Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    106-145

======================================================================



 
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
                                _______
                                

  May 18, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                                _______

    Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on Science, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

               MINORITY, DISSENTING, AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1654]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
1654) to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the Bill............................................13
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation........................14
  IV. Summary of Hearings............................................15
   V. Committee Actions..............................................23
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................26
 VII. Sectional Analysis and Committee Views.........................27
VIII. Cost Estimate..................................................61
  IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................62
   X. Compliance with Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........63
  XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............64
 XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
      Government Reform and Oversight................................64
 XII. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................64
 XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................64
  XV. Congressional Accountability Act...............................64
 XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........64
XVII. Committee Recommendations......................................66
XVIII.Minority Views.................................................67

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

                              I. Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999''.
    (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

                       Subtitle A--Authorizations

Sec. 101. International Space Station.
Sec. 102. Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations.
Sec. 103. Science, Aeronautics, and Technology.
Sec. 104. Mission Support.
Sec. 105. Inspector General.
Sec. 106. Total authorization.
Sec. 107. Aviation systems capacity.

             Subtitle B--Limitations and Special Authority

Sec. 121. Use of funds for construction.
Sec. 122. Availability of appropriated amounts.
Sec. 123. Reprogramming for construction of facilities.
Sec. 124. Limitation on obligation of unauthorized appropriations.
Sec. 125. Use of funds for scientific consultations or extraordinary 
expenses.
Sec. 126. Earth science limitation.
Sec. 127. Competitiveness and international cooperation.
Sec. 128. Trans-hab.
Sec. 129. Consolidated Space Operations Contract.
Sec. 130. Triana funding prohibition.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Requirement for independent cost analysis.
Sec. 202. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 amendments.
Sec. 203. Commercial space goods and services.
Sec. 204. Cost effectiveness calculations.
Sec. 205. Foreign contract limitation.
Sec. 206. Authority to reduce or suspend contract payments based on 
substantial evidence of fraud.
Sec. 207. Space Shuttle upgrade study.
Sec. 208. Aero-space transportation technology integration.
Sec. 209. Definitions of commercial space policy terms.
Sec. 210. External tank opportunities study.
Sec. 211. Eligibility for awards.
Sec. 212. Notice.
Sec. 213. Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 amendments.
Sec. 214. Innovative technologies for human space flight.
Sec. 215. Life in the universe.
Sec. 216. Research on International Space Station.
Sec. 217. Remote sensing for agricultural and resource management.
Sec. 218. Integrated safety research plan.
Sec. 219. 100th anniversary of flight educational initiative.
Sec. 220. Internet availability of information.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  The Congress makes the following findings:
          (1) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        should continue to pursue actions and reforms directed 
        at reducing institutional costs, including management 
        restructuring, facility consolidation, procurement 
        reform, and convergence with defense and commercial 
        sector systems.
          (2) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        must continue on its current course of returning to its 
        proud history as the Nation's leader in basic 
        scientific, air, and space research.
          (3) The overwhelming preponderance of the Federal 
        Government's requirements for routine, unmanned space 
        transportation can be met most effectively, 
        efficiently, and economically by a free and competitive 
        market in privately developed and operated space 
        transportation services.
          (4) In formulating a national space transportation 
        service policy, the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration should aggressively promote the pursuit 
        by commercial providers of development of advanced 
        space transportation technologies including reusable 
        space vehicles, and human space systems.
          (5) The Federal Government should invest in the types 
        of research and innovative technology in which United 
        States commercial providers do not invest, while 
        avoiding competition with the activities in which 
        United States commercial providers do invest.
          (6) International cooperation in space exploration 
        and science activities serves the United States 
        national interest--

                  (A) when it--
                          (i) reduces the cost of undertaking missions 
                        the United States Government would pursue 
                        unilaterally;
                          (ii) enables the United States to pursue 
                        missions that it could not otherwise afford to 
                        pursue unilaterally; or
                          (iii) enhances United States capabilities to 
                        use and develop space for the benefit of United 
                        States citizens; and
                  (B) when it--
                          (i) is undertaken in a manner that is 
                        sensitive to the desire of United States 
                        commercial providers to develop or explore 
                        space commercially;
                          (ii) is consistent with the need for Federal 
                        agencies to use space to complete their 
                        missions; and
                          (iii) is carried out in a manner consistent 
                        with United States export control laws.
          (7) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the 
        Department of Defense can cooperate more effectively in 
        leveraging their mutual capabilities to conduct joint space 
        missions that improve United States space capabilities and 
        reduce the cost of conducting space missions.
          (8) The Deep Space Network will continue to be a critically 
        important part of the Nation's scientific and exploration 
        infrastructure in the coming decades, and the National 
        Aeronautics and Space Administration should ensure that the 
        Network is adequately maintained and that upgrades required to 
        support future missions are undertaken in a timely manner.
          (9) The Hubble Space Telescope has proven to be an important 
        national astronomical research facility that is revolutionizing 
        our understanding of the universe and should be kept 
        productive, and its capabilities should be maintained and 
        enhanced as appropriate to serve as a scientific bridge to the 
        next generation of space-based observatories.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  For purposes of this Act--
          (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
          (2) the term ``commercial provider'' means any person 
        providing space transportation services or other space-related 
        activities, primary control of which is held by persons other 
        than Federal, State, local, and foreign governments;
          (3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a));
          (4) the term ``State'' means each of the several States of 
        the Union, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
        Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 
        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other 
        commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; 
        and
          (5) the term ``United States commercial provider'' means a 
        commercial provider, organized under the laws of the United 
        States or of a State, which is--
                  (A) more than 50 percent owned by United States 
                nationals; or
                  (B) a subsidiary of a foreign company and the 
                Secretary of Commerce finds that--
                          (i) such subsidiary has in the past evidenced 
                        a substantial commitment to the United States 
                        market through--
                                  (I) investments in the United States 
                                in long-term research, development, and 
                                manufacturing (including the 
                                manufacture of major components and 
                                subassemblies); and
                                  (II) significant contributions to 
                                employment in the United States; and
                          (ii) the country or countries in which such 
                        foreign company is incorporated or organized, 
                        and, if appropriate, in which it principally 
                        conducts its business, affords reciprocal 
                        treatment to companies described in 
                        subparagraph (A) comparable to that afforded to 
                        such foreign company's subsidiary in the United 
                        States, as evidenced by--
                                  (I) providing comparable 
                                opportunities for companies described 
                                in subparagraph (A) to participate in 
                                Government sponsored research and 
                                development similar to that authorized 
                                under this Act;
                                  (II) providing no barriers to 
                                companies described in subparagraph (A) 
                                with respect to local investment 
                                opportunities that are not provided to 
                                foreign companies in the United States; 
                                and
                                  (III) providing adequate and 
                                effective protection for the 
                                intellectual property rights of 
                                companies described in subparagraph 
                                (A).

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

                       Subtitle A--Authorizations

SEC. 101. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for International Space Station--
          (1) for fiscal year 2000, $2,482,700,000, of which 
        $394,400,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)--
                  (A) shall only be for Space Station research or for 
                the purposes described in section 103(2); and
                  (B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and 
                Microgravity Sciences and Applications;
          (2) for fiscal year 2001, $2,328,000,000, of which 
        $465,400,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)--
                  (A) shall only be for Space Station research or for 
                the purposes described in section 103(2); and
                  (B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and 
                Microgravity Sciences and Applications; and
          (3) for fiscal year 2002, $2,091,000,000, of which 
        $469,200,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)--
                  (A) shall only be for Space Station research or for 
                the purposes described in section 103(2); and
                  (B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and 
                Microgravity Sciences and Applications.

SEC. 102. LAUNCH VEHICLE AND PAYLOAD OPERATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations the 
following amounts:
          (1) For Space Shuttle Operations--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,547,400,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,649,900,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,629,000,000.
          (2) For Space Shuttle Safety and Performance Upgrades--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $456,800,000, of which 
                $18,000,000 shall not be obligated until 45 days after 
                the report required by section 207 has been submitted 
                to the Congress;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $407,200,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $414,000,000.
          (3) For Payload and Utilization Operations--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $169,100,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $182,900,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $184,500,000.

SEC. 103. SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for Science, Aeronautics, and Technology the 
following amounts:
          (1) For Space Science--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,202,400,000, of which--
                          (i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth 
                        Object Survey;
                          (ii) $472,000,000 shall be for the Research 
                        Program;
                          (iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar 
                        Power technology; and
                          (iv) $170,400,000 shall be for Hubble Space 
                        Telescope (Development);
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,315,200,000, of which--
                          (i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth 
                        Object Survey;
                          (ii) $475,800,000 shall be for the Research 
                        Program; and
                          (iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar 
                        Power technology; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,411,800,000, of which--
                          (i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth 
                        Object Survey;
                          (ii) $511,100,000 shall be for the Research 
                        Program;
                          (iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar 
                        Power technology; and
                          (iv) $5,000,000 shall be for space science 
                        data buy.
          (2) For Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $333,600,000, of which 
                $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection 
                systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other women's 
                health issues, and $5,000,000 shall be for sounding 
                rocket vouchers;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $335,200,000, of which 
                $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection 
                systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other women's 
                health issues; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $344,000,000, of which 
                $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection 
                systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other women's 
                health issues.
          (3) For Earth Science, subject to the limitations set forth 
        in sections 126 and 130--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $1,382,500,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $1,413,300,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $1,365,300,000.
          (4) For Aero-Space Technology--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $999,300,000, of which--
                          (i) $532,800,000 shall be for Aeronautical 
                        Research and Technology, with no funds to be 
                        used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with 
                        $412,800,000 to be for the Research and 
                        Technology Base;
                          (ii) $334,000,000 shall be for Advanced Space 
                        Transportation Technology, including--
                                  (I) $61,300,000 for the Future-X 
                                Demonstration Program; and
                                  (II) $105,600,000 for Advanced Space 
                                Transportation Program; and
                          (iii) $132,500,000 shall be for Commercial 
                        Technology;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $908,400,000, of which--
                          (i) $524,000,000 shall be for Aeronautical 
                        Research and Technology, with no funds to be 
                        used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with 
                        $399,800,000 to be for the Research and 
                        Technology Base, and with $54,200,000 to be for 
                        Aviation System Capacity;
                          (ii) $249,400,000 shall be for Advanced Space 
                        Transportation Technology, including--
                                  (I) $109,000,000 for the Future-X 
                                Demonstration Program; and
                                  (II) $134,400,000 for Advanced Space 
                                Transportation Program; and
                          (iii) $135,000,000 shall be for Commercial 
                        Technology; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $994,800,000, of which--
                          (i) $519,200,000 shall be for Aeronautical 
                        Research and Technology, with no funds to be 
                        used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with 
                        $381,600,000 to be for the Research and 
                        Technology Base, and with $67,600,000 to be for 
                        Aviation System Capacity;
                          (ii) $340,000,000 shall be for Advanced Space 
                        Transportation Technology; and
                          (iii) $135,600,000 shall be for Commercial 
                        Technology.
          (5) For Mission Communication Services--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $406,300,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $382,100,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $296,600,000.
          (6) For Academic Programs--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $128,600,000, of which 
                $11,600,000 shall be for Higher Education within the 
                Teacher/Faculty Preparation and Enhancement Programs, 
                of which $20,000,000 shall be for the National Space 
                Grant College and Fellowship Program, and of which 
                $62,100,000 shall be for minority university research 
                and education, including $33,600,000 for Historically 
                Black Colleges and Universities;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $128,600,000, of which 
                $62,100,000 shall be for minority university research 
                and education, including $33,600,000 for Historically 
                Black Colleges and Universities; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $130,600,000, of which 
                $62,800,000 shall be for minority university research 
                and education, including $34,000,000 for Historically 
                Black Colleges and Universities.
          (7) For Future Planning (Space Launch)--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2001, $144,000,000; and
                  (B) for fiscal year 2002, $280,000,000.

SEC. 104. MISSION SUPPORT.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for Mission Support the following amounts:
          (1) For Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $43,000,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $45,000,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $49,000,000.
          (2) For Space Communication Services--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $89,700,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $109,300,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $174,200,000.
          (3) For Construction of Facilities, including land 
        acquisition--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $181,000,000, including--
                          (i) Restore Electrical Distribution System 
                        (ARC), $2,700,000;
                          (ii) Rehabilitate Main Hangar Building 4802 
                        (Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC)), 
                        $2,900,000;
                          (iii) Rehabilitate High Voltage System (Glenn 
                        Research Center), $7,600,000;
                          (iv) Repair Site Steam Distribution System 
                        (GSFC), $2,900,000;
                          (v) Restore Chilled Water Distribution System 
                        (GSFC), $3,900,000;
                          (vi) Rehabilitate Hydrostatic Bearing Runner, 
                        70 meter Antenna, Goldstone (JPL), $1,700,000;
                          (vii) Upgrade 70 meter Antenna Servo Drive, 
                        70 meter Antenna Subnet (JPL), $3,400,000;
                          (viii) Rehabilitate Utility Tunnel Structure 
                        and Systems (Johnson Space Center (JSC)), 
                        $5,600,000;
                          (ix) Connect KSC to CCAS Wastewater Treatment 
                        Plant (KSC), $2,500,000;
                          (x) Repair and Modernize HVAC System, Central 
                        Instrument Facility (KSC), $3,000,000;
                          (xi) Replace High Voltage Load Break Switches 
                        (KSC), $2,700,000;
                          (xii) Repair and Modernize HVAC and 
                        Electrical systems, Building 4201 (Marshall 
                        Space Flight Center (MSFC)), $2,300,000;
                          (xiii) Repair Roofs, Vehicle Component Supply 
                        buildings (MAF), $2,000,000;
                          (xiv) Minor Revitalization of Facilities at 
                        Various Locations, not in excess of $1,500,000 
                        per project, $65,500,000;
                          (xv) Minor Construction of New Facilities and 
                        Additions to Existing Facilities at Various 
                        Locations, not in excess of $1,500,000 per 
                        project, $5,000,000;
                          (xvi) Facility Planning and Design, 
                        $19,200,000;
                          (xvii) Deferred Major Maintenance, 
                        $8,000,000;
                          (xviii) Environmental Compliance and 
                        Restoration, $40,100,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $181,000,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $191,000,000.
          (4) For Research and Program Management, including personnel 
        and related costs, travel, and research operations support--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,181,200,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,195,000,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,261,600,000.

SEC. 105. INSPECTOR GENERAL.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for Inspector General--
          (1) for fiscal year 2000, $22,000,000;
          (2) for fiscal year 2001, $22,000,000; and
          (3) for fiscal year 2002, $22,000,000.

SEC. 106. TOTAL AUTHORIZATION.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the total amount 
authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration under this Act shall not exceed--
          (1) for fiscal year 2000, $13,625,600,000;
          (2) for fiscal year 2001, $13,747,100,000; and
          (3) for fiscal year 2002, $13,839,400,000.

SEC. 107. AVIATION SYSTEMS CAPACITY.

  In addition to amounts otherwise authorized, there are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 for aviation systems 
capacity.

             Subtitle B--Limitations and Special Authority

SEC. 121. USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

  (a) Authorized Uses.--Funds appropriated under sections 101, 102, 
103, and 104(1) and (2), and funds appropriated for research operations 
support under section 104(4), may be used for the construction of new 
facilities and additions to, repair of, rehabilitation of, or 
modification of existing facilities at any location in support of the 
purposes for which such funds are authorized.
  (b) Limitation.--No funds may be expended pursuant to subsection (a) 
for a project, the estimated cost of which to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, including collateral equipment, exceeds 
$1,000,000, until 30 days have passed after the Administrator has 
notified the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate of 
the nature, location, and estimated cost to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration of such project.
  (c) Title to Facilities.--If funds are used pursuant to subsection 
(a) for grants to institutions of higher education, or to nonprofit 
organizations whose primary purpose is the conduct of scientific 
research, for purchase or construction of additional research 
facilities, title to such facilities shall be vested in the United 
States unless the Administrator determines that the national program of 
aeronautical and space activities will best be served by vesting title 
in the grantee institution or organization. Each such grant shall be 
made under such conditions as the Administrator shall determine to be 
required to ensure that the United States will receive therefrom 
benefits adequate to justify the making of that grant.

SEC. 122. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS.

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

SEC. 123. REPROGRAMMING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES.

  (a) In General.--Appropriations authorized for construction of 
facilities under section 104(3)--
          (1) may be varied upward by 10 percent in the discretion of 
        the Administrator; or
          (2) may be varied upward by 25 percent, to meet unusual cost 
        variations, after the expiration of 15 days following a report 
        on the circumstances of such action by the Administrator to the 
        Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
        Senate.
The aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated for construction of 
facilities under section 104(3) shall not be increased as a result of 
actions authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection.
  (b) Special Rule.--Where the Administrator determines that new 
developments in the national program of aeronautical and space 
activities have occurred; and that such developments require the use of 
additional funds for the purposes of construction, expansion, or 
modification of facilities at any location; and that deferral of such 
action until the enactment of the next National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act would be inconsistent with the 
interest of the Nation in aeronautical and space activities, the 
Administrator may use up to $10,000,000 of the amounts authorized under 
section 104(3) for each fiscal year for such purposes. No such funds 
may be obligated until a period of 30 days has passed after the 
Administrator has transmitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science of the 
House of Representatives a written report describing the nature of the 
construction, its costs, and the reasons therefor.

SEC. 124. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Reports to Congress.--
          (1) Requirement.--Not later than--
                  (A) 30 days after the later of the date of the 
                enactment of an Act making appropriations to the 
                National Aeronautics and Space Administration for 
                fiscal year 2000 and the date of the enactment of this 
                Act; and
                  (B) 30 days after the date of the enactment of an Act 
                making appropriations to the National Aeronautics and 
                Space Administration for fiscal year 2001 or 2002,
        the Administrator shall submit a report to Congress and to the 
        Comptroller General.
          (2) Contents.--The reports required by paragraph (1) shall 
        specify--
                  (A) the portion of such appropriations which are for 
                programs, projects, or activities not authorized under 
                subtitle A of this title, or which are in excess of 
                amounts authorized for the relevant program, project, 
                or activity under this Act; and
                  (B) the portion of such appropriations which are 
                authorized under this Act.
  (b) Federal Register Notice.--The Administrator shall, coincident 
with the submission of each report required by subsection (a), publish 
in the Federal Register a notice of all programs, projects, or 
activities for which funds are appropriated but which were not 
authorized under this Act, and solicit public comment thereon regarding 
the impact of such programs, projects, or activities on the conduct and 
effectiveness of the national aeronautics and space program.
  (c) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
may be obligated for any programs, projects, or activities of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2000, 
2001, or 2002 not authorized under this Act until 30 days have passed 
after the close of the public comment period contained in a notice 
required by subsection (b).

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

  Not more than $30,000 of the funds appropriated under section 103 may 
be used for scientific consultations or extraordinary expenses, upon 
the authority of the Administrator.

SEC. 126. EARTH SCIENCE LIMITATION.

  Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for Earth Science under 
section 103(3) for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, $50,000,000 
shall be for the Commercial Remote Sensing Program at Stennis Space 
Center for commercial data purchases, unless the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration has integrated data purchases into the 
procurement process for Earth science research by obligating at least 5 
percent of the aggregate amount appropriated for that fiscal year for 
Earth Observing System and Earth Probes for the purchase of Earth 
science data from the private sector.

SEC. 127. COMPETITIVENESS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

  (a) Limitation.--As part of the evaluation of the costs and benefits 
of entering into an obligation to conduct a space mission in which a 
foreign entity will participate as a supplier of the spacecraft, 
spacecraft system, or launch system, the Administrator shall solicit 
comment on the potential impact of such participation through notice 
published in Commerce Business Daily at least 45 days before entering 
into such an obligation.
  (b) National Interests.--Before entering into an obligation described 
in subsection (a), the Administrator shall consider the national 
interests of the United States described in section 2(6).

SEC. 128. TRANS-HAB.

  (a) Replacement Structure.--No funds authorized by this Act shall be 
obligated for the definition, design, or development of an inflatable 
space structure to replace any International Space Station components 
scheduled for launch in the Assembly Sequence released by the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration on February 22, 1999.
  (b) General Limitation.--No funds authorized by this Act for fiscal 
year 2000 shall be obligated for the definition, design, or development 
of an inflatable space structure capable of accommodating humans in 
space.

SEC. 129. CONSOLIDATED SPACE OPERATIONS CONTRACT.

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

SEC. 130. TRIANA FUNDING PROHIBITION.

  None of the funds authorized by this Act may be used for the Triana 
program, except that $2,500,000 of the amount authorized under section 
103(3)(A) for fiscal year 2000 shall be available for termination 
costs.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS.

  Before any funds may be obligated for Phase B of a project that is 
projected to cost more than $100,000,000 in total project costs, the 
Chief Financial Officer for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration shall conduct an independent cost analysis of such 
project and shall report the results to Congress. In developing cost 
accounting and reporting standards for carrying out this section, the 
Chief Financial Officer shall, to the extent practicable and consistent 
with other laws, solicit the advice of expertise outside of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

SEC. 202. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958 AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Declaration of Policy and Purpose.--Section 102 of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451) is amended--
          (1) by striking subsection (f) and redesignating subsections 
        (g) and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively; and
          (2) in subsection (g), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of 
        this subsection, by striking ``(f), and (g)'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``and (f)''.
  (b) Reports to the Congress.--Section 206(a) of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2476(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``January'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``May''; and
          (2) by striking ``calendar'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``fiscal''.

SEC. 203. COMMERCIAL SPACE GOODS AND SERVICES.

  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall purchase 
commercially available space goods and services to the fullest extent 
feasible, and shall not conduct activities that preclude or deter 
commercial space activities except for reasons of national security or 
public safety. A space good or service shall be deemed commercially 
available if it is offered by a United States commercial provider, or 
if it could be supplied by a United States commercial provider in 
response to a Government procurement request. For purposes of this 
section, a purchase is feasible if it meets mission requirements in a 
cost-effective manner.

SEC. 204. COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS.

  In calculating the cost effectiveness of the cost of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration engaging in an activity as 
compared to a commercial provider, the Administrator shall compare the 
cost of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration engaging in 
the activity using full cost accounting principles with the price the 
commercial provider will charge for such activity.

SEC. 205. FOREIGN CONTRACT LIMITATION.

  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall not enter 
into any agreement or contract with a foreign government that grants 
the foreign government the right to recover profit in the event that 
the agreement or contract is terminated.

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

  Section 2307(i)(8) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``and (4)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``(4), and (6)''.

SEC. 207. SPACE SHUTTLE UPGRADE STUDY.

  (a) Study.--The Administrator shall enter into appropriate 
arrangements for the conduct of an independentstudy to reassess the 
priority of all Phase III and Phase IV Space Shuttle upgrades.
  (b) Priorities.--The study described in subsection (a) shall 
establish relative priorities of the upgrades within each of the 
following categories:
          (1) Upgrades that are safety related.
          (2) Upgrades that may have functional or technological 
        applicability to reusable launch vehicles.
          (3) Upgrades that have a payback period within the next 12 
        years.
  (c) Completion Date.--The results of the study described in 
subsection (a) shall be transmitted to the Congress not later than 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 208. AERO-SPACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION.

  (a) Integration Plan.--The Administrator shall develop a plan for the 
integration of research, development, and experimental demonstration 
activities in the aeronautics transportation technology and space 
transportation technology areas. The plan shall ensure that integration 
is accomplished without losing unique capabilities which support the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's defined missions. The 
plan shall also include appropriate strategies for using aeronautics 
centers in integration efforts.
  (b) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the 
Congress a report containing the plan developed under subsection (a). 
The Administrator shall transmit to the Congress annually thereafter 
for 5 years a report on progress in achieving such plan, to be 
transmitted with the annual budget request.

SEC. 209. DEFINITIONS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE POLICY TERMS.

  The Administrator shall ensure that the usage of terminology in 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration policies and programs is 
consistent with the following definitions:
          (1) The term ``commercialization'' means the process of 
        private entities conducting privatized space activities to 
        expand their customer base beyond the Federal Government to 
        address existing or potential commercial markets, investing 
        private resources to meet those commercial market requirements.
          (2) The term ``commercial purchase'' means a purchase by the 
        Federal Government of space goods and services at a market 
        price from a private entity which has invested private 
        resources to meet commercial requirements.
          (3) The term ``commercial use of Federal assets'' means the 
        use by a service contractor or other private entity of the 
        capability of Federal assets to deliver services to commercial 
        customers, with or without putting private capital at risk.
          (4) The term ``contract consolidation'' means the combining 
        of two or more Government service contracts for related space 
        activities into one larger Government service contract.
          (5) The term ``privatization'' means the process of 
        transferring--
                  (A) control and ownership of Federal space-related 
                assets, along with the responsibility for operating, 
                maintaining, and upgrading those assets; or
                  (B) control and responsibility for space-related 
                functions, from the Federal Government to the private 
                sector.

SEC. 210. EXTERNAL TANK OPPORTUNITIES STUDY.

  (a) Applications.--The Administrator shall enter into appropriate 
arrangements for an independent study to identify, and evaluate the 
potential benefits and costs of, the broadest possible range of 
commercial and scientific applications which are enabled by the launch 
of Space Shuttle external tanks into Earth orbit and retention in 
space, including--
          (1) the use of privately owned external tanks as a venue for 
        commercial advertising on the ground, during ascent, and in 
        Earth orbit, except that such study shall not consider 
        advertising that while in orbit is observable from the ground 
        with the unaided human eye;
          (2) the use of external tanks to achieve scientific or 
        technology demonstration missions in Earth orbit, on the Moon, 
        or elsewhere in space; and
          (3) the use of external tanks as low-cost infrastructure in 
        Earth orbit or on the Moon, including as an augmentation to the 
        International Space Station.
A final report on the results of such study shall be delivered to the 
Congress not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act. Such report shall include recommendations as to Government and 
industry-funded improvements to the external tank which would maximize 
its cost-effectiveness for the scientific and commercial applications 
identified.
  (b) Required Improvements.--The Administrator shall conduct an 
internal agency study, based on the conclusions of the study required 
by subsection (a), of what--
          (1) improvements to the current Space Shuttle external tank; 
        and
          (2) other in-space transportation or infrastructure 
        capability developments,
would be required for the safe and economical use of the Space Shuttle 
external tank for any or all of the applications identified by the 
study required by subsection (a), a report on which shall be delivered 
to Congress not later than 45 days after receipt of the final report 
required by subsection (a).
  (c) Changes in Law or Policy.--Upon receipt of the final report 
required by subsection (a), the Administrator shall solicit comment 
from industry on what, if any, changes in law or policy would be 
required to achieve the applications identified in that final report. 
Not later than 90 days after receipt of such final report, the 
Administrator shall transmit to the Congress the comments received 
along with the recommendations of the Administrator as to changes in 
law or policy that may be required for those purposes.

SEC. 211. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

  (a) In General.--The Administrator shall exclude from consideration 
for grant agreements made by the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration after fiscal year 1999 any person who received funds, 
other than those described in subsection (b), appropriated for a fiscal 
year after fiscal year 1999, under a grant agreement from any Federal 
funding source for a project that was not subjected to a competitive, 
merit-based award process, except as specifically authorized by this 
Act. Any exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section shall be 
effective for a period of 5 years after the person receives such 
Federal funds.
  (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the receipt of 
Federal funds by a person due to the membership of that person in a 
class specified by law for which assistance is awarded to members of 
the class according to a formula provided by law.
  (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``grant 
agreement'' means a legal instrument whose principal purpose is to 
transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public 
purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United 
States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or 
barter) of property or services for the direct benefit or use of the 
United States Government. Such term does not include a cooperative 
agreement (as such term is used in section 6305 of title 31, United 
States Code) or a cooperative research and development agreement (as 
such term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler 
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).

SEC. 212. NOTICE.

  (a) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds authorized by this Act are 
subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided 
to the Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives and 
the Senate, notice of such action shall concurrently be provided to the 
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
  (b) Notice of Reorganization.--The Administrator shall provide notice 
to the Committees on Science and Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives, and the Committees on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation and Appropriations of the Senate, not later than 15 days 
before any major reorganization of any program, project, or activity of 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

SEC. 213. UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949 AMENDMENTS.

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

SEC. 214. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT.

  (a) Establishment of Program.--In order to promote a ``faster, 
cheaper, better'' approach to the human exploration and development of 
space, the Administrator shall establish a Human Space Flight 
Commercialization/Technology program of ground-based and space-based 
research and development in innovative technologies.
  (b) Awards.--At least 75 percent of the amount appropriated for the 
program established under subsection (a) for any fiscal year shall be 
awarded through broadly distributed announcements of opportunity that 
solicit proposals from educational institutions, industry, nonprofit 
institutions, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Centers, 
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, other Federal agencies, and other 
interested organizations, and that allow partnerships among any 
combination of those entities, with evaluation, prioritization, and 
recommendations made by external peer review panels.
  (c) Plan.--The Administrator shall include as part of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration's budget request to the Congress 
for fiscal year 2001 a plan for the implementation of the program 
established under subsection (a).

SEC. 215. LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.

  (a) Review.--The Administrator shall enter into appropriate 
arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences for the conduct of a 
review of--
          (1) international efforts to determine the extent of life in 
        the universe; and
          (2) enhancements that can be made to the National Aeronautics 
        and Space Administration's efforts to determine the extent of 
        life in the universe.
  (b) Elements.--The review required by subsection (a) shall include--
          (1) an assessment of the direction of the National 
        Aeronautics and Space Administration's astrobiology initiatives 
        within the Origins program;
          (2) an assessment of the direction of other initiatives 
        carried out by entities other than the National Aeronautics and 
        Space Administration to determine the extent of life in the 
        universe, including other Federal agencies, foreign space 
        agencies, and private groups such as the Search for 
        Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute;
          (3) recommendations about scientific and technological 
        enhancements that could be made to the National Aeronautics and 
        Space Administration's astrobiology initiatives to effectively 
        utilize the initiatives of the scientific and technical 
        communities; and
          (4) recommendations for possible coordination or integration 
        of National Aeronautics and Space Administration initiatives 
        with initiatives of other entities described in paragraph (2).
  (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the 
Congress a report on the results of the review carried out under this 
section.

SEC. 216. RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

  (a) Study.--The Administrator shall enter into a contract with the 
National Research Council and the National Academy of Public 
Administration to jointly conduct a study of the status of life and 
microgravity research as it relates to the International Space Station. 
The study shall include--
          (1) an assessment of the United States scientific community's 
        readiness to use the International Space Station for life and 
        microgravity research;
          (2) an assessment of the current and projected factors 
        limiting the United States scientific community's ability to 
        maximize the research potential of the International Space 
        Station, including, but not limited to, the past and present 
        availability of resources in the life and microgravity research 
        accounts within the Office of Human Spaceflight and the Office 
        of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, and the 
        past, present, and projected access to space of the scientific 
        community; and
          (3) recommendations for improving the United States 
        scientific community's ability to maximize the research 
        potential of the International Space Station, including an 
        assessment of the relative costs and benefits of--
                  (A) dedicating an annual mission of the Space Shuttle 
                to life and microgravity research during assembly of 
                the International Space Station; and
                  (B) maintaining the schedule for assembly in place at 
                the time of enactment.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Science 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of the study 
conducted under this section.

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

  The Administrator shall--
          (1) consult with the Secretary of Agriculture to determine 
        data product types that are of use to farmers which can be 
        remotely sensed from air or space;
          (2) consider useful commercial data products related to 
        agriculture as identified by the focused research program 
        between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 
        Stennis Space Center and the Department of Agriculture; and
          (3) examine other data sources, including commercial sources, 
        LightSAR, RADARSAT I, and RADARSAT II, which can provide 
        domestic and international agricultural information relating to 
        crop conditions, fertilization and irrigation needs, pest 
        infiltration, soil conditions, projected food, feed, and fiber 
        production, and other related subjects.

SEC. 218. INTEGRATED SAFETY RESEARCH PLAN.

  (a) Requirement.--Not later than March 1, 2000, the Administrator and 
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall jointly 
prepare and transmit to the Congress an integrated civil aviation 
safety research and development plan.
  (b) Contents.--The plan required by subsection (a) shall include--
          (1) an identification of the respective research and 
        development requirements, roles, and responsibilities of the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal 
        Aviation Administration;
          (2) formal mechanisms for the timely sharing of information 
        between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and 
        the Federal Aviation Administration, including a requirement 
        that the FAA-NASA Coordinating Committee established in 1980 
        meet at least twice a year; and
          (3) procedures for increased communication and coordination 
        between the Federal Aviation Administration research advisory 
        committee established under section 44508 of title 49, United 
        States Code, and the NASA Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
        Technology Advisory Committee, including a proposal for greater 
        cross-membership between those 2 advisory committees.

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

  (a) Education Curriculum.--In recognition of the 100th anniversary of 
the first powered flight, the Administrator, in coordination with the 
Secretary of Education, shall develop and provide for the distribution, 
for use in the 2000-2001 academic year and thereafter, of an age-
appropriate educational curriculum, for use at the kindergarten, 
elementary, and secondary levels, on the history of flight, the 
contribution of flight to global development in the 20th century, the 
practical benefits of aeronautics and space flight to society, the 
scientific and mathematical principles used in flight, and any other 
topics the Administrator considers appropriate. The Administrator shall 
integrate into the educational curriculum plans for the development and 
flight of the Mars plane.
  (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than May 1, 2000, the 
Administrator shall transmit a report to the Committee on Science of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate on activities undertaken pursuant to 
this section.

SEC. 220. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

  The Administrator shall make available through the Internet home page 
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration the abstracts 
relating to all research grants and awards made with funds authorized 
by this Act. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or 
permit the release of any information prohibited by law or regulation 
from being released to the public.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration. The requested levels for (1) High 
Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and (2) 
Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) have been 
taken out of this bill and will be dealt with in a separate, 
Committee-wide information technology bill. H.R. 1654 contains 
the following authorizations: $13,625,600,000 in FY2000; 
$13,747,100,000 in FY2001; and $13,839,400,000 in FY2002.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     By fiscal year: in millions of dollars--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       2000            2001            2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original authorization..........................................        13,800.0        13,958.2        14,057.0
Less HPCC/IT2 cut...............................................          -174.4          -211.1          -217.6
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
H.R. 1654 authorization.........................................        13,625.6        13,747.1        13,839.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was 
created in 1958 to help win the Cold War. In 1999, the agency 
finds itself working with former Cold War adversaries and 
undertaking activities in new areas, such as environmental 
research. The end of the Cold War and these changes in NASA's 
mission have led to considerable budgetary instability during 
the 1990s. As late as 1992, projections of NASA's annual budget 
had it rising to some $20 billion by the year 2000. However, in 
1996, the White House submitted a request that cut NASA's 
budget to $11.6 billion in the year 2000. This year, the 
Administration's FY2000 budget request cuts NASA's funding by 
$87 million from the FY1999 appropriated level to $13.578 
billion, before projecting a funding increase to $13.752 
billion in FY2001 and a flat budget of $13.750 billion in 
FY2003 and beyond. H.R. 1654 addresses the need for stability 
by providing NASA with a budget that grows by 1% annually 
(taking into account the funding levels for HPCC and IT2). 
Thus, H.R. 1654 is necessary to provide the agency with the 
budget stability that it needs to perform its research and 
development missions.
    Besides its budget instability, NASA is now deeply involved 
in the International Space Station. The Clinton Administration 
invited the Russians to join the program in 1993. Since then, 
the Russians have consistently failed to live up to their 
obligations to fund and construct up to half of the Station's 
habitable volume. Consequently, the estimated cost to complete 
the International Space Station has risen from $17.4 billion to 
$24.7 billion. Moreover, NASA delayed the first element launch 
by a year and the completion date has been delayed by more than 
two years. As important, the Administration has continually cut 
funding for the International Space Station research 
activities, reducing the ability of the U.S. scientific 
community to fully utilize the research potential of the 
International Space Station. H.R. 1654 restores some of these 
budget cuts and contains measures to prevent additional 
transfers from Station research to Station development. Thus, 
the legislation is necessary to ensure that the International 
Space Station reaches its full scientific potential.
    Finally, the bill makes investments in advanced space 
transportation technology that will accelerate the development 
of next-generation, low-cost launch vehicles. The health of 
U.S. government and commercial space efforts depends entirely 
on its ability to reliably and affordably access space. That 
inability has been used in the past to justify the use of 
foreign launch vehicles by U.S. commercial firms, indirectly 
resulting in the transfer of critical space technology to 
potential military adversaries and current commercial 
competitors. H.R. 1654 will make such transfers less likely 
when the investments it makes in space transportation begin to 
result in new space launch capabilities. Thus, H.R. 1654 is 
necessary to improve the health of the U.S. aerospace industry 
that serves U.S. civil and national security goals in space.

                        IV. Summary of Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held five formal 
authorization hearings during February and March of 1999 
regarding the Fiscal Year 2000 budget request for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

              FY2000 budget request: the sciences at nasa

    On February 11, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held its first authorization hearing titled 
``FY2000 Budget Request: The Sciences at NASA.'' Witnesses 
included: Dr. Edward Weiler, Associate Administrator for Space 
Science, NASA; Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Associate Administrator for 
Earth Science, NASA; Dr. Arnauld E. Nicogossian, Associate 
Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications, NASA; and Dr. Claude Canizares, Chairman of the 
National Research Council's Space Studies Board.

                         Purpose of the Hearing

    The hearing was intended to profile NASA's science programs 
in the context of the FY2000 budget request. Testimony before 
the Subcommittee focused on: (1) new initiatives in the offices 
of Space Science, Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications, and Earth Science as laid out in the FY2000 
budget; (2) an explanation of problems occurring within Space 
Science, Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, and 
Earth Science programs and NASA's plans for resolving them; (3) 
a summary of the manner in which the offices of Space Science, 
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, and Earth 
Science and their priorities have changed in response to the 
Government Performance and Results Act; (4) a summary of NASA's 
accomplishments during the past year and those goals it hopes 
to achieve in FY2000; (5) a summary of the Space Studies 
Board's report ``Supporting Research and Data Analysis in 
NASA's Science Programs''; and (6) recommendations about 
improving the management of research funds within NASA to 
ensure that each individual mission's potential to contribute 
to our knowledge base is fully utilized.

