research on inflatable technology, such as Trans-Hab, which would accommodate humans in space. Inflatable module technology offers the potential for significant stowage volume, crew habitability and safety advantages over current approaches for building pressurized space structures using reinforced aluminum. The technology holds considerable potential for advancement of space exploration. NASA shares the Committee's concern that added cost and risk to the ISS should be avoided. NASA desires to continue to explore potential commercial partnering for the development, construction, and use for the ISS Trans-Hab module. We will not pursue the development of a Trans-Hab module for the ISS unless it can be done through a partnership with industry that results in a cost-neutral solution to the baseline cost for the aluminum Habitation module. Additional technical definition and design work is necessary before potential commercial interests can be assured of the viability of the concepts. H.R. 1654 would preclude any work on this very promising set of technologies. ultra-efficient engine technology I am very concerned that Section 103(4) eliminates the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program as a Focused Program. We understand that it is the Committee's intent to permit these activities to be conducted within the R base. We strongly urge the continuation of this effort as a Focused Program. UEET as a Focused Program gives all interested parties-- other Government agencies (e.g., DoD) and the private sector--assurances that resources have been identified to meet defined goals over a specified period of time. Fully 80% of program funding for UEET will be spent in-house, primarily for the operation of test stands and facilities, in coordination with the ongoing DoD program. The UEET Program is designed to address the most critical propulsion issues: performance and efficiency. The primary benefits of these technologies will be to improve efficiency and reduce emissions for a wide range of civil and military applications. Loss of the UEET effort could have major consequences for the future competitiveness of the U.S. aircraft engine industry and the U.S. balance of trade. Research associated with understanding the technical issues of engine emissions supports a major portion of U.S. scientific analysis that provides a basis for informed policy making and U.S. influence on international civil aviation policies. Finally, it should be noted that significant interaction and dependencies have been formed over the years in engine technology efforts between NASA's Space Programs, DoD's Acquisition Programs and DOE's Energy Programs; while the impact of the restriction in H.R. 1654 upon these interdependencies has not yet been completely assessed, there will be implications to U.S. strategic interests in these critical areas. administration proposals H.R. 1654 does not include ten important legislative proposals proposed by the Administration in the draft FY 2000 NASA authorization bill, submitted to the Congress on April 28, 1999. Many of these proposed provisions are legislative ``gap fillers''--providing NASA the same authority already provided to the Department of Defense in title 10 of the U.S. Code and to other civilian agencies in title 41 of the U.S. Code. NASA is covered by the acquisition provisions of title 10, but is frequently overlooked when amendments to that title are enacted. Section 203 of the Administration's bill [[Page H3306]] would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to withhold contract payments based on substantial evidence of fraud. Section 209 would make NASA's claim payment process consistent with procedures already required by other law and with those used by other agencies. Section 210 would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to exempt contractor proposals from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The remaining provisions contained in the Administration's bill address the need to adapt NASA's legal authorities to the world in which we now operate. The role of the commercial sector has been ever increasing. With the support of this Committee, NASA has been changing the way it does business, looking for opportunities to engage in joint endeavors with industry, and attempting to leverage the private sector investment in space and aeronautics research and development. These activities present new and different working relationships and legal hurdles. We are asking the private sector to invest not only money, but also ideas. We must be able to protect these ideas from disclosure to competitors-- foreign as well as domestic--which have not invested their time or capital. In order to attract industry partners and their investments, we must be able to grant them some form of exclusive right to use the software or other inventions arising from their joint endeavor with us before it is released to the general public. Our space program should benefit not only from the increased investment of private capital, but also from the royalties derived from such licensing authority. We must be able to attract more private investment--and thus reduce the cost to the Government--by being able to transfer title to personal property used in our joint endeavors to the partner whom we are asking to invest the capital. I urge the Committee to incorporate these provisions as the bill progresses through Congress. hpcc and it2 As reported, H.R. 1654 deletes all funding for NASA's High Performance Computing and Communication program (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) initiative, including the very important Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE) program. Although the Committee has indicated its intent to hold hearings and mark up a separate, multi-agency, ``computer research'' bill later this year, in the absence of the introduction of a companion measure that fully funds those activities, NASA's support for H.R. 1654 will continue to be qualified. Not authorizing funding requested for NASA's HPCC and IT2 would essentially remove all of the Agency's research in information technology, and severely impact NASA's remaining programs and missions. Both programs are structured to contribute to broad Federal efforts, but also to address NASA-specific computational, engineering, and science requirements spanning many programs. Not authorizing HPCC and IT2 would severely limit NASA's ability to deliver key capabilities needed to support Earth, space, and aeronautical programs, with impacts such as the following: Cut Earth and Space Sciences and directly impact NASA's ability to use advanced computing technology to further our ability to predict the dynamic interaction of physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the Earth, the solar-terrestrial environment, and the universe; Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's capability to develop low-power, fault-tolerant, high-performance, scaleable computing technology for a new generation of micro- spacecraft; Cut Aero-Space Technology and eliminate critical advances in aeronautics algorithms and applications, software, and computing machinery needed to enable more than 1000 fold increases in systems performance in the 21st century; Cut Aero-Space Technology and limit implementation of the tools and processes for a revolution in engineering practice and science integration in modeling, design, development and execution of all NASA's missions; and, Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks program to develop the critical set of technologies necessary to support potential future decisions on establishing outposts of self-tasking, self-repairing, evolvable rover networks at key sites of scientific interest throughout the solar system. We are preparing a more detailed analysis of additional concerns regarding H.R. 1654, which we believe will hamper our ability to manage our space and aeronautics research programs most effectively. I urge the Committee to consider these concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to submission of this report for the Committee's consideration. Sincerely, Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator. ____ National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, May 19, 1999. Hon. Bart Gordon, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Gordon: This letter is to provide NASA's views on H.R. 1654, the ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999,'' authorizing appropriations for FY 2000-2002, as ordered reported by the Committee on May 13, 1999. NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654. The authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the President's request, which is based on a balanced and affordable space and aeronautics program. H.R. 1654 would authorize a total of $13,625.6 million in FY 2000, $13,747.1 million in FY 2001 and $13,839.4 million in FY 2002. As ordered reported, total funding for FY 2000 exceeds the President's request by a net of $47.2 million; total funding for FY 2001 is below the President's request by a net of $5.3 million and total funding for FY 2002 exceeds the President's request by a net of $82 million. The majority of the additional funding provided is for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, Advanced Space Transportation Technology, and Academic Programs. At the same time, funding authorized in H.R. 1654 reflects significant reductions ($174.4 million in FY 2000, $211.1 million in FY 2001, and $216.6 million in FY 2002) for High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2). While the Administration recognizes that the Committee strongly supports NASA program efforts for which they have recommended augmentations, such additional spending must be evaluated against the imperative to maintain an overall balance in NASA's aeronautics and space research program and against the impacts resulting from the resulting reductions in other critical programs. Failure to fund NASA's HPCC and IT2 activities in a timely manner would be unacceptable. NASA appreciates the Committee's authorization of funding for the International Space Station (ISS) Program consistent with the President's request. That request reflects an Administration policy decision to reduce the level of risk to the ISS with a net increase of $1.4 billion over the next five years, to enhance Station budget reserves and to make NASA's Contingency Plan against potential Russian shortfalls more robust. The Committee's support for these efforts is appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this very important program. While NASA supports those portions of H.R. 1654 that are consistent with the President's request, we have serious objections to several provisions that are contrary to the President's budget. I request that you and the Committee take NASA's objections, outlined below, into consideration as this bill proceeds through Congress. TRIANA NASA and the Administration are greatly disappointed in the Committee's adoption of an amendment (Section 130) terminating the Triana science mission. Triana is good science, was subject to a rigorous peer review process, and will provide the scientific community with valuable research data. We strongly object to the Committee's arbitrary and partisan recommendation to terminate the Triana science mission. In October 1998, after an exacting peer-review evaluation of nine competing proposals, NASA selected the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as the Principle Investigator for the Triana mission. The Conference Report accompanying the FY 1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-276) directed NASA to identify funding for the initiation of Triana as part of NASA's FY 1999 Operating Plan. NASA identified $35 million in the FY 1999 Operating Plan submitted to this and other Committees, and responded to questions thereon. NASA's FY 2000 budget requests $35 million to complete development of Triana, and launch it in December 2000 as a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle. Triana has sound science objectives and will present valuable practical applications in: solar influences on climate; solar wind and space weather; ultraviolet (UV) radiation effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation; cloud microphysical properties and the effect of solar radiation on climate models; and vegetation canopy measurements, detecting changes in the amount of vegetation- leaf structure, or fraction of covered land. NASA is also formulating an Earth Science education initiative using Triana imagery, and is planning to issue an open, competitive solicitation for educational tools and applications this fall. NASA has received inquiries from three commercial firms regarding Triana participation. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography is currently working to structure a commercialization approach. international space station research Section 101 of H.R. 1654 limits the flexibility of the ISS program to accommodate unforeseen requirements by restricting the use of ISS research funds. Should program difficulties result in further schedule delays, such a restriction could result in research equipment being developed prior to the Station's readiness to accommodate it. This could exacerbate the delay by not allowing the flexibility to shift research funds and address Station contingencies. Such restriction could, therefore, prolong delays in research flight opportunities and further harm the research community intended to be helped. earth science commercial data acquisition Section 126 of H.R. 1654 would require that NASA spend $50 million in FY 2001 and FY [[Page H3307]] 2002 for the purchase of commercial remote sensing data. NASA objects to a mandated minimum level of spending for such acquisitions, at the expense of other research opportunities in the Earth Science enterprise. There is no guarantee that such commercial data will be available for acquisition in such amounts stipulated in the bill. NASA should not be precluded from directing its resources in the most efficient and effective manner. As a matter of policy, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise will not build new missions where commercial data is available at market prices, and the Enterprise has instituted a process under which all Announcements of Opportunity include statements of data buy preferences. The Earth Science Enterprise will release, in the near future, two Requests for Information (RFI's), one for determining sources of Landsat- class observations, and a second for determining sources of tropospheric wind measurements. The Enterprise is also working toward the objective of having each scientific and application research proposal identify the source of data sets required, and including an estimate of the funding requirement for such data sets. This approach is intended to establish a direct dialog between the providers and users of data, and NASA does not have to second-guess the user requirements and unduly constrain the provider's capabilities. Finally, the NASA Inspector General recently released a report on the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and concluded ``additional congressionally directed data buy programs are not warranted.'' trans-hab Section 128 of H.R. 1654 would prevent NASA from further research on inflatable technology, such as Trans-Hab, which would accommodate humans in space. Inflatable module technology offers the potential for significant stowage volume, crew habitability and safety advantages over current approaches for building pressurized space structures using reinforced aluminum. The technology holds considerable potential for advancement of space exploration. NASA shares the Committee's concern that added cost and risk to the ISS should be avoided. NASA desires to continue to explore potential commercial partnering for the development, construction, and use for the ISS Trans-Hab module. We will not pursue the development of a Trans-Hab module for the ISS unless it can be done through a partnership with industry that results in a cost-neutral solution to the baseline cost for the aluminum Habitation module. Additional technical definition and design work is necessary before potential commercial interests can be assured of the viability of the concepts. H.R. 1654 would preclude any work on this very promising set of technologies. ultra-efficient engine technology I am very concerned that Section 103(4) eliminates the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program as a Focused Program. We understand that it is the Committee's intent to permit these activities to be conducted within the R base. We strongly urge the continuation of this effort as a Focused Program. UEET as a Focused Program gives all interested parties-- other Government agencies (e.g., DoD) and the private sector--assurances that resources have been identified to meet defined goals over a specified period of time. Fully 80% of program funding for UEET will be spent in-house, primarily for the operation of test stands and facilities, in coordination with the ongoing DoD program. The UEET Program is designed to address the most critical propulsion issues: performance and efficiency. The primary benefits to these technologies will be to improve efficiency and reduce emissions for a wide range of civil and military applications. Loss of the UEET effort could have major consequences for the future competitiveness of the U.S. aircraft engine industry and the U.S. balance of trade. Research associated with understanding the technical issues of engine emissions supports a major portion of U.S. scientific analysis that provides a basis for informed policy making and U.S. influence on international civil aviation policies. Finally, it should be noted that significant interaction and