This standing-room-only hearing, lasting almost three hours, was the latest in the series of International Space Station (ISS) hearings that House Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner has called this year. The focus was stated as addressing the following four issues: 1) the status of Russia's ability to meet its obligations to the ISS partnership under the Intergovernmental Agreement; 2) NASA's plan to provide the Russian Space Agency (RSA) with $660 million over the next four years to enable RSA to meet its obligations to the ISS partnership; 3) the foreign policy ramifications of Russia's failure to meet its obligations and the potential consequences of renegotiating the Intergovernmental Agreement; and, 4) the Administration's schedule for deciding how to resolve these problems. However, much of the discussion dealt with the absence of two invited witnesses, OMB Director Jacob Lew and Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, and the seeming lack of support for the ISS program by the Administration. Questions also focused on the Russians' ability to perform, even if NASA's plan to reallocate $60 million from FY98 uncosted carryover for the purchase of Russian research time and stowage goes forward. Although Chairman Sensenbrenner and Speaker Gingrich signed joint letters to Mr. Talbott and Mr. Lew indicating they could not support NASA's request unless they appeared at the hearing, approval for the purchase is expected to be forthcoming from the Appropriations Committee.

Opening Statements

Chairman Sensenbrenner opened the hearing by reminding the Committee that at the beginning of the 105^th Congressional session, Congress had given NASA the requested funds for an Interim Control Module to serve as an insurance policy against the possibility that the Service Module might be delayed past its April 1998 launch date, and that not only was the Service Module launch delayed, but the situation is worsening. He attacked the Administration for "…not hav(ing) the courtesy or the courage to be up front and honest with the American people about the cost of this bailout….It is not a mere coincidence that the Administration waited until the last and busiest week of this Congress to propose another bailout of Russia." He warned that if middle ground is not reached with the White House soon, he intends to work with other members of the Committee and the Congress in drafting legislation to introduce in the next Congress that will "put an end to this problem, one way or the other."

Ranking Minority Member Brown stated that he continues to agree to a large extent with the Chairman, but not as strongly. He also reminded the Committee that Mr. Talbott was Acting Secretary of State while Secretary Albright is on a peacekeeping mission in the Middle East and that he is devoting his attention to the developing crisis in Kosovo. He yielded to Congressman Roemer, who reiterated his arguments from previous hearings advocating canceling the ISS in order "to save NASA from itself."

Mr. Goldin began witness testimony by stating that the RSA continues to have a very difficult time fulfilling its obligations to the ISS Program, not due to technical capability or competence, but because RSA is dependent upon an unstable government in an unstable economy. However, this does not mean giving up on Russia's very valuable participation in the program, he said, and that the Program is go for launch in November and December this year. He gave an overview of the recent General Designers Review in Russia that Associate Administrator for Space Flight Joe Rothenberg and his team participated in and described NASA's contingency plans which are already underway, as well as the proposed change in the operating plan that would provide immediate funds to the RSA.

Mr. Jay Chabrow, Chairman of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force, testified that without near-term Russian participation, "the cost to assemble the ISS would easily exceed the CAV Task Force projection." Russia's failure to provide on schedule critical capabilities, including propulsion, command and control, crew habitability, and crew return, makes it apparent, he stated, that the U.S. should be developing its own capabilities. However, because a U.S. propulsion module could not be made available for three to four years, continued Russian involvement is still required, at least in the near term. Mr. Chabrow supported NASA's approach because of the negative consequences of doing otherwise. He suggested the Committee look at the past performance of the RSA and other Russian contractors when they were provided adequate levels of funding. He stated his strong concerns that NASA has not initiated the procurement of long lead items for a propulsion module, claiming that it should be one of the highest priority items in the Agency. Mr. Chabrow also pointed out that while the Russian situation is getting the most attention, there are still challenges in the U.S., specifically the U.S. Laboratory and development and production of the Crew Return Vehicle.

Professor Twigg focused her testimony on the state of the Russian Space Program, the health of its aerospace industry, and its ability to meet its obligations to the ISS program. She claimed that the events of the last decade "have produced degradation of both operational and industrial capability to the point that even a substantial infusion of new funding could not renew previous levels of activity in the short or medium term….(M)oney is a necessary but not a sufficient short-term fix." She cited two reasons for this: the departure of key scientific and technical personnel, and the ongoing decay of Russia's material infrastructure, exacerbating the problem of the basic level of technological sophistication of the Russian space industry. Professor Twigg testified that modernization programs that would make Russia competitive with other space-faring nations are scarce and frequently unsuccessful. "Russia is very close to becoming nothing but a contractor for other countries' space programs," she stated. This trend will make it increasingly difficult for Russia to meet its obligations even to paying customers, or to partners in international cooperative space endeavors.