                               Key Issues

    Dr. Edward Weiler, Associate Administrator for Space 
Science, NASA, began his testimony by profiling several recent 
Space Science highlights through the utilization of the 
Committee on Science's multimedia displays in the main hearing 
room. Visual graphics were used to display photographs taken by 
the Hubble Space Telescope of a collision between an elliptical 
galaxy and a spiral galaxy. This phenomenon is of particular 
interest because of the resulting birth of stars and the 
existence of a super-massive black hole at the center of the 
galactic collision. Hubble Telescope pictures were also 
displayed of the faintest and farthest objects everobserved by 
humans. Additional images included Coronal Mass Ejection Events, the 
Mars Polar Lander, Mars Climate Orbiter, the Mars Global Surveyor, and 
a new class of stars discovered by the Gamma Ray Observatory. Five new 
Space Science activities were identified in the President's FY2000 
budget request. These programs included Mars Network communications 
capabilities, Mars Micromissions, Self-Sustaining Robotic Networks, 
Gossamer Spacecraft, and Next Decade Planning.
    Dr. Arnauld E. Nicogossian, Associate Administrator for 
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, highlighted 
the major accomplishments of 1998: (1) the results of Neurolab 
to be presented in April 1999 at the National Academy of 
Science's Symposium on the Decade of the Brain; (2) the 
findings discovered from the Mir studies regarding bone mass 
loss; (3) research conducted on infectious diseases by the NASA 
ground-based bioreactor at the NASA/NIH Center for Three-
Dimensional Tissue Culture; and (4) work on evaluating distant 
learning, consultation, and surgical training technology for a 
potential virtual hospital. He testified that the most 
important challenge facing Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications will be to develop and sustain their research 
community while resources are focused on the International 
Space Station (ISS).
    Dr. Ghassem Asrar, Associate Administrator for Earth 
Science, described several examples of science and application 
results within the Earth Science Enterprise's Topical Rainfall 
Measuring Mission (TRMM), for the first time scientists can: 
(1) accurately measure precipitation over the global tropical 
ocean; (2) measure lightning strikes on a global scale; (3) 
record algae blooms in the world's oceans; and (4) bring this 
data to users such as farmers, fisheries, and federal agencies 
by using the Internet. Dr. Asrar summarized his testimony by 
stating that the Earth Science Enterprise balances funding 
across observation, research and data analyses, applications, 
and advanced satellite technology to ensure the nation has the 
tools to answer scientific questions about the Earth.
    Dr. Claude Canizares, Chairman of the National Research 
Council's (NRC) Space Studies Board, focused his testimony on 
the Space Studies Board's report entitled ``Supporting Research 
and Data Analysis (R&DA;) in NASA Science Programs.'' The R&DA; 
portions of NASA science activities are very important to 
NASA's research and these program's contributions include a 
wide range of NASA science programs. The NRC recommends NASA's 
science offices should use various means to improve their 
overview of R&DA; activities, periodically evaluate their 
efficiency, and to seek a balance among them. Dr. Canizares 
concluded his testimony by stating that the Space Studies Board 
has consistently held that the best way to assure high quality 
research at NASA is to: (1) rely heavily on the peer review 
process; and (2) keep the authority for primary science 
allocation decisions at NASA Headquarters.

                  fy2000 budget request: nasa posture

    On February 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held its second authorization hearing titled 
``FY2000 Budget Request: NASA Posture.'' NASA Administrator 
Daniel S. Goldin testified regarding the Fiscal Year 2000 NASA 
budget request.

                           Purpose of Hearing

    The objectives for NASA as laid out by the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 include: expansion of human 
knowledge; improvement of aeronautical and space vehicles; 
development of vehicles to travel through space; sharing of 
knowledge between military and civilian space communities; 
international cooperation; and the preservation of the United 
States' role as a leader in aeronautics, space science, and 
technology. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics is 
responsible for overseeing and authorizing appropriations for 
all the activities within NASA. The purpose of this hearing was 
to receive testimony from the Administrator regarding the 
President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for the agency.

                               Key Issues

    Administrator Goldin testified that the FY2000 budget 
request of $13.578 billion will give America a robust space and 
aeronautics program. Using the Science Committee's multimedia 
displays in the Committee's main hearing room, Mr. Goldin's 
testimony focused on: (1) the launch of the first two elements 
of the International Space Station (ISS), the Functional Cargo 
Block (FGB) and the Unity node; (2) Space Science highlights 
included, the Lunar Prospector, Deep Space 1, the Stardust 
mission, and the Chandra observatory; (3) Earth Science 
highlights included, Landsat 7, Quikscat, and Pathfinder 
programs; (4) the current status of the Reusable Launch Vehicle 
(RLV) program's flagship X-33 project; and (5) information on 
ISS's impact on other programs. Mr. Goldin then continued his 
testimony with NASA's future plans. These plans include: (1) an 
intelligent synthesis environment at NASA for research and 
development; (2) future experiments aboard ISS once it is 
completed; (3) a virtual presence throughout the solar system 
with a fleet of ever-smaller robotic spacecraft; (4) the Next 
Generation Space Telescope; (5) an Interplanetary Internet; (6) 
future Earth Science programs to help better understand our 
planet; (7) developing aeronautical technology to help reduce 
fatal aircraft accident rates by a factor of five in 10 years 
and by a factor of ten in 20 years; (8) the Ultra-Efficient 
Engine Technology program to reduce fuel consumption and 
improve performance; and (9) using the X-34 vehicle to test 
scramjet technology at speeds up to Mach 10. The NASA 
Administrator summarized his testimony by explaining that 
because NASA doesn't think small and plans for the long term, 
the agency's budget is an investment in the next millennium.

               FY2000 Budget Request: Human Space Flight

    On February 25, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held its third authorization hearing titled 
``FY2000 Budget Request: Human Space Flight.'' Witnesses 
included: Mr. Joe Rothenberg, Associate Administrator, Office 
of Space Flight, NASA; Mr. Richard D. Blomberg, Chairman, 
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; Dr. James D. Richardson, Study 
Director, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies; and Ms. Marcia 
Smith, Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, 
Congressional Research Service.

                           Purpose of Hearing

    The hearing was intended to profile NASA's Human Space 
Flight program in the context of the FY2000 budget request. 
Testimony before the Subcommittee focused on: (1) funding 
requirements for the International Space Station (ISS) in 
FY2000 and beyond; (2) management challenges in terms of 
Russia's continuing failures to honor its obligations to the 
ISS partnership; (3) NASA's plans to commercialize ISS; (4) the 
steps NASA is taking to ensure that life and microgravity 
science opportunities are maximized during ISS assembly; (5) 
the development status of ISS; (6) the prospect for additional 
changes to the design of ISS through the end of the program; 
(7) the status and progress of Shuttle upgrade efforts; (8) 
changes in the Shuttle workforce composition, including past 
and anticipated workforce reductions; (9) the impact on 
theShuttle launch schedule of any additional delays in or changes to 
ISS assembly sequence; and (10) the status of phase 4 upgrades to the 
Space Shuttle.

                               Key Issues

    Mr. Joe Rothenberg, Associate Administrator, Office of 
Space Flight, NASA, testified that with the exception of 
Russia, the International Space Station's (ISS) partners are 
delivering their hardware on time. Mr. Rothenberg reported that 
he has taken management steps to control the annual costs as 
well as the total cost of ISS. These included: (1) 
establishment and budgeting for a more realistic development 
and assembly complete schedule; and (2) a Headquarters Center 
Contractor Cost Management Team which has weekly insight into 
prime contractor costs. He assured the Subcommittee that 
rephasing of the research facility developments has not cut the 
research and analysis portion of the budget and the higher 
priority facilities, human research, biotechnology, and 
gravitational biology facilities have been maintained. In order 
to provide more research opportunities during assembly Mr. 
Rothenberg reported that he is reviewing the Space Shuttle 
manifest and they have added STS-107 as a dedicated research 
flight. Mr. Rothenberg also reported on the accomplishments and 
status of the Space Shuttle fleet including: (1) five 
successful Space Shuttle flights in 1998; and (2) the super 
light weight external tank and the new SSME Block II engine 
have increased the Space Shuttle's performance.
    Mr. Richard D. Blomberg, Chairman, Aerospace Safety 
Advisory Panel, summarized the activities of the Aerospace 
Safety Advisory Panel. Mr. Blomberg reported that the panel 
believes that safety in the short term is well served but 
raised concerns about the future. These concerns included: (1) 
scheduled staff reductions will affect the Space Shuttle and 
the International Space Station (ISS) programs unless retiring 
experienced personnel are replaced with adequately trained 
staff; (2) the Space Shuttle and ISS are hampered by a dearth 
of physical resources with which to meet contingencies; (3) the 
Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) project lacks sufficient 
operational assets to meet unplanned contingencies (EVA crews 
should be provided with additional radiation and meteoroid 
shielding, and a better understanding of Russian EVA training 
procedures and protocols is needed); (4) Space Shuttle and ISS 
hardware are largely obsolete but not unsafe (newer technology 
would likely significantly reduce safety risks); and (5) new 
General Purpose Computers (GPC) are needed for the Space 
Shuttle fleet because the existing devices are outmoded and not 
upgradable.
    Dr. James D. Richardson, Study Director, Potomac Institute 
for Policy Studies, summarized the Potomac Institute's study on 
commercialization of the International Space Station which was 
completed in early 1997. The study found that commercialization 
of human orbital space could yield significant benefits. He 
reported that the benefits to NASA's mission of 
commercialization include: (1) better and more affordable space 
assets; (2) increased utilization of the Space Shuttle, the 
ISS, and any future RLVs; (3) release of NASA's resources for 
applications to new science frontiers; (4) leveraged private 
investment; (5) improved innovation and importation of 
commercial technology to space endeavors; and (6) increased 
public support for space operations. The national benefits of 
commercialization were listed as: (1) enhancement of U.S. 
industry competitiveness; (2) spin-offs of new technologies to 
non-space industries; and, finally, (3) national prestige. 
Opportunities for space-based commercial ventures involved 
privatization of government functions of the ISS, commercial 
research ventures including biomedicine and materials, and 
near-term commercial opportunities in education, entertainment, 
and advertisement. Major problems with commercialization 
ventures were cited as high launch and operations costs, low 
flight frequency, long lead times for launch, and expensive 
indemnification against flight failure. The Potomac Institute's 
study concluded that a strategy of privatization to 
commercialization is a logical means of achieving NASA's goals.
    Ms. Marcia Smith, Specialist in Aerospace and 
Telecommunications Policy, Congressional Research Service, 
testified that the Space Station program, as it began in 1984, 
was originally estimated to cost $8 billion. That program was 
terminated in 1993 and replaced with the International Space 
Station (ISS) program at an estimated cost of $17.4 billion. 
However since 1998, that estimate has risen to between $23.4 
billion and $26 billion depending on whether assembly can be 
completed by June 2004 or October 2005. The original completion 
date was June 2002. The major components of the ISS cost 
increases include: (1) the Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) at a cost 
of $1.04 billion; (2) Russian program assurance, for which NASA 
has added $800 million; (3) extra funding to cover U.S. cost 
overruns, an example of which was Boeing's cost overrun of $828 
million; (4) additional cash payments to Russia, including a 
$200 million transfer to Russia for ISS cooperation; and, (5) 
an estimated $3 billion in costs associated with schedule 
slips. Ms. Smith identified two enacted policies that could 
have increased costs. The first was the requirement to build 
the ISS with a flat budget of $2.1 billion per year and second 
came the decision to place the Russians in the critical path of 
the program. Ms. Smith concluded her testimony by suggesting 
that a council on ISS and commercialization be established to 
address three fundamental issues: (1) what is meant by 
commercialization and privatization; (2) what goals 
commercialization or privatization are expected to meet and how 
they will be measured; and (3) do all the international 
partners need to agree on the above or can the answer be 
different for each one?

              FY2000 Budget Request: Aero-Space Technology

    On March 3, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held its fourth authorization hearing titled ``FY2000 Budget 
Request: Aero-Space Technology.'' Witnesses included: Mr. Sam 
Armstrong, Associate Administrator, Office of Aero-Space 
Technology, NASA and Mr. Gary Payton, Deputy Associate 
Administrator (Space Transportation Technology), Office of 
Aero-Space Technology, NASA.

                           Purpose of Hearing

    The hearing was intended to examine NASA's Aero-Space 
Technology Enterprise in the context of the FY2000 budget 
request. Testimony before the Subcommittee focused on: (1) 
NASA's role in the Administration's Aviation Safety Initiative; 
(2) progress made on the initiative's goals to date; (3) the 
Administration's termination of NASA's High Speed Research 
program and the Advanced Subsonic Technology program, and the 
implications these cancellations have for the future of 
aeronautical research at NASA; (4) NASA's three new focused 
programs in aeronautics, and the rationale for their 
initiation; (5) the status of, plans, and funding requirements 
for NASA's current space transportation technology programs, 
including X-33 and X-34; (6) the status of, plans, and funding 
requirements for Future-X; (7) the role of the Advanced Space 
Transportation Program as a wellspring of technology for 
government and commercial application; (8) current plans 
regarding NASA support for the commercial space transportation 
industry, including VentureStar; and, (9) current plans 
regarding NASA support for the Department of Defense, including 
the Military Space Plane initiative.

                               Key Issues

    Mr. Sam Armstrong, Associate Administrator, Office of Aero-
Space Technology, NASA, used the Science Committee's multimedia 
displays to highlight the accomplishments of the Office of 
Aero-Space Technology. These accomplishments included: (1) the 
unmanned Pathfinder aircraft's record flight to 80,000 feet; 
(2) high speed flight research conducted on the TU-144 Russian 
Supersonic Transport; (3) improved airport ground handling and 
taxi instructions for aircraft; (4) development of a laser 
radar used to detect clear air turbulence; (5) the Ultra-
Efficient Engine Technology program; (6) synthetic vision; and 
(7) the X-34 hypersonic test vehicle.
    Mr. Gary Payton, Deputy Associate Administrator (Space 
Transportation Technology), Office of Aero-Space Technology, 
NASA, testified that the X-34 hypersonic test vehicle was 
currently undergoing testing at Dryden Flight Research Center. 
The Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) program's X-33 launch site at 
Edwards AFB has been completed ahead of schedule and below 
cost. The X-33 itself is still in a state of assembly and its 
aerospike engine is running six months behind schedule. 
Problems with the composite liquid hydrogen tank have forced 
the first flight to move to the summer of 2000. Mr. Payton 
further testified that the X-37 has been selected as the first 
of the Future-X programs. NASA plans to fly the X-37 in a Space 
Shuttle orbiter, deploy the vehicle for 2 to 3 days on orbit, 
and have it return to Earth under its own command. 
Additionally, recent ground tests of the rocket-based combined 
cycle engine have produced results that may potentially lead to 
a more cost-effective launch system. Mr. Payton summarized his 
testimony by stating that the main objective of the Office of 
Aero-Space Technology is to dramatically decrease the cost of 
space access.

           FY2000 Budget Request: Regulations and Operations

    On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held its fifth and final authorization hearing 
titled ``FY2000 Budget Request: Regulations and Operations.'' 
Witnesses included Mr. Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director, Office 
of Space Commercialization, Technology Administration, 
Department of Commerce; Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Associate 
Administrator, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation; 
Mr. Bruce L. Mahone, Director, Office of Space Policy, 
Aerospace Industries Association; and Mr. Joseph Rothenberg, 
Associate Administrator, Office of Human Space Flight, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration.

                           Purpose of Hearing

    The hearing was intended to examine the space 
communications activities within NASA, regulatory activities at 
the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, and promotion of 
commercial space within the Office of Space Commercialization. 
All of these were reviewed within the context of the 
President's FY2000 budget request. Testimony before the 
Subcommittee focused on: (1) the Office of Space 
Commercialization's progress and plans for promoting the U.S. 
commercial space sector; (2) the role of the Office of Space 
Commercialization in dealing with commercial remote sensing, 
communications satellite export licenses, and related issues; 
(3) the problems and challenges facing the U.S. commercial 
space sector which may require changes in program funding, 
policy, legislation, or international agreements; (4) an 
assessment of the U.S. commercial launch industry's state of 
health and share of the world market; (5) an assessment of the 
U.S. commercial satellite industry's state of health and share 
of the world market, particularly as it applies to commercial 
remote sensing; (6) the projected trends in the U.S. share of 
the world market for the industries listed above; (7) any 
suggested regulatory or legislative actions to help preserve 
the U.S. share of the world market for these industries; (8) a 
brief overview of the Consolidated Space Operations Contract 
(CSOC) and the Space Operations Management Office (SOMO); (9) 
comparing savings levels anticipated from CSOC prior to the 
contract award with currently predicted levels of savings; (10) 
identifying any barriers to the commercialization of SOMO 
activities which require legislative action to correct; (11) 
highlighting current regulatory activity within the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation; (12) identifying any aspects 
of commercial space launch which are inhibited by the 
existence, or lack of, appropriate regulations; (13) specifying 
required legislative action which would enable such barriers to 
be removed; and (14) a summary of the manner in which the 
different office's programs and priorities have changed in 
response to the Government Performance and Results Act.

                               Key Issues

    Mr. Keith Calhoun-Senghor, Director, Office of Space 
Commercialization, Technology Administration, Department of 
Commerce, testified that the Office of Space Commercialization 
conducts activities in four primary areas: (1) policy 
development; (2) market analysis; (3) international discussions 
and export promotion; and (4) outreach and education. Mr. 
Calhoun-Senghor further testified that the Office of Space 
Commercialization has had a major role in the following 
achievements in the last year: (1) passage of the Commercial 
Space Act of 1998; (2) the Administration's decision to add two 
additional signals to GPS; (3) the establishment of the Remote 
Sensing Interagency Working Group; and (4) progress towards the 
development of new proposals to stimulate private sector 
investment in new space transportation systems. The Office has 
begun a study of space technologies that are likely to have a 
significant impact on the commercial market in the coming 
century. Mr. Calhoun-Senghor reported that within the next 10 
years, 1,700 satellites will be launched worldwide, and the 
space industry will experience a growth of a least 20 percent a 
year, adding as many as 70,000 new high-technology jobs.
    Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Associate Administrator, Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration, Department of Transportation began her 
testimony by thanking the Committee on Science for passage of 
the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-303). Ms. Smith 
reported that the current regulatory activities of the Office 
of Commercial Space Transportation included: (1) a rule 
addressing the licensing requirements for launches from federal 
ranges; (2) a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding 
licensing requirements for operations of launch sites; and, (3) 
an NPRM for licensing Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) and 
reentry vehicles. OCST considers extension of the launch 
indemnification legislation the most desired legislation at 
this time. Ms. Smith further testified that the U.S. launch 
market now includes 47 percent of the world market. Launch 
revenues topped $1.1 billion in 1998. The key to the U.S. 
success has been the high number of commercial launches to Low 
Earth Orbit (LEO) over the past two years.
    Mr. Bruce L. Mahone, Director, Office of Space Policy, 
Aerospace Industries Association, also testified that the U.S. 
has nearly 50 percent of the market share for launches. He 
noted that this percentage did not represent a majority share 
in actual dollar amounts. Mr. Mahone estimated that with new 
heavy-lift launch vehicles coming on line in the next few 
years, the U.S. would gain back much of the heavy lift business 
and a larger share of the dollar value of the world market. 
Several areas of concern included: (1) long-term renewal of the 
indemnification provisions of the Commercial Space Launch Act; 
(2) national launch range modernization; and (3) the need for 
an export control regime in which the U.S. industry can export 
space hardware quickly but maintain U.S. national security.
    Mr. Joseph Rothenberg, Associate Administrator, Office of 
Human Space Flight, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, related his dedication to motivating the 
Consolidated Space Operations Contract (CSOC) team to ensure 
that NASA takes full advantage of the available commercial 
communications and operations infrastructure. The Space Office 
and Management Office (SOMO) was established in 1995 to address 
the growing cost of NASA's space operations. Mr. Rothenberg 
reported that the solution to cost growth included: (1) the 
need to downsize the workforce and shift the NASA civil service 
personnel from operations into R&D; (2) ensure the agency is 
buying available commercial services in support of operations; 
(3) take advantage of continued advances in technology to 
reduce operations costs; and, (4) to turn routine space 
operations over to the contractors. CSOC has had some 
difficulties with start-up but NASA continues to estimate that 
a savings of $1.4 billion will be realized over the 10 year 
life of the contract. Mr. Rothenberg concluded his testimony by 
detailing the responsibilities of the SOMO Board of Directors. 
The directors consist of representatives from SOMO, Space 
Science, Earth Science, and Human Space Flight. Their mission 
is to ensure the needs of the user community are being met by 
both SOMO and CSOC contractors.

                          V. Committee Actions

    The Committee met on May 13, 1999, to mark up the bill H.R. 
1654, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 
1999. The bill was introduced on May 3, 1999 by Space and 
Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher. Original 
cosponsors included Science Committee Ranking Member Brown, 
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Member Gordon, Mr. 
Weldon of Florida, Mr. Cook, Mr. Nethercutt, and Mr. Etheridge. 
Amendments to the bill were offered in the following order:
    1. En bloc amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher to make 
technical corrections to the Aeronautics Research and 
Technology Base funding levels and to require a study by the 
National Academy of Sciences to review NASA's efforts and 
outside entities' efforts to determine the extent of life in 
the universe. Adopted by voice vote.
    2. Amendment to restore funding for the HPCC and IT2 
Programs offered by Mr. Gordon to restore the funding for HPCC 
and IT2 in Space Science, Earth Science, and Aero-Space 
Technology. Amendment was withdrawn.
    3. Amendment on National Space Grant College and Fellowship 
Program offered by Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Udall to increase by 
$15.9 million the overall funding level for Academic Programs 
in FY2000, from $128.6 million to $144.5 million and designate 
$25 million for the National Space Grant College and Fellowship 
Program. Amendment was withdrawn.
    4. Amendment on National Space Grant College and Fellowship 
Program offered by Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Miller of California, and 
Mr. Udall to increase the funding for the National Space Grant 
College and Fellowship Program in fiscal year 2000 from the 
request level of $13.5 million to $20 million. This amendment 
did not increase the overall funding of Academics Programs. 
Adopted by a voice vote.
    5. Amendment on Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee to designate Minority 
University Research and Education at $62.1 million in fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001 and $62.8 million in fiscal year 2002. 
Within this program, Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities (HBCU) is authorized at $33.6 million in fiscal 
years 2000 and 2001 and $34 million in fiscal year 2002. 
Adopted by a voice vote.
    6. Amendment to promote commercialization of the 
International Space Station (ISS) offered by Mr. Cook to direct 
the NASA Administrator to allocate resources towards 
encouraging commercial participation in ISS, have his staff 
consider how their decisions on policies and program priorities 
will impact commercial participation in the ISS, and publish an 
annual list of opportunities for commercial participation in 
ISS. Amendment was withdrawn.
    7. Amendment to conduct a study of the status of life and 
microgravity research as it relates to the International Space 
Station offered by Mr. Nethercutt to direct the National 
Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Public 
Administration to review readiness of the life and microgravity 
science community to maximize the scientific potential of the 
Space Station, identify limitations of the community's 
readiness for ISS, and study costs and benefits of planning an 
annual dedicated life and microgravity Shuttle mission during 
ISS assembly. Adopted by a voice vote.
    8. Amendment on Remote Sensing for Agricultural and 
Resource Management offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan to direct 
NASA to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture to determine 
types of satellite data which can be useful for agricultural 
planning and identify commercial remote sensing products which 
provide such data. Adopted by a voice vote.
    9. Amendment on Remote Sensing for Agricultural and 
Resource Management-Information Development offered by Mr. 
Smith of Michigan to direct NASA to consult with the Secretary 
of Agriculture to determine types of satellite data which can 
be useful for agricultural planning and identify commercial 
remote sensing products which provide such data. The amendment 
directs NASA to develop a plan to inform farmers and other 
prospective users of these products. Amendment was withdrawn.
    10. Amendment on Integrated Safety Research Plan offered by 
Mr. Gutknecht requiring NASA and the FAA jointly prepare and 
transmit to Congress an integrated civil aviation safety R&D; 
plan that defines the roles and responsibilities of each 
agency, requires the timely sharing of critical information, 
and recommends procedures to increase the communication between 
the agencies' industry advisory committees. Adopted by a voice 
vote.
    11. Amendment on the 100th Anniversary of Flight 
Educational Initiative offered by Mr. Etheridge to instruct the 
NASA Administrator, in coordination with the Secretary of 
Education, to develop an educational curriculum in recognition 
of the 100th anniversary of the first powered flight. Adopted 
by a voice vote.
    12. Amendment on Internet Availability of Information 
offered by Ms. Biggert requiring the NASA Administrator to post 
on NASA's Internet home page, the abstracts of research grants 
and awards funded by the agency. Adopted by a voice vote.
    13. Amendment to terminate Triana offered by Mr. Weldon of 
Florida and Mr. Nethercutt to cancel the Triana satellite, 
transfer the Triana funding of $32.6 million to Life and 
Microgravity Sciences and Applications, and provide $2.5 
million for termination costs. Adopted by a roll call vote: 
yea--21 to nay--18.
    14. Amendment to terminate the International Space Station 
(ISS) offered by Mr. Sanford to terminate the ISS and provide 
$500 million for termination costs. Amendment was defeated by 
voice vote and then withdrawn.
    15. Amendment to remove limitation on funding for Ultra-
Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) offered by Mr. Larson to 
remove the limitation on funding for the UEET, a new focused 
program, in the Office of Aero-Space Technology. Amendment was 
withdrawn.
    16. Amendment on aircraft noise reduction technology 
offered by Mr. Weiner to provide additional funding for 
aircraft noise reduction from within the Aeronautical Research 
and Technology Base for FY2000-2002. Amendment was defeated by 
a roll call vote: yea--17 to nay--17.
    17. Amendment to strike Earth Science program limitation to 
remove the requirement for NASA to spend $50 million for the 
commercial purchase of Earth science data unless 5 percent of 
the funding for the Earth Observing System and Earth Probes is 
allocated to commercial data purchases. Mr. Gordon moved to 
strike the last word to explain that Mr. Brown had intended to 
offer the amendment and asked that Mr. Brown's comments be made 
a part of the record. Amendment was not offered.
    18. Amendment to amend the Trans-Hab section offered by Mr. 
Lampson to alter the prohibition on funding for Trans-Hab. The 
amendment prohibits funding for an inflatable structure (1) to 
replace any Space Station component or (2) that would otherwise 
accommodate humans in space; until NASA produces a report. 
Amendment was withdrawn.
    19. Report Language on Photonics Research offered by Mr. 
Capuano to encourage NASA to continue, and seek additional 
partnerships that merge competitively awarded academic research 
and corporate development in a way that strengthens and 
accelerates the photonics product development process to 
directly contribute to NASA's defined four strategic 
enterprises. Agreed to by a voice vote.
    Mr. Rohrabacher moved that the Committee report the bill, 
H.R. 1654, as amended, to the House, that the staff prepare the 
legislative report and make technical and conforming changes, 
and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the 
bill before the House for consideration. The motion was adopted 
by roll call vote, 27-13.
    The Chairman noted that Committee Members have two 
subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental, 
minority, or additional views on the measure. The Chairman 
asked and received unanimous consent to report the bill in the 
form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute 
reflecting amendments adopted during the markup and that, 
pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule XXII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer 
such motions as may be necessary in the House to go to 
conference with the Senate on H.R. 1654.

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

     Authorizes appropriations for all NASA programs 
for FY2000-2002;
     Authorizes the International Space Station at the 
requested levels for each of the three years;
     Authorizes at the requested levels, Space Shuttle 
Operations, Payload and Utilization Operations, Mission 
Communication Services, Research and Program Management, and 
Space Communication Services;
     Does not provide funding for High Performance 
Computing and Communications and Information Technology for the 
21st Century so that these programs can be authorized in 
separate Committee-wide information technology legislation;
     Provides increases for Space Shuttle upgrades, 
education, advanced space transportation technology, space 
science, life and microgravity research, and the NASA Inspector 
General;
     Prohibits funding for the Triana satellite;
     Provides $50 million in FY2000 and FY2001 for 
commercial Earth science data buys unless NASA demonstrates 
that it has incorporated commercial data buys into its 
procurement process;
     Requires NASA to consider the impact on U.S. 
industry of a foreign entity providing part of a space mission;
     Prohibits funding for Trans-Hab, an inflatable 
structure that is being reviewed by NASA as a potential 
replacement for the Space Station's habitation module;
     Prohibits funding for creation of a government-
owned corporation to perform the functions of the Consolidated 
Space Operations Contract;
     Requires NASA's Chief Financial Officer to conduct 
an independent cost analysis for projects that are expected to 
cost more than $100 million before any funds may be obligated 
for Phase B work;
     Requires NASA to purchase commercially available 
space goods and services to the fullest extent feasible and not 
to compete with the private sector;
     Requires an independent study to prioritize Phase 
III and Phase IV upgrades within 3 separate categories: safety, 
applicability to reusable launch vehicles, and those that have 
a payback period within twelve years;
     Requires NASA to develop a plan for integration of 
R&D; and experimental demonstration activities for aeronautics 
and space transportation technology;
     Defines commercial space policy terms;
     Requires an independent study to identify and 
evaluate the benefits and costs of the broadest possible range 
of commercial and scientific applications of the Space 
Shuttle's external tanks;
     Requires NASA to establish a human space flight 
commercialization/technology program of ground-based and space-
based R&D; in innovative technologies;
     Requires a review from the National Academy of 
Sciences on international efforts to determine the extent of 
life in the universe, enhancements that can be made to NASA's 
efforts to determine the extent of life in the universe, and 
recommendations on possible coordination/integration of NASA's 
initiatives with those of outside entities;
     Requires a study from the National Research 
Council and the National Academy of Public Administration on 
the readiness of the life and microgravity research community 
to use the International Space Station, limitations the life 
and microgravity scientists face in using the Station, and the 
costs and benefits of planning an annual dedicated life and 
microgravity Shuttle mission during Station assembly;
     Requires NASA to consult with the Secretary of 
Agriculture to determine commercial remote sensing data 
products that are useful to farmers;
     Requires a joint plan on civil aviation safety 
research and development from NASA and the Federal Aviation 
Administration;
     Requires NASA to develop an educational curriculum 
on the history of flight in recognition of the 100th 
anniversary of the first powered flight; and
     Requires NASA to post abstracts from NASA-funded 
research grants and awards to its Internet home page.

              VII. Sectional Analysis and Committee Views


               Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents

    This Act may be referred to as the ``National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999.''

                          Section 2. Findings

    The Congress finds that: NASA should continue to pursue 
actions and reforms to reduce institutional costs; NASA must 
continue on its current course of returning to its role as the 
nation's leader in basic scientific, air, and space research; a 
free and competitive market in privately developed and operated 
space transportation is important to fulfilling the majority of 
the federal government's requirements; NASA should promote the 
commercial providers' pursuit of development of advanced space 
transportation technologies; the federal government should 
invest in the types of research and innovative technology in 
which U.S. commercial providers do not invest, while avoiding 
competition with activities in which commercial providers do 
invest; international cooperation in space exploration and 
science should be pursued when it satisfies particular 
conditions; NASA and DoD can reduce the cost of space missions 
by more effectively leveraging their mutual capabilities; the 
Deep Space Network will continue to be a critically important 
part of the nation's scientific and exploration infrastructure 
and NASA should ensure it is adequately maintained and 
upgraded; and the Hubble Space Telescope is an important 
national astronomical research facility that should be 
maintained and enhanced as appropriate to serve as a scientific 
bridge to the next generation of space-based observatories.

                         Section 3. Definitions

    Throughout the Act and Committee report, the term 
``Administrator'' refers to the Administrator of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration and the phrase 
``institution of higher education'' refers to the meaning 
contained in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)). ``Commercial provider'' refers to 
individuals providing space-related services or activities 
whose organization is not under the primary control of federal, 
state, local, and foreign governments. ``State'' refers to the 
States of the Union, the District of Columbia, and any other 
commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. 
``United States commercial provider'' refers to a commercial 
provider which is more than fifty percent owned by U.S. 
nationals or a subsidiary of a foreign company and the 
Secretary of Commerce makes particular findings about the 
subsidiary and the foreign country in which the company is 
incorporated or organized.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS


                       Subtitle A--Authorizations


                Section 101. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    In FY2000 $2,482,700,000 are authorized of which 
$394,400,000 shall only be for Space Station research or for 
Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications. The fenced 
amount is to be administered by the Office of Life and 
Microgravity Sciences and Applications. In FY2001 
$2,328,000,000 are authorized of which $465,400,000 shall only 
be for Space Station research or for Life and Microgravity 
Sciences and Applications. The fenced amount is to be 
administered by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences 
and Applications. In FY2002 $2,091,000,000 are authorized of 
which $469,200,000 shall only be for Space Station research or 
for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications. The fenced 
amount is to be administered by the Office of Life and 
Microgravity Sciences and Applications.

Committee views

    The International Space Station (ISS) is the centerpiece of 
NASA's Human Exploration and Development of Space (HEDS) 
strategic enterprise. An international partnership involving 
over a dozen countries, the ISS possesses the potential to 
enable revolutionary discoveries in a variety of scientific 
disciplines by fully exploiting the unique environment of 
microgravity.
    While NASA has been working on a space station involving 
international partners since 1984, the current configuration 
was established during 1993 and 1994, when the Clinton 
Administration decided to invite Russia to participate in the 
program. At the time, Congress raised concerns about placing 
Russia in the program's critical path and the Administration 
committed that the United States would have an independent 
capability to design, develop, assemble, and operate the 
station regardless of Russia's role. Initially, the first 
element, the U.S.-financed, Russian-built Functional Cargo 
Block (FGB) was scheduled for launch in November 1997. ISS was 
to be completed by June 2002, operate at its full science 
capacity for ten years, and cost $17.4 billion between FY1994 
and June 2002 with annual operating costs of $1.3 billion 
thereafter.
    Unfortunately, since late 1995, the Russian government has 
failed to provide adequate or timely funding to the Russian 
Space Agency so that it can meet its obligations to provide 
hardware to the program. Additionally, the Administration did 
not honor its commitment to Congress to design and build a 
space station capable of being built independently of the 
Russians. NASA and its partners are dependent on RSA for 
propulsion, early command and control, life support, reboost, 
and assured crew return. NASA also depends on Russia for long-
term logistics support to the ISS. As a result, Russia is 
deeply embedded in the critical path and passes all of its 
problems on to its other partners. Largely due to the 
Administration's failure to honor its commitment to the 
Congress and Russia's failure to meet its obligations to the 
ISS, the program's development cost has risen from $17.4 
billion to at least $24.7 billion, according to an outside 
audit conducted in 1998 at the request of Congress. (Internal 
NASA documents attribute $5 billion of this cost growth to 
difficulties caused by Russia.) In many ways, even this figure 
represents a low estimate of the ISS program's development 
cost, since it does not capture the cuts the Administration has 
made to the program's science budgets in order to fund hardware 
development or the hardware responsibilities that NASA has 
convinced other partners to pay for in exchange for increasing 
their research opportunities. Finally, the first element's 
launch was delayed a year; the third element--the Russian 
Service Module--is not expected to be launched until December 
1999, nearly 20 months late; and, the assembly complete date is 
currently not anticipated before October 2004.
    In order to address these problems, the Committee has 
argued in favor of removing Russia from the ISS critical path 
by investing in independent U.S. capabilities, principally by 
investing in a long-term U.S. propulsion capability capable of 
replacing the Russian Service Module. The Administration had 
previously rejected this solution, but now has apparently 
embraced the idea since the FY2000 budget request includes 
funding for NASA to develop an independent U.S. propulsion 
capability and NASA has begun procuring long-lead items for 
this module. The Committee also noted the report of the Cost 
Assessment and Validation Task Force of the NASA Advisory 
Council in the Spring of 1998, which reported that the 
Administration had underfunded the program from its inception 
and recommended that NASA eliminate program content in order to 
keep its costs down. Finally, the Committee has expressed 
consistent opposition to continuing Administration cuts to the 
ISS research budget, noting the concerns of the National 
Research Council, the NASA-NIH Advisory Committee, the 
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the 
American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology, and the 
Association of American Universities Space Science Working 
Group that such cuts undermine the science community's ability 
to maximize the scientific potential of the ISS. In FY1999, the 
Committee recommended and the House of Representatives passed a 
NASA Authorization which directed that ISS research funds be 
managed by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
Applications (OLMSA) within the Science, Aeronautics, and 
Technology appropriations account and that such funds be 
protected from additional transfers to ISS development. The 
FY1999 appropriations bill endorsed this recommendation and 
directed NASA to separate the ISS into its own appropriations 
account in order to prevent unilateral transfers from science 
to development within the NASA budget. Despite these clear 
signals from Congress, NASA declined to transfer responsibility 
for managing the ISS research budget to OLMSA in FY1999.
    H.R. 1654 reaffirms Congressional support for ISS by 
providing full funding for the International Space Station at 
the level of the President's request and restates Congressional 
direction and the priority of science by separating the ISS 
research budget from ISS development activities and directing 
that it be managed by OLMSA. As later sections of the bill 
indicate, the Committee is also endorsing the recommendations 
of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force to control 
cost growth through design discipline.

           SECTION 102. LAUNCH VEHICLE AND PAYLOAD OPERATIONS

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

            Sectional analysis and recommendation
    In FY2000 $2,547,400,000 are authorized for Space Shuttle 
operations and $456,800,000 are authorized for safety and 
performance upgrades. Of the amount authorized for upgrades, 
$18,000,000 shall not be obligated until 45 days after the 
Section 207 report on Shuttle upgrades is submitted to 
Congress. In FY2001 $2,649,900,000 are authorized for Space 
ShuttleOperations, and $407,200,000 are authorized for safety 
and performance upgrades. In FY2002 $2,629,900,000 are authorized for 
Space Shuttle Operations, and $414,000,000 are authorized for safety 
and performance upgrades. This authorization represents an increase in 
the Space Shuttle safety and performance upgrades program of 
$18,000,000 in FY2000, $24,000,000 in FY2001, and $29,000,000 in 
FY2002.
            Program description
    The objective of the Space Shuttle program is to support 
the nation's launch requirements while balancing the goal of 
mission accomplishment with the primacy of program safety. 
Because of its unique capabilities, the Space Shuttle remains 
the cornerstone of America's space program. The Shuttle Orbiter 
is the world's first reusable space vehicle which can be 
reconfigured for a variety of payloads and missions. In 
addition to the transportation of personnel and equipment to 
orbit, the Space Shuttle stands alone among the world's space 
systems, due to its ability to retrieve materials from space 
for repair or return to Earth. The Space Shuttle will serve as 
the primary transportation system for the assembly and 
operation of the International Space Station.
            Committee views
    Internal budget constraints have limited the agency's 
ability to institute additional safety and performance upgrades 
to the Space Shuttle. A recently released study on Shuttle 
upgrades by the National Research Council (NRC) has commended 
NASA on the way the agency prioritizes and implements upgrades. 
The report, however, does note the NRC's reservations about the 
implementation process for those upgrade programs which would 
fundamentally alter the existing mold lines of the Shuttle 
``stack.''
    The NASA Administrator has testified that if Shuttle 
program managers require additional funds for safety and 
performance upgrades, they would be provided. To date, Congress 
has not received such a request. United Space Alliance, the 
prime contractor for the Space Flight Operations Contract 
(SFOC), has identified a group of additional upgrades it deems 
beneficial which are beyond those for which NASA sets aside 
approximately $100 million annually. The Committee encourages 
NASA to devote the additional resources provided to high 
priority upgrades such as the Electric Auxiliary Power Unit and 
the Health-monitoring system for the Space Shuttle Main Engine. 
Other upgrades, which may have applications for other vehicles 
as well as the Space Shuttle, could be funded through the 
Advanced Space Transportation Technology program. Some of the 
increase in funds in the Advanced Space Transportation 
Technology budget line may be used to fund needed technology 
risk reduction efforts intended to support long-term Space 
Shuttle sustainability, depending upon the results of the study 
in Section 207 and further interaction between the Committee 
and NASA.
    A replacement for the Space Shuttle has not materialized, 
and may not before the end of the next decade. Sufficient 
resources should be dedicated to safety and performance 
upgrades to ensure the safety and integrity of the system. At 
the same time, such improvements should not be a disincentive 
to the development of a Shuttle replacement.
    Congress urges the NASA Administrator, in cooperation with 
the Space Flight Operations Contractor, to continue to jointly 
determine the priority for the implementation of Shuttle 
upgrades. Further, though the Value Engineering Clause 
currently in effect between NASA and United Space Alliance 
incentivizes the SFOC contractor to invest in Shuttle upgrades, 
Congress encourages the NASA Administrator along with industry 
to formulate long-term proposals to properly incentivize 
reinvestment by contractors beyond the scope of the contract.
    The 1998 Annual Report of the Aerospace Safety Advisory 
Panel has noted the aging of aircraft associated with the 
training of this nation's astronauts. According to the report, 
both the Shuttle training aircraft and NASA's fleet of T-38s 
are rapidly approaching the end of their safe service lives 
with no replacements scheduled. Despite the aging of these 
aircraft, the report notes the enviable safety record 
established by NASA and recommends that plans should be made to 
replace the Shuttle training aircraft.
    The T-38 fleet is in the process of various upgrades which 
will allow these aircraft to fulfill their function for the 
foreseeable future. However, the utilization rate of these 
aircraft is expected to become greater due to the increased 
flight hour requirements of an astronaut corps projected to 
grow over the next few years. This increase in operational 
requirements will accelerate the aging of these aircraft and 
may adversely affect safety. The Committee therefore encourages 
the NASA Administrator to explore options that would offset the 
demands of increased flight hour requirements on these 
aircraft.

