House Science Committee: Upcoming Agenda, Space Station Hearing

“It is this Committee’s responsibility...to foster a dialogue between the science community and the American people.”
--House Science Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner

The recent talk about bipartisanship in the 105th Congress may prove more than just lip service, at least in the House Science Committee. In a February 6 press conference, new chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI; see FYI #161 , 1996) articulated his agenda for this year’s session. Sensenbrenner expressed optimism that he could work with “colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make the next two years productive.” In response, Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) declared he was “looking forward to vastly improved relationships with the chairman this year,” and commended Sensenbrenner for having already taken steps to solicit Democratic views on committee issues.

Sensenbrenner described his long-term goal as working “in a bipartisan fashion to craft a science and technology policy that will enable the U.S.” to remain preeminent in the 21st Century. He wants this year to pass two-year authorization bills for many programs under the committee’s jurisdiction, but hopes to “look beyond the narrow issue of direct federal funding” to address broader areas of priorities, oversight and evaluation to ensure scarce dollars are being spent “in the most effective manner possible.” Sensenbrenner invited the science community to join his committee in examining how to determine the value received from investment in R&D, and how to explain that value to the public.

Sensenbrenner added that his committee will look at issues of science education and at the relationships between government, academia, and industry and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each sector. He was asked if he opposed NIST’s Advanced Technology Program, which previous chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) had derided as “corporate subsidies.” Sensenbrenner said he did not have any preconceived notions, but worried that the rapid growth of ATP was eating into R&D dollars that could be spent elsewhere. He stated that he wanted to work cooperatively with the Administration, saying he believed their differences were small, and “I’d like to keep the arguments small.”

Another question addressed by Sensenbrenner, who previously chaired the Space Subcommittee, was concern over the Russian government’s ability to fund their share of the International Space Station. Though he was “committed to completing the space station, with or without the Russians,” Sensenbrenner said it was time for the Administration to tell Russia to “fish or cut bait.”

Sensenbrenner followed up on the subject of Russian participation in the space station with a February 12 hearing in which Presidential Science Advisor John Gibbons and NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin testified. Gibbons reported that discussions on the issue had taken place during meetings the previous week between Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, at which the Russians had vowed to make available some of the promised funds by the end of this month. Past-year difficulties in getting funds from the Russian government to the contractors, Gibbons said, have resulted in an estimated 8-month delay to the Russian-built Service Module, which is intended to be the third space station element launched. While hoping to see funds made available and contractor work resume soon, the U.S. is at the same time pursuing several contingency options.

Goldin expressed cautious optimism that the difficulties could be worked out. He stressed the amount of expertise and experience already gained from the cooperative Shuttle-MIR missions. He reminded the committee that “The Russians are going through dramatic changes, unlike anything we have ever experienced. They went from totalitarianism to democracy overnight.” Goldin remarked on the importance of trust between the countries, saying to committee members, “you’re talking to someone who used to design weapons -- so did Yuri [Koptev, Goldin’s Russian counterpart.]”

Validation within the next months of whether funds are flowing from the Russian Finance Ministry to Russian contractors will determine the course NASA takes: continue with the first two element launches as scheduled, delay those launches, or buy or build an interim module to function until the Service Module is ready.