Mr. Oberg compared the Russian space industry to top athletes who had spent the past ten years in the Gulag, having been starved, beaten, and cowed by their environment. They survived, but cannot be brought back, fed a good meal, and then expected to compete in the Olympics. The situation with the space industry is systemic, rather than due to the current economic crisis. He referred to serious attempts being made by the Russians to find funding to continue Mir, which would leave none of their meager production of support spacecraft for the ISS. Mr. Oberg claimed that the Space Station's "ducks aren't in a row and they don't stay in a row." He questioned the measurement of completion that NASA uses, stating that weight of hardware doesn't answer at what stage of development software is in, if NASA is using weight to measure completion. He stated that the Service Module development should be compared to the unsuccessful MARS-96 Probe rather than the successful FGB. He also brought photographs of the "notorious houses for the cosmonauts in Star City" that he had wanted to give to Mr. Lew, and presented them to the Committee.

Questions and Answers

Mr. Sensenbrenner opened the questioning period by referring to an internal NASA memo dated September 24, 1998 (see attached) obtained by the Committee, which states, "To cover the Russian economic situation, the Space Station Program Office is also going to provide Russia with about $660 million over the next four years. Code M management has decided that the entire fiscal year 1999 installment of $150 million will come out of the fiscal 1999 research program." Mr. Goldin responded that the $150 million per year figure was a placeholder figure developed by the NASA ISS team; it is an assessment, the final number could be more or less. The research program, he stated, is fully funded, phasing in the research facilities so that they will be delivered when the on-orbit facility resources are available. The Chairman then held up a June 22, 1994 letter from the President assuring him that the Russians would not be on the critical path, asking Mr. Goldin if he had been given White House direction to put the Russians on the critical path or if someone at NASA had made that decision. Mr. Goldin replied that he did not recall any such direction from the White House but rather NASA had presented plans and did not receive funding, and so was working with the resources available.

Congressman Roemer questioned Mr. Chabrow on the difference between the projected cost overrun at the time of the Task Force's report and today, which Mr. Chabrow stated is $23 million more a month, including the projected $660 million to $1.2 billion additional funds that will be requested in the coming four years.

Congressman Weldon reiterated his strong support for the ISS program, but remains critical of having the Russians in the critical path. He submitted for the record a Washington Times article which was based on a Center for Strategic and International Studies' report on "subsidizing the Cleptocracy," and asked if the White House was aware of the billions of dollars a month supposedly being funneled out of Russia. Mr. Goldin responded that he wasn't aware of what Mr. Talbott or Mr. Lew knew but that NASA negotiated for very specific activities and got value for its money. He said there are fifty identified milestones for the recently signed protocol; twenty of them are for the Service Module and thirty are for the Soyuz and Progress vehicles. He also described the doubling of research time and the critical stowage space NASA would receive for the $60 million, pointing out that here we get the quid pro quo that the Chairman indicated in previous hearings that he wanted to see.

Congressman Gordon and other members focused on the point at which the ISS program became too expensive and should be terminated. Mr. Goldin reminded the Committee that $40 billion had been cut out of NASA's five year budget. "I would say this Program will have to be terminated unless there is some commitment by this government that says we have to put the money into the Space Station that it needs," he declared. "If we don't get the resources that we need that outside experts have testified to, that my own NASA people have assessed, then and only then would I say let's terminate it….We have to face up to the costs that we are talking about….because we are destroying good work by terrific people." He also pointed out that some of the requested funds is not going to Russia but rather will go to U.S.-build equipment needed for a more robust station. Mr. Goldin stated that he had been given assurances by the Administration that consideration will be given to the request for these funds.

Congressman Brown suggested that "…maybe you or I, or both of us, are going to have to resign to call attention to the need for that additional … $40 billion which has been cut from the NASA budget over this period of time." The Administrator answered, "I have thought of resignation. I won't because I am committed to this Country and this Program." Mr. Brown also suggested that some members of Congress might be "a little bit happier" if they could see that the Russians were suffering the consequences of their lack of performance. Mr. Goldin answered that he believed "that when someone is in trouble you do not extract blood from them … you encourage them to perform."