Section 102(3). Payload and Utilization Operations

    In FY2000 $169,100,000 are authorized; in FY2001 
$182,900,000 are authorized; and in FY2002 $184,500,000 are 
authorized for Payload and Utilization Operations. This program 
supports the processing and flight of Shuttle payloads.

           section 103. science, aeronautics, and technology

Section 103(1). Space Science

            Sectional analysis and recommendation
    In FY2000 $2,202,400,000 are authorized of which 
$472,000,000 shall be for the Research Program. The Hubble 
Space Telescope is authorized at $170,400,000 an increase of 
$30,000,000 over the budget request. In FY2001 $2,315,200,000 
are authorized of which $475,800,000 shall be for the Research 
Program. In FY2002 $2,411,800,000 are authorized of which 
$511,100,000 shall be for the Research Program and $5,000,000 
shall be for a space science data buy. For each of the fiscal 
years 2000-2002, $10,500,000 are authorized for the Near Earth 
Object Survey and $12,000,000 are authorized for Space Solar 
Power technology. High Performance Computing and Communications 
and Information Technology for the 21st Century are cut from 
Space Science in the following amounts: -$43,200,000 in FY2000; 
-$50,600,000 in FY2001; and -$51,600,000 in FY2002. These two 
programs will be dealt with in a separate, Committee-wide 
authorization bill on information technology.
            Committee views
    NASA's space science activity encompasses a range of 
scientific inquiries and space missions to improve 
understanding of: (1) the connection between the Sun and the 
Earth; (2) the structure and evolution of the universe; (3) the 
origins, nature and extent of life in the universe; and (4) our 
solar system.
    Although the space science activity has enjoyed consistent 
bipartisan support from the Committee and Congress for several 
years, the Committee has expressed concern about some aspects 
of the research program. Most notably, NASA has a tendency to 
request insufficient funds to adequately process and analyze 
data from its space science missions. Drawing on its 
engineering heritage, the Agency sometimes tends to 
overemphasize building flight hardware at the expense of 
funding scientific investigators to maximize the science 
potential of NASA's missions. The flight rate for space science 
missions has risen dramatically in recent years, and under the 
new budget appears as though it will continue increasing. Yet, 
the space science research and analysis budget is flatlined 
through 2004. As a percentage of the total space science 
budget, research and analysis is actually falling from 9% in 
FY1999 to just under 7% in FY2004. Similarly, the space science 
mission operations budget is also projected to fall from $139 
million in FY1998 to $76 million in FY2004, a decline from 7% 
of the FY1998 budget to slightly less than 3% of the space 
science budget in FY2004. As a result, the data collected by 
these missions is often underutilized. For example, NASA's 
budget for data processing and analysis in the successful Lunar 
Prospector mission appears inadequate to develop some of the 
Lunar mineral maps capable of being extracted from the 
mission's data products. Past hearings have drawn attention to 
this problem, which the National Research Council's Space 
Studies Board reviewed extensively in its 1998 report 
``Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science 
Programs.'' As important, when some programs run into 
development difficulties, NASA's generally finds additional 
resources in the space science budget by transferring the funds 
out of its science activities. In order to prevent the costs of 
the emergency Hubble Space Telescope repair mission from 
adversely affecting other space science programs, the bill 
contains $30 million over and above the President's request to 
pay for this mission in FY2000.
    The Committee understands the critical role photonic 
research plays in NASA's efforts to develop the Next Generation 
Space Telescope, the Origins program, and the Space 
Communications program. The Committee notes that NASA has 
worked with academic institutions and corporate entities to 
foster cutting-edge research and development of photonic-
related ideas and technologies. Therefore, the Committee 
encourages NASA to continue these partnerships and seek 
additional partnerships that merge competitively awarded 
academic research and corporate development in a way that 
strengthens and accelerates the photonics product development 
process to directly contribute to NASA's defined four strategic 
enterprises.
    Near Earth Object Survey: The threat to life on Earth due 
to asteroids is a subject of ongoing debate and discussion. If 
one of the many large bodies of rock orbiting the sun should 
intersect Earth's orbit, the results could be potentially 
cataclysmic. A number of scientific theories tie the extinction 
of the dinosaurs to an asteroid impact from space. This subject 
began receiving much more serious consideration after 1994, 
when the Shoemaker-Levy Comet slammed into the surface of 
Jupiter, creating visible impact sites about as large as the 
diameter of the Earth.
    The first step to protect against such an event is to find 
and catalog these objects as they orbit the sun. In 1995, the 
Near Earth Objects Survey Working Group, chaired by the late 
Dr. Eugene Shoemaker, examined levels of effort required to 
conduct such a survey. The Near Earth Object Survey is 
currently funded as an interagency effort at a lower level of 
funding than that recommended by the group report.
    This Committee has had a long-standing concern under both 
Democratic and Republican leadership that NASA funding levels 
to identify such objects are not sufficient to satisfy the 
metricidentified in the Shoemaker report: the discovery of 90% 
of near Earth objects larger than 1 kilometer diameter within 10 years. 
In testimony before the Subcommittee, NASA has twice committed to 
achieving the Shoemaker metric (on May 21, 1998 and on February 24, 
1999).
    The Committee recognizes that the odds of an object larger 
than 1 kilometer striking the Earth are extremely remote. 
However, the consequences--the possible end of human life on 
Earth--are extremely great. Indeed, in testimony before the 
Subcommittee on May 21, 1998, scientists testified that an 
individual is therefore more likely to die from an asteroid 
strike than by being struck by lightning.
    An added benefit of the Near Earth Object Survey program is 
that smaller objects which strike much more often are also 
detected. For example, an object which impacted Siberia in 1908 
had the explosive equivalent of over 1,000 times that of the 
Hiroshima bomb--flattening trees over an area twice the size of 
the Washington Beltway. Such an object is statistically 
expected to strike the Earth once per century. The Near Earth 
Object Survey, according to NASA researchers, can also discover 
and catalog these smaller objects, and potentially warn of an 
impact early enough to evacuate the area well ahead of time.
    However, the Committee notes with great concern NASA's 
failure to submit a budget for the Near Earth Object Survey 
that is sufficient to achieve the Shoemaker metric to which 
NASA has repeatedly committed.
    The discovery of near Earth objects (NEO's) is a linear 
function. That is to say, two telescopes of the same type can 
be expected to yield twice the discovery rate of one telescope 
acting alone. This allows a determination to be made of the 
adequacy of current funding levels to accomplish the necessary 
NEO detection rate.
    The first half of FY1999 ended on March 31st, 1999. The 
rate-of-discovery of large NEO's during that period was less 
than \1/6\th of what is necessary to discover 90% of large 
NEO's in the 10 year timeframe. At the beginning of fiscal year 
1999, NASA's NEO budget more than doubled from $1.5 million to 
$3.5 million annually. This increase allows for additional 
telescope time to be scheduled. Because of the long lead-time 
for such scheduling, the new discovery rate has not yet ramped 
up to the predicted doubled rate. Once this rate has doubled, 
the large NEO discovery rate will double from less than \1/6\th 
the necessary rate to \1/3\rd the necessary rate.
    The Committee therefore concludes that NASA's current 
funding level for NEO detection is about one-third the level 
necessary to achieve the Shoemaker metric to which NASA has 
committed. Accordingly, the funding level is tripled from $3.5 
million to $10.5 million.
    Space Solar Power technology: In 1997 NASA released its 
``Fresh Look Study'' of Space Solar Power and NASA reprogrammed 
$2 million, with the Committee's encouragement, to continue its 
analysis of the required technologies and their cost-effective 
application for both near-term space applications and long-term 
energy generation potential. The President's FY1999 NASA Budget 
requested $5 million for Space Solar Power as part of the Cross 
Enterprise Technology program in the Office of Space Science, 
and Administrator Goldin indicated during his Posture hearing 
on February 5, 1998, that NASA planned to request an additional 
$5 million in FY2000. Congress then increased this amount to 
$15 million for FY1999.
    The continuing analyses conducted during FY1998 resulted in 
roadmaps for critical path technologies for Space Solar Power 
including: solar power generation; wireless powerless 
transmission; power management and distribution; structures, 
materials, and controls; thermal management and controls; 
robotic maintenance and operations; platform systems; ground 
segment systems; in-space transportation and infrastructure; 
and systems integration. Not surprisingly, a measured program 
of space solar power technology investments, guided by systems 
studies and roadmaps, could nevertheless enable significant 
interim applications within five years: ultra-lightweight 
structures for large aperture in-space observatories and 
interferometers; 200 watts/kilogram solar power generation for 
government and commercial Earth-orbiting platforms; ground-to-
space power beaming for space science; autonomous deployment of 
space systems; improved in-space servicing of Earth-orbiting 
systems; automated ground and space systems operations (vehicle 
management); cooperative robots for science/exploration 
missions; and ultra-large lightweight optics.
    While the long-term goal of space solar power generation 
and transmission to Earth as a new, environmentally-clean form 
of energy during the 21st century is exciting and worth 
continued funding, the Committee believes that the shorter-term 
benefits are sufficient to justify continuing the technology 
analysis, development, and demonstration activities begun 
during FY1999. The Committee has therefore provided $12 million 
per year over FY2000-2002 for this purpose, and will review 
NASA's progress on this focused technology effort, including 
NASA's level of success in leveraging other private and public 
resources, especially those of the Departments of Defense and 
Energy.
    Summary: These recommendations will result in net increases 
to the space science budget, which reflect the Committee's 
continuing prioritization of space science activities. However, 
the Committee does note some warning signs in the Space Science 
enterprise, most notably in NASA's inability to constrain 
continuing cost growth and program delays in the AXAF 
observatory and the budgetary disappearance of the New 
Millennium program, which NASA originally initiated to address 
its historical inability to develop new technology for space 
science. While such problems appear to be at an early stage, 
the Committee does want to draw NASA's attention to them before 
they have a significant impact on its budget.

Section 103(2). Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications

            Sectional analysis and recommendation
    In FY2000 $333,600,000 are authorized, an increase of 
$77,400,000 over the budget request. Of this amount $5,000,000 
are authorized for sounding rocket vouchers. In FY2001 
$335,200,000 are authorized, an increase of $70,000,000 over 
the budget request. In FY2002 $344,000,000 are authorized, an 
increase of $80,800,000 over the budget request. For each of 
the fiscal years 2000-2002, $2,000,000 are authorized for 
breast and ovarian cancer research and other women's health 
issues.
            Committee views
    Funds budgeted for Life and Microgravity Science and 
Applications involve investigations in Advanced Human Support 
Technology, Biomedical Research and Countermeasures, 
Gravitational Biology and Ecology, Microgravity Research, Space 
Product Development, Occupational Health Research, Mission 
Integration, and Space Medicine. Early in the International 
Space Station (ISS) program, the Office of Life and 
Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA) managed the 
research accounts for the International Space Station, where 
much of this research will take place in the future. 
Unfortunately, in order to pay for increasing ISS development 
costs without appearing to overrun its budget projections, the 
Administration in the past has cut funding for research into 
ISS-based life and microgravity research andtransferred 
management responsibility from the scientific community in OLMSA to the 
engineering community within the ISS program office. These cuts totaled 
approximately $462 million between FY1997 and FY1999. In the FY2000 
budget request, the Administration paid some of these previously 
transferred funds back into the ISS research account, and then cut the 
ISS research budget by another $387 million between FY1999 and FY2004. 
When all of the budget impacts are considered, these transfers resulted 
in a net reduction of $280 million from life and microgravity science 
and applications activities between FY2000 and FY2004 when the FY2000 
budget request is compared against the FY1999 budget request.
    In the period FY2000-2002, the Committee seeks to restore 
$228.2 million of these Administration cuts to science. 
However, rather than restoring these funds to the ISS research 
budget, the Committee has placed them in the OLMSA budget in 
order to give NASA greater flexibility in undoing the damage 
done to the research community by earlier Administration cuts. 
In this manner, the Committee is promoting maximum flexibility 
to deal with a constantly changing ISS assembly sequence so 
that damage to the science agenda caused by ISS delays is 
minimized. In addition, to partially address the two-year gap 
in flight opportunities that the life and microgravity research 
community is experiencing in FY1999 and FY2000, the bill sets 
aside $5 million in FY2000 for OLMSA to use sounding rockets to 
give life and microgravity researchers more opportunities to 
fly their experiments in microgravity.

Section 103(3). Earth Science

            Sectional analysis and recommendation
    In FY2000 $1,382,500,000 are authorized; in FY2001 
$1,413,300,000 are authorized; and in FY2002 $1,365,300,000 are 
authorized. These authorizations are subject to the limitations 
in sections 126 and 130. Section 126 authorizes $50,000,000 in 
FY2001 and FY2002 for commercial data purchases of Earth 
science data. Section 130 prohibits using funding in the bill 
for the Triana program, except for $2,500,000 in FY2000 for 
termination costs. High Performance Computing and 
Communications is cut from Earth Science in the following 
amounts: -$44,000,000 in FY2000; -$49,500,000 in FY2001; and 
-$55,200,000 in FY2002. This program will be dealt with in a 
separate, committee-wide authorization bill on information 
technology.
            Program description
    NASA's Earth Science Enterprise (formerly Mission to Planet 
Earth) is the largest single component of the U.S. Global 
Change Research Program (USGCRP), averaging about 70% of 
USGCRP's total budget. The components of the Earth Science 
program can be summarized into four basic categories: (1) Earth 
Observing System (EOS); (2) Earth Observing System Data 
Information System (EOSDIS); (3) Earth Probes; and (4) Science 
programs.
            Committee views
    The Committee remains concerned over problems and delays 
which plagued the Earth Science Enterprise in 1998. While 
scientists did have a successful year with science data made 
available to them such as the prediction of El Nino, a new 
prediction of La Nina, radar measurements of Antarctica, and 
cloud measurements from Hurricane Bonnie, this data came from 
satellites built by other countries that included NASA 
instruments. The Earth Observing System, a series of satellites 
(AM-1, PM-1, Chem-1, and others) which represent the flagships 
of the Earth Science Enterprise, was unable to launch any of 
the three satellites (AM-1, Landsat-7, and QuikScat) scheduled 
for launch in 1998.
    The Committee recognizes that the QuikScat delay was due to 
a launch vehicle problem and that Landsat-7 was subsequently 
launched on April 15, 1999. These delays, however, underscore 
the Committee's concern about the over-reliance on acquiring 
satellite data rather than the conduct of scientific research. 
Indeed, this concern is epitomized by NASA's planned 
acquisition of data that will be equivalent to the entire 
Library of Congress every two weeks during just the AM-1 and 
Landsat-7 era--before PM-1 and Chem-1 have even launched.

Section 103(4). Aero-Space Technology

    In FY2000 $999,300,000 are authorized; in FY2001 
$908,400,000 are authorized; and in FY2002 $994,800,000 are 
authorized for Aero-Space Technology. This budget line contains 
three separate activities: Aeronautical Research and 
Technology, Advanced Space Transportation Technology, and 
Commercial Technology.

Aeronautical research and technology

            Sectional analysis and recommendation
    In FY2000 $532,800,000 are authorized with no funds for the 
Ultra-Efficient Engine (a decrease of $50,000,000 from the 
budget request) and $412,800,000 are authorized for the 
Research and Technology Base (an increase of $50,000,000 over 
the budget request and a decrease of $63,000,000 for HPCC and 
IT2). In FY2001 $524,000,000 are authorized with no funds for 
the Ultra-Efficient Engine (a decrease of $50,000,000 from the 
budget request), $399,800,000 are authorized for the Research 
and Technology Base (an increase of $50,000,000 over the budget 
request and a decrease of $84,200,000 for HPCC and IT2), and 
$54,200,000 are authorized for Aviation Systems Capacity (a 
decrease of $5,000,000 from the budget request). In FY2002 
$519,200,000 are authorized with no funds for the Ultra-
Efficient Engine (a decrease of $50,000,000 from the budget 
request), $381,600,000 are authorized for the Research and 
Technology Base (an increase of $50,000,000 over the budget 
request and a decrease of $85,300,000 for HPCC and IT2), and 
$67,600,000 are authorized for Aviation Systems Capacity (a 
decrease of $10,000,000 from the budget request). High 
Performance Computing and Communications and Information 
Technology for the 21st Century are cut from Aeronautics in the 
following amounts: -$87,200,000 in FY2000; -$111,000,000 in 
FY2001; and -$110,800,000 in FY2002 (a portion of the cut comes 
from the Research and Technology Base and a portion comes from 
the HPCC focused program within Aeronautics). HPCC and IT2 will 
be dealt with in a separate, committee-wide authorization bill 
on information technology.
            Program description
    NASA has changed the name of its Aeronautics and Space 
Transportation Enterprise to Aero-Space Technology with the 
submission of its FY2000 budget. The core of NASA's 
aeronautical research efforts can be found in the Research and 
Technology Base where the focus is leading-edge research in 
propulsion and structures. In addition, focused programs are 
structured to provide further research into programs which NASA 
deems appropriate. Though NASA claims that its aeronautical 
research and technology focused programs are a high priority, 
the agency's abrupt cancellation of the High Speed Research and 
Advanced Subsonic Technologyfocused programs late last year is 
a direct contradiction. NASA's claims that such focused programs are 
disciplined in terms of duration, are questionable, particularly in the 
case of the High Speed Research program. That program was supposed to 
be completed in FY2002 until NASA proposed it be extended through 
FY2007 at a total estimated cost of over $2.6 billion.
            Committee views
    Ultra Efficient Engine Technology: NASA's FY2000 budget 
request included the Ultra Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) 
Program, a new start which the agency stated would build on 
breakthrough technology developed in the High Speed Research, 
Advanced Subsonic Technology, and Research and Technology Base 
programs to spawn a new generation of high efficiency, low-
emissions U.S. aircraft. As stated above, NASA has terminated 
the High Speed Research and Advanced Subsonic Technology 
programs early in FY1999. Therefore, to protect aeronautics 
research programs in the future it is the view of the Committee 
that the valuable research that this program encompasses should 
be pursued within the Research and Technology Base. These 
programs include, Ultra Low NOx combustors and ceramic matrix 
composite liners; advanced turbomachinery; low-noise fan, core, 
and nozzle designs; advanced materials and structures which 
includes research into propulsion and airframe integration; and 
the system analysis tools required to validate these 
technologies. The Committee provides the funding requirements 
of this program through FY2002 and recognizes that a long-term 
funding commitment to meet the technology goals of the program 
will require cost sharing by the commercial sector.
    Aircraft Noise Reduction: With the elimination of the Ultra 
Efficient Engine Technology program as a focused research 
program, the budget for this program has been returned to the 
Research and Technology Base. The Committee has avoided 
imposing any restrictions on how those funds are spent other 
than to encourage the agency to continue the research that was 
proposed. For this reason, any attempt to redirect some or all 
of the funds either internally or externally to that program is 
counterproductive. In the case of aircraft noise reduction, 
NASA's aeronautical research budget for this research in FY2000 
is $25,000,000. According to NASA, redirecting additional 
funding to this program would adversely impact other research 
programs of equal merit.
    Aviation Safety: On July 25, 1996, the President 
established the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and 
Security. On February 12, 1997, the final report of the 
Commission was delivered to the President. The principle 
recommendation of the Commission was that the focus of 
government and industry should be to reduce the rate of 
accidents by a factor of five within 10 years.
    NASA's role in this effort will be primarily in the area of 
human factors research in that the predominance of aviation 
accidents involve human error. NASA will also be looked upon to 
provide expertise in areas it has already conducted research 
in, such as more efficient terminal area control and advanced 
air traffic control systems. Originally, the Research and 
Technology base was to be the source of funding aviation safety 
until it became a separate focused program beginning in FY2002. 
In testimony before the House Science Committee in February 
1999, the NASA Administrator accelerated this program and 
changed its priority within the Aeronautics Enterprise.
    Aviation System Capacity: NASA's FY2000 budget also 
contains funding for the Aviation Systems Capacity program, 
which is a newly created line within the focused programs. This 
work used to be carried out within the recently canceled 
Advanced Subsonic Technology focused program. The Aviation 
Systems Capacity program will conduct research into the 
modernization and improvements to the Air Traffic Management 
System and the introduction of new vehicle classes which can 
potentially reduce congestion. NASA characterizes the nature of 
the research in the Aviation System Capacity program as 
``modernization and improvements'' to the existing air traffic 
system through efficient and flexible routing, and scheduling 
and sequencing of aircraft in all weather conditions. The 
Committee has reservations that this research should be a 
focused program within Aeronautical Research and Technology.
    However, since the goals of the Aviation Systems Capacity 
program are put forth as national goals, the nation's resources 
should be fully utilized to attain them. And, though the FAA is 
the agency responsible for the U.S. air transportation system, 
it may not possess the world-class R&D; facilities to achieve 
them. NASA does. Therefore, these facilities and expertise 
should be made available to the FAA on a reimbursable basis. 
This legislation takes the first steps toward a more 
appropriate division of responsibilities by transferring a 
small portion of the funding in support of this program from 
NASA to the FAA.

Advanced space transportation technology

            Sectional analysis and recommendation
    In FY2000 $334,000,000 are authorized of which $61,300,000 
shall be for the Future-X Demonstration Program, an increase of 
$30,000,000 over the budget request; and $105,600,000 shall be 
for the Advanced Space Transportation Program, an increase of 
$50,000,000 over the budget request. In FY2001 $249,400,000 are 
authorized of which $109,000,000 shall be for the Future-X 
Demonstration Program, an increase of $35,000,000 over the 
budget request; and $134,400,000 shall be for the Advanced 
Space Transportation Program, an increase of $39,000,000 over 
the budget request. In FY2002 $340,000,000 are authorized, an 
increase of $134,000,000 over the budget request.
            Committee views
    The Paramount Goal of Cheap Access To Space: After 
maintaining safety of the Space Shuttle for the astronauts who 
fly on it, the Committee continues to believe that the highest 
priority in federal civil space transportation is the 
aggressive, near-term reduction of the high cost of launching 
people and cargo into space and returning them to Earth. This 
Committee has long supported the focused experimental 
demonstration of technologies which can lower space 
transportation costs, and the development and implementation of 
regulatory, procurement, and other policies which foster a free 
and competitive market in space transportation services. The 
Committee believes that both advanced technology and 
competitive markets are required to dramatically lower space 
transportation costs.
    Inexpensive, reliable, and plentiful access to space is an 
urgent as well as important priority for several reasons. One 
is the pressing need to reduce costs borne by the American 
taxpayer for ongoing and planned NASA activities in human space 
flight, space science, and other R&D; programs, as well as 
meeting broader federal requirements for commercially-developed 
space transportation services. Another is the challenge of 
redressing the growing shortfall in domestic space 
transportation capacity and reliability, which has recently 
been shown to have national security as well as economic 
implications.
    In the longer term, the Committee believes that cheaper, 
better, and more capable commercially-developed and operated 
space transportation systems are essential to America's 
strategic vision of opening the space frontier to science and 
commerce.
    Advanced Space Transportation Technology--In General: Over 
the past two years NASA's Advanced Space Transportation 
Technology (ASTT) initiatives have made considerable progress 
and suffered some setbacks, and now face significant budgetary 
and organizational (as well as technical and programmatic) 
challenges.
    The Committee continues to appreciate the Administrator's 
leadership in this critical activity, as well as the vision and 
determination of NASA personnel working on these initiatives at 
NASA

Headquarters, Marshall Space Flight Center, other field 
centers, and various industry locations, as well as the vital 
contributions made by many U.S. Air Force personnel.
    Because the Committee believes Advanced Space 
Transportation Technology is so important, it is providing a 
total of over $282 million in additional resources to this 
activity during FY2000-2002 over the runout of the FY2000 
budget request. In general, while the Committee recommends some 
specific priorities for these funds, particularly in FY2000 and 
FY2001, the Committee shares the Office of Management and 
Budget's concern that NASA focus the preponderance of its 
Advanced Space Transportation Technology resources on pursuing 
experimental technology demonstrations which will enable near-
term cost reductions (``factor of 10'') in meeting NASA's human 
space flight as well as cargo transportation requirements.
    X-33 and X-34: Progress continues to be made on NASA's two 
ongoing reusable launch vehicle advanced technology 
demonstration projects, the flagship X-33 and smaller X-34 
programs, but both efforts have been frustrated by technical 
and schedule challenges. The Committee understands that these 
problems are to be expected in experimental vehicle programs 
which are intended to push the state of the art in one or more 
technologies on a lower-cost, subscale basis. In the case of 
the X-33 particularly, this has led to some cost growth which 
has been absorbed almost entirely by additional private 
investment and modest technical content reductions.
    The Committee wishes to stress its continuing confidence in 
the X-33 and X-34 industry teams which are striving to break 
down the technical barriers to cheap access to space, and notes 
that these are both industry-led programs. However, the 
Committee will exercise careful oversight of these important 
and challenging projects, including several setbacks that have 
arisen over the past year. To the extent that delays or other 
problems have arisen because of how NASA initially designed 
these projects, or has continued to manage the government's 
participation in them, the Committee will at a later date seek 
to work with the Administrator to promote effective reforms of 
similar future experimental vehicle activities.
    Regarding the X-34, the Committee again commends NASA's 
decision to purchase a second test vehicle, but is concerned 
about NASA's inability to fund a variable-thrust engine so that 
the X-34 could serve as a more effective hypersonic test-bed. 
The Committee also is worried about the continuing changes in 
location of the X-34 test flights, and in particular about 
reports of efforts by some NASA field center employees to lobby 
for such changes.
    Despite a slip of over a year and numerous technical and 
management challenges in the X-33 program, the Committee notes 
with favor the continuing financial and management commitment 
of the industry team leader, Lockheed Martin, and in particular 
Lockheed Martin Skunk Works.
    The Committee has stated in the past that the X-33 program 
has been under-funded for the quantity and difficulty of 
technical and programmatic challenges it faces. For example, 
the schedule impact of a December 1998, bonding failure in one 
of the X-33's lightweight, multi-lobed composite fuel tanks was 
dramatically exacerbated by the lack of sufficient funding for 
X-33 structural spare parts.
    Future-X: The Committee notes with favor the selection for 
negotiation in late 1998 of Boeing's Advanced Technology 
Vehicle concept as the first Pathfinder-class Future-X advanced 
technology demonstrator, the X-37. In particular the Committee 
is gratified by NASA's fruitful cooperation with the Air Force 
to build on the success of the X-40A Space Maneuvering Vehicle 
demonstrator, and by the Air Force's investment of $19.6 
million in improving the X-37 program. At the same time, the 
Committee is perplexed about NASA's failure to complete 
negotiations, after more than five months, with the X-37 
industry team on a technically challenging and aggressively-
scheduled project of great and urgent importance to national 
security space capabilities as well as to human space flight 
cost reduction.
    Just as the Air Force has contributed to the X-37, the 
Committee wishes NASA to support the Air Force in pursuing a 
second test article which can further address both national 
security and civil/commercial operability and component 
technology demonstration goals.
    The Committee is strongly supportive of the frequent (once 
every 18 months) selection of Pathfinder-class Future-X 
concepts to meet the Administrator's announced intention to 
``darken the skies with X vehicles.'' For that reason, the 
Committee is providing Future-X an additional $30 million in 
FY2000, $35 million in FY2001, and access to an overall ASTT 
increase of $134 million in FY2002.
    While the Committee does not want to unduly restrict NASA's 
flexibility in pursuing any meritorious Future-X concepts, the 
Committee prefers that this additional funding be focused on 
meeting what it believes are under-funded challenges in 
demonstrating innovative concepts and applications of existing 
system technologies to produce breakthroughs in the operability 
of space transportation systems. In the past the Committee has 
commended the benefits of the streamlined, airplane-style 
operations of the former DC-X program and the low cost-per-
test-flight of the X-34, and recommends that overcoming this 
fundamental challenge to the commercial space transportation 
industry, particularly for and with the emerging reusable 
launch vehicle companies, be given a higher priority in ASTT. 
Furthermore, the Committee recommends that NASA pursue 
innovative partnerships, including technical assistance and 
procurement outreach, with these emerging commercial space 
transportation companies so they can provide NASA credible and 
innovative proposals for Future-X vehicles and flight 
experiments which will be mutually beneficial if selected for 
development.
    Advanced Space Transportation Program--In General: The 
Committee continues to believe that among NASA's most important 
investments is the ASTT initiative's analogue to the 
Aeronautics Research and Technology Base: the Advanced Space 
Transportation Program (ASTP). This is the wellspring of 
subsystem and component technologies and advanced concepts for 
the focused advanced technology demonstrations of the RLV and 
Future-X experimental vehicle programs, and the seed corn of 
our future ability to move into and through the space frontier.
    The Committee has nearly doubled the ASTP budget in FY2000, 
increasing the President's request by $50 million to $105.6 
million, and grows it further to $134.4 million in FY2001. The 
Committee notes that these additional funds could be used for 
two existing and two new space transportation technology base 
activities and encourages NASA to do so.
    ASTP--RLV Focused: Recent technology content reductions 
within the RLV technology portion of the X-33 program, the need 
to reduce technology risk of many proposed longer-term Space 
Shuttle upgrades, and the Committee's long-standing view that 
NASA should demonstrate technologies to support multiple 
competing Reusable Launch Vehicle concepts (possibly including 
an upgraded Space Shuttle system) because of the urgent need to 
reduce the cost of transporting both humans and cargo into 
space all lead the Committee to encourage NASA to use the 
additional funds provided for ASTP in FY2000 for the existing 
RLV Focused program.
    Furthermore, the Committee expects that NASA will continue 
this activity beyond FY2000, since it is clear that the 
technology risk of a commercially-developed Shuttle-class RLV 
will not have been completely reduced by then. The purpose of 
this activity should be to continue to demonstrate flight-
weight and flight-performance technologies on a full-scale 
component or subsystem basis without building full-scale 
manufacturing prototypes of elements of a particular 
operational system.
    ASTP--Rocket Propulsion Operability Demonstrations and 
Advanced Propulsion Focused: Administrator Goldin and other 
NASA and industry officials have testified repeatedly before 
the Committee that the high cost and limited capabilities of 
current launch systems is due in large part to the historical 
under-investment by the government and private sector over the 
past 20 years in both rocket and more advanced propulsion 
technologies. Indeed, until the X-33 program's XRS-2200 
Aerospike and the X-34 project's FASTRAC, no ``new'' rocket 
engines had been developed in the U.S. since the Space Shuttle 
Main Engine in the 1970's.
    To achieve the public goal of price reduction and 
innovation through competition, NASA should make the growth of 
the entrepreneurial commercial space transportation industry a 
top priority in its advanced space transportation technology 
efforts, particularly with respect to propulsion investments. 
The Committee encourages NASA to play a role similar to that of 
the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics in providing 
substantial technical assistance and federal facilities 
access--on a non-reimbursable basis when appropriate--to United 
States commercial rocket engine developers, particular those 
aiming at enabling the emerging reusable launch vehicle 
industry. In addition, NASA may wish to work with industry to 
bring mature, highly-operable rocket engine technology that has 
been developed elsewhere to the United States for domestic 
testing and dissemination. The Committee therefore encourages 
NASA to use some of the increased funding for ASTP in FY2000 to 
establish a rocket propulsion operability demonstration 
activity at the Marshall Space Flight and Stennis Space 
Centers.
    ASTP--Space Transportation Research: The NASA Administrator 
has testified that one of the most exciting and important 
activities underway at the space agency is the pursuit of 
fundamental, revolutionary space transportation technologies 
such as laser launch and anti-matter propulsion. The Committee 
strongly believes that such long-term investments create the 
technology development and demonstration opportunities of the 
next decade and beyond, and therefore are central to long-term 
American leadership in space transportation, and encourages the 
Administrator to allocate a small fraction of the additional 
funds provided to ASTP to the space transportation research 
activity based at the Marshall Space Flight Center.
    Future Space Launch Studies: While the Committee has 
traditionally preferred the building and testing of hardware to 
the production of paper, the Committee wishes to strongly 
praise the work of NASA's Chief Engineer and the Space 
Transportation Council in carrying out the initial two phases 
of the Space Transportation Architecture Studies, as well as 
the participation of all industry study contractors and 
evaluators.
    The Committee shares the sense of urgency expressed by the 
Executive Office of the President in reaching a decision (by 
December 1999) between developing an X-38-based Crew Rescue 
Vehicle capability for the International Space Station or an 
alternative architecture which also supports redundant, 
reliable, and low-cost human crew and cargo transportation to 
and from the Space Station.

Commercial technology

    In FY2000 $132,500,000 are authorized; in FY2001 
$135,000,000 are authorized; and in FY2002 $135,600,000 are 
authorized.

Section 103(5). Mission Communications Services

            Sectional analysis and recommendation
    In FY2000 $406,300,000 are authorized; in FY2001 
$382,100,000 are authorized; and in FY2002 $296,600,000 are 
authorized.
            Program description
    This function consists primarily of groundstation, mission 
control, and ground network interfacing services that NASA uses 
to carry out its strategic enterprises.
            Committee views
    The Committee remains concerned over whether the predicted 
savings in the Consolidated Space Operations Contract will 
materialize as predicted by NASA. The Committee remains further 
concerned that commercialization and privatization efforts are 
conducted in a manner consistent with sections 129 and 209.
    While NASA has cited the benefits of the Consolidated Space 
Operations Contract (CSOC), the Committee expressed numerous 
concerns prior to the contract award that such a large, 
consolidated effort might limit competition for CSOC 
subcontracts. The recent solicitation, for example, of a polar 
connectivity ground station raised several questions about 
unfair ties between companies bidding on the subcontract and 
the prime CSOC contractor. The Committee will closely examine 
the CSOC subcontracting process to ensure a level playing field 
for all participants.

Section 103(6). Academic Programs

            Sectional analysis and recommendation
    In FY2000 $128,600,000 area authorized, an increase of 
$28,600,000 over the budget request. Of this amount $11,600,000 
shall be for Higher Education within the Teacher/Faculty 
Preparation and Enhancement Programs, an increase of $3,000,000 
over the budget request; $20,000,000 shall be for the National 
Space Grant College and Fellowship Program, an increase of 
$6,500,000 over the budget request; and $62,100,000 shall be 
for Minority University Research and Education, an increase of 
$16,200,000 over the budget request (within this amount 
$33,600,000 shall be for Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, an increase of $5,600,000over the budget 
request). In FY2001 $128,600,000 are authorized, an increase of 
$28,600,000 over the budget request. Of this amount $62,100,000 shall 
be for Minority University Research and Education, an increase of 
$16,200,000 over the budget request (within this amount $33,600,000 
shall be for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, an increase 
of $5,600,000 over the budget request). In FY2002 $130,600,000 are 
authorized, an increase of $30,600,000 over the budget request. Of this 
amount $62,800,000 shall be for Minority University Research and 
Education, an increase of $16,900,000 over the budget request (within 
this amount $34,000,000 shall be for Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, an increase of $6,000,000 over the budget request).
            Committee views
    The Committee is committed to providing an adequate level 
of funding for NASA's education program. It is vital to 
inspiring students in mathematics and science and to reaching 
out to groups that are not heavily represented in these fields. 
The Committee is pleased to be able to provide a level that is 
significantly above the budget request level. H.R. 1654 
authorizes 29% more in FY2000 and FY2001 and 31% more in FY2002 
than the budget request for education.

Section 103(7). Future Planning (Space Launch)

            Sectional analysis and recommendation
    In FY2001 $144,000,000 are authorized and in FY2001 
$280,000,000 are authorized.
            Committee views
    In the President's FY1998 budget submission for NASA, a 
``Future Planning'' line was created, reportedly by taking 
funding out of the Advanced Space Transportation Technology 
runout. In the FY1999 budget this planning line--often referred 
to as a ``wedge''--was focused on ``Space Launch,'' with the 
announced intention of setting aside a block of funding over 
several years for technology risk reduction or other 
investments in a ``Next Generation Launch System.''
    During 1998 substantial controversy erupted within the U.S. 
aerospace community over what this Future Planning (Space 
Launch) money was actually for: further technology risk 
reduction or financial subsidies for the proposed, X-33-derived 
VentureStar RLV, major life-extending Space Shuttle systems 
upgrades, continuing investments in post-X-33 experimental 
technology demonstrations (Future-X), or something else 
entirely.
    Fortunately, recent progress on the NASA-industry Space 
Transportation Architecture Studies--particularly the proposals 
by the ``non-primes''--has begun to focus the debate. While the 
final conclusions and independent assessment of the Space 
Transportation Architecture Studies reports have not been 
released as of mid-May in 1999, extensive briefings by NASA and 
industry lead the Committee to conclude that there are a 
variety of innovative options for appropriate federal 
investments in dramatically reducing NASA's cost of human space 
flight by leveraging private investments in highly reliable 
expendable and reusable space launch systems while maintaining 
or improving crew safety.
    The Committee recommends that NASA continue to work with 
industry to rapidly assess its options vis-a-vis a 
commercially-developed Cargo/Crew Transfer Vehicle which would 
benefit from existing industry investments in the Air Force 
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, as well as VentureStar and 
other potential single or multi-stage fully reusable systems 
for boosting a Cargo/Crew Transfer Vehicle to the International 
Space Station. In that context, the Committee reasserts its 
belief that NASA should not plan to spend the current ``wedge'' 
funding on future-generation RLV technologies, but rather focus 
these resources on solving the near-term, ``factor of 10'' cost 
reduction challenge.

                      SECTION 104. MISSION SUPPORT

Section 104(1). Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance

    In FY2000 $43,000,000 are authorized; in FY2001 $45,000,000 
are authorized; and in FY2002 $49,000,000 are authorized. 
NASA's agency-wide efforts to develop policies and practices to 
ensure safe operations and practices, quality controls, and 
reliable flight systems are funded under this account.