dependencies have been formed over the years in engine technology efforts between NASA's Space Programs, DoD's Acquisition Programs and DOE's Energy Programs; while the impact of the restriction in H.R. 1654 upon these interdependencies has not yet been completely assessed, there will be implications to U.S. strategic interests in these critical areas. administration proposals H.R. 1654 does not include ten important legislative proposals proposed by the Administration in the draft FY 2000 NASA authorization bill, submitted to the Congress on April 28, 1999. Many of these proposed provisions are legislative ``gap fillers''--providing NASA the same authority already provided to the Department of Defense in title 10 of the U.S. Code and to other civilian agencies in title 41 of the U.S. Code. NASA is covered by the acquisition provisions of title 10, but is frequently overlooked when amendments to that title are enacted. Section 203 of the Administration's bill would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to withhold contract payments based on substantial evidence of fraud. Section 209 would make NASA's claim payment process consistent with procedures already required by other law and with those used by other agencies. Section 210 would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to exempt contractor proposals from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The remaining provisions contained in the Administration's bill address the need to adapt NASA's legal authorities to the world in which we now operate. The role of the commercial sector has been ever increasing. With the support of this Committee, NASA has been changing the way it does business, looking for opportunities to engage in joint endeavors with industry, and attempting to leverage the private sector investment in space and aeronautics research and development. These activities present new and different working relationships and legal hurdles. We are asking the private sector to invest not only money, but also ideas. We must be able to protect these ideas from disclosure to competitors-- foreign as well as domestic--which have not invested their time or capital. In order to attract industry partners and their investments, we must be able to grant them some form of exclusive right to use the software or other inventions arising from their joint endeavor with us before it is released to the general public. Our space program should benefit not only from the increased investment of private capital, but also from the royalties derived from such licensing authority. We must be able to attract more private investment--and thus reduce the cost to the Government--but being able to transfer title to personal property used in our joint endeavors to the partner whom we are asking to invest the capital. I urge the Committee to incorporate these provisions as the bill progresses through Congress. hpcc and it2 As reported, H.R. 1654 deletes all funding for NASA's High Performance Computing and Communication program (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) initiative, including the very important Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE) program. Although the Committee has indicated its intent to hold hearings and mark up a separate, multi-agency, ``computer research'' bill later this year, in the absence of the introduction of a companion measure that fully funds those activities, NASA's support for H.R. 1654 will continue to be qualified. Not authorizing funding requested for NASA's HPCC and IT2 would essentially remove all of the Agency's research in information technology, and severely impact NASA's remaining programs and missions. Both programs are structured to contribute to broad Federal efforts, but also to address NASA-specific computational, engineering, and science requirements spanning many programs. Not authorizing HPCC and IT2 would severely limit NASA's ability to deliver key capabilities needed to support Earth, space, and aeronautical programs, with impacts such as the following: Cut Earth and Space Sciences and directly impact NASA's ability to use advanced computing technology to further our ability to predict the dynamic interaction of physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the Earth, the solar-terrestrial environment, and the universe; Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's capability to develop low-power, fault-tolerant, high-performance, scaleable computing technology for a new generation of micro- spacecraft; Cut Aero-Space Technology and eliminate critical advances in aeronautics algorithms and applications, software, and computing machinery needed to enable more than 1000 fold increases in systems performance in the 21st century; Cut Aero-Space Technology and limit implementation of the tools and processes for a revolution in engineering practice and science integration in modeling, design, development and execution of all NASA's missions; and, Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks program to develop the critical set of technologies necessary to support potential future decisions on establishing outposts of self-tasking, self-repairing, evolvable rover networks at key sites of scientific interest throughout the solar system. We are preparing a more detailed analysis of additional concerns regarding H.R. 1654, which we believe will hamper our ability to manage our space and aeronautics research programs most efficiently. I urge the Committee to consider these concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to submission of this report for the Committee's consideration. Sincerely, Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act. First, I wish to commend Chairman Rohrabacher for his efforts in developing H.R. 1654. I believe that he made a serious effort to include a number of positive provisions in the bill and to work with the minority. Thus, while it was by no means a perfect bill, I thought that H.R. 1654 was a reasonably constructive piece of legislation as introduced. In fact, I was a [[Page H3308]] cosponsor of the bill as introduced, with the understanding that we would continue to work to improve its provisions. At this point I have to say that I do not think that H.R. 1654 is ready for floor consideration. I have not reached this position easily. As a supporter of NASA, I want to provide a solid, fiscally responsible foundation for the space agency's activities. I also want to make sure that we do not micromanage NASA in ways that will hurt its ability to carry out its programs effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, I think that H.R. 1654 falls short of the mark in meeting these two goals. The NASA Administrator has sent over a letter outlining a number of serious concerns with the NASA bill. Let me discuss just a few of them. First, there is the absence of any funding for NASA's information technology programs. While we have received some assurance from the chairman of the Committee on Science that authorization of these programs will be done at a later date, I remain concerned. NASA needs to be on the cutting edge of information technology R if it is to deliver missions that are both cost-effective and innovative. Second, H.R. 1654 would prohibit the Ultra Efficient Energy Technology focused program. That program is a new program that is critical to maintaining NASA's capabilities for long-term aircraft engine R It also is critical to maintaining the competitiveness of the U.S. aeronautics industry. Moreover, the UEET program will offer important benefits to military aviation by conducting important R into improved engine performance. I am afraid that H.R. 1654 attempts to micromanage NASA's aeronautics R efforts in ways that can do real damage over the long term. Third, the bill as amended at full committee would cancel the Triana scientific mission. Triana is an Earth observing spacecraft that would deliver both scientific and educational benefits. This mission was selected out of nine competing proposals, and it has undergone scientific peer review. It already was funded in last year's VA-HUD appropriations conference report. If we cancel it now, we would waste $40 million, which is more than it would cost to save it. Fourth, H.R. 1654 has a provision that would have the effect of holding NASA's Earth science research program hostage to a ``data buy'' earmark. While I support a healthy commercial remote sensing industry, the bill's provisions will do real harm to NASA's programs while doing little to help grow industry. It is a misguided and ultimately unworkable position. Fifth, the bill would prohibit NASA from spending any money on the Trans-Hab or other innovative inflatable structure technologies. While I am as careful with taxpayers' dollars as anyone, I do not believe that we should prohibit NASA from doing research to improve our space program. H.R. 1654's Trans-Hab prohibition would keep NASA from getting the data Congress will need if we are to make informed decisions on these innovative technologies. Mr. Chairman, I raise these issues not to diminish the efforts of Chairman Rohrabacher in drafting this bill. I simply believe the bill we have before us today is not ready for prime time. I think that the bill needs more work. I intend to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1654 on final passage, and I would urge my colleagues to also oppose the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. 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. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for allotting me this time. Mr. Chairman, today the House is considering H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 1999, which I am pleased to sponsor. I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member, for his spirit of cooperation during the process. I am saddened, however, that he is unable to cosponsor the bill and vote for it at this time, but I do understand that there are some areas of disagreement and perhaps some areas that he feels that was not dealt with in the way that he would prefer for it to be dealt with, and I am sorry for that. But I do think that we do have a spirit of cooperation among the members of the subcommittee, and I am trying my best to maintain that spirit as well as the spirit of cooperation among the staffs on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the work that they put in to trying to put this bill together, although the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) cannot support it at this time. It contains one or two controversial provisions, surely. This bill, however, is overwhelmingly bipartisan. At least it was my intent to make it bipartisan. It includes several provisions and modifications that actually came from the Democratic side. Furthermore, I plan to offer a manager's amendment which will make a few additional refinements, including one that specifically addresses the concerns of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) who has put a tremendous amount of effort into a project that is very meaningful to his district. This is not a perfect bill, and I admit that. We have asked for an open rule because we want the House to work its will on this legislation. To the degree that we have an open rule and to the degree there are disagreements, I would hope that the open rule would provide us a way of coming to grips with some of the disagreements that are still in place. If any government agency belongs to the American people, surely it is NASA. I am committed to NASA's programs and policies, to make sure that they are reflecting the priorities of the people in the United States as reflected here in the House of Representatives, the people's House. Even so, I believe this piece of legislation is a solid piece of legislation because it sends three messages which are supported by the overwhelming majority of the Committee on Science and I believe the House itself. First, we tell the President and the appropriators that America's civil space agency should be rewarded for the sacrifices and reforms that it has made over the past several years by providing it a steady increase of 1 percent a year, if you take into account the information technology program that we are authorizing separately. Secondly, H.R. 1654 sets realistic overall funding levels and real priorities to guide appropriators. We focus additional resources on areas that our hearing record shows are underfunded and which have bipartisan support, including life and microgravity research, advanced space transportation technology, space science, and education. Third, H.R. 1654 pushes NASA to stay on the road to reform, especially on space privatization and commercialization. We do not want to destabilize the International Space Station or set up programs just to keep people busy. This bill does not micromanage NASA, but it does set clear goals and guides NASA towards them. Mr. Chairman, in closing let me just say that the other body has already marked up a NASA authorization bill and it should be reported to the floor for consideration soon. So after we complete our business today, I hope we can aggressively move forward to negotiate compromises with the Senate and, for the first time since 1992, enact a NASA authorization into law this year. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a leader in education in this body. {time} 1100 Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an exciting opportunity I think that this NASA authorization bill provides our Nation's schools to promote math and science education. However, first I would like to say how disappointed I am that this bill has fallen victim I think to some partisan wrangling because it really did start out as a bipartisan bill. It is my hope that, as we go forward to an eventual conference that will take place with the other body, which will pass a bipartisan bill out of their committee, hopefully, very soon, that we can once again act in a bipartisan way and send a bill to the President that he will sign. [[Page H3309]] With the exception of the conflict over Triana and some other issues, the committee I think has put together a pretty decent bill. I appreciate the majority's willingness to work with me on my concerns in the area of education and to accept the amendments in those areas that I offered in committee, and I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their help. I will vote for H.R. 1654, with the hope and faith that a bipartisan conference report can be brought back before this body before this year is out. I am proud to discuss an important education initiative contained in this legislation. This bill directs NASA to develop an educational initiative for our Nation's schools in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the first powered flight, which will take place on December 17, 2003. On that date in 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright took their dream of powered flight from the drawing board of their Ohio bicycle shop to the Crystal Coast of North Carolina. It was there at a place called Kitty Hawk that the Wright brothers' dream took flight. On that day, our world was changed forever. The anniversary of this historic accomplishment provides an excellent opportunity for our Nation's schools to promote the importance of math and science education. And as a North Carolinian and a former educator, I am proud to bring recognition to the Wright brothers and their fantastic accomplishment. As a former North Carolina superintendent of schools, I worked for many years to help improve math and science education in our State. America's future will be determined by the ability of our citizens to adapt to the changes in technology that would dominate life in the 21st century. Recent studies show, unfortunately, that America's students are falling behind their counterparts around the world in the areas of math and science. 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 these important areas. It is no longer good enough for our children to simply be able to read, write, add, and subtract. If today's students are going to succeed in tomorrow's jobs, a firm foundation in math and science is required and it is an imperative. The Committee on Science has taken a leading role in starting a national dialogue on math and science education. One of the most difficult challenges we face has been to interest students in participating in the most challenging math and science courses. That is not unique. It happens in every State. Such a lack of interest could spell doom down the road as fewer students enter the teaching profession in these important areas. And even fewer are prepared for the jobs of the 21st century. The 100th anniversary of Flight Educational Initiative is intended to use the history of flight, the benefit of flight on society, and the math and science principles used in flight to generate interest among students in math and science education. As a young boy, like most Americans, the space program captured my imagination. Unfortunately, today video games and other distractions are more likely to occupy the time of our young people than the space program. However, the 100th anniversary of flight and NASA's plans to send a plane to Mars to coincide with that date provides an excellent springboard to recapture our young people's interest in the space program and in math and science education. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for bringing this bill, authorizing our Nation's space program, to the floor on the same day that the new Star Wars trilogy has opened in our Nation's theaters. Just as the Star Wars movie has captured the imagination of a generation of Americans, NASA and the 100th anniversary of Flight Educational Initiative will help our students sore in math and science education. 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. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am very pleased to rise to speak in favor of the bill as presented to the House. The Committee on Science has done a very careful job of analyzing the needs of the NASA program and has come up with a workable allocation of funds. There are two areas in particular I want to mention. One relates to the work that I put into the science policy study (Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New Science Policy; published by GPO) last year under the auspices of the Science Committee and which has been adopted by the committee and by the House of Representatives. In that study, we emphasized the importance of basic research to the future of this Nation. And I am pleased to say that NASA continues, under this bill, to maintain a strong basic research program. There has been some criticism that the Space Station has decimated the basic research program at NASA. That is not true. They are continuing with their basic research efforts and they continue to make important discoveries both in space and on this planet. One of the important parts of this issue, of course, is to make sure that the results of basic research are available to the public, to companies who may make use of it and, that this may benefit the general public in many ways. The second point I want to make is that I believe NASA has done an excellent job of adding to the education of our students in this Nation regarding math and science. That is an area of great need. We must improve our math and science programs in elementary and secondary schools. It has to be done in a coordinated, thoughtful, careful way as we work toward that goal. But in the meantime NASA, through its supplementary programs, has aided greatly in the education of students of this Nation. In particular, they have developed experiments that students can do at home or in their schoolroom by accessing NASA data on the Internet and using the results of NASA's satellite research, or data from their Mars Rover, to use in their experiments. This has provided a meaningful, lifetime experience for kids in the elementary and secondary schools. They learn from the Internet what has happened, and they can then use this directly to come to the same scientific conclusion that the NASA scientists operating the experiment have reached. I rise today in support of H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act. I believe it is a good bill that will continue to support NASA in its science and exploration endeavors while maintaining balance and cost- effectiveness within its priorities. This morning, I would specifically like to address the opportunity provided through this bill to continue NASA's strong and vital emphasis on education initiatives. As we have discussed earlier this year, our Nation is at a critical juncture in its efforts to provide our children with the quality education that they will require to succeed in the technology-driven economy and culture of tomorrow. To do this, we must find innovative ways to excite and encourage young students about the possibilities open to them through an understanding of mathematics and the sciences. I am not talking strictly about career opportunities, but as consumers, parents and citizens. NASA has clearly demonstrated their dedication to this responsibility through the multitude of individual programs which they offer to students from grade school to grad school and, importantly, to their teachers. In FY 1998 alone, NASA reached over two million students and over a hundred thousand teachers. Of those, all but a fraction of these students and teachers were at the K-12 level. It is at this level that it is so critical to engage our young people, and it is also at this point that our education system is in need of the most assistance. NASA is offering their help, and they are doing so through the use of inquiry-based methods and real-life applications. I would also like to highlight that, in developing their educational programs, NASA has shown insight into the complexity of their subject material and the need to balance it with state and regional agendas. To best serve its ``customers'', NASA collaborators with external organizations such as the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education, discipline-specific professional associations, [[Page H3310]] and State education coalitions to develop materials for local use ``when and where appropriate''. As another indication of their commitment to providing relevant and useful information, NASA solicits evaluations of their programs from its users, the teachers in the classroom. In closing, it is my hope that other Federal agencies would follow the example set by NASA in its education goals. As Dan Goldin, the NASA administrator, testified at a recent Science Committee hearing on this issue, ``It is our education system that will prepare our future workforce to design and use [the tools for our future]''. By supporting this bill, you will enable the continued development and support of these crucial programs. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend from Tennessee for yielding me time to speak this morning. NASA's mission is one of exploration, discovery, and innovation. The innovation of new technology and the continued understanding of our planet and solar system has led to many advances in science that have benefitted our country and our economy. When we fund NASA activities, we fund our future. We fund the development of new technologies, and we push our educational limits. Because of this, NASA and their continued innovation has made us the world leader in space exploration. I stand today, though, reluctantly in support of H.R. 1654 because I do have some serious concerns with some of the provisions and possible amendments to the bill. First, I applaud the Committee on Science for crafting a bill that does look to increase funding for NASA. However, I am very disappointed that they removed any funding for the continued development study of the Trans-Hab program from the Johnson Space Center. The Trans-Hab is a proposed replacement for the International Space Station habitation module and uses new inflatable structural technology to house a larger living and work space in the limited payload of the Space Shuttle. As drafted, this bill would hinder the development and eliminate the option of this new technology which would give our astronauts more space to work and to live. One of NASA's greate

Summary:

All articles in House section

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
(House of Representatives - May 19, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3304-H3352] {time} 1045 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reynolds). Pursuant to House Resolution 174 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1654. The Chair designates the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) to assume the chair temporarily. {time} 1045 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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, with Mr. Collins (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). 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, 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. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to include for the Record a letter from Administrator Goldin of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in which, among other things, he states ``NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654.'' The letter is as follows: [[Page H3305]] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, May 19, 1999. Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Brown: This letter is to provide NASA's views on H.R. 1654, the ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999,'' authorizing appropriations for FY 2000-2002, as ordered reported by the Committee on May 13, 1999. NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654. The authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the President's request, which is based on a balanced and affordable space and aeronautics program. H.R. 1654 would authorize a total of $13,625.6 million in FY 2000, $13,747.1 million in FY 2001 and $13,839.4 million in FY 2002. As ordered reported, total funding for FY 2000 exceeds the President's request by a net of $47.2 million; total funding for FY 2001 is below the President's request by a net of $82 million. The majority of the additional funding provided is for Life and micro gravity Sciences and Applications, Advanced Space Transportation Technology, and Academic Programs. At the same time, funding authorized in H.R. 1654 reflects significant reductions ($174.4 million in FY 2000, $211.1 million in FY 2001, and $216.6 million in FY 2002) for High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2). While the Administration recognizes that the Committee strongly supports NASA program efforts for which they have recommended augmentations, such additional spending must be evaluated against the imperative to maintain an overall balance in NASA's aeronautics and space research program and against the impacts resulting from the resulting reductions in other critical programs. Failure to fund NASA's HPCC and IT2 activities in a timely manner would be unacceptable. NASA appreciates the Committee's authorization of funding for the International Space Station (ISS) Program consistent with the President's request. That request reflects an Administration policy decision to reduce the level of risk to the ISS with a net increase of $1.4 billion over the next five years, to enhance Station budget reserves and to make NASA's Contingency Plan against potential Russian shortfalls more robust. The Committee's support for these efforts is appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this very important program. While NASA supports those portions of H.R. 1654 that are consistent with the President's request, we have serious objections to several provisions that are contrary to the President's budget. I request that you and the Committee take NASA's objections, outlined below, into consideration as this bill proceeds through Congress. triana NASA and the Administration are greatly disappointed in the Committee's adoption of an amendment (Section 130) terminating the Triana science mission. Triana is good science, was subject to a rigorous peer review process, and will provide the scientific community with valuable research data. We strongly object to the Committee's arbitrary and partisan recommendation to terminate the Triana science mission. In October 1998, after an exacting peer-review evaluation of nine competing proposals, NASA selected the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as the Principle Investigator for the Triana mission. The Conference Report accompanying the FY 1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-276) directed NASA to identify funding for the initiation of Triana as part of NASA's FY 1999 Operating Plan. NASA identified $35 million in the FY 1999 Operating Plan submitted to this and other Committees, and responded to questions thereon. NASA's FY 2000 budget requests $35 million to complete development of Triana, and launch it in December 2000 as a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle. Triana has sound science objectives and will present valuable practical applications in: solar influences on climate; solar wind and space weather; ultraviolet (UV) radiation effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation; cloud microphysical properties and the effect of solar radiation on climate models; and vegetation canopy measurements, detecting changes in the amount of vegetation- leaf structure, or fraction of covered land. NASA is also formulating an Earth Science education initiative using Triana imagery, and is planning to issue an open, competitive solicitation for educational tools and applications this fall. NASA has received inquiries from three commercial firms regarding Triana participation. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography is currently working to structure a commercialization approach. international space station research Section 101 of H.R. 1654 limits the flexibility of the ISS program to accommodate unforeseen requirements by restricting the use of ISS research funds. Should program difficulties result in further schedule delays, such a restriction could result in research equipment being developed prior to the Station's readiness to accommodate it. This could exacerbate the delay by not allowing the flexibility to shift research funds and address Station contingencies. Such restrictions could, therefore, prolong delays in research flight opportunities and further harm the research community intended to be helped. earth science commercial data acquisition Section 126 of H.R. 1654 would require that NASA spend $50 million in FY 2001 and FY 2002 for the purchase of commercial remote sensing data. NASA objects to a mandated minimum level of spending for such acquisitions, at the expense of other research opportunities in the Earth Science enterprise. There is no guarantee that such commercial data will be available for acquisition in such amounts stipulated in the bill. NASA should not be precluded from directing its resources in the most efficient and effective manner. As a matter of policy, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise will not build new missions where commercial data is available at market prices, and the Enterprise has instituted a process under which all Announcements of Opportunity include statements of data buy preferences. The Earth Science Enterprise will release, in the near future, two Requests for Information (RFI's), one for determining sources of Landsat- class observations, and a second for determining sources of tropospheric wind measurements. The Enterprise is also working toward the objective of having each scientific and application research proposal identify the source of data sets required, and including an estimate of the funding requirement for such data sets. This approach is intended to establish a direct dialog between the providers and users of data, and NASA does not have to second-guess the user requirements and unduly constrain the provider's capabilities. Finally, the NASA Inspector General recently released a report on the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and concluded ``additional congressionally directed data buy programs are not warranted.'' trans-hab Section 128 of H.R. 1654 would prevent NASA from further research on inflatable technology, such as Trans-Hab, which would accommodate humans in space. Inflatable module technology offers the potential for significant stowage volume, crew habitability and safety advantages over current approaches for building pressurized space structures using reinforced aluminum. The technology holds considerable potential for advancement of space exploration. NASA shares the Committee's concern that added cost and risk to the ISS should be avoided. NASA desires to continue to explore potential commercial partnering for the development, construction, and use for the ISS Trans-Hab module. We will not pursue the development of a Trans-Hab module for the ISS unless it can be done through a partnership with industry that results in a cost-neutral solution to the baseline cost for the aluminum Habitation module. Additional technical definition and design work is necessary before potential commercial interests can be assured of the viability of the concepts. H.R. 1654 would preclude any work on this very promising set of technologies. ultra-efficient engine technology I am very concerned that Section 103(4) eliminates the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program as a Focused Program. We understand that it is the Committee's intent to permit these activities to be conducted within the R base. We strongly urge the continuation of this effort as a Focused Program. UEET as a Focused Program gives all interested parties-- other Government agencies (e.g., DoD) and the private sector--assurances that resources have been identified to meet defined goals over a specified period of time. Fully 80% of program funding for UEET will be spent in-house, primarily for the operation of test stands and facilities, in coordination with the ongoing DoD program. The UEET Program is designed to address the most critical propulsion issues: performance and efficiency. The primary benefits of these technologies will be to improve efficiency and reduce emissions for a wide range of civil and military applications. Loss of the UEET effort could have major consequences for the future competitiveness of the U.S. aircraft engine industry and the U.S. balance of trade. Research associated with understanding the technical issues of engine emissions supports a major portion of U.S. scientific analysis that provides a basis for informed policy making and U.S. influence on international civil aviation policies. Finally, it should be noted that significant interaction and dependencies have been formed over the years in engine technology efforts between NASA's Space Programs, DoD's Acquisition Programs and DOE's Energy Programs; while the impact of the restriction in H.R. 1654 upon these interdependencies has not yet been completely assessed, there will be implications to U.S. strategic interests in these critical areas. administration proposals H.R. 1654 does not include ten important legislative proposals proposed by the Administration in the draft FY 2000 NASA authorization bill, submitted to the Congress on April 28, 1999. Many of these proposed provisions are legislative ``gap fillers''--providing NASA the same authority already provided to the Department of Defense in title 10 of the U.S. Code and to other civilian agencies