Congressman Rohrabacher's questions focused on NASA's contracting arrangement with the RSA rather than going directly to Russian industry, stating that there is evidence suggesting that the Russian government is transferring rocket technology to hostile powers. Because NASA is a civil space program, the Administrator referred the broader question relating to U.S-Russian relations to the State department. The Chairman added that he reserves the right to subpoena Mr. Talbott if he consistently refuses to testify.

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, who was later seconded by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, took exception to the timing of the letters sent to Mr. Talbott and Mr. Lew, indicating that they are dated October 2^nd, and could not have been received until the day before the hearing. This, she stated, is unfair due to their extremely busy schedules. Mr. Sensenbrenner submitted for the record communications on September 28^th between his staff and theirs indicating they would be invited to testify on October 7^th. She then asked Mr. Goldin about Mr. Oberg's statement in his testimony about a "Russia Access Tax," to which the Administrator said he had no idea what was being referred to and took "personal affront on every NASA employee at the tone with which Mr. Oberg has stated" his remarks. Mr. Oberg explained that he used the term "Russia Access Tax" to describe the performance penalty paid to get into a 52 degree inclination, which was chosen so that the Russians would be able to reach it. This causes a loss of approximately twelve thousand pounds of payload each flight due to the additional fuel required, he said, "…which means that every fourth Shuttle flight to the orbit that we're building the Station in … is only required … (to make it) accessible to the Russians." "I am not insulting anyone's integrity," he claimed. "I am … criticizing the full disclosure of the bookkeeping…" since those costs are reflected in the Shuttle, not the Station, budget.

Congresswoman Morella asked specific questions about the protocol milestones for which Mr. Rothenberg was brought forward to the witness table. He testified that specific milestones have been identified and RSA has promised NASA access to the subcontractors. He acknowledged that initially funds would have to be provided before a milestone had been met, but that future funds could be delayed until those milestones had been achieved.

Congresswoman Jackson Lee focused on the capabilities of the Russians to fulfill the type of work required, which Mr. Goldin assured her they are fully capable of performing if the appropriate funding is available. She then asked Mr. Chabrow if it would be more costly to "throw the Russians aside" and try to complete the Space Station without them, to which he replied yes, it would be much more costly without them.

Congressman Brady provided an opportunity to Mr. Goldin to clarify his previous statement regarding cancellation of the Program. He replied, "The priority is not the Russian pride. The priority is not keeping Russia in the program. The priority is doing what we say we are going to do, and that is to get it built …. I was expressing frustration that as we go through this Program and identify resources we need to do the right and smart thing, given the pressures that we have on the budget, they're not available. No, I don't want to see the Space Station canceled, but as we approach the fiscal 2000 budget process, given the schedule we have to keep, given the launches we have to undertake … in some way, shape or form, we are going to have to face up to finding those monies."

The Chairman asked the witnesses to discuss other options. Professor Twigg answered that while there is a significant amount of hardware on the shelf in Russia right now that works, Russia is unable to draw on new technology or new research and development. Mr. Chabrow pointed out that nothing new would be required and that approximately twenty subcontractors have their hardware completed. "They just can't deliver it because they haven't been paid," he said.

Congressman Ehlers asked the professor to respond to the contradiction between her position and Mr. Chabrow's position. She stated that her comments are in regard to the general health of the Russian aerospace industry; she does not have access to all of the detailed information about what Russian contractors have on the shelf. Mr. Chabrow answered that there is a list of items in the Service Module citing approximately seventy percent of the testing is complete. The congressman asked Mr. Chabrow to provide that list for the record.

Congressman Lampson asked a series of questions regarding the benefits of the additional research time. Mr. Goldin explained that NASA will double the number of hours that astronauts will be available for research, as well as gaining stowage volume allowing for more efficient use of the research facilities. He also informed the Committee that NASA is anticipating adding two additional logistics flights to make the Program more robust in 1999 and is exploring the possibility of doing research on those flights. STS-107 is an additional research flight already scheduled, and others are being considered.

The hearing closed with Congressman Sensenbrenner saying he hoped future hearings on this subject would not be needed, although he reserved the right to ask additional questions.

Actions

• Regular briefings for Dr. Weldon on the Russian's success rate on the fifty milestones on the recently signed protocol.
• Regular briefings for Congresswoman Jackson Lee on the Program (invite her staff to participate in regular Committee staff briefings)
• Mr. Chabrow to provide list of item in the Service Module to Dr. Ehlers

Barbara Bernstein

NASA Privacy Statement, Disclaimer,
and Accessibility Certification