Section 104(2). Space Communication Services

            Sectional analysis and recommendation
    In FY2000 $89,700,000 are authorized; in FY2001 
$109,300,000 are authorized; and in FY2002 $174,200,000 are 
authorized.
            Program description
    This function provides the communications relay services 
that NASA uses to carry out its strategic enterprises, both in 
space and on the ground. Its primary cost component is the 
Tracking Data and Relay Satellite (TDRS) and its affiliated 
launch costs.
            Committee views
    The Committee remains concerned over whether the predicted 
savings in the Consolidated Space Operations Contract will 
materialize as predicted by NASA. The Committee remains further 
concerned that commercialization and privatization efforts are 
conducted in a manner consistent with sections 129 and 209.

Section 104(3). Construction of Facilities

    In FY2000 $181,000,000 are authorized; in FY2001 
$181,000,000 are authorized; and in FY2002 $191,000,000 are 
authorized, an increase of $10,000,000 over the budget request. 
The Construction of Facilities line provides funding for 
facilities modifications, upgrades, and minor construction.

Section 104(4). Research and Program Management

    In FY2000 $2,181,200,000 are authorized; in FY2001 
$2,195,000,000 are authorized; and in FY2002 $2,261,600,000 are 
authorized. This budget line funds personnel and related costs, 
supporting costs, travel, and research operations support.

                     SECTION 105. INSPECTOR GENERAL

    In FY2000 $22,000,000 are authorized; in FY2001 $22,000,000 
are authorized; and in FY2002 $22,000,000 are authorized, an 
increase of $1,200,000 over the budget request in each fiscal 
year. Funding for this account supports activities of the NASA 
Office of Inspector General in carrying out its 
responsibilities under the Inspector General Act of 1978, 
including conduct of independent audits and investigations of 
agency programs and operations, prevention and detection of waste, 
fraud and abuse in agency activities, and promotion of economy and 
efficiency within the agency.

                    SECTION 106. TOTAL AUTHORIZATION

    The bill authorizes a total amount in each fiscal year 
which is not to be exceeded. In FY 2000 $13,625,600,000 are 
authorized; in FY 2001 $13,747,100,000 are authorized; and in 
FY 2002 $13,839,400,000 are authorized.

                 SECTION 107. AVIATION SYSTEMS CAPACITY

    In FY 2001 $5,000,000 are authorized for aviation systems 
capacity within the Federal Aviation Administration. This 
offsets the $5,000,000 reduction in FY 2001 from NASA's budget 
for aviation systems capacity. This activity encompasses 
research into the modernization and improvements to the Air 
Traffic Management System and the introduction of new vehicle 
classes which can potentially reduce congestion. NASA 
characterizes the nature of the research in the Aviation System 
Capacity program as ``modernization and improvements'' to the 
existing air traffic system through efficient and flexible 
routing, and scheduling and sequencing of aircraft in all 
weather conditions.

             Subtitle B--Limitations and Special Authority


               SECTION 121. USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION

    This section authorizes the use of funds appropriated for 
program purposes other than construction of facilities, 
personnel and travel-related costs in the International Space 
Station; Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations; Science, 
Aeronautics, and Technology; and Mission Support accounts, for 
the construction of new facilities or repair of existing 
facilities at any location. The authorization is subject to a 
limitation that funds may not be expended for projects 
exceeding $1,000,000 until 30 days have passed following a 
report to the House and Senate authorizing committees. If funds 
under this section are used for grants (to institutions of 
higher education or to nonprofit organizations whose primary 
purpose is the conduct of scientific research) to buy or 
construct additional research facilities, title to such 
facilities shall be vested in the U.S. The exception is when 
the Administrator determines that the national program of 
aeronautics and space activities will be best served by vesting 
title in the grantee institution or organization.

           SECTION 122. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS

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

       SECTION 123. REPROGRAMMING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES

    This section establishes authority for the Administrator to 
increase the amount of funds authorized for specific 
construction of facilities projects, provided that the total 
authorization for construction of facilities is not increased 
as a result of such reprogramming actions. This section also 
authorizes the Administrator to use up to $10,000,000 of 
amounts authorized in this bill for construction of facilities 
for projects that result from new and unforeseen developments 
in the national civil space program, subject to a 30-day review 
period by the House and Senate authorizing committees after the 
Administrator submits a written report.

  SECTION 124. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS

    This section requires the Administrator to submit reports 
to the Congress and the Comptroller General on FY 2000, FY 
2001, and FY 2002 appropriations for programs not authorized 
under subtitle A of this bill or that exceed authorized amounts 
for specific programs. The FY 2000 report is to be submitted 
within 30 days after the later of the enactment of an 
appropriations Act for FY 2000 and the enactment of this Act. 
The FY 2001 and FY 2002 reports are to be submitted 30 days 
after the enactment of an appropriations Act for FY 2001 or FY 
2002. Section 124 also requires the Administrator to publish a 
Federal Register notice seeking public comment on programs for 
which funds are appropriated but which were not authorized in 
this bill, and limits the obligation of such funds until 30 
days following the close of the comment period.

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

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

                 SECTION 126. EARTH SCIENCE LIMITATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    $50,000,000 in both fiscal years 2001 and 2002 shall be for 
the Commercial Remote Sensing Program at Stennis Space Center 
for commercial data purchases. This requirement shall remain 
unless NASA integrates data purchases into the Earth science 
research procurement process. Integration shall be demonstrated 
by the obligation of at least 5% of the aggregate amount 
appropriated in FY 2001 and FY 2002 for the Earth Observing 
Systems and Earth Probes for the purchase of Earth science data 
from the private sector.

Committee views

    The Committee has long endorsed the procurement of 
commercial remote sensing data (commonly referred to as a data 
purchase) as an inexpensive, flexible, convenient way of 
obtaining science data for Earth Science Enterprise 
researchers. The procurement of such data can provide the exact 
same information to researchers without requiring the 
construction of a separate, dedicated satellite. In some cases 
this can enable the exact same research at one-hundredth the 
cost of obtaining the data.
    The current Earth Science Enterprise data purchase program 
is spending $50 million of FY 1997 funds to obtain airborne and 
satellite data. This program's funding initiated with the 
President's FY 1997 budget request presented to Congress. The 
current program seeks data types which have already been 
endorsed in a scientific peer-review process conducted at 
Goddard Space Flight Center as useful to Earth Science 
researchers.
    While NASA has stated on at least three occasions that 
``data purchases are now an integral part of NASA's Earth 
Science Enterprise data acquisition strategy,'' (August 7, 1998 
letter to Subcommittee; September 10, 1998 testimony to 
Subcommittee; February 11, 1999 testimony to Subcommittee), 
NASA still has a ways to go before this is truly the case. As 
evidence of such a normalized data buy effort, two different 
NASA Associate Administrators for Earth Science have verbally 
indicated to Committee staff their intention to spend at least 
$50 million on commercial data in the FY1999 budget cycle. As 
of May 1999, however, it appears that this will not be the 
case, as NASA has subsequently indicated that such funds will 
not be available.
    Moreover, a March 31, 1999 NASA Inspector General report 
indicates that the data purchase program ``has helped achieve 
ESE [Earth Science Enterprise] goals'' but that ``because the 
private sector was unaware of the questions NASA scientists 
seek to answer, commercial providers could only speculate about 
the types of products needed by Agency Earth Scientists.''
    Because of this disconnect between commercial data products 
offered in the FY1997 data purchase program and the baseline 
science requirements, the report concludes that future 
Congressionally mandated data purchase programs would not be 
warranted. However, it is precisely because NASA failed to 
communicate baseline requirements for commercial data, and 
recognizing the many benefits to be gained from a properly 
executed program, that this Committee directs NASA to solicit 
commercial data in FY2001 and FY2002, with the implication that 
NASA should publish with this solicitation the science data 
baseline requirements.
    The Committee recognizes and commends the current NASA 
Associate Administrator for Earth Science's dedication to 
implementing data purchases as a truly normal way of doing 
business. Accordingly, to ensure the availability of funds for 
this effort, section 126 sets aside $50 million in fiscal years 
2001 and 2002 unless NASA spends 5% of the aggregate funding 
levels identified for Earth Observing System and Earth Probes 
satellites on commercial data alternatives.
    It is further the Committee's view that NASA concerns over 
the availability of commercial data to conduct Earth Science 
are unfounded. This position is supported by the National 
Academy of Public Administration's January 1998 report, 
``Geographic Information for the 21st Century,'' which 
indicates that the commercial remote sensing industry can 
address a market of $4 billion annually.
    Earlier drafts of section 126 prohibited the expenditure of 
funds for Earth Observing System follow-on studies until the 
Administrator certified that at least $50 million were 
available for commercial data purchases in FY2000 and FY2002. 
This restriction had been drafted out of concern that until 
commercial data purchases were truly an ``integral part'' of 
acquiring data, they could not be properly included in future 
Earth Observing System architectures. This restriction was 
subsequently removed in an effort to seek compromise after 
discussions with the Office of Management and Budget and NASA 
and internal discussions among the Committee staff.

       SECTION 127. COMPETITIVENESS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    Requires the Administrator to solicit comment through the 
Commerce Business Daily 45 days prior to entering into an 
obligation to conduct a space mission in which a foreign entity 
will participate. The foreign participation may be as a 
supplier of the spacecraft, spacecraft system, or launch 
system. Solicitation of comment on the potential impact of such 
participation is to be used in the Administrator's evaluation 
of the costs and benefits of entering into an obligation to 
conduct the space mission. Further, the Administrator shall 
consider the national interests of the United States as 
described in section 2(6) prior to entering into such an 
obligation.

Committee views

    The Committee has supported international cooperation in 
space activity for years and continues to do so. When 
governments were the only significant organizations undertaking 
space activity, such cooperation could be undertaken in a 
manner to benefit the taxpayers of all the countries involved. 
In recent years, however, a commercial space sector has grown. 
The growth of this industry also benefits the taxpayers by 
creating new jobs, creating new space capabilities useful to 
consumers, reducing the costs of government space activities, 
and generating tax revenue. In 1996, worldwide spending on 
commercial space activity exceeded spending on government 
activity for the first time in history. International 
government-to-government space cooperation may have 
consequences for the growth of the U.S. commercial space 
industry. Those consequences may be beneficial, but they also 
may harm U.S. competitiveness if foreign governments use such 
activities to aid their commercial space industries. This 
section of the bill directs NASA to try and determine those 
consequences in advance by soliciting comments through Commerce 
Business Daily. It also directs NASA to take the broad U.S. 
national interests (as defined earlier in the bill) into 
account prior to starting an international cooperative effort.

                         SECTION 128. TRANS-HAB

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    No funds authorized by this bill shall be used for 
definition, design, or development of an inflatable space 
structure (``Trans-Hab'') to replace any component on the 
current Space Station assembly sequence (released by NASA on 
February 22, 1999). Further, no FY2000 funds authorized by this 
bill shall be obligated for the definition, design, or 
development of an inflatable space structure for humans.

Committee views

    The International Space Station includes a module specially 
designed as a crew quarters known as the Habitation module. The 
pressure vessel for this module has already been completed and 
is in storage awaiting outfitting and integration for launch. 
The total cost of the Habitation module is $186.9 million, $17 
million of which has already been spent. In 1997, NASA 
tentatively began studying a replacement structure for the 
Habitation module. Instead of a rigid pressure vessel, NASA 
conceived of an inflatable structure known as Trans-Hab, which 
it has spent approximately $2.5 million defining. Initially, 
NASA projected the Trans-Hab would cost about half the price of 
the Habitation module, but it has since raised those estimates. 
Trans-Hab is now estimated to cost $250 million, representing a 
three-fold cost increase just during the definition phase.
    NASA believes that the Trans-Hab would have advantages over 
the Habitation module. First, the Trans-Hab is intended to have 
a larger pressurized volume, essentially giving the ISS greater 
storage space. Second, NASA believes that the Trans-Hab would 
have additional protection against radiation, although the 
Habitation module already meets or exceeds both of NASA's 
requirements for stowage and radiation shielding.
    Section 128 prohibits NASA from obligating any funds in FY 
2000-2002 to replace a baselined ISS module with an inflatable, 
crew-rated structure. It is intended to halt work onTrans-Hab. 
The section also prohibits NASA from obligating any funds in FY2000 to 
define, design, or develop inflatable structures for human use in order 
to prevent NASA from continuing Trans-Hab under another guise. The 
prohibition is lifted in FY2001 because the Committee does not want to 
preclude research and development of inflatable structures for other 
missions. The Committee is recommending this action for several 
reasons.
    First, Trans-Hab costs more than the Habitation module. The 
taxpayers simply cannot afford costly additions to a program 
that is already at least $7.3 billion over budget and more than 
two years behind schedule.
    Second, the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force and 
General Accounting Office both have noted in past reports that 
continual design changes this late in the development process 
have contributed to cost growth in the ISS program. By halting 
Trans-Hab, the Committee is promoting fiscal and engineering 
discipline on a program that often appears to be out of 
control. At a time when outside experts are recommending 
cutting content to meet cost goals, it makes no sense to add 
content that increases costs.
    Third, NASA has never successfully designed, developed, or 
operated an inflatable, crew-rated structure. Thus, the Trans-
Hab involves increased cost, technical, and programmatic risk 
to the ISS program at a time when the Station is suffering from 
too much uncertainty caused by Russia's instability. 
Additionally, because NASA has little experience with such 
structures, the projections of cost and benefits are immature. 
Given the ISS program's history, the benefits of Trans-Hab are 
likely to be less than advertised while its costs are likely to 
grow above the $250 million NASA currently anticipates.
    Fourth, the Committee has made clear its dissatisfaction 
with the Office of Human Space Flight's practice of cutting the 
ISS science budget in an effort to fund hardware. NASA 
currently funds Trans-Hab activities outside of the ISS budget. 
This might be interpreted as an attempt to artificially deflate 
the true costs of the Space Station and raises concerns about 
the credibility of NASA's past justification for transferring 
funds out of science accounts to pay for hardware, since the 
agency appears able to find resources when it plans to use them 
for hardware but not when it needs them to minimize its cuts in 
the ISS research budget. The Committee believes that repaying 
past Administration cuts to the ISS science budget is a higher 
priority than funding new flight hardware.
    Finally, the Trans-Hab appears to be a technical solution 
in search of a problem. Since the existing Habitation module 
either meets or exceeds the ISS requirements, there is no 
reason to contemplate its replacement. NASA initially argued 
that Trans-Hab would benefit future attempts to mount a human 
expedition to Mars. After the White House and Members of 
Congress reaffirmed their opposition to a human expedition to 
Mars until after the Space Station is successfully completed, 
NASA dropped that justification for the effort and began 
justifying Trans-Hab as a safety enhancement. However, if NASA 
were truly concerned about safety, it might be better served by 
using additional resources to shield the Service Module against 
the threat of orbital debris, since the Service Module does not 
meet minimum NASA standards for safety in this area, whereas 
the existing Habitation module does meet or exceed existing 
requirements for radiation shielding.

          SECTION 129. CONSOLIDATED SPACE OPERATIONS CONTRACT

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    No funds authorized by this Act shall be used to create a 
government-owned corporation to carry out the functions of the 
Consolidated Space Operations Contract.

Committee views

    The President's National Space Policy stipulates that NASA 
will ``seek to privatize or commercialize its space 
communications operations no later than 2005.'' In an attempt 
to pursue this strategy, and in an effort to reduce costs, NASA 
has consolidated and streamlined these ground support efforts 
into one contract known as the Consolidated Space Operations 
Contract (CSOC).
    While the Consolidated Space Operations Contract has 
created one overarching infrastructure to conduct 
communications, NASA has not yet demonstrated true 
privatization or commercialization of this function. Awarding 
one government contract in place of 16 existing contracts 
certainly signifies consolidation. However, NASA cannot be said 
to have privatized this function until the private sector sells 
services to the government instead of systems. Merely awarding 
contracts to industry to build or operate hardware does not 
satisfy the criteria for privatization.
    To encourage NASA to pursue truly commercial solutions, 
this section prohibits the use of a government-owned 
corporation. This concept, first described by NASA in written 
testimony provided for a March 11, 1999 hearing, would create a 
government-owned corporation that utilizes existing NASA 
assets. Such a setup, however, would not represent true 
privatization because of continued government ownership of 
those assets. Moreover, the continued use of existing equipment 
by a government entity which would actually compete with 
private interests would actively discourage commercial 
development of a more efficient space communications 
infrastructure.
    NASA requested that the Committee only restrict the 
pursuance of a government-owned corporation to the terms 
described in the March 11, 1999 testimony. This testimony 
explains that NASA is currently investigating a number of 
options for ``commercialization,'' including a government 
corporation. The testimony further states that if the 
investigation should conclude that such a setup would be 
feasible, ``enabling legislation will be required.''
    Because such a government corporation fails to meet the 
criteria for true commercialization as defined in section 209 
on commercial space definitions (i.e., it does not presuppose 
privatization), NASA should not pursue this option as part of 
its study. Accordingly, this section prohibits NASA from 
proceeding with an approach which could interfere with the 
natural evolution of the commercial space communications 
industry, and therefore potentially raise future space 
commercialization service costs to the federal government.

                SECTION 130. TRIANA FUNDING PROHIBITION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    No funds authorized by this Act may be used for the Triana 
program, except $2,500,000 of FY2000 funds may be used for 
termination costs.

Committee views

    This section, was part of an amendment offered at the 
Committee markup by Rep. Dave Weldon and Rep. George 
Nethercutt. The full amendment terminated the Triana satellite 
within the Earth Science Enterprise and transferred $32,600,000 
of FY2000 funds to the Life &Microgravity; Sciences and 
Applications program. $2,500,000 in FY2000 funds are reserved for 
termination costs.
    The Triana satellite was conceived by the Vice President of 
the United States, who first announced it in a speech at the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology on March 13th, 1998. 
Triana was initially announced as an Earth-pointing camera to 
provide live pictures of the Earth for the Internet. After its 
announcement, the satellite evolved to include a science 
mission. The science payloads were selected by NASA scientists 
after the decision to proceed with Triana had already been 
made.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS


         SECTION 201. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS

    This section requires the NASA Chief Financial Officer to 
conduct independent cost analyses of projects estimated to cost 
in excess of $100,000,000 in total project costs, and to report 
the results of the analyses to Congress. The cost analysis is 
to occur before the project enters Phase B. The Committee views 
this provision as critical to its ongoing oversight and 
authorization responsibilities, as well as Congressional 
support for current and future NASA programs.

   SECTION 202. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958 AMENDMENTS

    This section strikes Section 102(f) of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451) which 
declares that NASA's efforts be directed toward the development 
of advanced automobile propulsion systems. This section also 
amends Section 206(a) of the 1958 Act to require the President 
to submit to Congress the annual aeronautics and space report 
in May, rather than January; and to address in the report, 
activities carried out by government agencies on a fiscal, 
rather than calendar year basis. This change is made in order 
to give the Administration adequate time to prepare the report.

            SECTION 203. COMMERCIAL SPACE GOODS AND SERVICES

    This section seeks to encourage the continued growth of the 
U.S. commercial space sector by directing NASA to purchase 
commercially available space goods and services to the fullest 
extent feasible and not to compete with the private sector, 
except as required

for reasons of national security or public safety. The section 
also defines the conditions under which a space good is to be 
treated as commercially available.

              SECTION 204. COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS

    This section defines the mechanism by which NASA will 
determine whether it is more cost-effective to perform a 
function internally or to out-source it to the private sector. 
Generally, it directs NASA to compare the price a private-
sector will charge the government to perform an activity with 
the full-cost of doing the same activity internally.

                SECTION 205. FOREIGN CONTRACT LIMITATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    Prohibits NASA from entering into agreements or contracts 
with foreign governments which grant the foreign government the 
right to recover profit in the event that the agreement or 
contract is terminated.

Committee views

    NASA contract NAS15-10110 governs NASA's relationship with 
the Russian Space Agency when NASA pays the Russian Space 
Agency for various space goods and services. Section I.8 of the 
contract discusses the rights of the U.S. Government and the 
Russian Government in the event that either party decides to 
terminate the contract. One paragraph grants the Russian Space 
Agency the right to seek to recover lost ``profits'' in the 
event that NASA terminates the contract for convenience. 
Setting aside the definition of ``profit'' in a contract 
between governments and the appropriateness of accepting an 
obligation on the part of the American taxpayer to compensate a 
foreign government for lost profit in the event that the 
American government needs to terminate such a contract, NASA 
rarely gives U.S. contractors such charitable terms. This 
section prohibits NASA from entering into any contracts with a 
foreign government in which terminated the contract.

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

    This section amends 10 U.S.C. 2307(h)(8) which deals with 
actions that certain federal agencies can take in the case of 
fraud by a contractor. Currently this section applies to the 
Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the 
Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force. 
The section allows these entities to suspend or reduce contract 
payments when there is a substantial evidence that the request 
of a contractor for advance, partial, or progress payment under 
a contract awarded by that agency is based on fraud. This 
amendment would add NASA to the list of agencies that can use 
this authority.

                SECTION 207. SPACE SHUTTLE UPGRADE STUDY

    This section directs the Administrator to make arrangements 
for an independent study to reassess the priority of all Phase 
III and Phase IV Shuttle upgrades. The study shall establish 
relative priorities of the upgrades within 3 categories: (1) 
upgrades for safety; (2) upgrades that may have applicability 
to reusable launch vehicles; and (3) upgrades that have a 
payback period within the next 12 years. The study is to be 
transmitted to Congress within 180 days after enactment of this 
Act.

     SECTION 208. AERO-SPACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    This section requires the Administrator to develop a plan 
for integrating the activities (research, development, and 
experimental demonstrations) of aeronautics transportation 
technology and space transportation technology. The plan must 
ensure that unique capabilities are not lost. The report is to 
be transmitted to Congress within 90 days after enactment of 
this Act and annually thereafter for 5 years.

Committee views

    In H. Rept. 105-233, which accompanied H.R. 1275, the 
Committee stated: ``* * * there are good historical reasons for 
the marriage of NASA's aeronautics and advanced space 
transportation efforts. In many ways, NASA's efforts to promote 
cheap access to space are akin to its historic role of 
promoting technological leadership in aviation, including 
building a strong cooperative relationship with industry.''
    In written testimony before the Committee on March 3, 1999, 
Associate Administrator for Aero-Space Technology Spence 
Armstrong indicated that the Aeronautics Research and 
Technology Base and Advanced Space Transportation Program were 
to be merged to create greater synergies between the advanced 
structures, materials, guidance and controls, and propulsion 
technologies of future experimental air- and spacecraft. 
Furthermore, Administrator Goldin has testified repeatedly that 
to achieve NASA's goals for opening the space frontier, space 
transportation systems must become more like airplanes in terms 
of safety, reliability, operability, and cost.
    Finally, given the trend in commercial aviation towards 
commodity manufacturing, NASA's aeronautics research and flight 
test centers are left with an industrial partnership base that 
is less interested in maximizing the adoption of new 
technologies. Commercial space transportation, however, is at 
the early stages of industrial evolution, and could benefit 
tremendously from the unique expertise and capabilities of 
NASA's Aeronautics R&D; team.
    The Committee therefore is directing NASA to develop a plan 
for fully integrating the Aeronautics and Advanced Space 
Transportation Technology portions of the Aero-Space Technology 
Enterprise, and to report back annually to the Congress on its 
progress in bringing the resources of the Aeronautics research 
centers to bear on the challenges of advanced space 
transportation technology.

       SECTION 209. DEFINITIONS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE POLICY TERMS

    Requires the Administrator to ensure that the usage of 
terminology in NASA policies and programs is consistent with 
the provided definitions for (1) commercialization, (2) 
commercial purchase, (3) commercial use of federal assets, (4) 
contract consolidation, and (5) privatization.

             SECTION 210. EXTERNAL TANK OPPORTUNITIES STUDY

    (a) Requires the Administrator to enter into arrangements 
for an independent study to identify and evaluate the benefits 
and costs of a broad range of commercial and scientific 
applications stemming from retaining the Shuttle's external 
tanks in Earth orbit after the Shuttle is launched. The study 
shall evaluate (1) the use of privately owned external tanks as 
a venue for commercial advertising, (2) the use of external 
tanks to achieve scientific or technology demonstration 
missions, and (3) the use of external tanks as low-cost 
infrastructure in Earth orbit (including augmentation of the 
Space Station) or on the Moon. A report on the study shall be 
submitted to Congress within 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act. The report shall include recommendations 
as to government and industry improvements to the external tank 
which would maximize its cost effectiveness.
    (b) Requires the Administrator to conduct an internal study 
based on the conclusions of the independent study. The internal 
study shall review what would be required for the safe and 
economical use of the external tank for applications identified 
in the independent study. The internal study shall look at 
improvements to the current external tank and other in-space 
transportation or infrastructure capability developments. The 
report shall be submitted to Congress within 45 days after the 
report in subsection (a) is submitted to Congress.
    (c) Requires the Administrator to solicit comment from 
industry on what, if any, changes in law or policy would be 
required to achieve the applications identified in the 
independent study. The comments shall be submitted to Congress 
within 90 days after the report in subsection (a) is submitted 
to Congress.

                  SECTION 211. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS

    This section requires the Administrator to exclude from 
consideration for grant agreements, for a period of five years, 
any person who received funds (appropriated for a fiscal year 
after FY1999) for a project not subject to a competitive, 
merit-based award process. This shall not apply to federal 
funds received by a person due to membership in a class 
specified by law for which assistance is awarded according to a 
formula provided by law.

                          SECTION 212. NOTICE

    If any funds authorized by this bill are subject to a 
reprogramming action that requires notice be given to the House 
or Senate appropriations committees, notice shall concurrently 
be provided to the House and Senate authorizing committees. If 
any program, project, or activity of NASA is preparing to 
undergo any major reorganization, the Administrator shall 
notify the House and Senate authorizing and appropriating 
committees no later than 15 days prior to such reorganization.

      SECTION 213. UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949 AMENDMENTS

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

      SECTION 214. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    This section requires the Administrator to establish a 
Human Space Flight Commercialization/Technology program of 
ground-based and space-based research and development in 
innovative technologies. At least 75% of the amount 
appropriated for such program shall be awarded through broadly 
distributed announcements of opportunity. The Administrator 
shall include as part of NASA's budget request to Congress for 
FY2001, a plan for the implementation of the program.

Committee views

    In the FY2000 budget request, the White House Office of 
Management and Budget added $20 million in FY2001 for NASA's 
Human Space Flight program to conduct a ``commercialization/
technology'' program. NASA provided no information about this 
augmentation of its outyear budget, but discussions with OMB 
determined that the White House intends NASA to use the funds, 
which increase to $50,000,000 in FY2003, to introduce the 
principles of ``faster, cheaper, better'' which have governed 
reforms in NASA's science programs. The Committee agrees that 
the Human Space Flight program has escaped or avoided the 
samekinds of reforms that NASA has made most successfully in space 
science to result in ``faster, cheaper, better'' programs and endorses 
the White House budget augmentation by explicitly authorizing it and 
directing the Administrator to develop a plan for submission with the 
FY2001 budget to establish a ``Human Space Flight Commercialization/
Technology program of ground- and space-based research and development 
of innovative technologies. The section also directs that at least 75 
percent of the amount appropriated for the program shall be awarded 
through competitive bidding.

                   Section 215. LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    Section 215 directs the Administrator to make arrangements 
for the National Academy of Sciences to review international 
efforts to determine the extent of life in the universe and 
enhancements that can be made to NASA's efforts to determine 
the extent of life in the universe. The review is to look at 
NASA's astrobiology initiatives within the Origins program and 
other entities' initiatives, including the Search for 
Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute. The review is also to 
include recommendations about possible enhancements to NASA's 
initiatives and possible coordination or integration of NASA's 
initiatives with those of outside entities.

Committee views

    NASA is concurrently running two initiatives related to the 
search for life in the universe. Its Origins program is a broad 
effort to look for other places in the universe with conditions 
that appear to be amenable to supporting life. Its astrobiology 
programs focus more on the mechanics of life itself as opposed 
to the environment in which it is created. Progress in one 
initiative has the potential to assist research in the other 
initiative. The recent debate over evidence of microbial life 
on Mars and the possibility that Jupiter's moon Europa is 
covered with oceans capable of sustaining life are just some of 
the recent developments in these areas.

          Section 216. RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

Sectional analysis and recommendation

    Section 216 was added as an amendment offered by 
Representative Nethercutt to H.R. 1654 during the Committee's 
markup of the bill. The measure directs NASA to enter into a 
contract with the National Research Council (NRC) and National 
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to conduct a joint 
review of the readiness of the science community to maximize 
the International Space Station's research potential, identify 
limitations of the community's readiness for ISS, and study the 
costs and benefits of planning an annual dedicated life and 
microgravity Shuttle mission during ISS assembly.

Committee views

    For some time, NASA has transferred funds out of its 
International Space Station (ISS) research budgets and into 
hardware development to pay for cost growth in the development 
program, most of which has resulted from the need to compensate 
for Russia's continuing failures to live up to its obligations 
to the ISS partnership. This has raised concerns in the 
scientific community and within the Science Committee that the 
research community will not be prepared to fully utilize the 
ISS for science when the facility becomes available, largely 
because the preparatory work that must be undertaken will have 
been underfunded. To address this issue, last year the Science 
and Appropriations Committees both recommended that NASA 
undertake a Shuttle mission dedicated to life and microgravity 
science in FY1999 to fill in the two-year gap in flight 
opportunities created by delays in the ISS assembly sequence. 
The appropriations process increased NASA's FY1999 budget to 
accommodate the mission, but NASA declined to undertake it, 
citing cost concerns and the impact such a flight might have on 
the International Space Station. However, NASA offered Congress 
three different estimates of the cost of performing such a 
mission.
    The NRC and NAPA have conducted joint studies in the past 
on issues involving both science and policy issues, which makes 
them appropriate for this review, given both its scientific and 
fiscal aspects. Their review is also intended to generate 
recommendations for improving the readiness of the scientific 
community to use the International Space Station, including 
conducting an assessment of the costs and benefits of 
conducting an annual Shuttle mission dedicated to life and 
microgravity research while the International Space Station is 
being assembled. The study will assist NASA, the White House, 
and the Congress in making decisions about funding priorities 
as ISS is built.

  Section 217. REMOTE SENSING FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

    Section 217 was added to the bill as an amendment offered 
by Mr. Smith of Michigan during the Committee's markup of H.R. 
1654. The Committee has long encouraged the use of commercial 
remote sensing data by NASA. Studies conducted by Rand 
Corporation and described in testimony before the Subcommittee 
on Space and Aeronautics on September 10, 1998, describe 
numerous other government agencies which can benefit from such 
commercial products. Moreover, many private citizens who are 
constituents of such agencies can also benefit.
    One example which epitomizes such a would-be beneficiary of 
commercial remote sensing data is the agricultural community. 
NASA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have an 
existing agreement to study agricultural uses of commercial 
data at the Stennis Space Center, NASA's lead center for 
commercial remote sensing. NASA has further announced 13 
research grants under the NASA-USDA partnership on May 10, 
1999.
    Within the context of such agreements, NASA is directed to 
consult with the Secretary of Agriculture to determine types of 
satellite data which can be useful for agricultural planning, 
both from commercial sources and radar imagery satellites such 
as LightSAR and RADARSAT. The radar imagery, in particular, 
provides data which has direct application to determining crop 
yields.
    One particular benefit from this data would be the 
determination of international crop yields, particularly in the 
Southern Hemisphere. Farmers would be able to assess the global 
crop production months before they must make their own 
selection of crops to plant that season. This would enable them 
to grow additional crops of which a global shortfall exists, 
and avoid crops which are overabundant.

              Section 218. INTEGRATED SAFETY RESEARCH PLAN

    Section 218 was added to the bill as an amendment offered 
by Mr. Gutknecht during the Committee's markup of H.R. 1654. 
This section requires both agencies to jointly prepare and 
transmit to Congress an integrated civil aviation safety 
research and development plan in order to enhance the 
effectiveness of joint NASA/FAA undertakings by ensuring proper 
coordination between the agencies and that resources are used 
in the most cost-effective manner. The plan shalldefine the 
roles and responsibilities of each agency, require the timely sharing 
of critical information, and recommend procedures to increase the 
communication between the agencies' industry advisory committees.
    In the past, joint FAA and NASA research efforts have 
produced valuable aviation safety technology. Currently, the 
FAA and NASA are engaged in 18 joint safety projects and tasks. 
Both agencies are working to achieve the national safety goal 
of reducing the fatal aviation accident rate by 80% in ten 
years. The FAA and NASA have different roles in these efforts. 
However, it is imperative that the agencies clearly delineate 
the research undertaken by each agency so that their goals can 
be achieved in the most efficient manner.

    Section 219. 100th ANNIVERSARY OF FLIGHT EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVE

    Section 219 was added to the bill as an amendment offered 
by Mr. Etheridge during the Committee's markup of H.R. 1654. 
The 100th anniversary of the first powered flight will occur in 
2003, which presents a unique opportunity for stimulating 
interest in math, science, and engineering in our schools. This 
legislation instructs the NASA Administrator, in coordination 
with the Secretary of Education, to develop an educational 
curriculum in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the first 
powered flight. The subjects are to include the history of 
flight, the contribution of flight to global development in the 
20th century, the practical benefits of aeronautics and space 
flight to society, the scientific and mathematical principles 
used in flight, and other topics the Administrator considers 
appropriate.
    Plans for the development and flight of the Mars plane are 
to be integrated into the curriculum, which will necessitate 
that the NASA Administrator provide for the distribution of the 
curriculum for use in the 2000-2001 academic year and 
thereafter. Further, the NASA Administrator shall transmit a 
report to the Committee on Science of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate on activities undertaken pursuant 
to this section not later than May 1, 2000.

           Section 220. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

    Section 220 was added to the bill as an amendment offered 
by Ms. Biggert during the Committee's markup of H.R. 1654. This 
section requires the Administrator to make available through 
NASA's Internet home page, abstracts of all grants and awards 
made with funds authorized by this Act. This requirement shall 
not apply to information prohibited by law or regulation from 
being released to the public.

                          VIII. Cost Estimate

    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report accompanying each bill or joint 
resolution of a public character to contain: (1) an estimate, 
made by such committee, of the costs which would be incurred in 
carrying out such bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year 
in which it is reported, and in each of the five fiscal years 
following such fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of 
any program authorized by such bill or joint resolution, if 
less than five years); (2) a comparison of the estimate of 
costs described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph made by 
such committee with an estimate of such costs made by any 
Government agency and submitted to such committee; and (3) when 
practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level 
for the relevant program (or programs) with the appropriate 
levels under current law. However, House Rule XIII, clause 
3(d)(3)(B) provides that this requirement does not apply when a 
cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted 
prior to the filing of the report and included in the report 
pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). A cost estimate 
and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of this 
report and is included in Section IX of this report pursuant to 
House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report that accompanies a measure 
providing new budget authority (other than continuing 
appropriations), new spending authority, or new credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures to 
contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and, when practicable with 
respect to estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of 
the total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or 
programs) to the appropriate levels under current law. H.R. 
1654 does not contain any new budget authority, credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming 
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 
1654 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as 
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the 
bill, which is contained in section IX of this report.

             IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 17, 1999.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1654, the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kathleen 
Gramp (for federal costs) and Lisa Cash Driskill (for the state 
and local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1654--National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization 
        Act of 1999

    Summary: H.R. 1654 would authorize appropriations for the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for fiscal 
years 2000 through 2002 and establish federal policies related 
to those activities. The bill also would authorize an 
additional $5 million for 2001 for Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) research on aviation systems capacity. 
Under this bill, NASA would be directed to prepare several 
reports, including studies regarding the space station, the 
space shuttle, remote sensing data, and civil aviation. Some of 
those reports would have to be prepared in consultation with 
the FAA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Department 
of Education. Other provisions would impose conditions on 
NASA's expenditures and procurement practices.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 1654 would result in 
discretionary spending totaling $41 billion over the 2000-2004 
period. The legislation would not affect direct spending or 
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 
H.R. 1654 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1654 is shown in the following table. 
For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts 
authorized in the bill will be appropriated by the start of 
each fiscal year and that outlays will follow the historical 
spending patterns for these activities. CBO estimates that the 
costs incurred by other agencies to participate in certain 
studies would not be significant. The costs of this legislation 
fall within budget functions 250 (general science, space, and 
technology) and 400 (transportation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1999      2000      2001      2002      2003      2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending by NASA under current law:
    Budget authority\1\.............................    13,665         0         0         0         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................    13,670     5,195       718       285         0         0
Proposed changes:
    Authorization level \2\.........................         0    13,626    13,752    13,839         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................         0     8,480    13,004    13,558     5,250       697
Spending under H.R. 1654:
    Authorization level 1, 2........................    13,665    13,626    13,752    13,839         0         0
    Estimated outlays...............................    13,670    13,675    13,722    13,843     5,250      697
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level at the amount appropriated for NASA for that year
\2\ The authorization level proposed for 2001 includes $5 million for aviation capacity research at the FAA.

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 1654 contains on intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments. Some of the money authorized by the bill would be 
for research and development at academic institutions, 
including public colleges and universities.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would 
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp; Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Cash Driskill.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 1654 contains no unfunded mandates.

          XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the House of Representatives 
requires each committee report to include oversight findings 
and recommendations required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule 
X. The Committee has no oversight findings.

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

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

                XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the House of Representatives 
requires each report of a committee on a bill or joint 
resolution of a public character to include a statement citing 
the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution 
to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution. 
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 
grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1654.

               XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 1654 does not establish, or authorize the 
establishment of, any advisory committee.

                  XV. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 1654 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

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

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

               NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958


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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                   declaration of policy and purpose

  Sec. 102. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE II--COORDINATION OF AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE ACTIVITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                        reports to the congress

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


              SECTION 2307 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE


Sec. 2307. Contract financing

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 101. The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (hereinafter referred to as the 
``Administrator'') and the Secretary of Defense are hereby 
authorized and directed jointly to develop a unitary plan for 
the construction of [transsonic and supersonic] transsonic, 
supersonic, and hypersonic wind-tunnel facilities for the 
solution of research, development, and evaluation problems in 
aeronautics, including the construction of facilities at 
educational institutions within the continental limits of the 
United States for training and research in aeronautics, and to 
revise the uncompleted portions of the unitary plan from time 
to time to accord with changes in national defense requirements 
and scientific and technical advances. The Administrator and 
the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force are 
authorized to proceed with the construction and equipment of 
facilities in implementation of the unitary plan to the extent 
permitted by appropriations pursuant to existing authority and 
the authority contained in titles I and II of this Act. Any 
further implementation of the unitary plan shall be subject to 
such additional authorizations as may be approved by Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  Sec. 103. (a) The Administrator is hereby authorized to 
expand the facilities at his existing [laboratories] 
laboratories and centers by the construction of additional 
[supersonic] transsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic wind 
tunnels, including buildings, equipment, and accessory 
construction, and by the acquisition of land and installation 
of utilities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) The facilities authorized by this section shall be 
operated and staffed by the Administrator but shall be 
available primarily to industry for testing experimental models 
in connection with the development of aircraft and missiles. 
Such tests shall be scheduled and conducted in accordance with 
industry's requirements and allocation of [laboratory] facility 
time shall be made in accordance with the public interest, with 
proper emphasis upon the requirements of each military service 
and due consideration of civilian needs.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    XVII. Committee Recommendations

    On May 13, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee 
favorably reported the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act of 1999, by a rollcall vote of 
Yeas-27; Nays-13; and recommends its enactment.

