In a letter to NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, Chairman Sensenbrenner stated that, "We believe approving such a reprogramming without significantly restructuring the relationship with our Russian partner will not achieve our mutual goal of providing the long-term stability necessary to a successful International Space Station project. We believe the arrangement with Russia as you propose will further undermine our national interest by rewarding the Russian government for failing to fulfill its obligations."

In addition, Chairman Sensenbrenner referenced the Administration's decision to place and keep Russia in the Space Station's critical path despite its promises to Congress that the United States would not be dependent on Russia. "As a result, NASA's relationship with the Russian Space Agency is creating an open-ended demand on NASA's budget, the U.S. Treasury, and the American taxpayers."

Last year, the House Science Committee unanimously adopted the bipartisan Sensenbrenner-Brown amendment to the House bill authorizing NASA's budget for fiscal year 1998 and 1999. That amendment prohibited the payment of any funds to the Russian government for the purposes of enabling the Russian Space Agency to build International Space Station components which the Russian government had pledged to provide at its own expenses. In the letter to Goldin, Chairman Sensenbrenner stated, "It would be inappropriate to a abandon a position thoroughly considered by the Committee and adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives without evidence the Administration is taking steps necessary to compel Russian performance or develop U.S. autonomy."

In addition to suggesting the Intergovernmental Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding be re-negotiated, Chairman Sensenbrenner stated that, "Should the Administration propose payments to Russia as part of a comprehensive plan ending our dependence on Russia, including a responsible budget and timeline with consequences for failures, we would view near-term payments to Russia more favorably."

A copy of the letter from Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner is attached.

The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin
Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546

Dear Mr. Goldin:

Thank you for your letter of September 29th asking the Committee to support a reprogramming of NASA funds to enable the agency to pay the Russian Space Agency $60 million to rent cosmonaut time and up to 3 cubic meters of stowage space on Russian elements.

Based on the information obtained to date, I cannot support this transfer to the Russian Space Agency and reject the reprogramming of NASA funds for this purpose. I believe approving such a reprogramming without significantly restructuring the relationship with our Russian partner will not achieve our mutual goal of providing the long-term stability necessary to a successful International Space Station project. I believe the arrangement with Russia as you propose will further undermine our national interest by rewarding the Russian government for failing to fulfill its obligations.

The Administration's decision to place and keep Russia in the Space Station's critical path, despite its promises to Congress that we would not be dependent on Russia, remains an expensive mistake to the American taxpayer. Specifically, President Clinton wrote on June 22, 1994 that "in keeping with the concerns raised by you and other members of the House and Senate, I want to assure you that the United States will maintain in-line autonomous U.S. flight and life support capability during all phases of station assembly." Clearly, those promises were not kept. As a result, NASA's relationship with the Russian Space Agency is creating an open-ended demand on NASA's budget, the U.S. treasury, and the American taxpayers.

Internal NASA documents indicate NASA plans to transfer an additional $600 million of taxpayer funds over four years to the Russian Space Agency for Russia's obligations to the Space Station. However, this amount may prove insufficient if the Russian government continues its pattern of non-performance and is unable to match those funds, as NASA assumes it will. Furthermore, the immediate development of an independent U.S. propulsion capability ? which was recommended by the independent Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force, NASA, and Congress ? will eliminate our long-term dependence on Russia when combined with a U.S. crew return vehicle. This propulsion capability is not expected to be initiated before FY2000, meaning that capability will be unavailable until FY2003, which ultimately will result in additional U.S. payments to Russia. The $60 million is supposed to be used by Russia for work on the Service Module. Even if NASA provides the Russian Space Agency with $60 million immediately, there is no guarantee that the Service Module will be launched in July 1999.

The Honorable Daniel S. Goldin
October 9, 1998
Page 2

As you know, the Science Committee unanimously adopted-and the House of Representatives endorsed-the bipartisan Sensenbrenner-Brown amendment to the House bill authorizing NASA's budget for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 last year. That amendment prohibited the payment of any funds to the Russian government for the purposes of enabling the Russian Space Agency to build International Space Station components which the Russian government had pledged to provide at its own expense. It would be inappropriate to abandon a position thoroughly considered by the Committee and adopted by the House of Representatives without evidence the Administration is taking steps necessary to compel Russian performance or develop U.S. autonomy.

Finally, if the American taxpayer is to begin picking up the costs of Russia's failures, as NASA proposes doing with this reprogramming, then it is appropriate that the balance of obligations and benefits laid out in the Intergovernmental Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding be re-negotiated to reflect the current contribution levels by the partners. In deciding to "rent" a Russian cosmonaut's time on the International Space Station instead of replacing that Russian cosmonaut with an American astronaut, NASA has failed to take this step. In addition, questions need to be raised about the wisdom of paying Russia now for cosmonaut services Russia may or may not be able to provide in the future. I also expect NASA to allow U.S. contractors to competitively bid on any outstanding goods or services previously expected to be provided by Russia but now being paid for with U.S. tax dollars.

Furthermore, your decision to request reprogramming immediately prior to Congressional adjournment and requiring approval in ten days rather than during the customary 30 days is very disturbing. Negotiations with Russia regarding the disposition of the $60 million transfer already were near completion prior to your request to Congress, indicating NASA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) likely had determined to seek reprogramming earlier. The refusal by OMB and the Department of State to appear before the Science Committee to address issues relevant to the justification for the request, beyond NASA's purview, make an informed judgment impossible. OMB's testimony to the Committee on Science only nine weeks ago indicating the White House rejecting recommendations similar to those now deemed necessary makes such testimony imperative.

Should the Administration propose payments to Russia as part of a comprehensive plan ending our dependence on Russia, including a responsible budget and timeline with consequences for failures, I would view near-term payments to Russia more favorably. In the absence of a credible, long-term solution to the systemic problems that Russia has caused for the International Space Station program and substantive steps to bring the benefits of partnership into line with contributions, I simply cannot support this reprogramming request and the transfer of $60 million to the Russian Space Agency.

Sincerely,

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.
Chairman

FJS/ers

Return to NASA Watch