in title 41 of the U.S. Code. NASA is covered by the acquisition provisions of title 10, but is frequently overlooked when amendments to that title are enacted. Section 203 of the Administration's bill [[Page H3306]] would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to withhold contract payments based on substantial evidence of fraud. Section 209 would make NASA's claim payment process consistent with procedures already required by other law and with those used by other agencies. Section 210 would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to exempt contractor proposals from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The remaining provisions contained in the Administration's bill address the need to adapt NASA's legal authorities to the world in which we now operate. The role of the commercial sector has been ever increasing. With the support of this Committee, NASA has been changing the way it does business, looking for opportunities to engage in joint endeavors with industry, and attempting to leverage the private sector investment in space and aeronautics research and development. These activities present new and different working relationships and legal hurdles. We are asking the private sector to invest not only money, but also ideas. We must be able to protect these ideas from disclosure to competitors-- foreign as well as domestic--which have not invested their time or capital. In order to attract industry partners and their investments, we must be able to grant them some form of exclusive right to use the software or other inventions arising from their joint endeavor with us before it is released to the general public. Our space program should benefit not only from the increased investment of private capital, but also from the royalties derived from such licensing authority. We must be able to attract more private investment--and thus reduce the cost to the Government--by being able to transfer title to personal property used in our joint endeavors to the partner whom we are asking to invest the capital. I urge the Committee to incorporate these provisions as the bill progresses through Congress. hpcc and it2 As reported, H.R. 1654 deletes all funding for NASA's High Performance Computing and Communication program (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) initiative, including the very important Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE) program. Although the Committee has indicated its intent to hold hearings and mark up a separate, multi-agency, ``computer research'' bill later this year, in the absence of the introduction of a companion measure that fully funds those activities, NASA's support for H.R. 1654 will continue to be qualified. Not authorizing funding requested for NASA's HPCC and IT2 would essentially remove all of the Agency's research in information technology, and severely impact NASA's remaining programs and missions. Both programs are structured to contribute to broad Federal efforts, but also to address NASA-specific computational, engineering, and science requirements spanning many programs. Not authorizing HPCC and IT2 would severely limit NASA's ability to deliver key capabilities needed to support Earth, space, and aeronautical programs, with impacts such as the following: Cut Earth and Space Sciences and directly impact NASA's ability to use advanced computing technology to further our ability to predict the dynamic interaction of physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the Earth, the solar-terrestrial environment, and the universe; Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's capability to develop low-power, fault-tolerant, high-performance, scaleable computing technology for a new generation of micro- spacecraft; Cut Aero-Space Technology and eliminate critical advances in aeronautics algorithms and applications, software, and computing machinery needed to enable more than 1000 fold increases in systems performance in the 21st century; Cut Aero-Space Technology and limit implementation of the tools and processes for a revolution in engineering practice and science integration in modeling, design, development and execution of all NASA's missions; and, Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks program to develop the critical set of technologies necessary to support potential future decisions on establishing outposts of self-tasking, self-repairing, evolvable rover networks at key sites of scientific interest throughout the solar system. We are preparing a more detailed analysis of additional concerns regarding H.R. 1654, which we believe will hamper our ability to manage our space and aeronautics research programs most effectively. I urge the Committee to consider these concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to submission of this report for the Committee's consideration. Sincerely, Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator. ____ National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, May 19, 1999. Hon. Bart Gordon, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Gordon: This letter is to provide NASA's views on H.R. 1654, the ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999,'' authorizing appropriations for FY 2000-2002, as ordered reported by the Committee on May 13, 1999. NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654. The authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the President's request, which is based on a balanced and affordable space and aeronautics program. H.R. 1654 would authorize a total of $13,625.6 million in FY 2000, $13,747.1 million in FY 2001 and $13,839.4 million in FY 2002. As ordered reported, total funding for FY 2000 exceeds the President's request by a net of $47.2 million; total funding for FY 2001 is below the President's request by a net of $5.3 million and total funding for FY 2002 exceeds the President's request by a net of $82 million. The majority of the additional funding provided is for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, Advanced Space Transportation Technology, and Academic Programs. At the same time, funding authorized in H.R. 1654 reflects significant reductions ($174.4 million in FY 2000, $211.1 million in FY 2001, and $216.6 million in FY 2002) for High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2). While the Administration recognizes that the Committee strongly supports NASA program efforts for which they have recommended augmentations, such additional spending must be evaluated against the imperative to maintain an overall balance in NASA's aeronautics and space research program and against the impacts resulting from the resulting reductions in other critical programs. Failure to fund NASA's HPCC and IT2 activities in a timely manner would be unacceptable. NASA appreciates the Committee's authorization of funding for the International Space Station (ISS) Program consistent with the President's request. That request reflects an Administration policy decision to reduce the level of risk to the ISS with a net increase of $1.4 billion over the next five years, to enhance Station budget reserves and to make NASA's Contingency Plan against potential Russian shortfalls more robust. The Committee's support for these efforts is appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this very important program. While NASA supports those portions of H.R. 1654 that are consistent with the President's request, we have serious objections to several provisions that are contrary to the President's budget. I request that you and the Committee take NASA's objections, outlined below, into consideration as this bill proceeds through Congress. TRIANA NASA and the Administration are greatly disappointed in the Committee's adoption of an amendment (Section 130) terminating the Triana science mission. Triana is good science, was subject to a rigorous peer review process, and will provide the scientific community with valuable research data. We strongly object to the Committee's arbitrary and partisan recommendation to terminate the Triana science mission. In October 1998, after an exacting peer-review evaluation of nine competing proposals, NASA selected the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as the Principle Investigator for the Triana mission. The Conference Report accompanying the FY 1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-276) directed NASA to identify funding for the initiation of Triana as part of NASA's FY 1999 Operating Plan. NASA identified $35 million in the FY 1999 Operating Plan submitted to this and other Committees, and responded to questions thereon. NASA's FY 2000 budget requests $35 million to complete development of Triana, and launch it in December 2000 as a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle. Triana has sound science objectives and will present valuable practical applications in: solar influences on climate; solar wind and space weather; ultraviolet (UV) radiation effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation; cloud microphysical properties and the effect of solar radiation on climate models; and vegetation canopy measurements, detecting changes in the amount of vegetation- leaf structure, or fraction of covered land. NASA is also formulating an Earth Science education initiative using Triana imagery, and is planning to issue an open, competitive solicitation for educational tools and applications this fall. NASA has received inquiries from three commercial firms regarding Triana participation. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography is currently working to structure a commercialization approach. international space station research Section 101 of H.R. 1654 limits the flexibility of the ISS program to accommodate unforeseen requirements by restricting the use of ISS research funds. Should program difficulties result in further schedule delays, such a restriction could result in research equipment being developed prior to the Station's readiness to accommodate it. This could exacerbate the delay by not allowing the flexibility to shift research funds and address Station contingencies. Such restriction could, therefore, prolong delays in research flight opportunities and further harm the research community intended to be helped. earth science commercial data acquisition Section 126 of H.R. 1654 would require that NASA spend $50 million in FY 2001 and FY [[Page H3307]] 2002 for the purchase of commercial remote sensing data. NASA objects to a mandated minimum level of spending for such acquisitions, at the expense of other research opportunities in the Earth Science enterprise. There is no guarantee that such commercial data will be available for acquisition in such amounts stipulated in the bill. NASA should not be precluded from directing its resources in the most efficient and effective manner. As a matter of policy, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise will not build new missions where commercial data is available at market prices, and the Enterprise has instituted a process under which all Announcements of Opportunity include statements of data buy preferences. The Earth Science Enterprise will release, in the near future, two Requests for Information (RFI's), one for determining sources of Landsat- class observations, and a second for determining sources of tropospheric wind measurements. The Enterprise is also working toward the objective of having each scientific and application research proposal identify the source of data sets required, and including an estimate of the funding requirement for such data sets. This approach is intended to establish a direct dialog between the providers and users of data, and NASA does not have to second-guess the user requirements and unduly constrain the provider's capabilities. Finally, the NASA Inspector General recently released a report on the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and concluded ``additional congressionally directed data buy programs are not warranted.'' trans-hab Section 128 of H.R. 1654 would prevent NASA from further research on inflatable technology, such as Trans-Hab, which would accommodate humans in space. Inflatable module technology offers the potential for significant stowage volume, crew habitability and safety advantages over current approaches for building pressurized space structures using reinforced aluminum. The technology holds considerable potential for advancement of space exploration. NASA shares the Committee's concern that added cost and risk to the ISS should be avoided. NASA desires to continue to explore potential commercial partnering for the development, construction, and use for the ISS Trans-Hab module. We will not pursue the development of a Trans-Hab module for the ISS unless it can be done through a partnership with industry that results in a cost-neutral solution to the baseline cost for the aluminum Habitation module. Additional technical definition and design work is necessary before potential commercial interests can be assured of the viability of the concepts. H.R. 1654 would preclude any work on this very promising set of technologies. ultra-efficient engine technology I am very concerned that Section 103(4) eliminates the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program as a Focused Program. We understand that it is the Committee's intent to permit these activities to be conducted within the R base. We strongly urge the continuation of this effort as a Focused Program. UEET as a Focused Program gives all interested parties-- other Government agencies (e.g., DoD) and the private sector--assurances that resources have been identified to meet defined goals over a specified period of time. Fully 80% of program funding for UEET will be spent in-house, primarily for the operation of test stands and facilities, in coordination with the ongoing DoD program. The UEET Program is designed to address the most critical propulsion issues: performance and efficiency. The primary benefits to these technologies will be to improve efficiency and reduce emissions for a wide range of civil and military applications. Loss of the UEET effort could have major consequences for the future competitiveness of the U.S. aircraft engine industry and the U.S. balance of trade. Research associated with understanding the technical issues of engine emissions supports a major portion of U.S. scientific analysis that provides a basis for informed policy making and U.S. influence on international civil aviation policies. Finally, it should be noted that significant interaction and dependencies have been formed over the years in engine technology efforts between NASA's Space Programs, DoD's Acquisition Programs and DOE's Energy Programs; while the impact of the restriction in H.R. 1654 upon these interdependencies has not yet been completely assessed, there will be implications to U.S. strategic interests in these critical areas. administration proposals H.R. 1654 does not include ten important legislative proposals proposed by the Administration in the draft FY 2000 NASA authorization bill, submitted to the Congress on April 28, 1999. Many of these proposed provisions are legislative ``gap fillers''--providing NASA the same authority already provided to the Department of Defense in title 10 of the U.S. Code and to other civilian agencies in title 41 of the U.S. Code. NASA is covered by the acquisition provisions of title 10, but is frequently overlooked when amendments to that title are enacted. Section 203 of the Administration's bill would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to withhold contract payments based on substantial evidence of fraud. Section 209 would make NASA's claim payment process consistent with procedures already required by other law and with those used by other agencies. Section 210 would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to exempt contractor proposals from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The remaining provisions contained in the Administration's bill address the need to adapt NASA's legal authorities to the world in which we now operate. The role of the commercial sector has been ever increasing. With the support of this Committee, NASA has been changing the way it does business, looking for opportunities to engage in joint endeavors with industry, and attempting to leverage the private sector investment in space and aeronautics research and development. These activities present new and different working relationships and legal hurdles. We are asking the private sector to invest not only money, but also ideas. We must be able to protect these ideas from disclosure to competitors-- foreign as well as domestic--which have not invested their time or capital. In order to attract industry partners and their investments, we must be able to grant them some form of exclusive right to use the software or other inventions arising from their joint endeavor with us before it is released to the general public. Our space program should benefit not only from the increased investment of private capital, but also from the royalties derived from such licensing authority. We must be able to attract more private investment--and thus reduce the cost to the Government--but being able to transfer title to personal property used in our joint endeavors to the partner whom we are asking to invest the capital. I urge the Committee to incorporate these provisions as the bill progresses through Congress. hpcc and it2 As reported, H.R. 1654 deletes all funding for NASA's High Performance Computing and Communication program (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) initiative, including the very important Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE) program. Although the Committee has indicated its intent to hold hearings and mark up a