                         XVIII. Minority Views

    Although H.R. 1654 contains a number of positive positions, 
the bill as reported out of the Committee is flawed. We believe 
that it needs revision if it is to provide a constructive guide 
for the nation's civil space program.
    One of the bill's most egregious problems is the way it has 
been politicized by an amendment that would terminate the 
Triana earth observation spacecraft project. The Triana project 
was competitively awarded and its scientific content has been 
peer-reviewed. It offers important scientific and educational 
benefits. It is being managed by one of the nation's most 
distinguished research institutions--the Scripps Institution of 
Oceanography. However, all those positive aspects apparently 
are outweighed in the eyes of the Majority by the fact that the 
Triana project originally was proposed by the Vice President. 
It is deeply disturbing that the Majority has been willing to 
turn legislation that traditionally has been non-partisan into 
a vehicle for a partisan attack on the Vice President. Such 
tactics should have no place on a Committee charged with the 
bipartisan stewardship of America's space and aeronautics 
activities.
    There are several other provisions that should be 
reexamined and modified before H.R. 1654 is ever enacted into 
law. Among these are the bill's prohibition against any funding 
for the High Performance Computing and other information 
technology initiatives contained in the President's request. 
The Chairman has provided assurances that authorizations for 
those activities will be forthcoming in a separate bill; we 
wish to emphasize that the removal of those funds from this 
bill should not be read as any negative judgment as to their 
importance, and we support their inclusion in NASA's budget.
    Another area of concern is the bill's prohibition against 
any funding for the Ultra Efficient Engine Technology focused 
program. Long-term R&D; efforts in engine technology, including 
the construction of engineering models when appropriate, are 
vitally important to both our national security and to our 
continued competitiveness in worldwide aerospace markets. We 
should not abandon those efforts. In addition, we support 
NASA's aviation safety and system capacity research, as well as 
research directed towards aircraft noise and emissions 
reduction.
    More broadly, we believe that aeronautical research and 
development activities will remain appropriate and critical 
elements of NASA's overall mission for many years to come. The 
Federal government needs to maintain its commitment to 
aeronautical R&D; and to the facilities needed to support that 
R&D.; In that regard, we view the plan requested in Section 208 
as one which should be focused on identifying those 
opportunities where the synergy between aeronautical and space 
transportation technologies could be enhanced through 
integration. We do not view it as signaling any diminution of 
the Committee's support for a robust, long-term aeronautical 
R&D; enterprise at NASA, and it should not be interpreted as 
such.
    An additional problem with the bill is the inclusion of the 
Earth Science Limitation in Section 126. While we strongly 
support the development of a healthy and growing U.S. 
commercial remote sensing industry and the goal of commercial 
data purchases when appropriate, we believe that the earmarks 
contained in Section 126 are both ill-advised and ultimately 
unworkable. The provision as written will needlessly disrupt 
NASA's vital Earth Science research program while doing little 
to advance genuine commercialization.
    In the area of Human Space Flight, the bill's message is 
mixed. On the one hand, the bill contains a provision (Section 
214) offered by the Minority to encourage the identification of 
innovative technologies that could help make the human 
exploration and development of space ``faster, cheaper, and 
better''. Following the model of NASA's New Millennium and 
Discovery program, we believe that the Human Exploration and 
Development of Space (HEDS) enterprise needs to ``cast its 
net'' widely to capture promising technologies being conceived 
and developed at universities, industry, other Federal 
laboratories, and of course at NASA Centers. We believe that a 
series of ground-based, and where appropriate space-based, 
experiments could do much to enhance our capabilities and 
reduce the cost of human space exploration.
    On the other hand, the bill as a provision (Sec. 128) that 
would appear to send a message to NASA that the Committee does 
not wish to encourage such innovations. While directed at 
legitimate concerns that TransHab should not be developed 
without proper justification, cost controls, and Congressional 
oversight, the provision would seem to rule out activities that 
would allow Congress to make informed decisions on the merit of 
the TransHab concept.
    We are encouraged that the bill adds additional funding for 
NASA's educational programs. However, the funding level in the 
bill is still below the Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation for this 
account.
    We also are encouraged that the bill includes additional 
space science funding for the emergency Hubble Space Telescope 
(HST) repair mission. We sought the inclusion of such 
additional funding to ensure that HST remains productive 
without having NASA have to cannibalize the rest of the space 
science program. With the constrained budgets inherent in the 
``faster, cheaper, better'' approach, there is less margin 
provided in the budgets for unexpected problems. Since space 
research can never be totally free of such unexpected problems, 
we recognize that in the future the Committee may have to 
consider whether provision of additional resources is necessary 
to ensure that the ongoing space science and Space Shuttle 
programs are not unduly disrupted by events beyond NASA's 
control, such as recent industry-wide launch failures.
    Finally, we think it important to note that when funding 
allocations or programmatic priorities not specified in the 
underlying bill are included in the Committee report, they do 
not represent any consensus of the Committee, and they should 
not be viewed as such by the affected agency.

                                   George E. Brown, Jr.
                                   Jerry Costello.
                                   Debbie Stabenow.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Nick Lampson.
                                   Lynn N. Rivers.
                                   Mark Udall.
                                   Bart Gordon.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Jim Barcia.
                                   David Wu.
                                   Lynn Woolsey.
                                   Michael E. Capuano.
                                   Anthony D. Weiner.
                                   Bob Etheridge.

                            Dissenting Views

    I commend my colleague, the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, for 
the significant effort he has made in bringing forward a 
comprehensive NASA Authorization Act. Yet, section 128 of his 
efforts omits TransHab, a proposed replacement for the 
International Space Station habitation module. TransHab is 
important enough to the space program and to the Ninth 
Congressional District of Texas that I feel the need to file 
these dissenting views.
    NASA is currently reviewing the technical issues 
surrounding the TransHab structure. TransHab appears to have a 
number of highly desirable qualities and technologies that make 
it an attractive candidate both for International Space Station 
consideration and for potential commercial applications such as 
significant crew safety advantages over the currently baselined 
habitation module. NASA, therefore, should be permitted to 
continue research to develop and design TranHab and to 
contribute some modest amount of technology maturation funding, 
if required, to develop a commercial partnership. Several 
companies have already shown their interest by responding to a 
TransHab concept solicitation.
    NASA plans to pursue this concept only if the difference in 
cost between the Hab and the TransHab can be mitigated by 
commercial participation. I, therefore, recommend that we 
authorize TransHab but postpone the obligation of funds for its 
design or development or any other inflatable replacement for 
International Space Station components scheduled for launch 
until the NASA Administrator provides the House Committee on 
Science and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation with a report that includes the following: an 
independently validated cost and schedule estimate for proposed 
design or development program, a description of the procurement 
approach to be used, and a funding plan with increments tied to 
the achievement of clearly defined programmatic milestones.
    In closing, I am very concerned that we not do anything in 
this bill that would preclude NASA from doing the research 
necessary to determine the viability of TransHab or any other 
inflatable concepts.

                                                      Nick Lampson.

                            Additional Views

    I commend my colleague, the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, for 
the significant effort he has made in bringing forward the NASA 
Authorization Act. I would, however, like to express my 
concerns regarding the amount of funding dedicated to Aircraft 
Noise Reduction Technology Research at NASA.
    While I commend NASA for their efforts in this field, the 
time has come to increase funding for noise reduction research 
to a level commensurate with the problem. As our skies become 
more and more crowded, airplane noise presents a more 
sigificant concern to the weary residents surrounding our 
nation's airports. An increase in funding for this technology 
would allow NASA to support negotiations on Stage IV noise 
reductions--the next generation of aircraft noise control 
efforts currently being developed.
    As Aircraft Noise Reduction efforts reach this next level 
of development, aircraft designers and manufacturers, standards 
writers, and government decision-makers must be armed with the 
best information available. Higher funding for this family of 
technologies is clearly the most important signal this Congress 
can send that it takes this problem seriously.

                                                 Anthony D. Weiner.

             XIX. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup



    PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 1654, NATIONAL 
     AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

                              ----------                              


                         Thursday, May 13, 1999

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m., in 
Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner [presiding]. The Committee on 
Science will be in order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science is meeting 
today to consider the following: first, H.R. 1654, the NASA 
Authorization Act of 1999; second, H.R. 1655, the Department of 
Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization 
Act of 1999; third, H.R. 1656, the Department of Energy 
Commercial Application of Energy Technology Authorization Act 
of 1999; fourth, H.R. 1742, the Environmental Protection Agency 
Office of Research and Development and Science Advisory Board 
Authorization Act of 1999; sixth, the--excuse me, fifth, the 
EPA Office of Air and Radiation Authorization Act of 1999, and, 
last the NIST Authorization Act of 1999.
    I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the 
Committee at any point, and, without objection, it is so 
ordered. Let me also say that it is my hope that this morning 
we will be able to finish at least the first two bills, and if 
we get done with those, it is not my intention to bring the 
Committee back this afternoon but to recess the Committee, and 
we will find a mutually aggreable time, either tommorrow if we 
have votes or next week, to act on the rest of the bills and 
report them out to the Floor for action. So, if we get done 
with the first two bills, the members can get a pass for this 
afternoon, which I think would be welcomed by most.

                               h.r. 1654

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The first bill we will take up this 
morning is H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 1999. This 
is a 3-year authorization covering the activities of our Civil 
Space Program in Fiscal Years 2000, 2001, and 2002. When 
combined with a separate authorization for NASA's high 
performance computing and communications activities, this bill 
represents an annual 1 percent increase for NASA over the 
President's request.
    The bill provides full funding for the International Space 
Station and fences the station's research account so the 
science community will be prepared to use the station when it 
is completed. Section 128 of the bill also prohibits NASA from 
continuing to spend money on Trans-Hab, a possible replacement 
for the station's habitation module, because Trans-Hab costs 
more, and we simply don't have the money. The bill contains 
modest increases for Space Science, Life and Microgravity 
research, space transportation technologies and full funding 
for Earth science and shuttle operations. Within the 
aeronautics budget, the bill cancels the Ultra-Efficient Engine 
Technology Program rather than creating a new start for this 
focus program, the bill redirects the engine technology funding 
into our research and technology base where fundamental 
aeronautic research is conducted.
    In addition, the bill contains several policy provisions, 
most notably, some definitions for commercial space activity so 
that various Government agencies will mean the same thing when 
they use terms such as ``commercialization and privatization.'' 
There is a mandated study for the shuttle external tank, 
possibly as a supplement to our orbital research capabilities. 
A second study will review and prioritize various shuttle 
upgrades in order to assist the Congress and the Administration 
in making policy about the shuttle's future in coming years.
    We do have a few amendments on the roster this morning, so 
I won't go into greater detail, but before moving forward, I do 
want to mention some good news. The Senate Commerce Committee 
has introduced and marked up its NASA authorization for the 
next 3 fiscal years as well. In the past, the Senate has not 
moved so quickly on our Space Program, so I take this as an 
encouraging sign that we will be able to send an authorization 
to the President for signature this year, which will be the 
first time, I think, in 5 to 7 years. So, with that, let me 
yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will yield in a moment 
to the Ranking Democrat. I have good news too. George Brown, 
who has been quite ill, is at home; he's doing well; he's been 
to his office, and he's up and around and expressed a desire to 
thank all of you for your----
    [Applause.]
    And I like an awful lot about the bill that we have here, 
but I'm going to like them better if we get some amendments on 
it. [Laughter.]
    I yield to Bart Gordon.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Tennessee.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you. Good morning. Since we have a very 
busy markup schedule, I will be brief in my remarks. I believe 
that H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 1999, while by no 
means free of problems, is a reasonable constructed piece of 
legislation, as introduced, and I ask to co-sponsor it. I 
appreciate the willingness of the Subcommittee Chair to work 
with the minority to address some of our concerns with the 
original draft of the bill. I think that our discussions prior 
to its introduction by the Chairman have led to an improved 
bill. I am particularly pleased that bill, as introduced now, 
allocates additional funding for NASA's education programs. As 
you know, members on this side of the aisle have been very 
supportive of these programs, and we appreciate your 
willingness to respond to our concerns over the funding levels 
in the draft bill, and I appreciate the Chairman's agreement to 
include a provision that I requested to increase the funding 
for NASA's Teacher-Faculty Preparation Enhancement Program. 
This program offers important benefits to our primarily 
undergraduate colleges and technical institutions and can lead 
to long-term research opportunities for the students and the 
faculty of these schools.
    Now, while I have agreed to co-sponsor H.R. 1654, I am 
still concerned about some aspects of the bill. One issue is 
the removal form the bill of all the funding for the High 
Performance Computing Program and the Administration's 
Information Technology Initiative. I understand the funding for 
these activities is being removed from all the authorizing 
bills in the Committee's jurisdiction, and I hope that we will 
be able to get a better and additional clarification from 
Chairman Sensenbrenner today regarding his intentions in this 
matter.
    Another area of concern is the limitation that has been put 
on the Earth Science Program in this bill. Although the 
provisions may be well intended, I believe that including the 
limitation will do real damage to the ongoing Earth Science 
Program while doing little to help the commercial remote 
sensing sector.
    Finally, I am puzzled by actions taken in the Aeronautics 
budget to eliminate NASA's main Aircraft Engine Technology 
Program and to cut money form NASA's Aviation System Capacity 
Research Program. These actions do not appear to reflect any 
consensus derived form our hearing, either in the Space 
Subcommittee or in the Technology Subcommittee. I'm sure that 
we will discuss these matters during the markup, so I will not 
dwell anymore on them at this time.
    In closing, I, again, want to thank the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee and of the full Committee for their willingness to 
work with us on this bill, and I look forward to a productive 
markup, but I would also like to ask unanimous consent to place 
George Brown's statement in the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, and, without 
objection, all members may place opening statements in the 
record at this point in time.
    [The statements of Mr. Brown and Mr. Lampson follow:]
            Prepared Statement of Hon. George E. Brown, Jr.
    While I do not intend to make a lengthy statement, I would like to 
offer a few comments on H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 1999. 
As you know, I have long been a strong supporter of the nation's civil 
space program, and I remain so. Our activities in space have offered 
countless benefits to our citizens and have done much to bring the 
world's peoples closer together. We need to work hard to ensure that 
our space program continues to deliver those benefits.
    More broadly, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration--
NASA--has been a very important part of the nation's research and 
development infrastructure. We need to do all we can to maintain its 
health and vitality. In that regard, I believe that H.R. 1654, while by 
no means a perfect bill, does represent a positive signal that the 
Science Committee supports an active and robust civil space program and 
a healthy commercial space sector. I thus am supporting H.R. 1654 as 
introduced.
    I of course have long supported increases to NASA's budget, and I 
am encouraged that this bill does increase NASA's overall funding. In 
addition, I am pleased that both the Administration's multiyear funding 
plan and this bill support investments in advanced space 
transportation. Improved space transportation will allow us to do more 
in space, and to do it at reasonable cost.
    In addition, the Majority has been willing to include several 
provisions that I sought to have included in the bill. Among them are 
findings on the importance of maintaining the Hubble Space Telescope 
and enhancing it as appropriate. We have gained much of importance from 
Hubble during its years of operation, and we need to ensure that it 
remains productive until the next generation of space observatories are 
on orbit. In that regard, I think we need to give serious consideration 
to enhancing it as appropriate so that it can serve as a scientific 
bridge to those future observatories, especially in the areas of near-
infrared observations.
    At the same time, we need to make sure that NASA has the necessary 
resources to do needed servicing of Hubble without having to 
cannibalize the rest of the space science program. That is why I sought 
inclusion of additional funding to cover the science costs of the extra 
Hubble servicing mission. At the end of the day, NASA will probably 
also need additional funding to cover the unexpected delays to the AXAF 
observatory resulting from unrelated launch vehicle problems, as well 
as to cover some of the Shuttle-related costs. As I have learned over 
the years, space research is not trouble-free, and we have to ensure 
sufficient reserves are available to deal with the unexpected.
    NASA has worked hard to develop an exciting, effective, and 
balanced space science program, and I believe that Congress does not 
wish to see that balanced program unravel as a result of the current 
temporary problems. I see the extra money I have sought to include as 
an early signal of this Committee's commitment to a healthy space 
science program.
    Another area of concern to me is the Deep Space Network (DSN). I 
know that NASA needs no encouragement from me to ensure that this 
critically important infrastructure is maintained. Yet I think that it 
is important to signal that this Committee recognizes the importance of 
the DSN for NASA's existing and planned solar system exploration 
missions--and that we want to make sure that upgrades required to 
satisfy future requirements are done in a timely manner.
    Finally, H.R. 1654 includes a provision that I asked be included 
relating to innovative technologies for the human exploration and 
development of space. It is my strong belief that we need to apply the 
lessons of ``faster, cheaper, better'' to NASA's human space flight 
programs if we are ever going to get beyond low Earth orbit. In that 
regard, I think we need to cast the net widely for new, innovative 
technologies that can dramatically reduce the cost of human space 
exploration. I think that NASA's space science program has set a good 
example by means of its New Millennium and Discovery programs, and I 
have sought to mimic that approach in the provision included in the 
bill.
    While there are other things I like about H.R. 1654, I do have an 
obligation to point out some of the areas where I have problems with 
the bill. While I doubt that all of them will be dealt with at today's 
markup, I hope that at least some will be. First, I would note the 
elimination of any funding for the High Performance Computing and 
Information Technology initiatives. Chairman Sensenbrenner has given 
his assurances that it is his intention to move standalone legislation 
in the near future. However, I remain concerned that the absence of 
these programs from the NASA bill could inadvertently send the wrong 
signal to the Appropriations committee. I thus want to make it 
abundantly clear that I support these programs.
    Next, I believe that the Earth Science limitation included in the 
bill is ill-advised and ultimately unworkable. I think it should be 
removed. I am puzzled by the prohibition against NASA's aircraft engine 
focused technology program. I think that the arguments for continuing 
that research program are as compelling as the arguments for having 
NASA pursue research in space transportation engines. We should not 
walk away from our national commitment to aviation engine research. 
Similarly, we should not let a proper concern for cost discipline in 
the Space Station program inadvertently result in the stifling of all 
work on promising concepts such as inflatable crew structures.
    Likewise, I do not understand why the Majority would propose 
cutting NASA's research in aviation system capacity--an area that NASA 
has been involved in productively for many years. And of course, I 
think we can never go wrong in investing in programs that promote 
science education. Finally, although I believe that the provisions in 
the bill regarding international cooperation represent an improvement 
over those in the earlier draft bill, I would like to hear from NASA 
and our international partners on the potential impact of the proposed 
provisions on future cooperation.
    In closing, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman 
Rohrabacher, and Mr. Gordon for their efforts in bringing this bill to 
us today, and I look foward a productive markup.
                Prepared Statement of Hon. Nick Lampson
    Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the Committee has chosen to include a 
total of $25 million for new space shuttle upgrades in this bill.
    The space shuttle is the most capable and versatile launch vehicle 
in the world. No other vehicle--either in use or in development--can do 
it what it does: Payload deployment; On-orbit assembly and research; 
Crew transfer; Satellite retrieval and repair; and Cargo return.
    Because the shuttle is exposed to atmospheric flight for only a few 
minutes during a mission, the flight has only expended 25% of its 
design life. Like the reliable aircraft that meet our nation's 
commercial and military needs--the 737 and B-52 for example--the Space 
Shuttle's performance and reliability improves with upgrades.
    Upgrades have been a critical part of the Shuttle program since its 
inception. Better management of the program by NASA and USA--along with 
upgrades--have led to significant improvements.
    In FY92, the annual Space Shuttle budget was $3.9 billion--today it 
is $3 billion.
    The Space Shuttle's on-time launch record is nearly perfect over 
the last three years.
    To continue this trend, investments in upgrades that increase 
safety and efficiency--and drive technology--are critical. As has been 
proven with commercial and military aircraft, technology upgrades 
extend the life of aircraft--and spacecraft--and return great value to 
the taxpayer.
    The $25 million in FY00 will allow the purchase of long-lead items 
so that the NASA and USA team can begin the process of further 
upgrading the Space Shuttle.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Gordon. And, Mr. Chairman, finally, in conclusion, let 
me just say that the normal regular order in most committees is 
to a Subcommittee markup followed by a full Committee markup. 
It allows an opportunity to vent various issues; to let 
people--you know, make sure that we're not having unintended 
circumstances and consequences so we get the very best bill. It 
is of course the prerogative of the majority to decide whether 
they wanted to do that or not. In this Committee, we've decided 
not to do it, but I do want to report to our members that after 
a very cordial and good faith discussion with the Chairman and 
his staff, that we've come to an agreement to have good 
notice--at least 10 days--if possible, with a full draft before 
major markups particularly when you have several bills as 
coming up today. We can't do our job, either the minority or 
really members of the majority who aren't in the leadership 
there to look over the bills.
    I think that, as I say, a good faith agreement has been 
developed. The majority has fulfilled that in this case. I want 
to say thank you for that, and I want to remind our members 
that we have a responsibility back; that when we have 
amendments and we have concerns, we need to give them timely 
notice, and if we'll all work together on this, we're going to 
have better legislation, and I think that we've got a good 
agreement, and I thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. First, let me thank the gentleman 
from Tennessee. We had been working and soothing over some of 
the rough points that have come up at earlier markups, and I 
think we are on a good track. The bills have been available for 
circulation for a good period of time, and the Democrats have 
reciprocated in giving us their amendments in time for us to be 
able to review the amendments and come back with comments on 
that, and I think that we are narrowing the issues and thus 
able to speed up consideration of the legislation.
    With respect to Subcommittee markups, there have been a 
considerable number of Subcommittee hearings, although not 
legislatively focused, on the President's budget request, and 
it has been my feeling as far as the authorization bills are 
concerned that having a Subcommittee markup as well as a Full 
Committee markup would be a duplication of effort since the 
issues would largely be the same. And, furthermore, since the 
Appropriations Committee is going to be doing its thing so that 
we are able to have an August recess according to the speaker's 
admonition on the first day of the session, that we ought to 
make all deliberate speed to get our authorization bills out in 
order to influence what the Appropriations Committee does. So, 
I take responsibility for the call in not having Subcommittee 
markups on these authorization bills, but I think that it has 
been for good and sufficient reason.
    Without objection, the bill is read the first time and open 
for amendment at any point.
    [The information follows:]

                               H.R. 1654

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration Authorization Act of 1999''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

                       Subtitle A--Authorizations

Sec. 101. International Space Station.
Sec. 102. Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations.
Sec. 103. Science, Aeronautics, and Technology.
Sec. 104. Mission Support.
Sec. 105. Inspector General.
Sec. 106. Total authorization.
Sec. 107. Aviation systems capacity.

              Subtitle B--Limitations and Special Authority

Sec. 121. Use of funds for construction.
Sec. 122. Availability of appropriated amounts.
Sec. 123. Reprogramming for construction of facilities.
Sec. 124. Limitation on obligation of unauthorized appropriations.
Sec. 125. Use of funds for scientific consultations or extraordinary 
          expenses.
Sec. 126. Earth science limitation.
Sec. 127. Competitiveness and international cooperation.
Sec. 128. Trans-hab.
Sec. 129. Consolidated Space Operations Contract.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Requirement for independent cost analysis.
Sec. 202. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 amendments.
Sec. 203. Commercial space goods and services.
Sec. 204. Cost effectiveness calculations.
Sec. 205. Foreign contract limitation.
Sec. 206. Authority to reduce or suspend contract payments based on 
          substantial evidence of fraud.
Sec. 207. Space Shuttle upgrade study.
Sec. 208. Aero-space transportation technology integration.
Sec. 209. Definitions of commercial space policy terms.
Sec. 210. External tank opportunities study.
Sec. 211. Eligibility for awards.
Sec. 212. Notice.
Sec. 213. Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 amendments.
Sec. 214. Innovative technologies for human space flight.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  The Congress makes the following findings:
          (1) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration should 
        continue to pursue actions andreforms directed at reducing 
institutional costs, including management restructuring, facility 
consolidation, procurement reform, and convergence with defense and 
commercial sector systems.
          (2) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration must 
        continue on its current course of returning to its proud 
        history as the Nation's leader in basic scientific, air, and 
        space research.
          (3) The overwhelming preponderance of the Federal 
        Government's requirements for routine, unmanned space 
        transportation can be met most effectively, efficiently, and 
        economically by a free and competitive market in privately 
        developed and operated space transportation services.
          (4) In formulating a national space transportation service 
        policy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        should aggressively promote the pursuit by commercial providers 
        of development of advanced space transportation technologies 
        including reusable space vehicles, and human space systems.
          (5) The Federal Government should invest in the types of 
        research and innovative technology in which United States 
        commercial providers do not invest, while avoiding competition 
        with the activities in which United States commercial providers 
        do invest.
          (6) International cooperation in space exploration and 
        science activities serves the United States national interest--
                  (A) when it--
                          (i) reduces the cost of undertaking missions 
                        the United States Government would pursue 
                        unilaterally;
                          (ii) enables the United States to pursue 
                        missions that it could not otherwise afford to 
                        pursue unilaterally; or
                          (iii) enhances United States capabilities to 
                        use and develop space for the benefit of United 
                        States citizens; and
                  (B) when it--
                          (i) is undertaken in a manner that is 
                        sensitive to the desire of United States 
                        commercial providers to develop or explore 
                        space commercially;
                          (ii) is consistent with the need for Federal 
                        agencies to use space to complete their 
                        missions; and
                          (iii) is carried out in a manner consistent 
                        with United States export control laws.
          (7) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the 
        Department of Defense can cooperate more effectively in 
        leveraging their mutual capabilities to conduct joint space 
        missions that improve United States space capabilities and 
        reduce the cost of conducting space missions.
          (8) The Deep Space Network will continue to be a critically 
        important part of the Nation's scientific and exploration 
        infrastructure in the coming decades, and the National 
        Aeronautics and Space Administration should ensure that the 
        Network is adequately maintained and that upgrades required to 
        support future missions are undertaken in a timely manner.
          (9) The Hubble Space Telescope has proven to be an important 
        national astronomical research facility that is revolutionizing 
        our understanding of the universe and should be kept 
        productive, and its capabilities should be maintained and 
        enhanced as appropriate to serve as a scientific bridge to the 
        next generation of space-based observatories.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  For purposes of this Act--
          (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
          (2) the term ``commercial provider'' means any person 
        providing space transportation services or other space-related 
        activities, primary control of which is held by persons other 
        than Federal, State, local, and foreign governments;
          (3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a));
          (4) the term ``State'' means each of the several States of 
        the Union, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
        Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 
        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other 
        commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; 
        and
          (5) the term ``United States commercial provider'' means a 
        commercial provider, organized under the laws of the United 
        States or of a State, which is--
                  (A) more than 50 percent owned by United States 
                nationals; or
                  (B) a subsidiary of a foreign company and the 
                Secretary of Commerce finds that--
                          (i) such subsidiary has in the past evidenced 
                        a substantial commitment to the United States 
                        market through--
                                  (I) investments in the United States 
                                in long-term research, development, and 
                                manufacturing (including the 
                                manufacture of major components and 
                                subassemblies); and
                                  (II) significant contributions to 
                                employment in the United States; and
                          (ii) the country or countries in which such 
                        foreign company is incorporated or organized, 
                        and, if appropriate, in which it principally 
                        conducts its business, affords reciprocal 
                        treatment to companies described in 
                        subparagraph (A) comparable to that afforded to 
                        such foreign company's subsidiary in the United 
                        States, as evidenced by--
                                  (I) providing comparable 
                                opportunities for companies described 
                                in subparagraph (A) to participate in 
                                Government sponsored research and 
                                development similar to that authorized 
                                under this Act;
                                  (II) providing no barriers to 
                                companies described in subparagraph (A) 
                                with respect to local investment 
                                opportunities that are not provided to 
                                foreign companies in the United States; 
                                and
                                  (III) providing adequate and 
                                effective protection for the 
                                intellectual property rights of 
                                companies described in subparagraph 
                                (A).

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

                       Subtitle A--Authorizations

SEC. 101. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for International Space Station--
          (1) for fiscal year 2000, $2,482,700,000, of which 
        $394,400,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)--
                  (A) shall only be for Space Station research or for 
                the purposes described in section 103(2); and
                  (B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and 
                Microgravity Sciences and Applications;
          (2) for fiscal year 2001, $2,328,000,000, of which 
        $465,400,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)--
                  (A) shall only be for Space Station research or for 
                the purposes described in section 103(2); and
                  (B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and 
                Microgravity Sciences and Applications; and
          (3) for fiscal year 2002, $2,091,000,000, of which 
        $469,200,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)--
                  (A) shall only be for Space Station research or for 
                the purposes described in section 103(2); and
                  (B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and 
                Microgravity Sciences and Applications.

SEC. 102. LAUNCH VEHICLE AND PAYLOAD OPERATIONS.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations the 
following amounts:
          (1) For Space Shuttle Operations--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,547,400,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,649,900,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,629,000,000.
          (2) For Space Shuttle Safety and Performance Upgrades--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $456,800,000, of which 
                $18,000,000 shall not be obligated until 45 days after 
                the report required by section 207 has been submitted 
                to the Congress;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $407,200,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $414,000,000.
          (3) For Payload and Utilization Operations--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $169,100,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $182,900,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $184,500,000.

SEC. 103. SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for Science, Aeronautics, and Technology the 
following amounts:
          (1) For Space Science--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,202,400,000, of which--
                          (i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth 
                        Object Survey;
                          (ii) $472,000,000 shall be for the Research 
                        Program;
                          (iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar 
                        Power technology; and
                          (iv) $170,400,000 shall be for Hubble Space 
                        Telescope (Development);
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,315,200,000, of which--
                          (i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth 
                        Object Survey;
                          (ii) $475,800,000 shall be for the Research 
                        Program; and
                          (iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar 
                        Power technology; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,411,800,000, of which--
                          (i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth 
                        Object Survey;
                          (ii) $511,100,000 shall be for the Research 
                        Program;
                          (iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar 
                        Power technology; and
                          (iv) $5,000,000 shall be for space science 
                        data buy.
          (2) For Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $301,000,000, of which 
                $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection 
                systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other women's 
                health issues, and $5,000,000 shall be for sounding 
                rocket vouchers;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $335,200,000, of which 
                $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection 
                systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other women's 
                health issues; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $344,000,000, of which 
                $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection 
                systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other women's 
                health issues.
          (3) For Earth Science, subject to the limitations set forth 
        in section 126--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $1,415,100,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $1,413,300,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $1,365,300,000.
          (4) For Aero-Space Technology--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $999,300,000, of which--
                          (i) $532,800,000 shall be for Aeronautical 
                        Research and Technology, with no funds to be 
                        used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with 
                        $475,800,000 to be for the Research and 
                        Technology Base;
                          (ii) $334,000,000 shall be for Advanced Space 
                        Transportation Technology, including--
                                  (I) $61,300,000 for the Future-X 
                                Demonstration Program; and
                                  (II) $105,600,000 for Advanced Space 
                                Transportation Program; and
                          (iii) $132,500,000 shall be for Commercial 
                        Technology;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $908,400,000, of which--
                          (i) $524,000,000 shall be for Aeronautical 
                        Research and Technology, with no funds to be 
                        used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with 
                        $484,000,000 to be for the Research and 
                        Technology Base, and with $54,200,000 to be for 
                        Aviation System Capacity;
                          (ii) $249,400,000 shall be for Advanced Space 
                        Transportation Technology, including--
                                  (I) $109,000,000 for the Future-X 
                                Demonstration Program; and
                                  (II) $134,400,000 for Advanced Space 
                                Transportation Program; and
                          (iii) $135,000,000 shall be for Commercial 
                        Technology; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $994,800,000, of which--
                          (i) $519,200,000 shall be for Aeronautical 
                        Research and Technology, with no funds to be 
                        used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, and with 
                        $466,900,000 to be for the Research and 
                        Technology Base, and with $67,600,000 to be for 
                        Aviation System Capacity;
                          (ii) $340,000,000 shall be for Advanced Space 
                        Transportation Technology; and
                          (iii) $135,600,000 shall be for Commercial 
                        Technology.
          (5) For Mission Communication Services--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $406,300,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $382,100,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $296,600,000.
          (6) For Academic Programs--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $128,600,000, of which 
                $11,600,000 shall be for Higher Education within the 
                Teacher/Faculty Preparation and Enhancement Programs;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $128,600,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $130,600,000.
          (7) For Future Planning (Space Launch)--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2001, $144,000,000; and
                  (B) for fiscal year 2002, $280,000,000.

SEC. 104. MISSION SUPPORT.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for Mission Support the following amounts:
          (1) For Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $43,000,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $45,000,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $49,000,000.
          (2) For Space Communication Services--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $89,700,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $109,300,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $174,200,000.
          (3) For Construction of Facilities, including land 
        acquisition--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $181,000,000, including--
                          (i) Restore Electrical Distribution System 
                        (ARC), $2,700,000;
                          (ii) Rehabilitate Main Hangar Building 4802 
                        (Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC)), 
                        $2,900,000;
                          (iii) Rehabilitate High Voltage System (Glenn 
                        Research Center), $7,600,000;
                          (iv) Repair Site Steam Distribution System 
                        (GSFC), $2,900,000;
                          (v) Restore Chilled Water Distribution System 
                        (GSFC), $3,900,000;
                          (vi) Rehabilitate Hydrostatic Bearing Runner, 
                        70 meter Antenna, Goldstone (JPL), $1,700,000;
                          (vii) Upgrade 70 meter Antenna Servo Drive, 
                        70 meter Antenna Subnet (JPL), $3,400,000;
                          (viii) Rehabilitate Utility Tunnel Structure 
                        and Systems (Johnson Space Center (JSC)), 
                        $5,600,000;
                          (ix) Connect KSC to CCAS Wastewater Treatment 
                        Plant (KSC), $2,500,000;
                          (x) Repair and Modernize HVAC System, Central 
                        Instrument Facility (KSC), $3,000,000;
                          (xi) Replace High Voltage Load Break Switches 
                        (KSC), $2,700,000;
                          (xii) Repair and Modernize HVAC and 
                        Electrical systems, Building 4201 (Marshall 
                        Space Flight Center (MSFC)), $2,300,000;
                          (xiii) Repair Roofs, Vehicle Component Supply 
                        buildings (MAF), $2,000,000;
                          (xiv) Minor Revitalization of Facilities at 
                        Various Locations, not in excess of $1,500,000 
                        per project, $65,500,000;
                          (xv) Minor Construction of New Facilities and 
                        Additions to Existing Facilities at Various 
                        Locations, not in excess of $1,500,000 per 
                        project, $5,000,000;
                          (xvi) Facility Planning and Design, 
                        $19,200,000;
                          (xvii) Deferred Major Maintenance, 
                        $8,000,000;
                          (xviii) Environmental Compliance and 
                        Restoration, $40,100,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $181,000,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $191,000,000.
          (4) For Research and Program Management, including personnel 
        and related costs, travel, and research operations support--
                  (A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,181,200,000;
                  (B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,195,000,000; and
                  (C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,261,600,000.

SEC. 105. INSPECTOR GENERAL.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for Inspector General--
          (1) for fiscal year 2000, $22,000,000;
          (2) for fiscal year 2001, $22,000,000; and
          (3) for fiscal year 2002, $22,000,000.

SEC. 106. TOTAL AUTHORIZATION.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the total amount 
authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration under this Act shall not exceed--
          (1) for fiscal year 2000, $13,625,600,000;
          (2) for fiscal year 2001, $13,747,100,000; and
          (3) for fiscal year 2002, $13,839,400,000.

SEC. 107. AVIATION SYSTEMS CAPACITY.

  In addition to amounts otherwise authorized, there are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 for aviation systems 
capacity.

             Subtitle B--Limitations and Special Authority

SEC. 121. USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

  (a) Authorized Uses.--Funds appropriated under sections 101, 102, 
103, and 104(1) and (2), and funds appropriated for research operations 
support under section 104(4), may be used for the construction of new 
facilities and additions to, repair of, rehabilitation of, or 
modification of existing facilities at any location in support of the 
purposes for which such funds are authorized.
  (b) Limitation.--No funds may be expended pursuant to subsection (a) 
for a project, the estimated cost of which to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, including collateral equipment, exceeds 
$1,000,000, until 30 days have passed after the Administrator has 
notified the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate of 
the nature, location, and estimated cost to the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration of such project.
  (c) Title to Facilities.--If funds are used pursuant to subsection 
(a) for grants to institutions of higher education, or to nonprofit 
organizations whose primary purpose is the conduct of scientific 
research, for purchase or construction of additional research 
facilities, title to such facilities shall be vested in the United 
States unless the Administrator determines that the national program of 
aeronautical and space activities will best be served by vesting title 
in the grantee institution or organization. Each such grant shall be 
made under such conditions as the Administrator shall determine to be 
required to ensurethat the United States will receive therefrom 
benefits adequate to justify the making of that grant.

SEC. 122. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS.

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

SEC. 123. REPROGRAMMING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES.

  (a) In General.--Appropriations authorized for construction of 
facilities under section 104(3)--
          (1) may be varied upward by 10 percent in the discretion of 
        the Administrator; or
          (2) may be varied upward by 25 percent, to meet unusual cost 
        variations, after the expiration of 15 days following a report 
        on the circumstances of such action by the Administrator to the 
        Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
        Senate.
The aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated for construction of 
facilities under section 104(3) shall not be increased as a result of 
actions authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection.
  (b) Special Rule.--Where the Administrator determines that new 
developments in the national program of aeronautical and space 
activities have occurred; and that such developments require the use of 
additional funds for the purposes of construction, expansion, or 
modification of facilities at any location; and that deferral of such 
action until the enactment of the next National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration authorization Act would be inconsistent with the 
interest of the Nation in aeronautical and space activities, the 
Administrator may use up to $10,000,000 of the amounts authorized under 
section 104(3) for each fiscal year for such purposes. No such funds 
may be obligated until a period of 30 days has passed after the 
Administrator has transmitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science of the 
House of Representatives a written report describing the nature of the 
construction, its costs, and the reasons therefor.

SEC. 124. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Reports to Congress.--
          (1) Requirement.--Not later than--
                  (A) 30 days after the later of the date of the 
                enactment of an Act making appropriations to the 
                National Aeronautics and Space Administration for 
                fiscal year 2000 and the date of the enactment of this 
                Act; and
                  (B) 30 days after the date of the enactment of an Act 
                making appropriations to the National Aeronautics and 
                Space Administration for fiscal year 2001 or 2002,
        the Administrator shall submit a report to Congress and to the 
        Comptroller General.
          (2) Contents.--The reports required by paragraph (1) shall 
        specify--
                  (A) the portion of such appropriations which are for 
                programs, projects, or activities not authorized under 
                subtitle A of this title, or which are in excess of 
                amounts authorized for the relevant program, project, 
                or activity under this Act; and
                  (B) the portion of such appropriations which are 
                authorized under this Act.
  (b) Federal Register Notice.--The Administrator shall, coincident 
with the submission of each report required by subsection (a), publish 
in the Federal Register a notice of all programs, projects, or 
activities for which funds are appropriated but which were not 
authorized under this Act, and solicit public comment thereon regarding 
the impact of such programs, projects, or activities on the conduct and 
effectiveness of the national aeronautics and space program.
  (c) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds 
may be obligated for any programs, projects, or activities of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2000, 
2001, or 2002 not authorized under this Act until 30 days have passed 
after the close of the public comment period contained in a notice 
required by subsection (b).

