Rep. James Sensenbrenner on the International Space Station: Frustrated

House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) is not a happy man -- in his words, he is frustrated. The source of his frustration is the International Space Station, as explained in an April 23, 1998 address to the Space Transportation Association. Selections from his lengthy speech follow:

“Now let me turn to the International Space Station [ISS]. This is my first public appearance since Ms. [Eddie Bernice] Johnson [(D-TX)] and I came back from our Station oversight trip to Russia. So, I want to fill you in on where things stand with that program.

“For weeks, the media has been reporting on the growing costs and continuing delays in the ISS program. According to the most recent reports, the $17.4 billion Space Station that President Clinton redesigned in 1993--and promised to turn over to the science community in June 2002--is now nearly $7 billion over budget and won’t be finished until December 2003.

“The Science Committee has held several hearings on this problem over the years. At each hearing, the Administration adjusts the budget to make the problem seem smaller and then promises to do better in the future. Of course, the truth eventually comes out and things keep getting worse. NASA promised a new cost assessment in March, but it hasn’t arrived yet. The delay probably means that the news is bad and the Administration is trying to figure out how to spin it.

“What I find truly disturbing is that the President can find the time to hold press conferences announcing shuttle crew assignments, but the Administration has avoided proposing honest solutions to the Station’s problems. Public relations are fine, but we need more leadership. I recognize these are strong words, so let me tell you what’s behind them.”

At this point, Sensenbrenner recounts “the history of the Administration’s decision-making,” later saying, “The White House defended its decision on two grounds. It claimed participation would save the American taxpayer $2 billion.” Much later he states, “We can argue about which figures to count, but it’s clear the savings amount to empty promises.”

Sensenbrenner goes on to state, “The White House’s second reason for bringing Russia into the program was to get it to comply with the Missile Technology Control Regime.” Expressing great concern about a report of Russia “helping Iran acquire missile technology,” he declares, “Clearly, our non-proliferation goals for cooperating with the Russians in the civil space area have not been fully realized.”

“In short, decisions to bring the Russians into the critical path, to count on them to save us money, and to expect Russia to comply with its nonproliferation obligations have backfired.” Sensenbrenner then recounts U.S. and Russian compliance and noncompliance with various schedules, and efforts made by his committee. He then states:

“That brings us to today. We must get this program under control before it undermines NASA’s successes in space science, aeronautics, launch technology development and other areas of human spaceflight. That’s part of the reason Ms. Johnson and I went to Russia, to try one more time to get the Russians to honor their commitments. After our trip, President Yeltsin again committed Russia to honoring its commitments. Perhaps with the new government in place, he will be able to honor this promise.

“I have voted for the International Space Station since 1984 because I support the human exploration of space and want scientists to have the new research opportunities it presents. NASA has already used microgravity to develop drugs that reduce the complications from heart surgery, to design proteins that can mitigate the effects of the flu, and to understand the ideal structure of insulin. A research laboratory in space will increase our scientific opportunities by several orders of magnitude. I think most members of Congress who support the program understand that, which is why we’ve been able to maintain funding for the Space Station.

“But, we cannot allow the Station to become a mismanaged black hole. If you sense I’m frustrated-and I’ll bet you do-you’re right. Over the past few years, the Science Committee has outlined several steps that would have helped prevent current problems. The White House rejected every one, but offered no solutions of its own. There still may be a few areas of commercialization that we can explore to bring new resources into the program without increasing the cost to the taxpayers.

“I remain committed to doing my best to make the International Space Station a success we can all be proud of. Sometimes that means being tough on NASA. Sometimes it means putting up with a White House content with the status quo. I hope we can turn that around. We have invited Franklin Raines, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Duncan Moore, an Associate Director in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to testify before the Science Committee on May 6. We will give the White House a chance to lay its cards and any new ideas on the table. We should view their willingness to participate in the hearing and the actions they are prepared to take to resolve these problems as a test of the Administration’s commitment to our space program. With some leadership from the White House, we can put an end to these problems and move forward with the research facility that the American people deserve.”