Joint U.S. - Russia Space Station Proposal Encounters Heavy Opposition

The House Subcommittee on Space has generally been regarded as friendly territory for the space station -- much more so than the House floor. It is thus an ominous sign that both station supporters and opponents have harshly criticized the Clinton Administration’s proposal to use Russian technology in the project.

On April 20, the subcommittee held an afternoon hearing on the foreign policy implications of a U.S. - Russian space station. The single witness was James Collins of the Office of the Ambassador-at-Large for the New Independent States, U.S. Department of State. Collins described a series of meetings and agreements to make the Russian Space Agency a partner in the international space station program. A letter of intent was issued last December for a $400 million contract for “precursor activities” involving our shuttle, the Mir station, and other hardware and technology. Collins outlined a series of technological, economic, and political benefits of such an agreement.

It has also been hoped that by making the station a symbol of new cooperation between former Cold War adversaries, additional votes could be secured from Members previously opposed to the station. The April 20 hearing seemed to demonstrate that this could be a major miscalculation.

The Ranking Republican on the subcommittee is Jim Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin), who has been a strong advocate of the station. Sensenbrenner had little good to say about Russia’s participation. He charged that the administration had artificially capped station spending, thus making Russia’s participation vital. This, he said, forces NASA to deal from a position of weakness, and “increases the risk of foreign policy blackmail.” Growing increasingly agitated, he accused the State Department of engaging in “touchy-feely stuff” and, his voice rising, said “this is not saleable” on the House floor. If a better plan cannot be developed, Sensenbrenner said, than “the time has come to cut our losses.” He ended saying, “this is the most goofed-up foreign policy that I have ever seen.”

Opponents of the station were as harsh in their criticism. For example, Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Indiana) and Dick Zimmer (R-New Jersey) listed a number of potential political, economic, and technological problems of joining with the Russians.

Subcommittee chairman Ralph Hall (D-Texas), while supportive of the proposal, raised many questions. In his opening statement he declared, “I want to cooperate as much as possible with Russia...in building a Space Station. But I am not willing to make the Space Station a hostage to the ups and downs of our foreign policy.” Only Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-California) was strong in his support for the proposal.

The key to a successful strategy on the House floor is the forging of coalitions, however temporary, between various interests. Judging from this hearing, the prospect of Russian participation in the space station could prove to be the catalyst for gaining the few votes that might be needed to kill station funding. Chairman Hall, who also hopes to form a coalition, pleaded with Collins for the State Department to express strong support for this proposal to the House Foreign Affairs Committee to, in Hall’s words, “save the station.”