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

  Not more than $30,000 of the funds appropriated under section 103 may 
be used for scientific consultations or extraordinary expenses, upon 
the authority of the Administrator.

SEC. 126. EARTH SCIENCE LIMITATION.

  Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for Earth Science under 
section 103(3) for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, $50,000,000 
shall be for the Commercial Remote Sensing Program at Stennis Space 
Center for commercial data purchases, unless the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration has integrated data purchases into the 
procurement process for Earth science research by obligating at least 5 
percent of the aggregate amount appropriated for that fiscal year for 
Earth Observing System and Earth Probes for the purchase of Earth 
science data from the private sector.

SEC. 127. COMPETITIVENESS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

  (a) Limitation.--As part of the evaluation of the costs and benefits 
of entering into an obligation to conduct a space mission in which a 
foreign entity will participate as a supplier of the spacecraft, 
spacecraft system, or launch system, the Administrator shall solicit 
comment on the potential impact of such participation through notice 
published in Commerce Business Daily at least 45 days before entering 
into such an obligation.
  (b) National Interests.--Before entering into an obligation described 
in subsection (a), the Administrator shall consider the national 
interests of the United States described in section 2(6).

SEC. 128. TRANS-HAB.

  (a) Replacement Structure.--No funds authorized by this Act shall be 
obligated for the definition, design, or development of an inflatable 
space structure to replace any International Space Station components 
scheduled for launch in the Assembly Sequence released by the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration on February 22, 1999.
  (b) General Limitation.--No funds authorized by this Act for fiscal 
year 2000 shall be obligated for the definition, design, or development 
of an inflatable space structure capable of accommodating humans in 
space.

SEC. 129. CONSOLIDATED SPACE OPERATIONS CONTRACT.

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

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS.

  Before any funds may be obligated for Phase B of a project that is 
projected to cost more than $100,000,000 in total project costs, the 
Chief Financial Officer for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration shall conduct an independent cost analysis of such 
project and shall report the results to Congress. In developing cost 
accounting and reporting standards for carrying out this section, the 
Chief Financial Officer shall, to the extent practicable and consistent 
with other laws, solicit the advice of expertise outside of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

SEC. 202. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958 AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Declaration of Policy and Purpose.--Section 102 of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451) is amended--
          (1) by striking subsection (f) and redesignating subsections 
        (g) and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively; and
          (2) in subsection (g), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) of 
        this subsection, by striking ``(f), and (g)'' and inserting in 
        lieu thereof ``and (f)''.
  (b) Reports to the Congress.--Section 206(a) of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2476(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``January'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``May''; and
          (2) by striking ``calendar'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``fiscal''.

SEC. 203. COMMERCIAL SPACE GOODS AND SERVICES.

  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall purchase 
commercially available space goods and services to the fullest extent 
feasible, and shall not conduct activities that preclude or deter 
commercial space activities except for reasons of national security or 
public safety. A space good or service shall be deemed commercially 
available if it is offered by a United States commercial provider, or 
if it could be supplied by a United States commercial provider in 
response to a Government procurement request. For purposes of this 
section, a purchase is feasible if it meets mission requirements in a 
cost-effective manner.

SEC. 204. COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS.

  In calculating the cost effectiveness of the cost of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration engaging in an activity as 
compared to a commercial provider, the Administrator shall compare the 
cost of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration engaging in 
the activity using full cost accounting principles with the price the 
commercial provider will charge for such activity.

SEC. 205. FOREIGN CONTRACT LIMITATION.

  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall not enter 
into any agreement or contract with a foreign government that grants 
the foreign government the right to recover profit in the event that 
the agreement or contract is terminated.

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

  Section 2307(i)(8) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``and (4)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``(4), and (6)''.

SEC. 207. SPACE SHUTTLE UPGRADE STUDY.

  (a) Study.--The Administrator shall enter into appropriate 
arrangements for the conduct of an independentstudy to reassess the 
priority of all Phase III and Phase IV Space Shuttle upgrades.
  (b) Priorities.--The study described in subsection (a) shall 
establish relative priorities of the upgrades within each of the 
following categories:
          (1) Upgrades that are safety related.
          (2) Upgrades that may have functional or technological 
        applicability to reusable launch vehicles.
          (3) Upgrades that have a payback period within the next 12 
        years.
  (c) Completion Date.--The results of the study described in 
subsection (a) shall be transmitted to the Congress not later than 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 208. AERO-SPACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION.

  (a) Integration Plan.--The Administrator shall develop a plan for the 
integration of research, development, and experimental demonstration 
activities in the aeronautics transportation technology and space 
transportation technology areas. The plan shall ensure that integration 
is accomplished without losing unique capabilities which support the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's defined missions. The 
plan shall also include appropriate strategies for using aeronautics 
centers in integration efforts.
  (b) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the 
Congress a report containing the plan developed under subsection (a). 
The Administrator shall transmit to the Congress annually thereafter 
for 5 years a report on progress in achieving such plan, to be 
transmitted with the annual budget request.

SEC. 209. DEFINITIONS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE POLICY TERMS.

  The Administrator shall ensure that the usage of terminology in 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration policies and programs is 
consistent with the following definitions:
          (1) The term ``commercialization'' means the process of 
        private entities conducting privatized space activities to 
        expand their customer base beyond the Federal Government to 
        address existing or potential commercial markets, investing 
        private resources to meet those commercial market requirements.
          (2) The term ``commercial purchase'' means a purchase by the 
        Federal Government of space goods and services at a market 
        price from a private entity which has invested private 
        resources to meet commercial requirements.
          (3) The term ``commercial use of Federal assets'' means the 
        use by a service contractor or other private entity of the 
        capability of Federal assets to deliver services to commercial 
        customers, with or without putting private capital at risk.
          (4) The term ``contract consolidation'' means the combining 
        of two or more Government service contracts for related space 
        activities into one larger Government service contract.
          (5) The term ``privatization'' means the process of 
        transferring--
                  (A) control and ownership of Federal space-related 
                assets, along with the responsibility for operating, 
                maintaining, and upgrading those assets; or
                  (B) control and responsibility for space-related 
                functions,
        from the Federal Government to the private sector.

SEC. 210. EXTERNAL TANK OPPORTUNITIES STUDY.

  (a) Applications.--The Administrator shall enter into appropriate 
arrangements for an independent study to identify, and evaluate the 
potential benefits and costs of, the broadest possible range of 
commercial and scientific applications which are enabled by the launch 
of Space Shuttle external tanks into Earth orbit and retention in 
space, including--
          (1) the use of privately owned external tanks as a venue for 
        commercial advertising on the ground, during ascent, and in 
        Earth orbit, except that such study shall not consider 
        advertising that while in orbit is observable from the ground 
        with the unaided human eye;
          (2) the use of external tanks to achieve scientific or 
        technology demonstration missions in Earth orbit, on the Moon, 
        or elsewhere in space; and
          (3) the use of external tanks as low-cost infrastructure in 
        Earth orbit or on the Moon, including as an augmentation to the 
        International Space Station.
A final report on the results of such study shall be delivered to the 
Congress not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act. Such report shall include recommendations as to Government and 
industry-funded improvements to the external tank which would maximize 
its cost-effectiveness for the scientific and commercial applications 
identified.
  (b) Required Improvements.--The Administrator shall conduct an 
internal agency study, based on the conclusions of the study required 
by subsection (a), of what--
          (1) improvements to the current Space Shuttle external tank; 
        and
          (2) other in-space transportation or infrastructure 
        capability developments,
would be required for the safe and economical use of the Space Shuttle 
external tank for any or all of the applications identified by the 
study required by subsection (a), a report on which shall be delivered 
to Congress not later than 45 days after receipt of the final report 
required by subsection (a).
  (c) Changes in Law or Policy.--Upon receipt of the final report 
required by subsection (a), the Administrator shall solicit comment 
from industry on what, if any, changes in law or policy would be 
required to achieve the applications identified in that final report. 
Not later than 90 days after receipt of such final report, the 
Administrator shall transmit to the Congress the comments received 
along with the recommendations of the Administrator as to changes in 
law or policy that may be required for those purposes.

SEC. 211. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

  (a) In General.--The Administrator shall exclude from consideration 
for grant agreements made by the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration after fiscal year 1999 any person who received funds, 
other than those described in subsection (b), appropriated for a fiscal 
year after fiscal year 1999, under a grant agreement from any Federal 
funding source for a project that was not subjected to a competitive, 
merit-based award process, except as specifically authorized by this 
Act. Any exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section shall be 
effective for a period of 5 years after the person receives such 
Federal funds.
  (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the receipt of 
Federal funds by a person due to the membership of that person in a 
class specified by law for which assistance is awarded to members of 
the class according to a formula provided by law.
  (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``grant 
agreement'' means a legal instrument whose principal purpose is to 
transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public 
purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United 
States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or 
barter) of property or services for the direct benefit or use of the 
United States Government. Such term does not include a cooperative 
agreement (as such term is used in section 6305 of title 31, United 
States Code) or a cooperative research and development agreement (as 
such term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler 
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).

SEC. 212. NOTICE.

  (a) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds authorized by this Act are 
subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided 
to the Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives and 
the Senate, notice of such action shall concurrently be provided to the 
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
  (b) Notice of Reorganization.--The Administrator shall provide notice 
to the Committees on Science and Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives, and the Committees on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation and Appropriations of the Senate, not later than 15 days 
before any major reorganization of any program, project, or activity of 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

SEC. 213. UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949 AMENDMENTS.

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

SEC. 214. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT.

  (a) Establishment of Program.--In order to promote a ``faster, 
cheaper, better'' approach to the human exploration and development of 
space, the Administrator shall establish a Human Space Flight 
Commercialization/Technology program of ground-based and space-based 
research and development in innovative technologies.
  (b) Awards.--At least 75 percent of the amount appropriated for the 
program established under subsection (a) for any fiscal year shall be 
awarded through broadly distributed announcements of opportunity that 
solicit proposals from educational institutions, industry, nonprofit 
institutions, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Centers, 
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, other Federal agencies, and other 
interested organizations, and that allow partnerships among any 
combination of those entities, with evaluation, prioritization, and 
recommendations made by external peer review panels.
  (c) Plan.--The Administrator shall include as part of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration's budget request to the Congress 
for fiscal year 2001 a plan for the implementation of the program 
established under subsection (a).

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The first amendment on the roster 
is one by the Subcommittee Chair, the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Rohrabacher. For what purpose does the 
gentleman seek recognition?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr. 
Rohrabacher.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

           Amendment to H.R. 1654 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacker

  Page 13, line 13, strike ``$475,800,000'' and insert 
``$412,800,000''.
  Page 14, line 4, strike ``$484,000,000'' and insert ``$399,800,000''.
  Page 14, line 22, strike ``$466,900,000'' and insert 
``$381,600,000''.
  Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.

  (a) Review.--The Administrator shall enter into appropriate 
arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences for the conduct of a 
review of--
          (1) international efforts to determine the extent of life in 
        the universe; and
          (2) enhancements that can be made to the National Aeronautics 
        and Space Administration's efforts to determine the extent of 
        life in the universe.
  (b) Elements.--The review required by subsection (a) shall include--
    (1) an assessment of the direction of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration's astrobiology initiatives within the Origins 
program;
    (2) an assessment of the direction of other initiatives carried out 
by entities other than the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration to determine the extent of life in the universe, 
including other Federal agencies, foreign space agencies, and private 
groups such as the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute;
    (3) recommendations about scientific and technological enhancements 
that could be made to the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration's astrobiology initiatives to effectively utilize the 
initiatives of the scientific and technical communities; and
    (4) recommendations for possible coordination or integration of 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration initiatives with 
initiatives of other entities described in paragraph (2).
    (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the 
Congress a report on the results of the review carried out under this 
section.

    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank Bart 
Gordon and the Committee staff on both sides for helping to put 
this bill together, and I want to thank Bart and all the other 
members who co-sponsored this bill, and I would hope that 
others do sign up.
    H.R. 1654, as introduced, is dramatically different from 
its original draft thanks to a lot of good ideas, again, coming 
from both sides of the aisle. We have agreed to many of those 
and to accept a number of the amendments put forward on the 
Democratic aside. Mr. Gordon and I have already discussed 
developing a bipartisan manager's amendment in coordination 
with Chairman Sensenbrenner and Mr. Brown to perfect this bill 
when it goes to the Floor.
    At the last markup, I suggested that members should 
approach Subcommittee Chairmen with proposals before coming 
before a Committee mark, and let me note that several members 
took me up on that suggestion, and we have done our very best 
to accommodate those members who did concerns, so we've 
developed a cooperative relationship.
    In particular, we are actively negotiating compromises 
regarding concerns on the Democratic side with the Earth 
Science limitation provision, and that's something is ongoing 
negotiations. I also spoke with Dan Golden Tuesday night, and 
he agreed to work with me as we continue this process on the 
Floor and in the conference with the Senate. So, I would hope 
that we don't lose momentum on all these good faith 
negotiations by fighting over some amendments that don't 
necessarily need to be fought over, but if we do, that is of 
course part of the Democratic process, and compromise and 
negotiation is, as well, part of the Democratic process.
    I want to praise Mr. Larson, in particular, for coming to 
me last week to talk about his concerns, and as we go to the 
Floor, I believe that both of our sides in this discussion have 
been satisfied, and we are going to go out of our way to try to 
make sure that Mr. Larson's concerns are taken care of. I also 
want to thank Mr. Etheridge and Ms. Jackson Lee and Mr. 
Capuano, several other Republican members and their efforts and 
their staffs, as well, to work out compromises with the 
Subcommittee staff.
    Briefly, my en bloc amendment does two things. First, it 
makes a technical correction to the level of funding for the 
Aeronautics Research and Technology base removing the HPCC and 
IT awarded money that was already taken out of the aeronautics 
top line. If we don't fix this, then we're telling NASA to cut 
an Administration priority like aviation safety or to overfund 
the research base.
    Secondly, my amendment also requires that the NASA Academy 
of Sciences review NASA's Original Program and other research 
into the study of the extent of life in the universe. The 
amendment asks for the Academy'srecommendations on how NASA can 
enhance these efforts. This is clearly the kind of advice we want the 
Academy to provide NASA and to Congress, so I would ask my colleagues 
for support of this as well.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I understand that some amendments 
will be offered today which I had hoped to handle through, as I 
say, negotiations and compromise. Again, I would hope that the 
Earth Science limitation provision and Trans-Hab amendments 
could be withdrawn and other solutions found, but we will 
continue to try to work on a cooperative basis on those 
problems.
    So, I will continue to negotiate in good faith, and we've 
reached some compromises, and I think we can be very proud that 
we have a working relationship that is a bipartisan working 
relationship in this Committee and the Subcommittee, and, with 
that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time.
    The question is on the adoption of amendment number one by 
the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Lamar Smith

    I support Chairman Rohrabacher's amendment and appreciate 
his including language that calls for the National Academy of 
Sciences to conduct a review of international efforts to 
determine the extent of life elsewhere in the universe and of 
enhancements that can be made to NASA's Origins program.
    The review will address a number of important areas 
including the direction of astrobiology within the Orgins 
program and activities of other government agencies and private 
groups in searching for life elsewhere in the universe. The 
review also will make recommendations on ways to integrate 
these efforts.
    I urge the Committee to adopt the amendment.

    Amendment number two is by the gentleman from Tennessee, 
Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, as your staff has been notified, 
I do not intend to ask for a vote on my amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Well, does the gentleman 
offer his amendment.
    Mr. Gordon. Yes, I would.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr. 
Gordon.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Tennessee is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]
Page 11, line 6, strike ``$2,202,400,000'' and insert 
  ``$2,245,600,000''.
Page 11, line 16, strike ``$2,315,200,000'' and insert 
  ``$2,365,800,000''.
Page 11, line 24, strike ``$2,411,800,000'' and insert 
  ``$2,463,400,000''.
Page 13, line 3, strike ``$1,415,100,000'' and insert 
  ``$1,459,100,000''.
Page 13, line 4, strike ``$1,413,300,000'' and insert 
  ``$1,462,800,000''.
Page 13, line 6, strike ``$1,365,300,000'' and insert 
  ``$1,420,500,000''.
Page 13, line 8, strike ``$999,300,000'' and insert 
  ``$1,086,500,000''.
Page 13, line 10, strike ``$532,800,000'' and insert 
  ``$620,000,000''.
Page 13, line 24, strike ``$908,400,000'' and insert 
  ``$1,019,400,000''.
Page 14, line 1, strike ``$524,000,000'' and insert 
  ``$635,000,000''.
Page 14, line 17, strike ``$994,800,000'' and insert 
  ``$1,105,600,000''.
Page 14, line 19, strike ``$519,200,000'' and insert 
  ``$630,000,000''.
Page 19, line 13, strike ``$13,625,600,000'' and insert 
  ``$13,800,000,000''.
Page 19, line 14, strike ``$13,747,100,000'' and insert 
  ``$13,958,200,000''.
Page 19, line 15, strike ``$13,839,400,000'' and insert 
  ``$14,057,000,000''.

    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the 
Committee's actions toward the Administration's proposed 
Information Technology for the 21st Century initiative and 
towards the HPCC initiative. As you know, today's NASA bill 
deletes all the funding for these programs. A similar action 
was taken in the NOAA bills considered 2 weeks ago. We touched 
on this issue at the earlier markup, and we were told that a 
larger information technology authorization bill would be done 
toward the middle of the year, and I understand that you have 
sent a letter to the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
stating your intention to move a 5-year authorization sometime 
in May.
    However, before I can agree to the action proposed for this 
markup, I believe we need to have some clarification on how we 
will proceed. Therefore, I'd like to ask the Chairman the 
following questions: What is the timetable for action on an 
information technology authorization? What is the 
Appropriations Committee to make of our timetable? What would 
the Chairman have the Appropriations Committee do with these 
accounts in the interim? What is the scope of the bill's be? 
Will we deal just with the new proposal for IT2 or will it be 
included--will we include all the programs, both proposed and 
ongoing? And if funds are subsequently authorized for these 
programs in a separate bill, will we go back and raise the 
overall authorization for these agencies from which the funds 
were deleted? I cannot agree to an approach that does not 
increase the overall authorization levels for the affected 
agencies to accommodate the information technology programs. 
And, finally, what role will the majority have in the drafting 
of the legislation of these programs and in the organization 
and focusing of the hearings associated with these programs? I 
think the Chairman----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield? As 
spelled out in the Committee's views and estimates and in my 
letter to Chairman Young, which I ask unanimous consent to be 
included in the record at this point, I believe that the 
Committee should look holistically at computer research budgets 
of all the agencies under our jurisdiction.
    [The information follows:]

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                      Washington, DC, May 11, 1999.
Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
H-218, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Young: I am writing to inform you of the Science 
Committee's actions on authorizing funding for computing and 
information technology research and development. This year, the 
Administration has proposed substantial increases for the High 
Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) program and a new 
initiative, which includes HPCC funding, entitled Information 
Technology for the 21st Century (IT \2\).
    After reviewing the Appropriations Committee's recommendations, I 
have reached the conclusion that a single comprehensive long-term 
authorization for research on the fundamental science and engineering 
issues which form the foundation of our Nation's information economy is 
preferable to a short-term piece-meal approach. I have therefore 
excluded from our current round of authorization bills funding for HPCC 
and all increases associated with the IT \2\ initiative. Instead, this 
month, I plan on introducing a single five-year bill to authorize 
computing and information technology research across all agencies 
within the Science Committee's jurisdiction.
    The Science Committee remains committed to supporting the basic 
research needed to help ensure America maintains its preeminent 
position as the world's leader in the development and use of 
information technology. I look forward to working with you over the 
next few weeks to make sure the Nation's IT basic research needs are 
met.
            Sincerely,
                               F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                          Chairman.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I intend to propose a 5-year 
authorization for information technology research programs 
across all the relevant agencies within our jurisdiction. Now, 
we have some drafting problems with the bill, but the bill will 
be introduced before we break for the Memorial Day recess. It 
is my intention to have the Subcommittee of this Committee hold 
hearings on this legislation in the month of June. We will see 
how quickly the Subcommittee can have a complete record. If the 
Subcommittees move promptly, there is no problem, as far as I'm 
concerned, to have a Subcommittee and full Committee markup on 
this legislation before we break for the 4th of July recess.
    The minority will be fully involved in the focusing of 
these hearings and fully involved in the drafting of whatever 
final product we send to the Floor of the consideration of the 
full House of Representatives as we have done with the other 
bills that have been considered by this Committee. So, there 
will be full minority input.
    Finally, it is my intention to wrap all of the ongoing 
programs as well as the new IT programs in this bill just as we 
did with the Next Generation Internet bill, which was one of 
the crown jewels of this Committee's action in the last 
Congress.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay, the amendment is withdrawn.
    The third amendment on the roster is one by the gentleman 
from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge. For what purpose does the 
gentleman from North Carolina seek recognition?
    Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Chairman, I would withdraw that 
amendment and speak to it on the next one.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Then we get to amendment 
number four which is by the gentleman from North Carolina, the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, and the gentleman from 
Colorado, Mr. Udall. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
North Carolina seek recognition?
    Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654----''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And, without objection, the 
amendment is considered as read, and the gentleman from North 
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

  Amendment to H.R. 1654 Offered by Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Gary Miller of 
                 California, and Mr. Udall of Colorado

    Page 15, line 15, insert ``, and $20,000,000 shall be for the 
National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program'' after 
``Enhancement Programs''.

    Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say at 
the start how much I appreciate your willingness to work on 
these broad issues of science and math education in America and 
the hearings we've had thus far. This Committee, under your 
leadership and the leadership of the Ranking Member and others, 
has really taken a leading role in my opinion in opening the 
national dialogue on the status of science and math education 
in this country.
    This Committee and other organizations who have testified 
have struggled with the issue of how to improve the quality of 
math and science education and also how to promote it among our 
young people. As you know, recent studies have shown that our 
high school graduates are falling behind their counterparts in 
other countries in the areas of science and math, and last 
month, the Electronic Association released a report that found 
that the number of 3 graduates receiving post-secondary in 
engineering, computer science, math, business information 
systems, and physics have declined to 5 percent between 1990 
and 1996 with nearly a 10 percent decline in Bachelor's 
degrees. We really are facing a major potential problem for the 
competitiveness in the 21st century.
    I was disappointed when the Administration proposed a $38 
million cut in NASA education and academic programs for next 
year. NASA has significant and successful educational efforts 
that should be strengthened not weakened. I was proud to co-
sponsor legislation introduced by the Ranking Member to 
increase the authorization levels for these important programs, 
and I applaud the Chairman for providing in his mark a 
significantly higher authorization than the Administration's 
request, and I appreciate that. However, the bill before us 
still represents a $10 million cut in these important 
priorities. In my opinion, that's the wrong--this is the wrong 
time to reduce funding for efforts that are so vital to 
promoting math and science education in our schools, colleges, 
and universities.
    Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to offer an amendment this 
morning--the previous amendment--that would have increased 
funding for NASA's education and academic initiatives by $5.9 
million over the Fiscal Year 1999 levels from $138.6 million to 
$144.5 million. This amendment would have directed all of that 
increase to the Space Program. Anticipating that this amendment 
would not have been accepted by the majority and in light of 
the long agenda that we face this morning, I am instead 
offering what I believe is a very important amendment to this 
bill with the help of my colleagues, Representatives Miller and 
Udall of--Miller of California and Udall of Colorado.
    This amendment would earmark $20 million for space grants 
within the bill's authorization level for these programs. As 
you know, Mr. Chairman, there is over 700 space grant 
consortium members operating in all 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The K-12 Educational Assistance 
Program, student scholarships and research at many of our 
colleges and universities is focusing on aerospace and other 
programs that will engage our children and challenge them to 
become engineers, scientists, and, yes, astronauts.
    Space Grant is a cost effective program, because it 
requires a two for one match for every federal dollar that is 
spent on this program. I know first-hand how important this 
program has been and the impact that it has made in North 
Carolina's programs. Space Grant plays an important role in 
preparing our students for the high-tech nature of the global 
economy they face today and the tremendous economy we're going 
to face in the 21st century. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Etheridge. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We are prepared to accept this 
amendment. I think that it is constructive, and this program 
has a good one since it was first authorized 12 years ago. I 
would point out that the amendment does not increase the total 
authorization of this bill; it merely fences some of the money 
in the education account to make sure that NASA spends it on 
this program rather than something else.
    So, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and 
I hope it is speedily adopted.
    Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and ask that my remarks be included in the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The statement of Mr. Etheridge follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Etheridge
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, let me 
start by saying how much I appreciate your willingness to work on the 
broad issue of science and math education in America. This committee, 
under your leadership and that of the Ranking Member and others, has 
taken a leading role in opening a national dialogue on the status of 
science and math education in America. This committee and organizations 
in this field have struggled with the issue of how to improve the 
quality of math and science education, including how to promote 
interest in science and math among our young people.
    As you know, recent studies have shown that our high school 
graduates are falling behind their counterparts in other countries in 
the areas of science and math. Last month the American Electronics 
Association released a report that found that the number of graduates 
receiving post secondary degrees in engineering, computer science, 
math, business information systems and physics declined by five percent 
between 1990 and 1996, with a nearly ten percent decline in bachelors 
degrees. We are facing a potential crisis that if not addressed could 
devastate our economy and global competitiveness in the 21st Century.
    I was very disappointed when the Administration proposed a $38 
million cut in NASA education and academic programs for next year. NASA 
has significant and successful education efforts that should be 
strengthened not weakened. I was proud to cosponsor legislation 
introduced by the Ranking Member to increase the authorization levels 
for these important programs, and I applaud the Chairman for providing 
in his mark a significantly higher authorization than the 
Administration's request. However, the bill before us still represents 
a $10 million cut in these important priorities. In my opinion, this is 
the wrong time to reduce funding for efforts that are so vital to 
promoting math and science education in our schools, colleges and 
universities.
    Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to offer an amendment this morning 
that would have increased funding for NASA's education and academic 
initiatives by $5.9 million over the FY 1999 level from $138.6 million 
to $144.5. This amendment would have directed all of that increase to 
the Space Grant Program. Anticipating that this amendment would not 
have been accepted by the majority, and in light of the long agenda we 
face this morning, I am instead offering what I believe to be a very 
important amendment to this bill. This amendment will earmark $20 
million for Space Grant within the bill's authorization level for these 
programs.
    As you know Mr. Chairman, there are over 700 Space Grant Consortia 
members operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico. The K thru 12 educational assistance programs, student 
scholarships and research at many of our colleges and universities 
focusing on aerospace and aeronautics helps engage our children and 
challenge them to become engineers, scientists and astronauts. Space 
Grant is cost effective by requiring a two-to-one local match for each 
federal dollar spent. I know first hand the impressive performance of 
North Carolina's Space Grant effort.
    Space Grant plays an important role in preparing our students for 
the high tech nature of the global economy that exists today, and I 
believe it is worthy of this earmark and modest funding increase.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman, although I would like to see more done in 
this area I do understand the tight budget we are operating under, and 
I look forward to continuing to work with you on these issues in the 
future.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Michigan.
    Ms. Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You're recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stabenow. I appreciate very much your accepting this 
amendment. This is a very, very important program. As we have 
heard continually before this Committee, we have great needs in 
the area of math and science and people trained in technology 
that are able to take the jobs that are available today, and 
what we see through the National Space Grant College and 
Fellowship Program is an effort to both provide teacher 
training as well as hands-on programs to excite young people 
about science.
    I want to take just a moment to commend the Michigan Space 
Grant Consortium that I'm very involved with, and we have been 
working together on hands-on science efforts through something 
called the Great Space Adventure, which they host in my 
district at various locations, and we've had thousands of 
children and parents who have come forward and are 
participating, working with NASA, having an opportunity to get 
first-hand experience about the fact that science can be fun 
and exciting, and we hope that they will be encouraged to take 
careers in those areas.
    I'm also pleased and want to thank members of this 
Committee that joined me in signing a letter to the 
appropriators just a while back in March. We had over 50 
members of both parties signing a letter in support of this 
increase in funding. So, I appreciate my colleagues who 
introduced it and to the Chairman for accepting it. I think 
that the Space Grant Consortium is a very, very important 
program for helping us meet our goals as it relates to math and 
science education.
    Thank you; I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the----
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Udall. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this 
provides needed support for the National Space Grant College 
and Fellowship Program managed by NASA. I believe that this 
program deserves special consideration because of its unique 
use of NASA's assets for education and public services 
purposes.
    I'm joining Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Miller in offering this 
amendment to fence off $20 million for NASA's Space Grant 
Program from funds this bill allocates to space education. This 
is needed to prevent the termination of planned program 
expansion and the loss of much needed fellowships for students.
    The funding level set by the amendment is on par with the 
$19.1 million appropriation for Fiscal Year 1999. Since its 
inception, NASA's National Space Grant College and Fellowship 
Program has served hundreds of thousands of students and 
teachers, increasing public awareness and appreciation for NASA 
and its mission by acting as the logical interface for NASA 
with America's colleges and universities.
    The contributions of the Space Grant Program are especially 
important in two areas. It has a direct impact on education at 
the pre-K through graduate level especially in science and 
math, and it contributes to science literacy across the United 
States, which is essential to our Nation's success in the next 
century.
    I'm particularly proud of our program in Colorado. The 
Colorado Space Grant Consortium works with over 600 K through 
12 teachers in my state each helping them to inspire students 
in science, math, and technology. Student from colleges and 
universities throughout Colorado are working together to 
develop the Citizen Explorer Satellite Mission for a launch in 
December of this year, 1999. This mission is designed to 
involve K through 12 students throughout Colorado, this 
country, and the world.
    With over 700 Space Grant Consortium member institutions in 
every state, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico, the Space Grant Program is cost effective, matching each 
federal dollar with $2 of local funding. Given the importance 
we as a nation place on education and especially given the 
emphasis we in this Committee have placed on the importance of 
science and math literacy, this is an investment that makes 
sense.
    Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of our amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the adoption of 
the amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment by the 
gentlemowan from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. For what purpose does 
she seek recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654----''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

       Amendment to H.R. 1654 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

    Page 15, line 15, insert ``, of which $62,100,000 shall be for 
minority university research and education, including $33,600,000 for 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities'' after ``Enhanced 
Programs''.
    Page 15, line 16, insert ``, of which $62,100,000 shall be for 
minority university research and education, including $33,600,000 for 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities'' after ``$128,600,000''.
    Page 15, line 18, insert ``, of which $62,800,000 shall be for 
minority university research and education, including $34,000,000 for 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities'' after ``$130,600,000''.

    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman very much, and I'd 
like to offer an amendment that deals with the issue that we've 
heard a lot about in this Committee and that is education and 
opportunities for minority institutions and in particular 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
    We have all heard the haunting statistics about the lack of 
minority participation in the scientific arena. We know that 
only 14 percent of all students enrolled in graduate science or 
engineering programs are minorities and that, of those, only 6 
percent are African-American, only 4 percent are Hispanic. We 
also know that those minorities that are enrolled in the 
science graduate programs are more likely to work in the social 
or life sciences than in the hard sciences or engineering.
    The situation is even worse once those students graduate. 
African-Americans and Hispanics make up less than 6 percent of 
the total science and engineering workforce, yet they make up 
almost 23 percent of the population. Furthermore, minorities 
who work in the hard sciences or in engineering tend to have 
much higher unemployment rates than do their white 
counterparts. We cannot allow this to remain, and we must 
encourage our scientific agencies, like NASA, to engage the 
minority community in order to rectify this particular problem.
    As I noted earlier, we've had many hearings that suggested 
advocacy for increasing the opportunities for minorities in 
science; in fact, there was a great deal of enthusiasm. NASA 
has had these programs in the past, and they have been 
successful. Dan Goldin, himself, has supported the idea of 
focusing on encouraging minorities to participate in the hard 
sciences.
    In my own district, of course, near the Johnson Space 
Center, I can assure you that once minorities are introduced to 
the sciences there is a great deal of enthusiasm as evidenced 
by the numbers or the increasing numbers of minority astronauts 
who have been a great service to encouraging interest in what 
can be done with science training.
    This amendment is a reasonable one that preserves a 
proportion of overall education dollars that HBCUs and 
minority-servicing institutions received last year. 
Furthermore, it proportionally tracks NASA's academic programs 
overall in the outyears providing funding for those important 
programs through Fiscal Year 2002. With this amendment, HBCUs 
and Hispanic-serving institutions will have the stable funding 
necessary to allow them to continue to do good work.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I'd be happy to yield, Mr. Chairman, as I 
conclude----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We are prepared to accept this 
amendment. Let me say that there's no increase in the total 
authorization. This merely fences some funds within that 
authorization, so we're not busting any budget here.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And I thank the Chairman very much, and I 
think the importance of embracing the dollars in particular for 
these institutions will be extremely helpful, and I think we'll 
see an enormous results from this sort of emphasis. With that, 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back the 
balance of her time.
    For what purpose does the other gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Johnson, seek recognition?
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I'd like to speak on this amendment as well as the 
one we just adopted. There is a dire need to get the minority 
community more engaged in science and engineering, and the 
African-Americans and Hispanics are vastly underrepresented in 
the hard science and engineering workforce, making up less than 
6 percent of those who work in these fields, and it is true 
that even though Hispanics and African-Americansrepresent over 
20 percent of our total workforce, the NASA programs have been one of 
the most effective ones in getting the attention of young people. As I 
Chair the Science and Technology braintrust of the Congressional Black 
Caucus and therefore have a number of interim meetings other than our 
annual meeting, bringing astronauts and several other employees from 
NASA to schools throughout my district, that is the one area that 
really does get their attention, and its academic programs have been 
successful in getting young children excited about science, and through 
the use of grants and scholarships have helped college students finance 
their education in the hard sciences and engineering. We ought to make 
sure that those who live in underprivileged areas and attend minority-
serving institutions can utilize these tremendous programs.
    The amendment is a reasonable one that preserve the 
proportion of overall education dollars back to the 
historically black colleges and universities and minority-
serving institutions received last year, and, furthermore, it 
proportionately tracks NASA's academic programs overall in the 
outyears providing funding for these important programs through 
Fiscal Year 2000.
    With this amendment, the historically black colleges and 
Hispanic-serving institutions will have the stable funding 
necessary to allow them to continue this work. African-
Americans only represent 6 percent of the students enrolled in 
graduate level science and engineering programs and Hispanics 
only 4 percent even though most of those enrolled in these 
social or life sciences can be better served with more programs 
directed toward getting them into these fields. And, so we 
should be working proactively to motivate minority youngsters 
and to pursue the hard sciences and to help them get through 
school when they choose to pursue careers in engineering and 
science research.
    So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for supporting 
this amendment, and I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back the 
balance of her time.
    The question is on agreeing to the amendment by the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster, number six, is by the 
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cook. For what purpose does he seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Cook. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. After----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Do you have an amendment at the 
desk?
    Mr. Cook. Well, after discussions with NASA, I have decided 
to withdraw the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay.
    Mr. Cook. Hopefully, NASA will have a little time to 
understand this a little bit better. I would like to be able to 
offer this again, perhaps, on the Floor, but, for now, I 
withdraw the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is withdrawn.
    Now, the next amendment, number seven, is by the gentleman 
from Washington, Mr. Nethercutt. For what purpose does he seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Nethercutt. Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr. 
Nethercutt.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Washington is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

  Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

  (a) Study.--The Administrator shall enter into a contract with the 
National Research Council and the National Academy of Public 
Administration to jointly conduct a study of the status of life and 
microgravity research as it relates to the International Space Station. 
The study shall include--
          (1) an assessment of the United States scientific community's 
        readiness to use the International Space Station for life and 
        microgravity research;
          (2) an assessment of the current and projected factors 
        limiting the United States scientific community's ability to 
        maximize the research potential of the International Space 
        Station, including, but not limited to, the past and present 
        availability of resources in the life and microgravity research 
        accounts within the Office of Human Spaceflight and the Office 
        of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, and the 
        past, present, and projected access to space of the scientific 
        community; and
          (3) recommendations for improving the United States 
        scientific community's ability to maximize the research 
        potential of the International Space Station, including an 
        assessment of the relative costs and benefits of--
                  (A) dedicating an annual mission of the Space Shuttle 
                to life and microgravity research during assembly of 
                the International Space Station; and
                  (B) maintaining the schedule for assembly in place at 
                the time of enactment.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Science 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate a report on the results of the study 
conducted under this section.

    Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is 
a rather simple amendment. It requires NASA to contract with 
the National Research Council and the National Academy of 
Public Administration to conduct a study of the status of Life 
and Microgravity research as it relates to the International 
Space Station. I've had meetings, my staff and I both, with 
members of the space science community this year who are deeply 
concerned about the long-term viability of their discipline. As 
a result of delays in the assembly of the International Space 
Station, the research mission's face significant long-term gaps 
in research continuity.
    The Associate Administrator for Life and Micro has reported 
that the number of primary investigators is increasing in 
Fiscal Year 1999 from 726 to 800. Flight opportunities are 
decreasing during the ISS assembly. I have doubts, Mr. 
Chairman, about whether this community can be sustained with 
the budget, and the staff has prepared here a chart that shows 
the declining administration of ISS research budgets; Fiscal 
Year 1999 through 2000, and it's a precipitous decline over the 
next years up to 2004.
    The first step I think we need to do then is to address the 
funding level for Life and Microgravity, and Mr. Weldon and I 
will be pressing an amendment a little while later moving some 
$33 million or thereabouts from the Triana Program. But the 
second step is to refocus our efforts to ensure that a robust 
scientific community exists when the station is completed. 
Congress tried to remedy this concern last year appropriating 
additional funds for a shuttle mission dedicated to Life and 
Micro research. As the Chairman and the Committee members know, 
NASA declined to fly that mission claiming high cost, 
scheduling difficulties, and complications with ISS assembly. 
So, what this amendment does is provide the detailed study that 
Congress needs in order to evaluate the trade-offs between more 
research, the ISS schedule, and shuttle costs.
    Two recent reports, Mr. Chairman, have demonstrated a need 
for such research. The NASA/NIH Advisory Subcommittee released 
their recommendations on flight opportunities bridging to Space 
Station. They recommend at least one shuttle mission per year 
with a majority of Life Sciences payload that will be flown 
prior to ISS completion. In April, the National Research 
Council reported similar findings. They noted, and I quote 
this, ``It is clear that regular access to space is essential 
to meet the science goals enunciated by the Office of Life and 
Microgravity Sciences. It is not clear that there are budget 
provisions of flight opportunities to provide the needed access 
to space for researchers.'' The NRC concludes by noting that, 
quote, ``We have not assessed the likelihood that NASA can make 
significant progress in meeting its scientific goals with such 
a minimal flight level, and to the contrary we have called 
NASA's attention to the need to provide additional space lab 
class flights prior to Space Station assembly completion.
    So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, passage of this amendment 
will enable NRC and NAPA to work together to make that 
assessment and to determine how best to address the potential 
science shortfall during ISS assembly.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentlemen yield?
    Mr. Nethercutt. Yes, sure.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I believe this is a very 
constructive amendment, and I would hope that the Committee 
would adopt it.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time is yielded back. The 
question is on accepting the amendment of the gentleman from 
Washington, Mr. Nethercutt.
    All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The next two amendments are by the gentleman from Michigan, 
Mr. Smith. I understand he plans on offering one and not the 
other. So, for what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan 
rise, and would he please say which number----
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. I have an amendment at the desk 
marked number eight, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay, the clerk will report 
amendment number eight.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654----''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

        Amendment to H.R. 1654 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

    Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. REMOTE SENSING FOR AGRICULTURE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

    The Administrator shall--
          (1) consult with the Secretary of Agriculture to determine 
        data product types that are of use to farmers which can be 
        remotely sensed from air or space;
          (2) consider useful commercial data products related to 
        agriculture as identified by the focused research program 
        between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 
        Stennis Space Center and the Department of Agriculture; and
          (3) examine other data sources, including commercial sources, 
        LightSAR, RADARSAT I, and RADARSAT II, which can provide 
        domestic and international agricultural information relating to 
        crop conditions, fertilization and irrigation needs, pest 
        infiltration, soil conditions, projected food, feed, and fiber 
        production, and other related subject.