separate, multi-agency, ``computer research'' bill later this year, in the absence of the introduction of a companion measure that fully funds those activities, NASA's support for H.R. 1654 will continue to be qualified. Not authorizing funding requested for NASA's HPCC and IT2 would essentially remove all of the Agency's research in information technology, and severely impact NASA's remaining programs and missions. Both programs are structured to contribute to broad Federal efforts, but also to address NASA-specific computational, engineering, and science requirements spanning many programs. Not authorizing HPCC and IT2 would severely limit NASA's ability to deliver key capabilities needed to support Earth, space, and aeronautical programs, with impacts such as the following: Cut Earth and Space Sciences and directly impact NASA's ability to use advanced computing technology to further our ability to predict the dynamic interaction of physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the Earth, the solar-terrestrial environment, and the universe; Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's capability to develop low-power, fault-tolerant, high-performance, scaleable computing technology for a new generation of micro- spacecraft; Cut Aero-Space Technology and eliminate critical advances in aeronautics algorithms and applications, software, and computing machinery needed to enable more than 1000 fold increases in systems performance in the 21st century; Cut Aero-Space Technology and limit implementation of the tools and processes for a revolution in engineering practice and science integration in modeling, design, development and execution of all NASA's missions; and, Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks program to develop the critical set of technologies necessary to support potential future decisions on establishing outposts of self-tasking, self-repairing, evolvable rover networks at key sites of scientific interest throughout the solar system. We are preparing a more detailed analysis of additional concerns regarding H.R. 1654, which we believe will hamper our ability to manage our space and aeronautics research programs most efficiently. I urge the Committee to consider these concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to submission of this report for the Committee's consideration. Sincerely, Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act. First, I wish to commend Chairman Rohrabacher for his efforts in developing H.R. 1654. I believe that he made a serious effort to include a number of positive provisions in the bill and to work with the minority. Thus, while it was by no means a perfect bill, I thought that H.R. 1654 was a reasonably constructive piece of legislation as introduced. In fact, I was a [[Page H3308]] cosponsor of the bill as introduced, with the understanding that we would continue to work to improve its provisions. At this point I have to say that I do not think that H.R. 1654 is ready for floor consideration. I have not reached this position easily. As a supporter of NASA, I want to provide a solid, fiscally responsible foundation for the space agency's activities. I also want to make sure that we do not micromanage NASA in ways that will hurt its ability to carry out its programs effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, I think that H.R. 1654 falls short of the mark in meeting these two goals. The NASA Administrator has sent over a letter outlining a number of serious concerns with the NASA bill. Let me discuss just a few of them. First, there is the absence of any funding for NASA's information technology programs. While we have received some assurance from the chairman of the Committee on Science that authorization of these programs will be done at a later date, I remain concerned. NASA needs to be on the cutting edge of information technology R if it is to deliver missions that are both cost-effective and innovative. Second, H.R. 1654 would prohibit the Ultra Efficient Energy Technology focused program. That program is a new program that is critical to maintaining NASA's capabilities for long-term aircraft engine R It also is critical to maintaining the competitiveness of the U.S. aeronautics industry. Moreover, the UEET program will offer important benefits to military aviation by conducting important R into improved engine performance. I am afraid that H.R. 1654 attempts to micromanage NASA's aeronautics R efforts in ways that can do real damage over the long term. Third, the bill as amended at full committee would cancel the Triana scientific mission. Triana is an Earth observing spacecraft that would deliver both scientific and educational benefits. This mission was selected out of nine competing proposals, and it has undergone scientific peer review. It already was funded in last year's VA-HUD appropriations conference report. If we cancel it now, we would waste $40 million, which is more than it would cost to save it. Fourth, H.R. 1654 has a provision that would have the effect of holding NASA's Earth science research program hostage to a ``data buy'' earmark. While I support a healthy commercial remote sensing industry, the bill's provisions will do real harm to NASA's programs while doing little to help grow industry. It is a misguided and ultimately unworkable position. Fifth, the bill would prohibit NASA from spending any money on the Trans-Hab or other innovative inflatable structure technologies. While I am as careful with taxpayers' dollars as anyone, I do not believe that we should prohibit NASA from doing research to improve our space program. H.R. 1654's Trans-Hab prohibition would keep NASA from getting the data Congress will need if we are to make informed decisions on these innovative technologies. Mr. Chairman, I raise these issues not to diminish the efforts of Chairman Rohrabacher in drafting this bill. I simply believe the bill we have before us today is not ready for prime time. I think that the bill needs more work. I intend to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1654 on final passage, and I would urge my colleagues to also oppose the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. 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. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for allotting me this time. Mr. Chairman, today the House is considering H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 1999, which I am pleased to sponsor. I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member, for his spirit of cooperation during the process. I am saddened, however, that he is unable to cosponsor the bill and vote for it at this time, but I do understand that there are some areas of disagreement and perhaps some areas that he feels that was not dealt with in the way that he would prefer for it to be dealt with, and I am sorry for that. But I do think that we do have a spirit of cooperation among the members of the subcommittee, and I am trying my best to maintain that spirit as well as the spirit of cooperation among the staffs on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the work that they put in to trying to put this bill together, although the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) cannot support it at this time. It contains one or two controversial provisions, surely. This bill, however, is overwhelmingly bipartisan. At least it was my intent to make it bipartisan. It includes several provisions and modifications that actually came from the Democratic side. Furthermore, I plan to offer a manager's amendment which will make a few additional refinements, including one that specifically addresses the concerns of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) who has put a tremendous amount of effort into a project that is very meaningful to his district. This is not a perfect bill, and I admit that. We have asked for an open rule because we want the House to work its will on this legislation. To the degree that we have an open rule and to the degree there are disagreements, I would hope that the open rule would provide us a way of coming to grips with some of the disagreements that are still in place. If any government agency belongs to the American people, surely it is NASA. I am committed to NASA's programs and policies, to make sure that they are reflecting the priorities of the people in the United States as reflected here in the House of Representatives, the people's House. Even so, I believe this piece of legislation is a solid piece of legislation because it sends three messages which are supported by the overwhelming majority of the Committee on Science and I believe the House itself. First, we tell the President and the appropriators that America's civil space agency should be rewarded for the sacrifices and reforms that it has made over the past several years by providing it a steady increase of 1 percent a year, if you take into account the information technology program that we are authorizing separately. Secondly, H.R. 1654 sets realistic overall funding levels and real priorities to guide appropriators. We focus additional resources on areas that our hearing record shows are underfunded and which have bipartisan support, including life and microgravity research, advanced space transportation technology, space science, and education. Third, H.R. 1654 pushes NASA to stay on the road to reform, especially on space privatization and commercialization. We do not want to destabilize the International Space Station or set up programs just to keep people busy. This bill does not micromanage NASA, but it does set clear goals and guides NASA towards them. Mr. Chairman, in closing let me just say that the other body has already marked up a NASA authorization bill and it should be reported to the floor for consideration soon. So after we complete our business today, I hope we can aggressively move forward to negotiate compromises with the Senate and, for the first time since 1992, enact a NASA authorization into law this year. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a leader in education in this body. {time} 1100 Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an exciting opportunity I think that this NASA authorization bill provides our Nation's schools to promote math and science education. However, first I would like to say how disappointed I am that this bill has fallen victim I think to some partisan wrangling because it really did start out as a bipartisan bill. It is my hope that, as we go forward to an eventual conference that will take place with the other body, which will pass a bipartisan bill out of their committee, hopefully, very soon, that we can once again act in a bipartisan way and send a bill to the President that he will sign. [[Page H3309]] With the exception of the conflict over Triana and some other issues, the committee I think has put together a pretty decent bill. I appreciate the majority's willingness to work with me on my concerns in the area of education and to accept the amendments in those areas that I offered in committee, and I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their help. I will vote for H.R. 1654, with the hope and faith that a bipartisan conference report can be brought back before this body before this year is out. I am proud to discuss an important education initiative contained in this legislation. This bill directs NASA to develop an educational initiative for our Nation's schools in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the first powered flight, which will take place on December 17, 2003. On that date in 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright took their dream of powered flight from the drawing board of their Ohio bicycle shop to the Crystal Coast of North Carolina. It was there at a place called Kitty Hawk that the Wright brothers' dream took flight. On that day, our world was changed forever. The anniversary of this historic accomplishment provides an excellent opportunity for our Nation's schools to promote the importance of math and science education. And as a North Carolinian and a former educator, I am proud to bring recognition to the Wright brothers and their fantastic accomplishment. As a former North Carolina superintendent of schools, I worked for many years to help improve math and science education in our State. America's future will be determined by the ability of our citizens to adapt to the changes in technology that would dominate life in the 21st century. Recent studies show, unfortunately, that America's students are falling behind their counterparts around the world in the areas of math and science. 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 these important areas. It is no longer good enough for our children to simply be able to read, write, add, and subtract. If today's students are going to succeed in tomorrow's jobs, a firm foundation in math and science is required and it is an imperative. The Committee on Science has taken a leading role in starting a national dialogue on math and science education. One of the most difficult challenges we face has been to interest students in participating in the most challenging math and science courses. That is not unique. It happens in every State. Such a lack of interest could spell doom down the road as fewer students enter the teaching profession in these important areas. And even fewer are prepared for the jobs of the 21st century. The 100th anniversary of Flight Educational Initiative is intended to use the history of flight, the benefit of flight on society, and the math and science principles used in flight to generate interest among students in math and science education. As a young boy, like most Americans, the space program captured my imagination. Unfortunately, today video games and other distractions are more likely to occupy the time of our young people than the space program. However, the 100th anniversary of flight and NASA's plans to send a plane to Mars to coincide with that date provides an excellent springboard to recapture our young people's interest in the space program and in math and science education. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for bringing this bill, authorizing our Nation's space program, to the floor on the same day that the new Star Wars trilogy has opened in our Nation's theaters. Just as the Star Wars movie has captured the imagination of a generation of Americans, NASA and the 100th anniversary of Flight Educational Initiative will help our students sore in math and science education. 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. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am very pleased to rise to speak in favor of the bill as presented to the House. The Committee on Science has done a very careful job of analyzing the needs of the NASA program and has come up with a workable allocation of funds. There are two areas in particular I want to mention. One relates to the work that I put into the science policy study (Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New Science Policy; published by GPO) last year under the auspices of the Science Committee and which has been adopted by the committee and by the House of Representatives. In that study, we emphasized the importance of basic research to the future of this Nation. And I am pleased to say that NASA continues, under this bill, to maintain a strong basic research program. There has been some criticism that the Space Station has decimated the basic research program at NASA. That is not true. They are continuing with their basic research efforts and they continue to make important discoveries both in space and on this planet. One of the important parts of this issue, of course, is to make sure that the results of basic research are available to the public, to companies who may make use of it and, that this may benefit the general public in many ways. The second point I want to make is that I believe NASA has done an excellent job of adding to the education of our students in this Nation regarding math and science. That is an area of great need. We must improve our math and science programs in elementary and secondary schools. It has to be done in a coordinated, thoughtful, careful way as we work toward that goal. But in the meantime NASA, through its supplementary programs, has aided greatly in the education of students of this Nation. In particular, they have developed experiments that students can do at home or in their schoolroom by accessing NASA data on the Internet and using the results of NASA's satellite research, or data from their Mars Rover, to use in their experiments. This has provided a meaningful, lifetime experience for kids in the elementary and secondary schools. They learn from the Internet what has happened, and they can then use this directly to come to the same scientific conclusion that the NASA scientists operating the experiment have reached. I rise today in support of H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act. I believe it is a good bill that will continue to support NASA in its science and exploration endeavors while maintaining balance and cost- effectiveness within its priorities. This morning, I would specifically like to address the opportunity provided through this bill to continue NASA's strong and vital emphasis on education initiatives. As we have discussed earlier this year, our Nation is at a critical juncture in its efforts to provide our children with the quality education that they will require to succeed in the technology-driven economy and culture of tomorrow. To do this, we must find innovative ways to excite and encourage young students about the possibilities open to them through an understanding of mathematics and the sciences. I am not talking strictly about career opportunities, but as consumers, parents and citizens. NASA has clearly demonstrated their dedication to this responsibility through the multitude of individual programs which they offer to students from grade school to grad school and, importantly, to their teachers. In FY 1998 alone, NASA reached over two million students and over a hundred thousand teachers. Of those, all but a fraction of these students and teachers were at the K-12 level. It is at this level that it is so critical to engage our young people, and it is also at this point that our education system is in need of the most assistance. NASA is offering their help, and they are doing so through the use of inquiry-based methods and real-life applications. I would also like to highlight that, in developing their educational programs, NASA has shown insight into the complexity of their subject material and the need to balance it with state and regional agendas. To best serve its ``customers'', NASA collaborators with external organizations such as the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education, discipline-specific professional associations, [[Page H3310]] and State education coalitions to develop materials for local use ``when and where appropriate''. As another indication of their commitment to providing relevant and useful information, NASA solicits evaluations of their programs from its users, the teachers in the classroom. In closing, it is my hope that other Federal agencies would follow the example set by NASA in its education goals. As Dan Goldin, the NASA administrator, testified at a recent Science Committee hearing on this issue, ``It is our education system that will prepare our future workforce to design and use [the tools for our future]''. By supporting this bill, you will enable the continued development and support of these crucial programs. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend from Tennessee for yielding me time to speak this morning. NASA's mission is one of exploration, discovery, and innovation. The innovation of new technology and the continued understanding of our planet and solar system has led to many advances in science that have benefitted our country and our economy. When we fund NASA activities, we fund our future. We fund the development of new technologies, and we push our educational limits. Because of this, NASA and their continued innovation has made us the world leader in space exploration. I stand today, though, reluctantly in support of H.R. 1654 because I do have some serious concerns with some of the provisions and possible amendments to the bill. First, I applaud the Committee on Science for crafting a bill that does look to increase funding for NASA. However, I am very disappointed that they removed any funding for the continued development study of the Trans-Hab program from the Johnson Space Center. The Trans-Hab is a proposed replacement for the International Space Station habitation module and uses new inflatable structural technology to house a larger living and work space in the limited payload of the Space Shuttle. As drafted, this bill would hinder the development and eliminate the option of this new technology which would give our astronauts more space to work and to live. One of NASA's greatest assets

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
(House of Representatives - May 19, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H3304-H3352] {time} 1045 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reynolds). Pursuant to House Resolution 174 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1654. The Chair designates the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) to assume the chair temporarily. {time} 1045 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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, with Mr. Collins (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). 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, 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. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to include for the Record a letter from Administrator Goldin of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in which, among other things, he states ``NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654.'' The letter is as follows: [[Page H3305]] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, May 19, 1999. Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Brown: This letter is to provide NASA's views on H.R. 1654, the ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999,'' authorizing appropriations for FY 2000-2002, as ordered reported by the Committee on May 13, 1999. NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654. The authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the President's request, which is based on a balanced and affordable space and aeronautics program. H.R. 1654 would authorize a total of $13,625.6 million in FY 2000, $13,747.1 million in FY 2001 and $13,839.4 million in FY 2002. As ordered reported, total funding for FY 2000 exceeds the President's request by a net of $47.2 million; total funding for FY 2001 is below the President's request by a net of $82 million. The majority of the additional funding provided is for Life and micro gravity Sciences and Applications, Advanced Space Transportation Technology, and Academic Programs. At the same time, funding authorized in H.R. 1654 reflects significant reductions ($174.4 million in FY 2000, $211.1 million in FY 2001, and $216.6 million in FY 2002) for High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2). While the Administration recognizes that the Committee strongly supports NASA program efforts for which they have recommended augmentations, such additional spending must be evaluated against the imperative to maintain an overall balance in NASA's aeronautics and space research program and against the impacts resulting from the resulting reductions in other critical programs. Failure to fund NASA's HPCC and IT2 activities in a timely manner would be unacceptable. NASA appreciates the Committee's authorization of funding for the International Space Station (ISS) Program consistent with the President's request. That request reflects an Administration policy decision to reduce the level of risk to the ISS with a net increase of $1.4 billion over the next five years, to enhance Station budget reserves and to make NASA's Contingency Plan against potential Russian shortfalls more robust. The Committee's support for these efforts is appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this very important program. While NASA supports those portions of H.R. 1654 that are consistent with the President's request, we have serious objections to several provisions that are contrary to the President's budget. I request that you and the Committee take NASA's objections, outlined below, into consideration as this bill proceeds through Congress. triana NASA and the Administration are greatly disappointed in the Committee's adoption of an amendment (Section 130) terminating the Triana science mission. Triana is good science, was subject to a rigorous peer review process, and will provide the scientific community with valuable research data. We strongly object to the Committee's arbitrary and partisan recommendation to terminate the Triana science mission. In October 1998, after an exacting peer-review evaluation of nine competing proposals, NASA selected the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as the Principle Investigator for the Triana mission. The Conference Report accompanying the FY 1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-276) directed NASA to identify funding for the initiation of Triana as part of NASA's FY 1999 Operating Plan. NASA identified $35 million in the FY 1999 Operating Plan submitted to this and other Committees, and responded to questions thereon. NASA's FY 2000 budget requests $35 million to complete development of Triana, and launch it in December 2000 as a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle. Triana has sound science objectives and will present valuable practical applications in: solar influences on climate; solar wind and space weather; ultraviolet (UV) radiation effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation; cloud microphysical properties and the effect of solar radiation on climate models; and vegetation canopy measurements, detecting changes in the amount of vegetation- leaf structure, or fraction of covered land. NASA is also formulating an Earth Science education initiative using Triana imagery, and is planning to issue an open, competitive solicitation for educational tools and applications this fall. NASA has received inquiries from three commercial firms regarding Triana participation. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography is currently working to structure a commercialization approach. international space station research Section 101 of H.R. 1654 limits the flexibility of the ISS program to accommodate unforeseen requirements by restricting the use of ISS research funds. Should program difficulties result in further schedule delays, such a restriction could result in research equipment being developed prior to the Station's readiness to accommodate it. This could exacerbate the delay by not allowing the flexibility to shift research funds and address Station contingencies. Such restrictions could, therefore, prolong delays in research flight opportunities and further harm the research community intended to be helped. earth science commercial data acquisition Section 126 of H.R. 1654 would require that NASA spend $50 million in FY 2001 and FY 2002 for the purchase of commercial remote sensing data. NASA objects to a mandated minimum level of spending for such acquisitions, at the expense of other research opportunities in the Earth Science enterprise. There is no guarantee that such commercial data will be available for acquisition in such amounts stipulated in the bill. NASA should not be precluded from directing its resources in the most efficient and effective manner. As a matter of policy, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise will not build new missions where commercial data is available at market prices, and the Enterprise has instituted a process under which all Announcements of Opportunity include statements of data buy preferences. The Earth Science Enterprise will release, in the near future, two Requests for Information (RFI's), one for determining sources of Landsat- class observations, and a second for determining sources of tropospheric wind measurements. The Enterprise is also working toward the objective of having each scientific and application research proposal identify the source of data sets required, and including an estimate of the funding requirement for such data sets. This approach is intended to establish a direct dialog between the providers and users of data, and NASA does not have to second-guess the user requirements and unduly constrain the provider's capabilities. Finally, the NASA Inspector General recently released a report on the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and concluded ``additional congressionally directed data buy programs are not warranted.'' trans-hab Section 128 of H.R. 1654 would prevent NASA from further research on inflatable technology, such as Trans-Hab, which would accommodate humans in space. Inflatable module technology offers the potential for significant stowage volume, crew habitability and safety advantages over current approaches for building pressurized space structures using reinforced aluminum. The technology holds considerable potential for advancement of space exploration. NASA shares the Committee's concern that added cost and risk to the ISS should be avoided. NASA desires to continue to explore potential commercial partnering for the development, construction, and use for the ISS Trans-Hab module. We will not pursue the development of a Trans-Hab module for the ISS unless it can be done through a partnership with industry that results in a cost-neutral solution to the baseline cost for the aluminum Habitation module. Additional technical definition and design work is necessary before potential commercial interests can be assured of the viability of the concepts. H.R. 1654 would preclude any work on this very promising set of technologies. ultra-efficient engine technology I am very concerned that Section 103(4) eliminates the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program as a Focused Program. We understand that it is the Committee's intent to permit these activities to be conducted within the R base. We strongly urge the continuation of this effort as a Focused Program. UEET as a Focused Program gives all interested parties-- other Government agencies (e.g., DoD) and the private sector--assurances that resources have been identified to meet defined goals over a specified period of time. Fully 80% of program funding for UEET will be spent in-house, primarily for the operation of test stands and facilities, in coordination with the ongoing DoD program. The UEET Program is designed to address the most critical propulsion issues: performance and efficiency. The primary benefits of these technologies will be to improve efficiency and reduce emissions for a wide range of civil and military applications. Loss of the UEET effort could have major consequences for the future competitiveness of the U.S. aircraft engine industry and the U.S. balance of trade. Research associated with understanding the technical issues of engine emissions supports a major portion of U.S. scientific analysis that provides a basis for informed policy making and U.S. influence on international civil aviation policies. Finally, it should be noted that significant interaction and dependencies have been formed over the years in engine technology efforts between NASA's Space Programs, DoD's Acquisition Programs and DOE's Energy Programs; while the impact of the restriction in H.R. 1654 upon these interdependencies has not yet been completely assessed, there will be implications to U.S. strategic interests in these critical areas. administration proposals H.R. 1654 does not include ten important legislative proposals proposed by the Administration in the draft FY 2000 NASA authorization bill, submitted to the Congress on April 28, 1999. Many of these proposed provisions are legislative ``gap fillers''--providing NASA the same authority already provided to the Department of Defense in title 10 of the U.S. Code and to other civilian agencies in title 41 of the U.S. Code. NASA is covered by the acquisition provisions of title 10, but is frequently overlooked when amendments to that title are enacted. Section 203 of the Administration's bill [[Page H3306]] would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to withhold contract payments based on substantial evidence of fraud. Section 209 would make NASA's claim payment process consistent with procedures already required by other law and with those used by other agencies. Section 210 would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to exempt contractor proposals from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The remaining provisions contained in the Administration's bill address the need to adapt NASA's legal authorities to the world in which we now operate. The role of the commercial sector has been ever increasing. With the support of this Committee, NASA has been changing the way it does business, looking for opportunities to engage in joint endeavors with industry, and attempting to leverage the private sector investment in space and aeronautics research and development. These activities present new and different working relationships and legal hurdles. We are asking the private sector to invest not only money, but also ideas. We must be able to protect these ideas from disclosure to competitors-- foreign as well as domestic--which have not invested their time or capital. In order to attract industry partners and their investments, we must be able to grant them some form of exclusive right to use the software or other inventions arising from their joint endeavor with us before it is released to the general public. Our space program should benefit not only from the increased investment of private capital, but also from the royalties derived from such licensing authority. We must be able to attract more private investment--and thus reduce the cost to the Government--by being able to transfer title to personal property used in our joint endeavors to the partner whom we are asking to invest the capital. I urge the Committee to incorporate these provisions as the bill progresses through Congress. hpcc and it2 As reported, H.R. 1654 deletes all funding for NASA's High Performance Computing and Communication program (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) initiative, including the very important Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE) program. Although the Committee has indicated its intent to hold hearings and mark up a separate, multi-agency, ``computer research'' bill later this year, in the absence of the introduction of a companion measure that fully funds those activities, NASA's support for H.R. 1654 will continue to be qualified. Not authorizing funding requested for NASA's HPCC and IT2 would essentially remove all of the Agency's research in information technology, and severely impact NASA's remaining programs and missions. Both programs are structured to contribute to broad Federal efforts, but also to address NASA-specific computational, engineering, and science requirements spanning many programs. Not authorizing HPCC and IT2 would severely limit NASA's ability to deliver key capabilities needed to support Earth, space, and aeronautical programs, with impacts such as the following: Cut Earth and Space Sciences and directly impact NASA's ability to use advanced computing technology to further our ability to predict the dynamic interaction of physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the Earth, the solar-terrestrial environment, and the universe; Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's capability to develop low-power, fault-tolerant, high-performance, scaleable computing technology for a new generation of micro- spacecraft; Cut Aero-Space Technology and eliminate critical advances in aeronautics algorithms and applications, software, and computing machinery needed to enable more than 1000 fold increases in systems performance in the 21st century; Cut Aero-Space Technology and limit implementation of the tools and processes for a revolution in engineering practice and science integration in modeling, design, development and execution of all NASA's missions; and, Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks program to develop the critical set of technologies necessary to support potential future decisions on establishing outposts of self-tasking, self-repairing, evolvable rover networks at key sites of scientific interest throughout the solar system. We are preparing a more detailed analysis of additional concerns regarding H.R. 1654, which we believe will hamper our ability to manage our space and aeronautics research programs most effectively. I urge the Committee to consider these concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to submission of this report for the Committee's consideration. Sincerely, Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator. ____ National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, May 19, 1999. Hon. Bart Gordon, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Gordon: This letter is to provide NASA's views on H.R. 1654, the ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999,'' authorizing appropriations for FY 2000-2002, as ordered reported by the Committee on May 13, 1999. NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654. The authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the President's request, which is based on a balanced and affordable space and aeronautics program. H.R. 1654 would authorize a total of $13,625.6 million in FY 2000, $13,747.1 million in FY 2001 and $13,839.4 million in FY 2002. As ordered reported, total funding for FY 2000 exceeds the President's request by a net of $47.2 million; total funding for FY 2001 is below the President's request by a net of $5.3 million and total funding for FY 2002 exceeds the President's request by a net of $82 million. The majority of the additional funding provided is for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, Advanced Space Transportation Technology, and Academic Programs. At the same time, funding authorized in H.R. 1654 reflects significant reductions ($174.4 million in FY 2000, $211.1 million in FY 2001, and $216.6 million in FY 2002) for High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2). While the Administration recognizes that the Committee strongly supports NASA program efforts for which they have recommended augmentations, such additional spending must be evaluated against the imperative to maintain an overall balance in NASA's aeronautics and space research program and against the impacts resulting from the resulting reductions in other critical programs. Failure to fund NASA's HPCC and IT2 activities in a timely manner would be unacceptable. NASA appreciates the Committee's authorization of funding for the International Space Station (ISS) Program consistent with the President's request. That request reflects an Administration policy decision to reduce the level of risk to the ISS with a net increase of $1.4 billion over the next five years, to enhance Station budget reserves and to make NASA's Contingency Plan against potential Russian shortfalls more robust. The Committee's support for these efforts is appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work together on this very important program. While NASA supports those portions of H.R. 1654 that are consistent with the President's request, we have serious objections to several provisions that are contrary to the President's budget. I request that you and the Committee take NASA's objections, outlined below, into consideration as this bill proceeds through Congress. TRIANA NASA and the Administration are greatly disappointed in the Committee's adoption of an amendment (Section 130) terminating the Triana science mission. Triana is good science, was subject to a rigorous peer review process, and will provide the scientific community with valuable research data. We strongly object to the Committee's arbitrary and partisan recommendation to terminate the Triana science mission. In October 1998, after an exacting peer-review evaluation of nine competing proposals, NASA selected the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as the Principle Investigator for the Triana mission. The Conference Report accompanying the FY 1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-276) directed NASA to identify funding for the initiation of Triana as part of NASA's FY 1999 Operating Plan. NASA identified $35 million in the FY 1999 Operating Plan submitted to this and other Committees, and responded to questions thereon. NASA's FY 2000 budget requests $35 million to complete development of Triana, and launch it in December 2000 as a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle. Triana has sound science objectives and will present valuable practical applications in: solar influences on climate; solar wind and space weather; ultraviolet (UV) radiation effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation; cloud microphysical properties and the effect of solar radiation on climate models; and vegetation canopy measurements, detecting changes in the amount of vegetation- leaf structure, or fraction of covered land. NASA is also formulating an Earth Science education initiative using Triana imagery, and is planning to issue an open, competitive solicitation for educational tools and applications this fall. NASA has received inquiries from three commercial firms regarding Triana participation. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography is currently working to structure a commercialization approach. international space station research Section 101 of H.R. 1654 limits the flexibility of the ISS program to accommodate unforeseen requirements by restricting the use of ISS research funds. Should program difficulties result in further schedule delays, such a restriction could result in research equipment being developed prior to the Station's readiness to accommodate it. This could exacerbate the delay by not allowing the flexibility to shift research funds and address Station contingencies. Such restriction could, therefore, prolong delays in research flight opportunities and further harm the research community intended to be helped. earth science commercial data acquisition Section 126 of H.R. 1654 would require that NASA spend $50 million in FY 2001 and FY [[Page H3307]] 2002 for the purchase of commercial remote sensing data. NASA objects to a mandated minimum level of spending for such acquisitions, at the expense of other research opportunities in the Earth Science enterprise. There is no guarantee that such commercial data will be available for acquisition in such amounts stipulated in the bill. NASA should not be precluded from directing its resources in the most efficient and effective manner. As a matter of policy, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise will not build new missions where commercial data is available at market prices, and the Enterprise has instituted a process under which all Announcements of Opportunity include statements of data buy preferences. The Earth Science Enterprise will release, in the near future, two Requests for Information (RFI's), one for determining sources of Landsat- class observations, and a second for determining sources of tropospheric wind measurements. The Enterprise is also working toward the objective of having each scientific and application research proposal identify the source of data sets required, and including an estimate of the funding requirement for such data sets. This approach is intended to establish a direct dialog between the providers and users of data, and NASA does not have to second-guess the user requirements and unduly constrain the provider's capabilities. Finally, the NASA Inspector General recently released a report on the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and concluded ``additional congressionally directed data buy programs are not warranted.'' trans-hab Section 128 of H.R. 1654 would prevent NASA from further research on inflatable technology, such as Trans-Hab, which would accommodate humans in space. Inflatable module technology offers the potential for significant stowage volume, crew habitability and safety advantages over current approaches for building pressurized space structures using reinforced aluminum. The technology holds considerable potential for advancement of space exploration. NASA shares the Committee's concern that added cost and risk to the ISS should be avoided. NASA desires to continue to explore potential commercial partnering for the development, construction, and use for the ISS Trans-Hab module. We will not pursue the development of a Trans-Hab module for the ISS unless it can be done through a partnership with industry that results in a cost-neutral solution to the baseline cost for the aluminum Habitation module. Additional technical definition and design work is necessary before potential commercial interests can be assured of the viability of the concepts. H.R. 1654 would preclude any work on this very promising set of technologies. ultra-efficient engine technology I am very concerned that Section 103(4) eliminates the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program as a Focused Program. We understand that it is the Committee's intent to permit these activities to be conducted within the R base. We strongly urge the continuation of this effort as a Focused Program. UEET as a Focused Program gives all interested parties-- other Government agencies (e.g., DoD) and the private sector--assurances that resources have been identified to meet defined goals over a specified period of time. Fully 80% of program funding for UEET will be spent in-house, primarily for the operation of test stands and facilities, in coordination with the ongoing DoD program. The UEET Program is designed to address the most critical propulsion issues: performance and efficiency. The primary benefits to these technologies will be to improve efficiency and reduce emissions for a wide range of civil and military applications. Loss of the UEET effort could have major consequences for the future competitiveness of the U.S. aircraft engine industry and the U.S. balance of trade. Research associated with understanding the technical issues of engine emissions supports a major portion of U.S. scientific analysis that provides a basis for informed policy making and U.S. influence on international civil aviation policies. Finally, it should be noted that significant interaction and dependencies have been formed over the years in engine technology efforts between NASA's Space Programs, DoD's Acquisition Programs and DOE's Energy Programs; while the impact of the restriction in H.R. 1654 upon these interdependencies has not yet been completely assessed, there will be implications to U.S. strategic interests in these critical areas. administration proposals H.R. 1654 does not include ten important legislative proposals proposed by the Administration in the draft FY 2000 NASA authorization bill, submitted to the Congress on April 28, 1999. Many of these proposed provisions are legislative ``gap fillers''--providing NASA the same authority already provided to the Department of Defense in title 10 of the U.S. Code and to other civilian agencies in title 41 of the U.S. Code. NASA is covered by the acquisition provisions of title 10, but is frequently overlooked when amendments to that title are enacted. Section 203 of the Administration's bill would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to withhold contract payments based on substantial evidence of fraud. Section 209 would make NASA's claim payment process consistent with procedures already required by other law and with those used by other agencies. Section 210 would provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to exempt contractor proposals from release under the Freedom of Information Act. The remaining provisions contained in the Administration's bill address the need to adapt NASA's legal authorities to the world in which we now operate. The role of the commercial sector has been ever increasing. With the support of this Committee, NASA has been changing the way it does business, looking for opportunities to engage in joint endeavors with industry, and attempting to leverage the private sector investment in space and aeronautics research and development. These activities present new and different working relationships and legal hurdles. We are asking the private sector to invest not only money, but also ideas. We must be able to protect these ideas from disclosure to competitors-- foreign as well as domestic--which have not invested their time or capital. In order to attract industry partners and their investments, we must be able to grant them some form of exclusive right to use the software or other inventions arising from their joint endeavor with us before it is released to the general public. Our space program should benefit not only from the increased investment of private capital, but also from the royalties derived from such licensing authority. We must be able to attract more private investment--and thus reduce the cost to the Government--but being able to transfer title to personal property used in our joint endeavors to the partner whom we are asking to invest the capital. I urge the Committee to incorporate these provisions as the bill progresses through Congress. hpcc and it2 As reported, H.R. 1654 deletes all funding for NASA's High Performance Computing and Communication program (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) initiative, including the very important Intelligent Synthesis Environment (ISE) program. Although the Committee has indicated its intent to hold hearings and mark up a separate, multi-agency, ``computer research'' bill later this year, in the absence of the introduction of a companion measure that fully funds those activities, NASA's support for H.R. 1654 will continue to be qualified. Not authorizing funding requested for NASA's HPCC and IT2 would essentially remove all of the Agency's research in information technology, and severely impact NASA's remaining programs and missions. Both programs are structured to contribute to broad Federal efforts, but also to address NASA-specific computational, engineering, and science requirements spanning many programs. Not authorizing HPCC and IT2 would severely limit NASA's ability to deliver key capabilities needed to support Earth, space, and aeronautical programs, with impacts such as the following: Cut Earth and Space Sciences and directly impact NASA's ability to use advanced computing technology to further our ability to predict the dynamic interaction of physical, chemical and biological processes affecting the Earth, the solar-terrestrial environment, and the universe; Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's capability to develop low-power, fault-tolerant, high-performance, scaleable computing technology for a new generation of micro- spacecraft; Cut Aero-Space Technology and eliminate critical advances in aeronautics algorithms and applications, software, and computing machinery needed to enable more than 1000 fold increases in systems performance in the 21st century; Cut Aero-Space Technology and limit implementation of the tools and processes for a revolution in engineering practice and science integration in modeling, design, development and execution of all NASA's missions; and, Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks program to develop the critical set of technologies necessary to support potential future decisions on establishing outposts of self-tasking, self-repairing, evolvable rover networks at key sites of scientific interest throughout the solar system. We are preparing a more detailed analysis of additional concerns regarding H.R. 1654, which we believe will hamper our ability to manage our space and aeronautics research programs most efficiently. I urge the Committee to consider these concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative process. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to submission of this report for the Committee's consideration. Sincerely, Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act. First, I wish to commend Chairman Rohrabacher for his efforts in developing H.R. 1654. I believe that he made a serious effort to include a number of positive provisions in the bill and to work with the minority. Thus, while it was by no means a perfect bill, I thought that H.R. 1654 was a reasonably constructive piece of legislation as introduced. In fact, I was a [[Page H3308]] cosponsor of the bill as introduced, with the understanding that we would continue to work to improve its provisions. At this point I have to say that I do not think that H.R. 1654 is ready for floor consideration. I have not reached this position easily. As a supporter of NASA, I want to provide a solid, fiscally responsible foundation for the space agency's activities. I also want to make sure that we do not micromanage NASA in ways that will hurt its ability to carry out its programs effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, I think that H.R. 1654 falls short of the mark in meeting these two goals. The NASA Administrator has sent over a letter outlining a number of serious concerns with the NASA bill. Let me discuss just a few of them. First, there is the absence of any funding for NASA's information technology programs. While we have received some assurance from the chairman of the Committee on Science that authorization of these programs will be done at a later date, I remain concerned. NASA needs to be on the cutting edge of information technology R if it is to deliver missions that are both cost-effective and innovative. Second, H.R. 1654 would prohibit the Ultra Efficient Energy Technology focused program. That program is a new program that is critical to maintaining NASA's capabilities for long-term aircraft engine R It also is critical to maintaining the competitiveness of the U.S. aeronautics industry. Moreover, the UEET program will offer important benefits to military aviation by conducting important R into improved engine performance. I am afraid that H.R. 1654 attempts to micromanage NASA's aeronautics R efforts in ways that can do real damage over the long term. Third, the bill as amended at full committee would cancel the Triana scientific mission. Triana is an Earth observing spacecraft that would deliver both scientific and educational benefits. This mission was selected out of nine competing proposals, and it has undergone scientific peer review. It already was funded in last year's VA-HUD appropriations conference report. If we cancel it now, we would waste $40 million, which is more than it would cost to save it. Fourth, H.R. 1654 has a provision that would have the effect of holding NASA's Earth science research program hostage to a ``data buy'' earmark. While I support a healthy commercial remote sensing industry, the bill's provisions will do real harm to NASA's programs while doing little to help grow industry. It is a misguided and ultimately unworkable position. Fifth, the bill would prohibit NASA from spending any money on the Trans-Hab or other innovative inflatable structure technologies. While I am as careful with taxpayers' dollars as anyone, I do not believe that we should prohibit NASA from doing research to improve our space program. H.R. 1654's Trans-Hab prohibition would keep NASA from getting the data Congress will need if we are to make informed decisions on these innovative technologies. Mr. Chairman, I raise these issues not to diminish the efforts of Chairman Rohrabacher in drafting this bill. I simply believe the bill we have before us today is not ready for prime time. I think that the bill needs more work. I intend to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1654 on final passage, and I would urge my colleagues to also oppose the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. 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. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for allotting me this time. Mr. Chairman, today the House is considering H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 1999, which I am pleased to sponsor. I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member, for his spirit of cooperation during the process. I am saddened, however, that he is unable to cosponsor the bill and vote for it at this time, but I do understand that there are some areas of disagreement and perhaps some areas that he feels that was not dealt with in the way that he would prefer for it to be dealt with, and I am sorry for that. But I do think that we do have a spirit of cooperation among the members of the subcommittee, and I am trying my best to maintain that spirit as well as the spirit of cooperation among the staffs on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the work that they put in to trying to put this bill together, although the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) cannot support it at this time. It contains one or two controversial provisions, surely. This bill, however, is overwhelmingly bipartisan. At least it was my intent to make it bipartisan. It includes several provisions and modifications that actually came from the Democratic side. Furthermore, I plan to offer a manager's amendment which will make a few additional refinements, including one that specifically addresses the concerns of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) who has put a tremendous amount of effort into a project that is very meaningful to his district. This is not a perfect bill, and I admit that. We have asked for an open rule because we want the House to work its will on this legislation. To the degree that we have an open rule and to the degree there are disagreements, I would hope that the open rule would provide us a way of coming to grips with some of the disagreements that are still in place. If any government agency belongs to the American people, surely it is NASA. I am committed to NASA's programs and policies, to make sure that they are reflecting the priorities of the people in the United States as reflected here in the House of Representatives, the people's House. Even so, I believe this piece of legislation is a solid piece of legislation because it sends three messages which are supported by the overwhelming majority of the Committee on Science and I believe the House itself. First, we tell the President and the appropriators that America's civil space agency should be rewarded for the sacrifices and reforms that it has made over the past several years by providing it a steady increase of 1 percent a year, if you take into account the information technology program that we are authorizing separately. Secondly, H.R. 1654 sets realistic overall funding levels and real priorities to guide appropriators. We focus additional resources on areas that our hearing record shows are underfunded and which have bipartisan support, including life and microgravity research, advanced space transportation technology, space science, and education. Third, H.R. 1654 pushes NASA to stay on the road to reform, especially on space privatization and commercialization. We do not want to destabilize the International Space Station or set up programs just to keep people busy. This bill does not micromanage NASA, but it does set clear goals and guides NASA towards them. Mr. Chairman, in closing let me just say that the other body has already marked up a NASA authorization bill and it should be reported to the floor for consideration soon. So after we complete our business today, I hope we can aggressively move forward to negotiate compromises with the Senate and, for the first time since 1992, enact a NASA authorization into law this year. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a leader in education in this body. {time} 1100 Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an exciting opportunity I think that this NASA authorization bill provides our Nation's schools to promote math and science education. However, first I would like to say how disappointed I am that this bill has fallen victim I think to some partisan wrangling because it really did start out as a bipartisan bill. It is my hope that, as we go forward to an eventual conference that will take place with the other body, which will pass a bipartisan bill out of their committee, hopefully, very soon, that we can once again act in a bipartisan way and send a bill to the President that he will sign. [[Page H3309]] With the exception of the conflict over Triana and some other issues, the committee I think has put together a pretty decent bill. I appreciate the majority's willingness to work with me on my concerns in the area of education and to accept the amendments in those areas that I offered in committee, and I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their help. I will vote for H.R. 1654, with the hope and faith that a bipartisan conference report can be brought back before this body before this year is out. I am proud to discuss an important education initiative contained in this legislation. This bill directs NASA to develop an educational initiative for our Nation's schools in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the first powered flight, which will take place on December 17, 2003. On that date in 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright took their dream of powered flight from the drawing board of their Ohio bicycle shop to the Crystal Coast of North Carolina. It was there at a place called Kitty Hawk that the Wright brothers' dream took flight. On that day, our world was changed forever. The anniversary of this historic accomplishment provides an excellent opportunity for our Nation's schools to promote the importance of math and science education. And as a North Carolinian and a former educator, I am proud to bring recognition to the Wright brothers and their fantastic accomplishment. As a former North Carolina superintendent of schools, I worked for many years to help improve math and science education in our State. America's future will be determined by the ability of our citizens to adapt to the changes in technology that would dominate life in the 21st century. Recent studies show, unfortunately, that America's students are falling behind their counterparts around the world in the areas of math and science. 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 these important areas. It is no longer good enough for our children to simply be able to read, write, add, and subtract. If today's students are going to succeed in tomorrow's jobs, a firm foundation in math and science is required and it is an imperative. The Committee on Science has taken a leading role in starting a national dialogue on math and science education. One of the most difficult challenges we face has been to interest students in participating in the most challenging math and science courses. That is not unique. It happens in every State. Such a lack of interest could spell doom down the road as fewer students enter the teaching profession in these important areas. And even fewer are prepared for the jobs of the 21st century. The 100th anniversary of Flight Educational Initiative is intended to use the history of flight, the benefit of flight on society, and the math and science principles used in flight to generate interest among students in math and science education. As a young boy, like most Americans, the space program captured my imagination. Unfortunately, today video games and other distractions are more likely to occupy the time of our young people than the space program. However, the 100th anniversary of flight and NASA's plans to send a plane to Mars to coincide with that date provides an excellent springboard to recapture our young people's interest in the space program and in math and science education. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for bringing this bill, authorizing our Nation's space program, to the floor on the same day that the new Star Wars trilogy has opened in our Nation's theaters. Just as the Star Wars movie has captured the imagination of a generation of Americans, NASA and the 100th anniversary of Flight Educational Initiative will help our students sore in math and science education. 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. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am very pleased to rise to speak in favor of the bill as presented to the House. The Committee on Science has done a very careful job of analyzing the needs of the NASA program and has come up with a workable allocation of funds. There are two areas in particular I want to mention. One relates to the work that I put into the science policy study (Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New Science Policy; published by GPO) last year under the auspices of the Science Committee and which has been adopted by the committee and by the House of Representatives. In that study, we emphasized the importance of basic research to the future of this Nation. And I am pleased to say that NASA continues, under this bill, to maintain a strong basic research program. There has been some criticism that the Space Station has decimated the basic research program at NASA. That is not true. They are continuing with their basic research efforts and they continue to make important discoveries both in space and on this planet. One of the important parts of this issue, of course, is to make sure that the results of basic research are available to the public, to companies who may make use of it and, that this may benefit the general public in many ways. The second point I want to make is that I believe NASA has done an excellent job of adding to the education of our students in this Nation regarding math and science. That is an area of great need. We must improve our math and science programs in elementary and secondary schools. It has to be done in a coordinated, thoughtful, careful way as we work toward that goal. But in the meantime NASA, through its supplementary programs, has aided greatly in the education of students of this Nation. In particular, they have developed experiments that students can do at home or in their schoolroom by accessing NASA data on the Internet and using the results of NASA's satellite research, or data from their Mars Rover, to use in their experiments. This has provided a meaningful, lifetime experience for kids in the elementary and secondary schools. They learn from the Internet what has happened, and they can then use this directly to come to the same scientific conclusion that the NASA scientists operating the experiment have reached. I rise today in support of H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act. I believe it is a good bill that will continue to support NASA in its science and exploration endeavors while maintaining balance and cost- effectiveness within its priorities. This morning, I would specifically like to address the opportunity provided through this bill to continue NASA's strong and vital emphasis on education initiatives. As we have discussed earlier this year, our Nation is at a critical juncture in its efforts to provide our children with the quality education that they will require to succeed in the technology-driven economy and culture of tomorrow. To do this, we must find innovative ways to excite and encourage young students about the possibilities open to them through an understanding of mathematics and the sciences. I am not talking strictly about career opportunities, but as consumers, parents and citizens. NASA has clearly demonstrated their dedication to this responsibility through the multitude of individual programs which they offer to students from grade school to grad school and, importantly, to their teachers. In FY 1998 alone, NASA reached over two million students and over a hundred thousand teachers. Of those, all but a fraction of these students and teachers were at the K-12 level. It is at this level that it is so critical to engage our young people, and it is also at this point that our education system is in need of the most assistance. NASA is offering their help, and they are doing so through the use of inquiry-based methods and real-life applications. I would also like to highlight that, in developing their educational programs, NASA has shown insight into the complexity of their subject material and the need to balance it with state and regional agendas. To best serve its ``customers'', NASA collaborators with external organizations such as the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education, discipline-specific professional associations, [[Page H3310]] and State education coalitions to develop materials for local use ``when and where appropriate''. As another indication of their commitment to providing relevant and useful information, NASA solicits evaluations of their programs from its users, the teachers in the classroom. In closing, it is my hope that other Federal agencies would follow the example set by NASA in its education goals. As Dan Goldin, the NASA administrator, testified at a recent Science Committee hearing on this issue, ``It is our education system that will prepare our future workforce to design and use [the tools for our future]''. By supporting this bill, you will enable the continued development and support of these crucial programs. Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend from Tennessee for yielding me time to speak this morning. NASA's mission is one of exploration, discovery, and innovation. The innovation of new technology and the continued understanding of our planet and solar system has led to many advances in science that have benefitted our country and our economy. When we fund NASA activities, we fund our future. We fund the development of new technologies, and we push our educational limits. Because of this, NASA and their continued innovation has made us the world leader in space exploration. I stand today, though, reluctantly in support of H.R. 1654 because I do have some serious concerns with some of the provisions and possible amendments to the bill. First, I applaud the Committee on Science for crafting a bill that does look to increase funding for NASA. However, I am very disappointed that they removed any funding for the continued development study of the Trans-Hab program from the Johnson Space Center. The Trans-Hab is a proposed replacement for the International Space Station habitation module and uses new inflatable structural technology to house a larger living and work space in the limited payload of the Space Shuttle. As drafted, this bill would hinder the development and eliminate the option of this new technology which would give our astronauts more space to work and to live. One of NASA's greate