House Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner on the International Space Station

House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) addressed the Indian Science Congress Association on January 4. His speech focused on international cooperation; selections relating to the International Space Station follow.

(Note that the first five paragraphs were provided in FYI #4 ; readers of this previous FYI may wish to start following ***********.)

“When I assumed the Chair of the Science Committee in January of 1997, I defined several guiding principles that have been applied to the Committee’s work in order to reach our goal, enabling the United States and its scientists to remain the world’s preeminent intellectual and economic leaders in the 21st Century. One of my principles is centered on the need to nurture international scientific partnerships to leverage scarce federal dollars. I am privileged to be here today at this prestigious scientific gathering, the annual meeting of the Indian Science Congress Association, to discuss the increasingly important principle of fostering international scientific partnerships.

“The increasing cost of cutting edge science requires cost sharing by international partners. Over 90 percent of the space science projects launched by NASA have international components. The International Space Station and the Large Hadron Collider could not be built by any single nation.

“The US Congress is putting emphasis on these projects. Four years ago, funding for the International Space Station was sustained in Congress by a one vote margin. Today, Congressional support for the Space Station is solid and continued funding receives support from a majority of both parties.

“International scientific cooperation is politically popular in Congress because, contrary to most foreign aid programs, it is viewed as an international investment with tangible returns for the US. Not only do international partnerships enable countries to make the most of federal resources, it allows vital knowledge to be shared in hopes that it will be used to its full potential.

“However, any agreement for international cooperation requires well-defined and enforceable terms from the outset. This is essential to maintain existing relationships and promote future projects. Without well-defined and accepted parameters, international cooperation will not succeed.”

[At this point Sensenbrenner discusses the SSC, LHC, and ITER (see FYI #4 ).]

**********

“During the last year, it was hard to miss the troubles plaguing the Russian space station, Mir. The US involvement in the Shuttle-Mir partnership is an exceptionally bad example of an international scientific agreement. It was established in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. The Shuttle-Mir partnership was arranged by the Clinton Administration to augment US-Russian foreign policy more than for the science that could be achieved.

“We cannot risk making scientific cooperation vulnerable to accusations that it is just another type of foreign aid. We must guard against creating the perception in the minds of the taxpaying public that international science is foreign aid. Foreign aid continues to be politically unpopular and linking it to funding for science will not advance our cause.

“In 1997, Mir experienced numerous computer and oxygen system breakdowns and the crash of a supply ship into one of the modules. I have requested the NASA Office of Inspector General analyze the suitability of Mir for habitation by US astronauts, the research productivity on board Mir, and the cost effectiveness of continued NASA involvement in the Mir space station program.

“The Science Committee held hearings that examined the safety issues related to the Mir space station and its role in paving the way for the International Space Station. I am concerned that our partnership with the Russian space program has made science the hand maiden of the Clinton Administration’s foreign policy goals.

“It has been reported in the American press that the Clinton Administration established the 400 million dollar Shuttle-Mir partnership to compensate Russia for lost revenue from the canceled sale of rocket technology to India in 1994. It has also been alleged that continued US support for the Russian space program is being exchanged for Russian adherence to the Missile Technology Control Regime.

“The practice of foreign policy in this manner has allowed Russia to indulge in broken promise after broken promise to the American Government without consequence to Russia. Unfortunately, there have been grave consequences for the American taxpayer and the science being conducted aboard Mir. The US government has been forced to reduce other science budgets to pay for cost overruns in the Russian space program. Our involvement aboard Mir has not provided adequate scientific returns and unnecessarily jeopardized the lives of American astronauts. I disagree with President Clinton’s Chief Science Advisor, Jack Gibbons, who offers “no apologies” for the fact that US-Russian cooperation is part of overall US foreign policy, not just space policy (Time, July 28, 1997).

“It is our responsibility to learn from the successes and mistakes that have been made in international science. I am confident that the new [science] agreement between India and the US will prove that we have learned a great deal. It is the proper step taken at the proper time. I look forward to building on this agreement in the coming year. I am confident that our partnership will be a model for the future.”