    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this is language that 
we included in a previous authorization bill for NASA, one that 
wasn't taken up by the Senate and passed into law, but it did 
pass the House with this amendment. It relates to remote 
sensing and the advantages that remote sensing can offer to our 
agricultural producers in this country in terms of the 
availability of information related to crop production.
    If our farmers can know and have estimates of crop 
production especially in the Southern Hemisphere, we can adjust 
our planning. This amendment calls on the Administrator of NASA 
to coordinate with the Secretary of Agriculture--consult with 
the Secretary of Agriculture in developing the kind of 
information that might be available.
    And I would just point out to you, Mr. Chairman, and to 
this body that we are now able to estimate crop yields within a 
deviation of plus or minus 10 percent 60 days before harvest, 
and when you consider that most of these feed grain crops have 
a 90- to 100-day growth season, that's especially significant. 
It will give us the ability to predict shortages of food in the 
world and also aid our farmers in deciding how much of what 
crop to plant.
    I have met with the Agricultural Committee and our Ag 
Committee Chairman, Larry Combest, and in my amendment, marked 
number nine, we are deleting the part B that says let us get 
this information to farmers, because the Chairman of the 
Agricultural Committee, Mr. Combest, has agreed that if a Floor 
amendment is made that is reasonable to direct the Secretary of 
Agriculture to cooperate in this effort and make this 
information available to farmers.
    So, this is just sort of half of the amendment. I will 
withdraw amendment marked nine and hope the Committee will 
accept this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. I will yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I think that this is constructive 
amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman not pursuing 
amendment number nine with would delay this bill as a result of 
the sequential referral to the Committee on Agriculture. This 
amendment is consistent with Committee policy promoting maximum 
commercial data use of data that is assembled in States. So, I 
would hope that the Committee would adopt this amendment.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. And I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment numbered eight by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Smith.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 
is agreed to.
    Amendment number nine will not be offered. The next 
amendment on the roster is by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Gutknecht. For what purpose does he seek recognition?
    Mr. Gutknecht. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr. 
Gutknecht.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

                         Amendment to H.R. 1654

                        Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

    Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. INTEGRATED SAFETY RESEARCH PLAN.

  (a) Requirement.--Not later than March 1, 2000, the Administrator and 
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall jointly 
prepare and transmit to the Congress an integrated civil aviation 
safety research and development plan.
  (b) Contents.--The plan required by subsection (a) shall include--
          (1) an identification of the respective research and 
        development requirements, roles, and responsibilities of the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal 
        Aviation Administration;
          (2) formal mechanisms for the timely sharing of information 
        between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and 
        the Federal Aviation Administration, including a requirement 
        that the FAA-NASA Coordinating Committee established in 1980 
        meet at least twice a year; and
          (3) procedures for increased communication and coordination 
        between the Federal Aviation Administration research advisory 
        committee established under section 44508 of title 49, United 
        States Code, and the NASA Aeronautics and Space Transportation 
        Technology Advisory Committee, including a proposal for greater 
        cross-membership between those 2 advisory committees.

    Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires more 
integrated safety research planning by both NASA and FAA. Over 
the years, joint FAA and NASA research efforts have produced 
valuable aviation safety technology. Both agencies support the 
national goal to reduce fatal aviation accident rates by 80 
percent over the next 10 years. The agencies are currently 
engaged in 18 joint safety projects and tasks.
    Recognizing that FAA and NASA have different and evolving 
roles and separate approaches to achieving shared goals, it is 
imperative that the agencies have a common understanding of the 
expectations of how the research undertaken by each agency will 
enable them to achieve their goals.
    The amendment that I am offering seeks to enhance the 
effectiveness of their coordination efforts and to ensure the 
agency resources are being used to the most cost effective 
manner by requiring the agencies to jointly repair and transmit 
to Congress an integrated civil aviation safety research and 
development plan. The plan shall define the roles and 
responsibilities of each agency; require the timely sharing of 
critical information and recommend procedures to increase the 
communication effort between the agencies industry advisory 
committees.
    As you know, this Committee takes its oversight 
responsibilities very seriously, and this amendment 
takesfurther steps to protect our Nation's investment in aviation 
safety research and development, and I appreciate your support.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gutknecht. I'd be happy to yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. This, too, is a constructive 
amendment, and I hope it is adopted. The gentleman yield back 
the balance of his time?
    Mr. Gutknecht. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Gutknecht.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Oppose, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment is number 11 by the gentleman from North 
Carolina, Mr. Etheridge. For what purpose does he seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr. 
Etheridge.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

  Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF FLIGHT EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVE.

  (a) Education Curriculum.--In recognition of the 100th anniversary of 
the first powered flight, the Administrator, in coordination with the 
Secretary of Education, shall develop and provide for the distribution, 
for use in the 2000-2001 academic year and thereafter, of an age-
appropriate educational curriculum, for use at the kindergarten, 
elementary, and secondary levels, on the history of flight, the 
contribution of flight to global development in the 20th century, the 
practical benefits of aeronautics and space flight to society, the 
scientific and mathematical principles used in flight, and any other 
topics the Administrator considers appropriate. The Administrator shall 
integrate into the educational curriculum plans for the development and 
flight of the Mars plane.
  (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than May 1, 2000, the 
Administrator shall transmit a report to the Committee on Science of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate on activities undertaken pursuant to 
this section.

    Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am 
proud to offer an amendment today that directs NASA to develop 
an education curriculum for our Nation's schools in recognition 
of the 100th anniversary of flight--of powered flight, that is, 
and I want to thank Mr. Rohrabacher and the Ranking Member for 
their help with this.
    This would take place on December 17, 2003 when this Nation 
will celebrate the 100th anniversary of powered flight, and it 
provides an excellent opportunity for our Nation's schools to 
promote the importance of math and science education for our 
students. having been there for many years, I know how you can 
excite students with special items that really get their 
attention.
    And as we watch the sun rise on the dawn of a new 
millennium, it has never been more important to encourage our 
children to excel in the areas of math and science education. 
In the 21st century, it will no longer be good enough for our 
children simply to be able to read, write, add, and subtract. 
If today's students are going to succeed in tomorrow's job, a 
firm foundation in math and science education is important.
    This Committee, under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and 
the Ranking member and others, have taken a leading role--as I 
said earlier this morning--in helping to improve the national 
dialogue on improving math and science education, and one of 
the most important challenges we face with all the distractions 
in modern life has been the interesting of students 
particularly in science and math curriculums. Too many of them 
spend their time with video games, et cetera. Such a lack of 
interest could spell doom down the road as fewer and fewer 
students enter the teaching profession or other fields that 
prepare them for the future.
    The 100th Anniversary of Flight Education initiative that's 
being introduced today is intended to use the history of flight 
through practical benefits of flight in our society and the 
mathematics and science, the principles that are used in 
flight, to help generate an interest among our children in math 
and science education.
    However, the 100th anniversary of flight and NASA's plan to 
land a plane on Mars to coincide with that date, can be a 
tremendous tool in our classrooms to regenerate our children's 
interest in math science education and help our teachers.
    Mr. Chairman, I'm committing to seeing that our children 
soar in the area of math and science education and urge the 
adoption of this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Etheridge. I will yield, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. This is a constructive amendment. 
Obviously, NASA should be in on the ground floor in 
commemorating the 100th anniversary of flight, and I wouldhope 
that it would be agreed to.
    Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Etheridge.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Th next amendment is by the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. 
Biggert. For what purpose does the gentleman from California, 
Mr. Miller seek recognition?
    Mr. Miller. I'd just ask for unanimous consent to include 
my statement into the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Gary Miller
    Thank you Chairman Sensenbrenner.
    I would like to add to the comments of my colleague, Representative 
Etheridge in support of this amendment.
    The Space Grant Program seeks to use the considerable assets of 
NASA in the states for education and public service purposes. It 
provides fellowships and scholarships for students, supports curriculum 
devlopement, facilitates interaction among faculty and scientists, 
encourages college and university capability enhancement, and funds 
science and technology lectures, demonstrations, exhibits, periodicals, 
and outreach activities.
    I believe this program is important for two reasons. First, it has 
a direct impact on education at the K through graduate levels, 
especially in science and math. Secondly, it contributes to science 
literacy in this nation, which is essential to our nation's success in 
the next century.
    I am particularly proud of how well the program has worked 
in California. The Space Grant Consortium has been an 
innovative leader in California, bringing together community-
based alliances composed of educational institutions, industry 
and the government, to work together on projects which are both 
related to space and are of community importance. Furthermore, 
the student-mentor process involved in the alliance projects 
has shown significant results in workforce preparation and 
community-based education and outreach.
    I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.
    Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Members of the 
Committee.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Biggert, seek recognition?
    Mrs. Biggert. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mrs. 
Biggert.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentlewoman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

             Amendment to H.R. 1654 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

    Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:

SEC. 215. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

    The Administrator shall make available through the Internet home 
page of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration the abstracts 
relating to all research grants and awards made with funds authorized 
by this Act. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or 
permit the release of any information prohibited by law or regulation 
from being released to the public.

    Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment I offer 
today would require NASA to make available on the Internet all 
abstracts relating to research grants and awards with the funds 
that are authorized by this bill. Currently, NASA does not 
provide such information on its Website. I think this is good 
Government amendment that will allow the public to more easily 
access research grants and awards funded by the Federal 
Government. This change will make Government research services 
more accessible, more efficient, and easier to use.
    I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Biggert.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no
    They ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    And now we'll get to some controversy. [Laughter.]
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida, Dr. 
Weldon, seek recognition?
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered to Dr. Weldon 
of Florida----''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, open for amendment at any point, and the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Weldon, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    [The information follows:]

    Page 12, line 11, strike ``$301,000,000'' and insert 
``$333,600,000''.
    Page 13, line 2, strike ``section 126'' and insert ``sections 126 
and 130''.
    Page 13, line 3 strike ``$1,415,100,000'' and insert 
``$1,382,500,000''.
    Page 26, after line 5, insert the following new section:

SEC. 130. TRIANA FUNDING PROHIBITION.

    None of the funds authorized by this Act may be used for the Triana 
program, except that $2,500,000 of the amount authorized under section 
103(3)(A) for fiscal year 2000 shall be available for termination 
costs.


    Mr. Weldon of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
terminates Triana; provides $2.5 million for termination costs, 
and transfers the remaining $32.6 million to Life and 
Microgravity Sciences and Applications.
    For the sixth year in a row, the Administration has 
proposed a smaller budget for NASA asking its scientists, 
engineers, and astronauts to do more with less. In the face of 
this shrinking budget, Triana stands out as an unbearable, 
misuse of NASA's scarce dollars.
    My many questions about this program can be summarized with 
two simple concerns. Number one, Triana just isn't necessary, 
and, number two, this program does not represent the best 
science that NASA can get for its precious budget dollars. I 
now describe those concerns to you.
    According to the Washington Post, the Triana satellite was 
literally dreamed up in the middle of the night by Vice 
President Gore. NASA soon found itself saddled with a $75 
million program which has been described as nothing more than a 
screensaver because of the satellites supposed educational 
inspirational benefits. Never mind that the National Space 
Society called Triana----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield, this 
is an announcement that the House will be meeting for 
legislative business in 15 minutes. So, it is not a roll call, 
and the gentleman may proceed.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. Never mind that the National Space 
Society called Triana, quote, ``an inappropriate doubling of 
NASA's educational spending.'' Never mind that an identical 
view of the Earth could be patched together from existing 
satellite images and that many sites on the Internet already 
provide images of the Earth from space.
    Naturally, the satellite's objectives evolved over time, 
and the current manifestation now emphasizes a science mission 
to retroactively justify Triana. Never mind that the new 
scientists while reporting on the science mission as it stands 
today pointed out that, quote, ``Many researchers doubt its 
scientific merit.'' Of course, according to NASA, that science 
was peer-reviewed. I will certainly concede that if NASA 
launches any satellite, surely their can be some scientific 
merit that can be justified. However, the fundamental question 
is, is this the best science that NASA can get for $75 million 
of taxpayer money? And, quite simply, that question has not 
been answered, Indeed, I believe it hasn't even been asked.
    I would like to talk about real honest-to-goodness peer-
reviewed science. Life and Microgravity Science and 
Applications brings benefits of space right down to Earth in 
the area of biological research, medicine, chemical, and 
physical research. When we hear about experimental cancer drugs 
under development in space, that is Life and Microgravity 
Science. Its research is conducted on the shuttle and should 
eventually be conducted on the Space Station, yet the 
Administration has already cut $462 million out of Life and 
Microgravity Research and plans to cut another $200 million 
over the next 4 years. A dedicated shuttle flight, STS-107, 
will conduct Life and Microgravity Research. Unfortunately, 
according to NASA documentation, the mission might lose 1,500 
pounds of scientific research equipment because of Triana. Even 
if it does not, who knows how much more scientific knowledge 
could result from other self-contained modules or even 
different satellites if STS-107 weight did not include 8,800 
pounds for Triana.
    This is why my amendment cancels Triana and transfer the 
money to Life and Microgravity Science Applications. Life and 
Microgravity must be a higher priority than a multimillion 
dollar screensaver. Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, 
maybe NASA can't stand up to the White House, but the United 
States Congress certainly can. We must end this program now, 
and let NASA get back to the many challenges it faces, I, 
therefore, urge support for my amendment.
    And to conclude, many of you, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, last year, signed onto a letter calling for an increase 
in the NASA budget. Many of you actually worked on getting 
signatures on that letter. The Administration has not put 
forward a proposal for a flat budget or an increased budget but 
another decrease and on top of that has put forward this 
proposal to devote $75 million towards this program.
    Many of us spend a great deal of our time trying to get 
significantly smaller amounts of money for important NASA 
priorities to our states and districts. Examples include some 
of the educational programs many on this committee have argued 
for. I know one of the areas that I continually have to fight 
for are shuttle upgrades, programs that will improve the 
efficiency and safety of shuttle operations. Seventy-five 
million dollars constitutes a significant amount of money that 
could be used if it were to be applied there----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. I thank the gentleman, and I 
encourage all my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Tennessee rise?
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I am 
disappointed----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed with this 
Triana killing amendment. Of course there will be lots of 
reasons offered why Triana should be killed. Opponents whoare 
trying to will say that it is simply a political stunt for the Vice 
President's election campaign. Somehow, I don't think, though, the Vice 
President needs to depend upon a little remote sensing satellite to 
ensure his election in 2002 particularly since this satellite will not 
be launched until after the election.
    They will also say that we can't afford Triana in the 
current constrained NASA budget. Well, that didn't stop the 
majority from going over the President's request for NASA by 
some $220 million in Fiscal Year 2000 in order to fund their 
favorite programs.
    They will also argue in the past the Vice President isn't 
qualified to propose new missions like Triana for NASA. Well, 
if we're going to use this qualification as a metric, I'd just 
like to point out the following: after examining the 
committee's records, it turns out the Vice President spent more 
time dealing with science issues during his time in the House--
including this Committee as a Chairman of a Subcommittee--and 
Senate than almost 90 percent of the current Committee members. 
Now, if we're willing to believe that we have the confidence to 
pass judgment on NASA's program and even propose our own 
initiatives, but somehow we don't extend that same presumption 
to the Vice President who has more experience than most us.
    Another argument has been made that Triana is bad science, 
and it has not been peer-reviewed. In fact, the science mission 
was selected after a rigorous peer-review of nine competing 
proposals, and the work is going to be carried out by the 
Scripts Institution of Oceanography. Moreover, I would point 
out that the concern of peer-review hasn't stopped Members of 
Congress from proposing new programs when it suits them.
    I recall Chairman Rohrabacher, last Congress, had hundreds 
of millions of dollars inserted into the NASA authorization 
bill, because he wanted a second single-stage-to-orbit rocket 
program even before the current billion dollar test program has 
demonstrated the concept's feasibility. I don't remember any 
great concern over lack of peer-review at that time.
    And if the argument is that Triana hasn't been peer-
reviewed because it hasn't been compared to other possible use 
of the money, such as another shuttle research mission, I 
wonder if members are willing to follow that argument to its 
logical conclusion; that is, is Chairman Rohrabacher willing to 
let NASA's Space Science Program peer-review the extra money he 
put into the bill for space solar power and more space 
transportation research programs? And if the Space Science 
Office says they had a better use for the money, for example, 
Hubble or for a Mars probe, would the Chairman be willing to go 
along with these findings?
    Let's be honest. This really is a political effort to sink 
this particular program which in turn will sink this bill. This 
is a $75 million program of which $40 million has already been 
spent, but $35 million is what is left. The NASA Director, Dan 
Goldin, called me last night. He told me that this was an 
important mission for NASA, so important that he would 
recommend that the bill be vetoed if it's taken up. So, the 
truth here is this is simply a political effort to sink a 
program that's goign to sink the bill.
    This Committee can do better. This Committee has made a 
good effort to have a consensus, nonpartisan bill; there's been 
compromises made, and we've moved forward. It's really 
unfortunate that we can't continue this. Life and science 
certainly is important, but keep in mind the President 
recommended an 18 percent increase over the Fiscal Year 1999 
budget, so that is given priority. Let's recognize what this 
is, and let's try to move above it; this Committee deserves to 
do better. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    I can't believe what I've heard, that the NASA 
Administrator and the Administration and apparently some people 
on the other side of the aisle are willing to sink an entire 
NASA authorization bill with authorizations for Space Station, 
for Life and Microgravity, and other education programs and 
other programs over whether or not there is an inclusion of 
money for the Triana Program. That certainly has got priorities 
completely mixed up, and I would hope that the gentleman from 
Tennessee would reconsider his position on this.
    This is the first time the Science Committee has had an 
opportunity to examine and debate the Triana Program. As you 
know, we reported out and passed an authorization bill in April 
of 1997. That was a 2-year authorization bill that never was 
passed out of the United States Senate, so as a result, NASA 
was unauthorized for the last 2 Fiscal Years. This is the first 
time since the Vice President proposed the Triana Program on 
March 13, 1998 that we have had a chance to debate this issue 
and to vote on it, and to say that we've got to close our mind 
on it and never have an opportunity to determine whether or not 
this is the proper way to spend NASA's dollars, I think is very 
short-sided and certainly brings this Committee out of the 
loop.
    Now, my concern with the Triana Program is not who 
sponsored it. My concern is, is that apparently the peer-review 
process that this Committee has been quite proud of supporting 
was not utilized in determining how--or whether to build Triana 
but was utilized in determining how to build Triana. So, we 
didn't have a peer-review on the building ofTriana for the 
decision on going ahead, we just had a peer-review once we decided to 
go ahead down at NASA on how to build it.
    That's not the way to figure out how to use NASA's dollars 
to the best possible manner. I support the gentleman's 
amendment. I think that he's telling us that it is better to 
stick the money in Life and Microgravity than to continue on 
supporting this program which has never been considered by this 
Committee prior to now.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hall. I thank you, sir, and I understand your position. 
I understand Mr. Gore's position and certainly Mr. Gordon's. I 
just think that this is something that we probably haven't 
spent enough time on together. It's something that historically 
you have always cooperated and helped to work out. I can't say 
$35 million or $38 million isn't a lot of money, but we're 
dealing here with a lot of amendments, a solar amendment 
involving a couple hundred million additional dollars, an SNC 
amendment with $214 million, the ATP with $55 million, and a 
lot of others. This isn't a large item, and it's not a large 
enough item to derail this Committee and to call for action on 
the part of the President that would put us back to the tables 
working together. I'm just very hopeful that you all can work 
this out.
    You know, the Weldon-Nethercutt amendment is attractive to 
me in that it shifts some money to allow for microgravity 
science, but the fact is, though, that the base bill already 
increase Life and Microgravity by $45 million in Fiscal Year 
2000, and that's an 18 percent increase which is about as much 
as I could expect and as much as I could hope for over the 
President's request. That also translates into about a $38 
million increase for Life and Micro which is a 14 percent 
increase over the Fiscal Year 1999 level.
    So, it seems that in my--I urge that--I'm going to vote to 
support the gentleman's from Tennessee's position, but I'd like 
very much for you all to spend more time together and see if 
this can't be worked out. It's important. I can't downgrade the 
importance of it nor the genuine interest of the two who have 
the amendment. I just think that we ought to get together and 
do a little more work. It seems to me that impeachment, Kosovo, 
and all of those things have robbed us of the time that we 
normally spend together working these things out. I yield back 
my time.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who seeks recognition? The 
gentleman from Washington, Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you. I'm pleased to join with Mr. 
Weldon in sponsoring this amendment for the simple reason that 
I think we need to look at what transferring this money will do 
good as opposed to looking at it as a negative for the Vice 
President.
    That isn't my purpose, but my purpose is to put more money 
into research, and if we cut this one project, we're enabling 
hundreds of new primary investigators to receive funding, and I 
think that's critically important. As a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, I know the challenges we fight on 
that Committee to find enough money to do all the things that 
need to be done let alone--we can't afford to waste money is my 
point. And in NIH research, in NASA research, and medical 
research, we're on the brink, literally of curing diseases. 
Tremendous opportunities out there, but we need researchers, 
and we need a continuity of research dollars, and this will 
provide that.
    I think it's critically important that we not try to 
bootstrap this particular project which looks to me like has 
been done. When we had testimony here from NASA, there was I 
think, a clear indication that what NASA did was look at what 
instrumentation could be put on this satellite after it was 
given the go ahead to proceed. So, it's bootstrapping the 
research onto a project that was not peer-reviewed ahead of 
time, and I think that's the wrong way to run the agency and to 
run this particular program.
    We can do--I heard Mr. Gordon talk about the cost and 
others mention the cost. We're really not talking about just 
$30-some odd million or a $75 million program; we're talking 
about $175 million probably when you look at the cost to launch 
and the cost of additional add-ons to this particular project.
    So, I think we need to use some common sense here and 
really err on the side of medical research and microgravity 
research that is underfunded in my judgment, especially in 
today's world, where we have such great opportunities to cure 
diseases.
    So, I am proud to support the amendment; proud to author it 
with my friend, Mr. Weldon, and I think it's sensible, so I 
urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the adoption of 
the amendment----
    Mr. Gordon. I don't think we're quite through, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Well, the gentleman from 
Tennessee has already spoken.
    Mr. Gordon. I think Eddie Bernice----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition?
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. My concern about this is while we indicate we're 
saving money, it does not really save any money. It puts it in 
the budget that's already over what was recommended by the 
Administration, and some might argue that NASA hasn't put 
enough money into Space Station research and that the Committee 
needs to increase the funding for station research. Whether or 
not that's true, this amendment would not fix that problem.
    Under this amendment, the Triana money wouldn't be applied 
to the Space Station account. It is clear that this amendment 
would wind up wasting the taxpayers' money, and this is because 
more than $40 million of the $75 million--more than half to be 
spent on Triana--will have already been spent by the time this 
amendment ever takes effect. I think it's an irresponsible way 
to deal with this program, and, perhaps, if it had broad 
discussion in the Subcommittee, it would have had a great deal 
more understanding of it.
    The authors of the amendment are proposing to waste $40 
million in taxpayers' money so that they can add $35 million to 
a NASA program that doesn't need the money. It doesn't really 
sound to me like this is fiscal responsibility, and I would 
urge that we defeat this amendment, Mr. Chairman, meaning no 
affront to anyone. I just think it's an irresponsible 
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back the 
balance of her time. Further discussion on the amendment? the 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Smith is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Well, I would just--Mr. Chairman, 
would like to express that my hope that Republicans would not 
vote for this amendment, because it was the brainchild of Al 
Gore, but also I would hope that the Democrats wouldn't simply 
fall in line and vote for this because it's the Vice 
Presidents, who is running for President.
    This project was not part of the original NASA 
recommendation. It simply is the brainchild of Al Gore. He 
suggested it to NASA. NASA has sprung to attention and started 
taking other funds to accommodate this particular mission of 
Triana. It seems to me that, based on the knowledge and 
information that I have been given, other satellites could 
accommodate the same kind of goals, the same kind of imagery as 
is suggested in this program. The initial cost was around $27 
million. Now it has sprung up to an estimate of $70 millions, 
in addition to the launch cost.
    We have been shortchanging the Life and Microgravity 
efforts over the last 4 years. And even though, Mr. Hall, you 
suggest that this bill does increase it, it still doesn't 
replace what has been lost over the last 4 years, it seems to 
me and with what has been suggested by Mr. Nethercutt, that we 
are on the cutting edge of so many research possibilities, it 
just seems like it's a much better bang for the buck with this 
amendment than without it.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from North Carolina seek recognition?
    Mr. Etheridge. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Etheridge. And I yield to Mr. Gordon of Tennessee.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. Let me just briefly 
repeat that I think Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman 
Rohrabacher have been--and their staff have been very 
cooperative in working with the minority and our staff in 
trying to produce a constructive, good bill here. And that's 
the reason that I cosponsored it. It would not be perfect to my 
mind, but this is the legislative process. We have tried to put 
together a good, constructive bill. And I think they have done 
that in good faith.
    It is really a shame, here at the end, to undo all of that 
work. And I have to agree with Mr. Smith when he says that we 
should vote on this amendment on its merits and not whether 
it's proposed by Vice President Gore or not. And that's what 
has been done. If you look at it, there has been a peer-review 
of the project. Dan Goldin, the head of NASA, said it is an 
important project and it's important to the mission and it's 
recommended that this bill be vetoed if it is not moved forward 
with.
    So I would say Mr. Weldon that we continue this discussion. 
That he withdraw this amendment with a chance to--as I have 
withdrawn amendments--with an opportunity to deal with this on 
the floor. I don't want to get into further discussion that 
discusses partisanship that may or may not be here. It's just 
that we have a good bill. We've come a long way. We don't need 
a curve ball at the last to undo all of the good work that's 
been done.
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes--well, Mr. Etheridge has the time.
    Mr. Hall. To Mr. Smith, I would answer that he really puts 
me in a predicament when you bring politics into this because, 
you know, there may just accidentally be a Bush Democrat or two 
on here that's going to vote for----
    [Laughter.]
    A Tennessee amendment. I yield back my time. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from North Carolina.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. Would the gentleman from North 
Carolina yield?
    Mr. Etheridge. I yield.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. I very much enjoy working with the 
gentleman from Tennessee and I commend him on his spirit of 
bipartisanship and I do enjoy working with my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle on the myriad issues that we have to 
wrestle with. In particular, Mr. Lampson from Tennessee--from 
Texas, he and I are frequently working together on station and 
shuttle issues.
    But I will respectfully request that we have a vote on this 
issue because this program has proceeded without authorization 
and I think this is--you know, we got rid of a king 200 years 
ago and for the Vice President to have a dream and NASA to just 
proceed with this without the Congress speaking on something of 
this size, I think it's inappropriate. And I am shocked and 
amazed, frankly, that the Administration would threaten a veto 
over something like this. And I yield back to the gentleman 
from North Carolina would give me additional time, I would like 
to ask my friend from Florida if he would set this as a 
precedent that we have votes on all non-authorized bills, 
programs, that might be put before this Committee? [Laughter.]
    If the gentleman from North Carolina would again yield, 
certainly----
    [Laughter.]
    Certainly I'm not about the business of establishing far-
reaching precedents for this Committee and I think that's in 
the jurisdiction of the Chairman and the Ranking Member. But I 
believe it's very, very appropriate for us to speak on this 
issue.
    Mr. Etheridge. I yield back the balance of my time. 
[Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Thank you. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment of the gentleman from Florida, Dr. 
Weldon.
    Those in favor, will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it.
    Mr. Gordon. We'd like a roll call vote on this.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The ayes have it.
    Roll call is ordered. Those in favor will vote aye. Those 
opposed will vote no. And the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes yes. Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. Mr. Smith of Texas.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes yes. Mr. Weldon of 
Pennsylvania.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Barton.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes yes. Mr. Smith of Michigan.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes yes. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mr. Ewing.
    Mr. Ewing. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ewing votes yes. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes yes. Mr. Brady.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook.
    Mr. Cook. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook votes yes. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nethercutt votes yes. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes yes. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Kuykendall.
    Mr. Kuykendall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf.
    Mr. Metcalf. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf votes yes. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes no. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes no. Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes no. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes no. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes no. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no. Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. Stabenow. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow votes no. Mr. Etheridge.
    Mr. Etheridge. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Etheridge votes no. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lamspon votes no. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes no. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner votes no. Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano votes no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional members in the 
room who desire to cast their votes? The gentleman from South 
Carolina, Mr. Sandford.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sanford.
    Mr. Sanford. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sandford votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 
Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Additional members in the chamber 
who desire to vote or any members who want to change their 
votes? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, yes, 21; no, 18.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is agreed to.
    
    
    The next amendment on the roster is number 14 by Mr. 
Sandford to terminate the International Space Station. For what 
purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Sanford. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654, offered by Mr. 
Sandford.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The information follows:]

             Amendment to H.R. 1654 Offered by Mr. Sanford

    Page 8, line 18, through page 9, line 24, amend section 101 to read 
as follows:

SEC. 101. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

    (a) Termination.--The Administrator shall terminate the 
participation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 
the International Space Station.
    (b) Termination Costs.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for carrying out 
subsection (a) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentleman from South 
Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sanford. I thank the Chairman. And I would say, before 
I say word one on the amendment itself, let me be the first to 
recognize the fact that I'm new to the Science Committee. And I 
think that brings some pluses and some minuses. I think on the 
plus side, it brings new perspectives, a new way for looking at 
things. the minus would be I don't a tenth of the depth of 
experience or knowledge on science-related issues that a whole 
host of members on this Committee do have.
    But I would say that--and I would say for that reason I'm 
not going to call for a recorded vote. But on the plus side, 
from the standpoint of new perspectives, as one new to the 
Science Committee, looking at the space station, to me, from 
the outside, looking in, it would seem to be putting good money 
after bad. And I would say that for a couple of different 
reasons.
    One, I would say that, you know, our major partner in this 
arrangement is in deep trouble. And that's most recently 
witnessed by the fact that, you know, Yeltstin fired his prime 
minister. There are a whole host of uncertainties going on in 
Russia. And, therefore, as a business person looking at any 
king of arrangement, you would say you would want certainly. 
When you're talking about $100 billion or $50 billion, you want 
certainly. that is something not possible in Russia right now. 
So I think that a number of people could very legitimately say, 
you know, we ought to have a space station, but not now, not a 
this time, with this partner. So I raise objection one there.
    Second objection that I would have would be one that we all 
struggle with in Congress. And that's the struggle of 
priorities. And that is, while there are a host of goods that 
might come out of a space station, what has to be measured 
against those goods is goods here on Earth. And what I'm 
hearing, what I'm seeing suggests that it may not be 
overwhelming. And I think it has to be overwhelming when you're 
talking about the sums of money that we're talking about.
    I would say, on that front, if you look at, you know, 
there's a big hole in Texas right now where there was going to 
a Superconducting Supercollider. It was found wanting on that 
priority list and therefore was abandoned. This amendment would 
suggest the same for the space station.
    And let me just give you a couple of articles that I've 
recently seen that point to what I'm talking about. Here's one 
entitled: ``The Biggest Waste of money in the History of 
Mankind.'' And it goes on to detail, you know, ``the scientific 
community has not shared NASA's vision of an orbiting 
superlaboratory. In July, the American Society for Cell Biology 
declared that''--I can't even pronounce the word--
``crystallography experiments in microgravity have no serious 
contributions to analysis of protein structures in the 
development of new pharmaceuticals.'' It goes on to say, ``The 
American, European, Canadian, and Japanese physical societies 
have also expressed their disdain.'' It goes on to say, ``The 
experiments already performed aboard Mir Space Station seemed 
to support their pessimistic views.''
    It brings as well in a story of how the Howard Hughes 
Medical Institute--and I think this goes back to the issues of 
setting priorities--for $507 million last year in grant medical 
research and other activities--in other words, for the cost of 
2 shuttle flights--produced extraordinary results, published in 
a number of scientific journals. This article talks about how 
there are no substantive scientific findings to date as a 
result of the space station.
    Another articles that I have here: ``Space Station 
Vulnerable to Debris: NASA Leaves Off Shields to Fast-Track 
Projects.'' ``NASA is to waive a safety requirement for the 
International Space Station in a bid to get to orbit earlier.'' 
And when they talk about the shields, ``Allen Lee, the 
Associate Director of the United States General Accounting 
Office,'' who testified before the Senate in early May or late 
April, ``said that the shields wouldn't be ready for a full 3 
years. The ISS partners themselves said that there was a 24 
percent chance of the space station being hit by space 
debris.'' Now a 1 in 4 chance--is that the kind of thing that 
you want to rush when you talk about a $100 billion project?
    Another article here in the Sunday Times of London, April 
4, 1999. ``NASA has been accused of jeopardizing scientific 
experiments on the International Space Station in its latest 
bid to bail out cash-starved Russia.'' Here it talks about how 
Keith Cowing, a space consultant and former NASA worker who 
helped design the ISS, says that giving Russia money will put 
the scientific experiments on the space station at risk. The 
article details how there were to be two launches to reach the 
space station. Russia is only able to afford one. Therefore, 
NASA will front them the money, but that money will come out of 
the science budget, which is the whole reason for----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Texas, Mr. Hall, seek recognition?
    Mr. Hall. To speak against the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I won't take 5 minutes. I justwant 
to say, shades of Tim Roemer. [Laughter.]
    The same situation where I'm very fond of the author and I 
just don't understand the amendment. But, you know, it got 
Roemer a promotion to the Intelligence Committee, so that--
    [Laughter.]
    But we--I hope we do have a record vote. I think the 
gentleman would be entitled to one and I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Hall. I do yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Let me endorse the gentleman's 
remarks. We've already spent $20 billion on the space station. 
There are two elements in orbit now. Now is the time not to 
cancel it. And, you know, I certainly would not want to send 
some of the elements that are not in orbit to Charleston to put 
in a museum as an example of the foolishness of the Congress 
spending $20 billion and then canceling the program. And I 
yield back to the gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Michigan seek recognition?
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. To speak on the amendment, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, from 
you the status of the Russian contribution and effort? And I 
would yield for that information if you've got it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, if the gentleman would yield. 
As the gentleman knows, I've kind of made a career of trying to 
force the Russians to live up to their commitments, both in 
terms of financing as well as in terms of delivery of 
equipment. And I can tell the gentleman from Michigan, they 
have batted 100 percent. They've broken every promise that 
they've made.
    The service module, which is a couple of years late, has 
been rolled out and will shortly be shipped. And, if the 
service module is up by the end of September, the currently 
agreed to assembly schedule can be met. If the Russians are 
much behind the 30th of September, then there will have to be a 
complete reworking of the assembly schedule and I shudder to 
think of what the additional costs of that will be.
    The Administration ignored cries by this Chairman and this 
Committee to get the Russians out of the critical path. They 
are now paying the price for that. I think that we are less 
dependent upon the Russians now than we have been in the past. 
I have always said we shouldn't be dependent upon them at all. 
The Administration has made a mistake that I think they are 
recognizing. The program is progressing. I think that we will 
be able to be proud of the station when it is completed. We 
have got to keep the pressure on and, you know, I certainly 
intend to continue doing that. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. chairman.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Well, it would be my--reclaiming my 
time--it would be my concern to pursue better--more and better 
information, but I have been told, from the standpoint of 
medical research, that the money could be much more effectively 
and efficiently used on the ground rather than in space--on a 
space station. I have been told--and I would like the answers 
which have not been forthcoming to me, in terms of whether the 
space station is more of a headline, if you will, an exciting 
type of venture, as opposed to something that can really 
contribute to the well-being of this country and the world and 
I intend to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The--who seeks recognition? The 
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Woolsey, is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak for 
the amendment, as Tim Roemer in a skirt. [Laughter.]
    And I support this----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized under 
those conditions. [Laughter.]
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much. I support the Sandford 
amendment and, first, though, I'd like to acknowledge that it 
is very important that NASA has valuable work, that they do 
push the envelope of technology in reaching out to space, but I 
believe that the project of the space station has cast too 
large a shadow over NASA in general and our national budget in 
particular.
    When the space station was proposed in 1984, the estimated 
price tag was about $8 billion, which is a lot of money. Now 
that price has risen more than a dozen times and adds up to at 
least $100 billion over the life of the project. This is 
literally outrageous and let's see what we could do with that 
much money, Mr. Chairman. We could fund the National Institute 
of Health for 16 years, provide low-income heating assistance 
for thousands of families, fund child immunization programs, 
clean up our Superfund sites, fund drug-prevention programs, 
provide Head Start to more children in need, pay for our debts 
to the United Nations, and provide a tax cut for middle-income 
Americans.
    Now those who are so inclined could also take this same 
amount of money and purchase 40 B-2 bombers and 3 nuclear 
aircraft carriers. I would not vote for either, but they 
couldand they would have the money to do it.
    I don't question the ability of our outstanding engineers 
and scientists who would bring this project to reality, but I 
believe that, in this case, it is misplaced priorities. With 
the many needs here on Earth, the space station is just too 
expensive and it's not complete. We need to shore up our Social 
Security System and protect Medicare and Medicaid. We need to 
educate our children and clean up our environment. We need to 
get our spending priorities straight and I support eliminate 
the funding for the space station.
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Woolsey. I urge my colleagues to support the Sandford 
amendment and save $21 billion now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back the 
balance of her time.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Florida seek recognition?
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. And I will use the entire 5 minutes. 
We have had this debate over and over again in this Committee 
and on the Floor of the House and, with every year, we 
accumulate more and more votes in support of the space station. 
One of the obvious reasons for that is what the Chairman just 
said. We've got $20 billion invested. There is a huge amount of 
hardware in the space station processing facility in my 
congressional district at Kennedy Space Center that is ready to 
go. We have the first two elements up there. There is nothing 
that excites children in America more than when you talk to 
them about a space station and our manned space flight program 
and, for the sake of the preservation of time, I'd be very 
happy to yield to the gentleman of Texas if you'd like to add 
to my comments.
    Mr. Lampson. I would indeed. Thank you very much to the 
gentleman from Florida. Just a few comments. You were just 
commenting on education. I was a teacher and I still remember 
the excited look in the kid's eyes in classes in junior high 
and high school when I was teaching and they saw what we did in 
space many, many years ago.
    But a couple of comments that have been made along the way 
I think deserve some very short, quick comments. One of them: 
We're throwing good money after bad. We know that for every 
$1.00 we spend in space, we get a $9.00 return on Earth. That 
doesn't sound like bad money and certainly not a bad return.
    Certainty? You want certainty from Russia? Sure, we want 
certainty from Russia, but we also would like to have certainty 
from new science which we don't have. That's why we're--that's 
why we're experimenting. That's why we're trying to build 
something and hope for a greater return. And I think that 
there's no question but that we're getting a return that goes 
much beyond science when we're working with not just Russia, 
but the many other nations that we've built a partnership and a 
relationship with that otherwise wouldn't be there had it not 
been for our efforts as far as science is concerned.
    So there are many reasons why we should continue to support 
this station. Just to echo the words that Mr. Weldon just said 
about the amount of equipment that is already sitting on the 
ground ready to be put into space. In fact, if we turned this 
off now, we'd have to spend additional billions of dollars to 
stop the project. We lose even more and you don't have the gain 
that we expect. And I'll yield back my time. Thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. I thank the gentleman and I yield 
back.
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, seek recognition?
    Ms. Johnson. I'd strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The woman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today seems to be 
bringing about a day that I seek more than usual. I don't 
relish a lot of speaking. However, we've come this far because 
our foremothers and forefathers thought about what was needed 
in the future and our research. I think we've gone too far to 
decide that we know all the answers and we don't need to look 
for any more and, therefore, we're scrapping major research 
projects.
    We are expected, as members of this Committee, to be a 
little bit more open minded. We cannot count all of the lives 
we've affected and made better by the current space research 
outcomes in health technologies and many, many commercial 
goods. We cannot afford, Mr. Chairman, to forget about what we 
need to do for the future, just as people before us were 
willing to take their chance to see what basic research and 
peer research could bring forward.
    I recognize, with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, we know 
full well the status of the income and the economic situation 
of Russia. I hope that we don't scrap looking for new 
techniques for health care and commercial goods because Russia 
does not have the money right now. We can always spend our 
dollars in a way that many of us will feel would be better, but 
I don't think we need to shut the door to the future just 
because it costs a lot of money. What would thefuture bring if 
we were not willing to invest in it to see what it could bring?
    It is unconscionable to me to get into these research 
projects and then scrap them. We have committed ourselves to 
the research community of this nation that we would look at the 
next 10 years to enhancing their ability to do research, not 
stopping it. My district became a victim to the Supercollider 
and I still am sorry that we didn't have the foresight to fund 
that project and so are most of the scientists in this nation 
and around the world. I hope we don't make that mistake again 
today, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back the balance of my time.
    But I would ask and urge that we not vote this space 
station down and close the door to our future. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 
Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Very quickly, I want to concur with the 
sentiment expressed by my Chairman earlier that the space 
station has gone--or the shuttle has gone down a bumpy road, 
but there has been so much money and time and scrutiny spent by 
the country, by the Committee, by NASA, that it is too late to 
turn back and I think that we have a program that can be 
something that the United States can be proud and I would hope 
that we would support----
    Mr. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes, I yield.
    Mr. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just 
to follow up on those comments, let me suggest that the points 
made by the gentlelady from California are very valid. These 
are choices that we made and I would certainly acknowledge that 
those are hard choices to choose between issues of housing and 
Social Security, but we have a surplus now in the budget and I 
think my good friend from South Carolina noted the 
Supercollider, the hold in the ground, is evidence of that when 
we make mistakes like that, we live to regret them.
    I do a lot of work with the University of Houston. Dr. Paul 
Chu led a superconductivity laboratory. I wish we had that 
superconductivity program to enhance the enormous work that he 
is doing that is so needed around the world.
    I think the other point that needs to be made, while we 
have a surplus, we need to acknowledge that the space station, 
albeit Russia has had its problems, has consistently worked 
under a 5-year plan, of which they have maintained their 
budget. Whenever there is an overrun, there is a response 
immediately by NASA and the Administration or the 
Administrator. And, in fact, we have proven that the 
International Space Station has been successful in research 
dealing with HIV, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and, of 
course, the most recent analysis, of which most people had a 
little chuckle, but aging with Dr. John--with Senator John 
Glenn.
    So I would hope that we would likely view our future as 
intertwined with the success of the International Space 
Station. It does good work. It does it in a fiscally sound 
manner. And, as well, what regrets we'd have to have open space 
in places like Huntsville, the Kennedy Space Center area, the 
Johnson Space Center area, and look back sadly and wish what 
could have been. And I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will vote 
this amendment down. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Gordon. Again, Mr. Chairman, I can concur with your 
recommendation that this amendment be rejected.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
    Mr. Doyle. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognizing for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to say a 
few words on this space station. As we on this Committee have 
followed this issue and we've learned of repeated delays and 
cost overruns on the part of our Russian partners for 4 years, 
I've been a disciple of Mr. Roemer on this issue and have voted 
to terminate the ISS. And--but I've been reconsidering my 
position on this issue and I want my good friend Mark Sanford 
to know--who is my good friend and I have a tremendous amount 
of respect for--that it has nothing to do with your authoring 
of the amendment versus Mr. Roemer offering the amendment.
    But I'd like to suggest to my colleagues that I think at 
this point, this far down the road, that it just may be 
inappropriate to pull the plug on the project. We do have two 
important modules of the station in space. We spent $20 billion 
on this project. I do have serious concerns about the project. 
The Russian economy is in shambles and question their ability 
and commitment to fund a space station. But I think that 
terminating the entire ISS at this point might be too drastic 
of a move.
    Mr. Chairman, I can imagine at some point we may have to 
decide whether to exclude the Russians from the project and 
continue ahead with our other international partners, all of 
whom have made satisfactory contributions so far. But I think 
it would be rash to pull the plug on a $20 billion investment 
when we've come so far. I know Russian delays have cost us a 
few billion dollars and even when you add the cost savings, 
we've enjoyed as a result of adding them at the beginning of 
the project, the bottom line of Russianinvolvement in the 
program will be a net loss to the American taxpayer.
    But I do--I've come to feel that terminating the 
International Space Station outright will leave us nothing for 
our investment and, thus, I'm going to reconsider my previous 
position and will vote against terminating the International 
Space Station. I urge my colleagues that have done similar in 
the past 4 years to reconsider their positions.
    Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Doyle. Yes, I will.
    Mr. Hall. I certainly admire a man who can reconsider, 
particularly when he reconsiders to come to my way of thinking. 
[Laughter.]
    I think another of--your judgment is not just based on 
those things that you've submitted, but I happen to know that 
you're aware of the fact that the present chairman and I went 
to Mr. Goldin about 3\1/2\ or 4 years ago and he suggested the 
cuts in the budget that had to happen and that Mr. Goldin 
showed good faith with this Committee, with this Congress, with 
the American people and did cut that budget 32 or 33 or 34 
percent, probably more than any other budget's been cut on this 
Hill. And I know you took that into consideration.
    I seriously do admire you and thank you. It takes courage 
to take a position and it takes more courage to change that 
position when you get further information. I yield back my 
time.
    Ms. Woolsey. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    Ms. Woolsey. I'd just like to point out that not 
terminating something now because of an investment that we've 
gotten hooked into is exactly my point. It really shows that, 
here in the Federal Government, when you get--the camel gets 
its nose under the tent, the camel's in that tent and will be 
there and that's where we are. So that's one of the reasons I 
still disagree with this.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the adoption of 
the amendment by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 
Sanford.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The Chair is in doubt and the clerk will call the roll. 
Those in favor will vote aye and those opposed will vote no. 
The clerk will call roll.
    Mr. Sanford. Wait. Wait. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. In the 
same way that the International Space Station captures the 
imagination of a child, I would like to imagine that I lost 
this vote by one and, therefore, would ask that we not call for 
a recorded vote. [Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman withdraw the 
amendment? And then we have a deal.
    Mr. Sanford. I will as long as I can offer it on the Floor.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman will definitely have 
a chance. The amendment is withdrawn. [Laughter.]
    The next amendment is number 15 by the gentleman from 
Connecticut, Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to withdraw the 
amendment and would seek to--move to strike the last word for 
the purpose of asking a clarifying question.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me 
first also indicate that I have remarks and, in the purpose of 
brevity, I would like to seek unanimous consent----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The statement of Mr. Larson follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. John Larson
    I want to express my appreciation for the hard work Chairman 
Rohrabacher has dedicated to this bill and thank him for his 
willingness to listen to my concerns.
    However, I am still deeply concerned that this bill includes 
language that might prohibit NASA from moving forward with a research 
and development program essential to maintaining America's competitive 
position in the global economy and our national defense.
    Specifically, I refer to language that would prohibit funds to be 
used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine Program. The Administration has 
recommended that this Committee fund this program at $50 million per 
year over the next five years, as General Spence M. Armstrong, 
Associate Administrator of NASA, testified to the Space Subcommittee on 
March 3, 1999.
    However, I am at a loss to explain why the reservations about the 
execution of this program used to justify this language were not raised 
during this hearing so that members might have had an opportunity to 
discuss this course of action.
    This program is focused to develop the next-generation of aerospace 
propulsion. I am concerned that the language in this bill will have a 
negative impact on not only the future competition of the United 
States' commercial air fleet, but specifically on the development of 
our next generation tactical military aircraft.
    The focused approach of this program has facilitated NASA's 
coordination with the Department of Defense on long-term R+D programs, 
specifically the Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Program.
    I respect the position of the Chairman Rohrobacher, and appreciate 
the fact while the bill would prohibit a coordinated research effort, 
he has recognized the individual elements of this program important 
enough to fund in the Research and Technology Base.
    However, the UEET effort involves bold, revolutionary technologies 
that must be integrated into a demonstration model engine over the next 
5 years in order to validate this technology. To accomplish this, NASA 
remains committed to seeking industry cost sharing for this effort. 
But, for industry to consider cost sharing, the program must have 
clearly stated goals and long-term stability.
    While a UEET demonstration engine would not be targeted for 
specific commercial applications, it could possibly be used for defense 
applications.
    Any practical commercial developments as a result of this program 
would be 10-15 years away, and would be developed with private funds.
    NASA believes that for these reasons, particularly the multi-year 
commitment needed to achieve technology goals, that the UEET program 
should be conducted as a Focused Program, and is prepared to work with 
the Committee on Science to ensure a long-term funding commitment to 
the UEET effort to achieve its stated technology objectives.
    Mr. Rohrabacher, I would like to clarify that the language 
regarding UEET in this bill is not prejudicial to NASA's ``working on'' 
a demonstration, engineering model engine to validate these 
technologies, and that the Committee recognizes that a long-term 
funding commitment to meet the UEET technology goals will be necessary 
to attract cost sharing by the commercial sector.

    Mr. Larson. Mr. Chairman, let me start by thanking Mr. 
Rohrabacher for taking an extraordinary amount of time and 
effort to work with both his staff and mine and the 
Administrator of NASA to deal with some language that, to say 
the least, was somewhat disconcerting to me with respect to the 
Ultra-Efficient Engine technology within the bill. But I know, 
after several conversations with both he, his staff, and the 
Administrator of NASA that we all share a deep and abiding 
concern for the bold revolutionary technologies that can be 
attributed to this demonstration project, engineering model 
engine over the long term that will be beneficial to us both 
militarily and also, I daresay, commercially, as we seek in 
this country to continue to compete against Airbus.
    I do have a clarifying answer through you, Mr. Chairman, 
that I would ask Mr. Rohrabacher. And, with your permission, I 
would proceed.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The answer is yes. Does the 
gentleman from California request the gentleman from 
Connecticut to yield to him?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, as soon as he poses the question.
    Mr. Larson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rohrabacher, what I 
would like to do is clarify that the language regarding the--
what is commonly referred to as the UEET proposal in this bill 
is not prejudicial to NASA, not prejudicial in the extent that 
in working on a demonstration engineering model engine to 
validate these technologies and technology that the Committee 
recognizes as a long-term funding commitment to meet UEET 
technology goals, it will be necessary to attract the cost-
sharing by the commercial sector that we all seek.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The answer to--will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Larson. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The answer to the gentleman's question is 
yes and it is the intention of the Subcommittee Chairman to 
work with that gentleman to move this project along in the 
direction that he is seeking and we'll work on the way to the 
Floor and I appreciate his cooperation and we will both try--I 
think that we have mutual aims in mind.
    Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time. The next amendment is number 16 by Mr. 
Weiner. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. ``Amendment to H.R. 1654 offered by Mr. 
Weiner.''
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The information follows:]

              Amendment to H.R. 1654 Offered by Mr. Weiner

    Page 13, line 14, insert ``, including $35,000,000 for aircraft 
noise reduction technology'' after ``Technology Base''.
    Page 14, line 5, insert ``, including $35,000,000 for aircraft 
noise reduction technology'' after ``Technology Base''.
    Page 14, line 23, insert ``, including $35,000,000 for aircraft 
noise reduction technology'' after ``Technology Base''.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I'll 
take the full 5 minutes. This amendment is intended to add 
additional funding for noise reduction research done at NASA. 
We have done an admirable job in this Committee--and I commend 
Chairman Rohrabacher and the Chairman of the Full Committee and 
others who have struck a balance between providing flexibility 
for NASA in funding the research and technology base and our 
efforts to try to put our imprint on specific items that we 
feel are important.
    What my amendment would do is take a portion of the $475 
million research and technology base, including some of the 
additional money that's added in under this budget, and 
allocate $10 million in Fiscal Year 2000, $10 million in Fiscal 
Year 2001, and $20 million in Fiscal Year 2002 to be allocated 
for research and technology and noise reduction research.
    There are several elements that I think make this an 
important statement for this Committee to make at this time. 
First is the FAA Authorization Bill that's moving through this 
House is going to invariably, under any scenario, increase the 
amount of air traffic in the years to come. In fact, in some 
airports, it's going to increase it dramatically because 
there's proposals to lift the caps onthe amount of traffic that 
can come in and out of those airports.
    Secondly, there are negotiations going on presently, both 
in Europe and here domestically, on figuring out the next 
element in noise reduction of commercial aircraft, what's 
called stage four technology is being developed now. And this 
is a time that not only FAA, but NASA should be involved in 
helping with this technology.
    And, third, there have been admirable efforts made to try 
to leverage private research. And I think that this would give 
NASA the ability to send a message to the private sector that 
we are not going to tell them to do a loan, but we are going to 
seek to help, as well. It should be noted that, you know, at 
NASA's request to OMB and the internal machinations that go on 
there, wanted additional funding for noise reduction. And I 
understand that there is a philosophical question about whether 
that should be done at NASA or whether it should be done at 
FAA.
    I think in the jurisdiction of this Committee, we should 
make it clear, frankly, that the good works that have been done 
at NASA up until now, including those that have been spun off 
from the Ultra-Efficient Engine research should be continued 
and enhanced. We have to recognize--some of us who live in the 
shadow of airports--recognize the importance of commerce value 
that those airports bring. But we also have to recognize in 
this context that NASA's doing important work on making sure 
that those aircraft that come in and out of our communities do 
so in a way that is as quiet as possible.
    This is a relatively small amount. It is a minute fraction 
of the overall research and technology base. It is a zero-sum 
amendment in that there isn't an additional allocation. All 
that I seek to do is to take $10 million and move it from this 
$475 million research and technology base and put it into the 
research for noise reduction.
    I want to publicly thank Chairman Rohrabacher, who I called 
this morning to explain my amendment and by the time I was off 
the phone he had explained to me my amendment and has done an 
extraordinary amount and also to my other Chair, the 
gentlewoman, Congresswoman Morella, for her assistance as well. 
And I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This 
is something that we can do here in this Committee that may, 
frankly, make the skies and those of us on the ground a little 
bit quieter and, putting aside what we may do in the FAA 
authorization to come in terms of increasing air traffic, this 
is an opportunity for us to increase the research in noise 
reduction.
    And I yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back his time. 
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
    The gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned but, 
unfortunately, is going to have some detrimental side effects. 
NASA intends to spend $25 million for aircraft noise reduction 
over the period of this authorization bill. The gentleman's 
amendment fences $35 million or $10 million more than NASA 
intends to spend. And it is not a total plus-up or increase in 
the NASA appropriation, which is good. What the downside is is 
that NASA has indicated that if the amendment is adopted, it 
will result in the termination of emissions work and research 
into rocket-based combined cycle technology.
    I think that we've got to have a balanced program. The 
emissions research and the combined cycle technology research 
are important, although funded at a lesser scale. The 
gentleman's amendment will mean that we aren't going to have 
any of that for the next 3 years and I don't think that that is 
a wise idea. So I would hope that the Committee would vote down 
this amendment, even though it is well-intentioned, and yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I also rise in opposition to the amendment 
and also commend the gentleman for being highly motivated. In 
Orange County, we are now in the middle of a major fight on 
whether or not El Toro Marine Base should become an airport and 
the biggest opposition to making it an airport is coming 
because people are afraid of noise. And they have every right 
to be concerned about that. People who live near airports have 
a right to be concerned about that.
    And the gentleman is not offering a radical amendment. It 
is only a $10 million shift. Just to note, we just learned 
about this within the last 48 hours and perhaps we could have 
worked more closely with the gentleman had we known about this 
$10 million request earlier.
    Also, $10 million, even though $10 million is a small sum, 
it just isn't left under the pillow by the tooth fairy. It has 
to come from somewhere. And it is, in this case, as the 
Chairman noted, it's coming from a pot of money that will 
either be spent--come out of one of three places. Number one, 
it would come out of the money that Mr. Larson is looking for 
or it will come out of the money that Mr. Sensenbrenner just 
noted is coming out of emissions control research or the 
rocket-based combined cycle engine, which is something Mr. 
Goldin has as one of his highest priorities to help develop 
this, which is aimed at helping both the commercial aerospace 
industry in terms of both commercial jets but also spacecraft. 
So I reluctantly oppose the amendment.
    Mr. Weiner. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
    Mr. Weiner. I'm just--so we understand the magnitude ofwhat 
we're talking about here. I'm talking about a $10 million move from a 
$475 million pot that I think that the Chairman has shown judgment that 
we want to leave NASA with some flexibility. But I think, on the other 
side, we then, I think, lose the ability to say in this room, 
surgically, what is going to happen as the result of such a tiny, 
incremental move.
    I think that NASA is going to do what NASA is going to do 
when we allocate monies in this kind of a soft way. And so I 
think to ascribe a specific result from here, I believe that, 
you know, in the context of a $475,800,000 allocation, to find 
an additional $10 million--and I happen to believe--and the 
reason that the amendment was offered in this order--is that 
the research that's currently being done on the Ultra-Efficient 
Engine that you just had a colloquy about may wind up--you may 
wind up being able to take a portion of that and say, you know 
what--this is technology that we're developing that not only 
produces the Ultra-Efficient Engine, but it makes a quieter 
engine as well.
    And so I think that it is not entirely correct for Mr. 
Goldin or for someone in this room to say, well, as a result of 
this, less than \1/2\ of 1 percent cut, if I did the math 
right, we are going to see these dramatic changes in policy 
that the Chairman of the Full Committee and the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee referred to. I just don't believe we can say that.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time, what we're talking 
about--what we're basing this analysis on is what Dan Goldin 
and the Administration has given us as to their plans of how 
they plan to spend that money. And they're--we didn't just 
dream this answer up for you. I mean, they said this is where 
that $10 million would come from. And, although it's not 
specified in the bill, yes there is a $475 million, you know, 
spending package there, but that is something that NASA has 
already worked through and designated where they want that 
money to come from. So it's not--you know, I know it's hard to 
comprehend that we've got a full package we're giving NASA. 
They also already have plans for that. And that's where they 
tell us that would come from.
    And I agree with you that perhaps if they don't spend all 
that money the way Mr. Larson would have them spend the money, 
perhaps they might be able to use that, but I think that Mr. 
Larson has already indicated--and I think we have--that it 
would be perhaps better to spend that money developing that 
Ultra-Efficient Engine as the people who are involved in that 
project deem that it's the most effective way of spending money 
in the development of that engine.
    And I certainly would be willing to work with the gentleman 
and report language and trying to see that if there is money 
available that it is directed that way and that we put that in 
the report language. And would be willing to work the Chairman 
on that as well.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
    Ms. Rivers. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. 
Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Rivers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to associate with 
the remarks of Mr. Weiner and do indeed support his amendment. 
For those of us who live in an area with a major airport, the 
tension created by the economic gains the airport represents 
versus the quality of life problems for people who live in that 
area are terrible. And what we find ourselves doing is we find 
ourselves perpetually in a debate around economic expansion 
versus quality of life for people who are living on the ground. 
We are going to have to address this issue.
    Typically, the FAA puts money in their budget. It is not 
enough. We are not moving fast enough. We know, as Mr. Weiner 
said, we know that there will be an increase in air traffic 
either by legislation or simply through increased economic 
growth. It has a tremendous impact on people on the ground. It 
can't be discounted. And what it tends to do is provide a 
barrier to economic growth. And so I think we should look very 
carefully at amendments like this one and others to address 
what is a very real problem for a significant number of 
districts across this country.
    We have an airport noise caucus which has attracted a 
significant number of members because this is a continuing 
problem and a very real problem all over the country. And so I 
would hope that members would support this amendment.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentlelady--would the gentlelady 
yield?
    Ms. Rivers. Yes, I would, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Ms. Rohrabacker. Let me just say that if this money is 
available, as Mr. Weiner is suggesting, perhaps, when all is 
said and done, out of this pot of money, there may be some 
money available because some money that perhaps was supposed to 
be spent in some area didn't get spent. I would certainly 
support report language that would indicate that, if there is 
money left over in that pot, that it do--that it does go toward 
this noise reduction. We are only talking about a $10 million 
increase of $25 million that have already been expended.
    Let me also note one other factor. The FAA should also be 
responsible for this. This is--we should also make sure that 
we're not draining money from research projects for whatthe FAA 
should also be putting in. So I would be happy to work with the 
gentleman to make sure that, if there is money left over in that pot, 
that it goes to meet the gentleman's needs.
    Ms. Rivers. Reclaiming my time.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Certainly.
    Ms. Rivers. One of the problems, one of the tensions 
between the FAA budget and this particular proposal is that a 
significant portion of the FAA goes for remediation that is 
done on the ground, things that are meant to address the 
problem as they exist. Resource--research is to address the 
problem as we expect it to grow. And I think we need to address 
both aspects of the problem.
    Mr. Weiner. Would the gentlelady yield on that point.
    Ms. Rivers. I would yield. Yes.
    Mr. Weiner. First, I want to commend the gentlelady for her 
work on the noise reduction caucus. One of the things that we 
have grown increasingly concerned about FAA's role in this is 
that FAA is a revenue agency. They are an agency that has 
increasingly viewed themselves that way. NASA, to their eternal 
credit, is a research agency. They are an agency that 
understands thinking not just this year, not just thinking 
about how we get United States Air Flight 17 to land, but also 
thinking about where we are going to be in 15 or 20 years.
    So I think it is very important that both agencies have a 
role and that, frankly, some of us are very concerned and we're 
going to express that concern in the context of the FAA 
authorization, that the FAA is not doing nearly what they 
should be on this point. I thank the gentlelady for her yield.
    Ms. Rivers. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have. The noes have it and the----
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Roll call is requested. Those in 
favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no and the clerk 
will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. Mr. Boehlert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith of Texas
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no. Mr. Weldon of 
Pennsylvania.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Barton.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Ewing.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes no. Mr. Brady.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mr. Green.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Sanford.
    Mr. Sanford. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sanford votes no. Mr. Metcalf.
    Mr. Metcalf. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf votes no. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes yes. Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers.
    Mr. Rivers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. Stabenow. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow votes yes. Mr. Etheridge.
    Mr. Etheridge. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Etheridge votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there members in the chamber 
who desire to vote or change their votes?
    Mr. Cook. Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Utah.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green is not recorded.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. This is Mr. Cook.
    The Clerk. I'm sorry. Mr. Cook.
    Mr. Cook. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook votes no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Green. How am I recorded as voting?
    The Clerk. You are not recorded, sir.
    Mr. Green. No.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. I vote no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I vote aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Weiner.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, you're not recorded.
    Mr. Weiner. I'm aye, please.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Any members in the chamber who 
desire to vote or to change their votes? If not, the clerk will 
report.
    How is Mr. Hall recorded?
    Mr. Hall. I vote aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, 
votes aye.
    Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 17 no and 17 yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We--the next amendment is number 
17.
    For what purpose the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon, 
seek recognition?
    Mr. Gordon. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown was going to propose an 
amendment today to eliminate section 126. As you know, he 
couldn't be here. For that reason, I will briefly sum up his 
position and that is that he is opposed to section 126 and I 
understand that NASA also is opposed and I would ask that his 
remarks be made a part of the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Hon. George E. Brown, Jr.

    It was my intention to offer an amendment to strike Section 
126 of HR 1654. It is not because I am opposed to the concept 
of commercial data purchases--far from it.
    As the principal author of the 1992 Land Remote Sensing 
Policy Act, I think that it is clear that I support the 
development of a healthy and vibrant commercial remote sensing 
industry. In spite of some of the failures suffered by the 
remote sensing industry over the last year or so, I believe 
that its long-term prospects are good. However, I strongly 
believe that Section 126 of the NASA bill is ill-conceived and 
ultimately unworkable. I am afraid that it will result in 
needless disruption of NASA's Earth Science research program, 
while doing little to actually promote the commercial remote 
sensing industry. Furthermore, I believe that the approach 
taken in Section 126 will have the effect of forcing 
geographical and/or corporate ``earmarks'' on NASA. It is bad 
policy to force NASA to buy data just to buy data. Thus I 
oppose Section 126 and I understand that NASA does too.
    I hope that by the time this bill becomes law, we will have 
corrected this situation.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The last amendment is number 19 by 
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lampson.
    [The information follows:]

             Amendment to H.R. 1654 Offered by Mr. Lampson

    Page 25, lines 15 through 26, amend section 128 to read as follows:

SEC. 128. TRANS-HAB.

    (a) Limitation.--No funds authorized by this Act shall be obligated 
for the design or development of an inflatable structure--
          (1) to replace any International Space Station components 
        scheduled for launch in the Assembly Sequence released by the 
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration on February 22, 
        1999; or
          (2) that would otherwise be capable of accommodating humans 
        in space,
until the conditions specified in subsection (b) have been met.
    (b) Conditions.--Before funds are obligated as described in 
subsection (a), the Administrator shall provide to the Committee on 
Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that, at a minimum 
includes--
          (1) an independently validated cost and schedule estimate for 
        the proposed design or development program;
          (2) the procurement approach to be used; and
          (3) a funding plan with funding increments tied to the 
        achievement of clearly defined programmatic milestones.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman 
from Texas seek recognition?
    Mr. Lampson. To strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was planning on 
offering an amendment to the National Authorization Act of 1999 
to modify section 128 of the Act, but instead I will not do so 
at this time. The language, as drafted in section 128 will 
essentially eliminate any potential funding or even 
consideration for the definition, design, or development of 
Trans-Hab, a proposed replaced for the International Space 
Station's habitation module or other promising concepts for the 
use of new inflatable structure technology to provide a much 
larger living and working volume. H.R. 1654's proposed language 
would preclude any work on this very promising set of 
technologies and would be highly undesirable.
    The amendment that I was planning to introduce would not 
have obligated funds for the design or development of any 
inflatable structures that would replace station components 
scheduled for launch until the NASA Administrator provided to 
the House Committee on Science and the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation a report that, at a 
minimum, includes an independently validated cost and schedule 
estimate for the proposed design or development program, the 
procurement approach to be used, and a funding plan with 
funding increments tied to the achievement of clearly defined 
programmatic milestones.
    NASA is currently reviewing the technical issues 
surrounding the Trans-Hab structure, which appear to offer 
potentially significant crew safety advantages over the 
currently baselined habitation module. The Trans-hab approach 
has a number of highly desirable qualities and technologies 
that make it an attractive candidate for International Space 
Station consideration and also for potential commercial 
applications.
    And the one thing that I consider--or that I continue to 
hear from astronauts in my district is that they need more 
space in space. But the way that this bill's language is 
written doesn't even give them the opportunity to consider 
development. But to tie the hands of NASA scientists just to 
keep them from finding better ways of doing. Now this Committee 
has held NASA to a high standard and to prove time and time 
again that they are doing the most for the least, I don't see 
this action as either cost-effective or scientifically sound.
    And I've been informed that NASA's approach would be to 
pursue this concept only if the difference in cost between the 
Hab and the Trans-Hab can be mitigated by commercial 
participation. And I truly believe that NASA needs 
theflexibility to contribute some modest amount of technology 
maturation funding, if required, to develop a commercial partnership. 
Several companies have responded to a Trans-Hab concept solicitation, 
which imply a high level of interest.
    But I strongly believe that this Committee should provide 
NASA with the capability of continuing research to develop and 
design a structure that could offer significant crew safety 
advantages over the currently baselined habitation module. 
Without the benefit of a Subcommittee markup, members of this 
committee have not had the opportunity to air this issue and, 
instead, any discussion of developing Trans-Hab has been 
prohibited.
    You know, Mr. Chairman, just a few minutes you made a 
comment when discussing Triana. You made a statement that we 
should not close our minds and remove this Committee's 
involvement from review of programs like Triana. It can be 
applied to this just as well.
    And, that being said, while I am encouraged by some talk, 
even from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we 
should request a hearing or perhaps other consideration on 
Trans-Hab and allowing NASA the opportunity to present its 
case, in the meantime, I will be withholding my support for 
this bill. While I support many of the provisions of this bill 
and it's otherwise a basically good bill--obviously I support 
Space Shuttle upgrades and space stationing and microgravity 
science, I am very discouraged that NASA did not have the 
opportunity to present its case before this Committee or the 
Space Subcommittee prior to markup. And I'd hope that we'd work 
in the next few days, Mr. Chairman, to find the language to 
keep the opportunity for consideration of this and other 
projects open.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. That concludes the number of 
amendments that have been noticed on the roster. Are there any 
further amendments?
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman,. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Colorado is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. I 
just wanted to make a follow-up comment on Mr. Weiner's 
amendment. In Colorado, we have a significant aircraft noise 
problem with our new airport, Denver international. And the 
stage four engine development I think is very, very important 
to us. And I would suggest that the more we can do to work here 
and give NASA the tools to invest up front in the technology 
that would help us solve this problem, the more I think we 
ought to get behind it. Right now in Colorado and I think all 
over the country, the gentlewoman from Michigan talked about 
this, we're spending money on lawsuits and delays and a lack of 
investment. And I think those costs are ones that we don't 
really want to incur. so I would urge----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Udall. I would yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. This Subcommittee Chairman still stands 
ready to work with Mr. Weiner and work on this language. If 
he's willing to work with us, we'll work with him. This did 
come up late and it was, you know, it was a late-minute type of 
thing and we'll work with him on report language and such and 
if NASA doesn't have to sacrifice some other things that I'm 
sure even Mr. Weiner supports--some of these other things like 
emissions research, et cetera--we'll work with him to try to 
see that this plus-up that he's interested in gets through in 
report language.
    Mr. Udall. Reclaiming my time. Mr. Rohrabacher, I really 
appreciate your willingness to work on this important issue. 
And, if I didn't men it, we have this sixth runway that we 
can't build right now because of the problems around aircraft 
noise in Colorado. And I'm sure you've probably been delayed in 
Denver trying to get home to California, so this would help you 
get back and forth more expeditiously.
    Ms. Johnson. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Udall. Yes, I would yield.
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, what I don't want to see is 
money transferred--as I heard mentioned the possibility would 
be earlier--from emissions research. Of curse, Dallas has the 
best airport in this country and maybe in the world. And we 
support noise control. But we also have one of the most 
successful rail systems in the area and we have more cars than 
anybody, I believe, in the nation. And we've got to care for 
our environment or we're going to lose all of our highway 
funds. So I just don't want to see us go into the emissions 
research fund to put more into the noise abatement funds and it 
leaves us in somewhat of a lurch, in a sense, if we have to 
start drawing one fund against another. But I want you to know 
that, while I can agree with that need, I don't want it to come 
from the emissions fund.
    Mr. Weiner. Would the gentlelady yield on that point?
    Ms. Johnson. Is it Mr. Udall's time?
    Mr. Udall. I would yield.
    Mr. Weiner. Well, I just want to iterate that I support Ms. 
Johnson's position entirely and the idea this is a zero-sum 
game, but that sum is $485 million of which we're saying let's 
have, as we say, in Brooklyn a little ``pisha'' amount to try 
to add to this important program. And I want to--I want to 
thank again the Chairman of the Subcommittee for his 
willingness to work on this, but by no means should my 
amendment or a vote in favor of my amendment be interpreted as 
wanting to reduce the valuable program that you alluded to.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments to the 
bill?
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. That's right. Go ahead.
    Mr. Gordon. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I hoped that we would have been 
confining debate to amendments that were offered, rather than 
keeping on going on and on and on at the end of the bill, but 
go ahead. You are recognized for 5 minutes. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly concur with 
Mr. Udall and Mr. Weiner. I think that they have a good 
proposal and with the caveats that Ms. Johnson put forth I am 
sure that we're going to see good faith as we have in the past 
from Mr. Rohrabacher and that we'll work through to a 
resolution of that.
    I would also like to see that good faith extended to Mr. 
Lampson, in that Mr. Rohrabacher and I both went to Houston 
some time back to see this particular Trans-Hab project. I 
don't want to speak for him, but I think we were both 
impressed. But I would also say it is late in the season and 
that just to be better is not good enough. I think it has to be 
significantly better. There's a high bar that needs to be put 
forth. But I do think that it is worth reviewing. And just as 
our Chairman pointed out we should not close our minds on 
Triana, certainly we won't close our minds on this situation. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman. No, no. I'm done with that one. 
[Laughter.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Are there further amendments 
to the bill. I'm trying to get to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts if the chatter will--hearing none, it is now time 
to go to report language. And the very patient gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized.
    Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to keep it 
very brief. Photonics research is important and it should be 
continued. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]
    [Applause.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman offer the report 
language contained in the packet.
    Mr. Capuano. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay, the gentleman--without 
objection, the report language is considered as read and, 
without objection, it is agreed to. Hearing none, so ordered.
    [The information follows:]
    Report Language to H.R. 1654 Offered by Hon. Michael E. Capuano
    Relevant Account: Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Photonics 
Research.--The Committee understands the critical role photonic 
research plays in NASA's efforts to develop the Next Generation Space 
Telescope, the Origins program, and the Space Communications program. 
The Committee notes that NASA has worked with academic institutions and 
corporate entities to foster cutting-edge research and development of 
photonic-related ideas and technologies. Therefore, the Committee 
encourages NASA to continue these partnerships and seek additional 
partnerships that merge competitively awarded academic research and 
corporate development in a way that strengthens and accelerates the 
photonics product development process to directly contribute to NASA's 
defined four strategic enterprises.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further suggestions for 
report language?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No, this is not report language.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If there are no further suggestions 
for report language, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California for a motion to report the bill.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. And, Mr. Chairman, I do so and I also send 
our best wishes to Ranking Member Brown and we are very pleased 
that his health is improving and we look forward to him. He's a 
man I deeply admire as everyone here knows.
    Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report the bill, 
H.R. 1654 as amended. Therefore, I move to instruct the staff 
to prepare the legislative report to make technical and 
conforming amendments and that the Chairman take all necessary 
steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the Chair notes the presence of 
a reporting quorum. The question is on the motion to report the 
bill favorably.
    Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the bill 
is favorably reported.
    All members will have two subsequent calendar days in which 
to submit supplemental minority or----
    Mr. Gordon. Roll call vote, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The question is on reporting 
the bill favorably. A roll call is ordered. Those in favor of 
reporting the bill favorably will signify by saying aye. Those 
opposed no. And the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes yes. Mr. Boehlert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith of Texas.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes yes. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes yes. Mr. Weldon of 
Pennsylvania.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Barton.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes aye. Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Aye
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Barlett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes aye. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. Mr. Ewing.
    Mr. Ewing. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ewing votes yes. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes yes. Mr. Brady.
    Mr. Brady. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brady votes yes. Mr. Cook.
    Mr. Cook. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook votes yes. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nethercutt votes yes. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes yes. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Kuykendall.
    Mr. Kuykendall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf.
    Mr. Metcalf. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf votes yes. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes no. Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes no. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes no. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. Stabenow. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow votes no. Mr. Etheridge.
    Mr. Etheridge. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Etheridge votes no. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson votes no. Mr. Larson.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes no. Mr. Wu.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner votes no. Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional members in the 
chamber who would like to cast their votes or change their 
votes. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Any additional members in the 
chamber? The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. 
Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Anybody else wish to cast their 
vote or change their vote?
    Mr. Sanford. I vote no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from South Carolina, 
Mr. Sanford, votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sanford votes no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, yes, 27; no, 13.
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the motion to favorably report 
is agreed to. All members will have two subsequent calendar 
days in which to submit supplemental minority or additional 
view on the measure. Without objection, bill will be reported--
--
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I wish to give notice that the 
minority will file minority views.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You don't have to do that. You 
know, that's a matter of right. Can I get through the 
housekeeping and I'll recognize you.
    Without objection, the bill will be reported in the form of 
a single amendment in the nature of a substitute reflecting 
amendments adopted here today. Without objection, the staff 
will be instructed to make technical and conforming changes to 
the bill and, without objection, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 
22 of the rules of the House, the Committee authorizes the 
Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House 
to go to conference with the Senate on the bill. Without 
objection, all of those unanimous consents are agreed to and 
the gentleman from Texas is recognized to strike the last word.
    Mr. Hall. I thank you and I thank you for your patience 
today and for your guidance of this Committee. It is my hope 
that we're able to work out some of the difficulties that 
we've--have held us up and have caused us to delve into the 
political realm today. I hope that we can work out the 
situation that the gentleman from Tennessee has worked on. And 
I'd like to yield to Ms. Jackson Lee a minute of my time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman very much. Let me 
quickly say that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your 
leadership. I thank Mr. Hall. But I think today we sort of 
pierced the heart of bipartisanship. I hope we can work out the 
gentleman from Tennessee's issue and I hope that we don't close 
down a 40 person job effort with great research on the Trans-
Hab of Mr. Lampson's point. I hope we can give NASA the hearing 
and have it rehabilitated because I think we would not want to 
leave this room with that hanging in abeyance and I hope that 
we'll have the opportunity to conference on the Floor of the 
House to reconstruct ourselves on both of those issues. I yield 
back and I thank the gentleman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Before recessing the Committee, the 
Chair would like to make this statement relative to scheduling. 
We've had a full day's work today and it is my intention not to 
come back after lunch. If the House has votes tomorrow, I would 
like to reconvene the Committee at 9:30 tomorrow morning. 
Whether or not the House has votes I think depends upon whether 
the supplemental will be ready for a vote. And if the 
supplemental is not ready for a vote, the House, obviously, 
will not be having votes tomorrow and we will not be meeting at 
9:30 and we will have to find a mutually agreeable time next 
week in which to continue to mark up on the other bills that 
have been noticed.
    We will consult with the minority to see what is a mutually 
agreeable time prior to setting it, but, in order to maintain 
flexibility because we don't know what's going on across the 
street in the Capitol, it will be the Chair's intention to 
recess now, subject to the call of the Chair. But the Chair is 
going to consult with the minority and everybody's going to get 
ample notice. So, you know, lest there be any suspicion that 
the Chair is about ready to pull a fast one, that's not going 
to happen.
    So, without objection, the Committee is recessed, subject 
to the call of the Chair.
    [Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Committee recessed subject 
to the call of the Chair.]