Order Code IB92011
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
U.S. Space Programs:
Civilian, Military, and Commercial
Updated September 2, 2003
Marcia S. Smith
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
U.S. Government Civilian Space Programs
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Human Spaceflight and Space Launch Vehicles
Science Programs
Other Civilian Government Agencies
Commercial Space Programs
Military Space Programs
Interagency Coordination
International Cooperation and Competition
NASA and DOD Space Budgets
Space Program Issues
NASA Issues
Military Space Issues
Early Warning Satellites: the SBIRS/STSS Programs
Space-Based Lasers and Space-Based Kinetic Energy Weapons for Boost-Phase
Missile Defense
Antisatellite Weapons and Space Control
NRO, NIMA, and Imagery
Space-Based Radar
Developing New Space Launch Vehicles
Commercial Space and Trade Issues
International Relationships
LEGISLATION
See also:
CRS Issue Brief IB93017, Space Stations
CRS Issue Brief IB93062, Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities, Commercial
Competition, and Satellite Exports
CRS Report RS21148, Military Space Programs: Issues Concerning DOD’s SBIRS and
STSS Programs
CRS Report RS21408, NASA’s Space Shuttle Columbia: Quick Facts and Issues for
Congress
CRS Report RS21430, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Overview,
FY2004 Budget in Brief, and Issues for Congress

---

IB92011
09-02-03
U.S. Space Programs:
Civilian, Military, and Commercial
SUMMARY
The 108th Congress is addressing a broad
early warning and missile tracking satellites,
range of civilian, military, and commercial
and management of military and intelligence
space issues.
space activities generally.
The National Aeronautics and Space
The appropriate role of the government
Administration (NASA) conducts the most
in facilitating commercial space businesses is
visible space activities. NASA’s FY2004
an ongoing debate. For many years, the focus
budget request is $15.5 billion. NASA
has been on commercial space launch ser-
requested $15.0 billion for FY2003; Congress
vices, but commercial remote sensing satel-
approved $15.3 billion (adjusted for the 0.65%
lites also pose complex questions in terms of
across-the-board rescission, from which the
encouraging the development of commercial
shuttle program was exempted). The loss of
satellites that provide high quality data, while
the space shuttle Columbia on February 1,
protecting national security. President Bush
2003, is dominating debate over NASA’s
signed a new commercial remote sensing
future. The space shuttle’s primary mission for
policy on April 25, 2003 that tries to strike a
the foreseeable future is taking crews and
balance between those objectives.
cargo to and from the International Space
Station (ISS). The two programs are inextri-
Space launch vehicles are similar to
cably linked, and Congress and the Adminis-
ballistic missiles and concerns exist about the
tration face many issues, both near-term and
potential transfer of certain space technologies
long-term, about the shuttle and ISS.
to countries intending to build missiles. U.S.
linkage between space cooperation and adher-
The Department of Defense (DOD) has
ence to the Missile Technology Control Re-
a less visible but equally substantial space
gime was a significant factor in reaching
program. Tracking the DOD space budget is
agreement on cooperative and commercial
extremely difficult since space is not identi-
space activities with Russia, and creates a
fied as a separate line item in the budget.
complex relationship with China depending
DOD
sometimes
releases
only
partial
on the political relationship between China
information (omitting funding for classified
and the United States.
programs) or will suddenly release without
explanation new figures for prior years that
International cooperation and competi-
are quite different from what was previously
tion in space are affected by the world eco-
reported. The most recent figures from DOD
nomic situation and the post-Cold War politi-
show a total (classified and unclassified) space
cal climate. President Clinton’s 1993 decision
budget of $15.7 billion for FY2002, $18.4
to merge NASA’s space station program with
billion for FY2003, and a FY2004 request of
Russia’s is symbolic of the dramatic changes,
$20.4 billion.
DOD space issues include
and the risks.
management of programs to develop new
Congressional Research Service
˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB92011
09-02-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The House passed the FY2004 VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill on July 25 (H.R. 2861,
H.Rept. 108-235), adding $71 million to the Bush Administration’s request of $15.469
billion for NASA. The Committee took no action on the space shuttle and related programs
pending the release of the report on the investigation of space shuttle Columbia accident.
That report was released on August 26; a synopsis is available in CRS Report RS21606. See
CRS Report RS21408 for more on the accident and issues for Congress.
DOD is requesting $20.4 billion for space programs (classified and unclassified) for
FY2004, compared with its FY2003 appropriation of $18.4 billion. The House and Senate
passed their respective versions of the FY2004 DOD authorization bill on May 22 (H.R.
1588/S. 1050). The House passed the FY2004 DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 2658) on July
8; the Senate passed its version on July 17 (S. 1382).
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
U.S. Government Civilian Space Programs
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in
the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-568, the “NASA Act”) symbolized
the entrance of the United States into the space age. The Soviet Union had successfully
orbited the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, on October 4, 1957, lending the U.S. space
program a new urgency. The first U.S. satellite, Explorer 1 (developed and launched by the
Army), was orbited on January 31, 1958 after several failures of the Naval Research
Laboratory’s Vanguard rocket. President Eisenhower’s desire to separate military and
civilian space activities led to the “NASA Act” and the creation of the civilian NASA on
October 1, 1958, with the Department of Defense (DOD) retaining control over military
space programs.
Human Spaceflight and Space Launch Vehicles. The Soviets achieved another
space “first” on April 12, 1961, when Yuri Gagarin became the first human to orbit Earth.
The United States responded by launching Alan Shepard into space on May 5 (though he
made only a suborbital flight; the first American to orbit the earth was John Glenn in
February 1962). Following Shepard’s flight, President Kennedy announced that the United
States intended to put a man on the Moon within a decade, a goal accomplished on July 20,
1969 when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon (a total of six 2-man crews
walked on the Moon through 1972). Apollo was followed by the Skylab space station (to
which 3 crews were sent in 1973-1974) and the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in which
a U.S. Apollo spacecraft with 3 astronauts and a Soviet Soyuz spacecraft with 2 cosmonauts
docked for 2 days of joint experiments.
In 1972, President Nixon approved NASA’s space shuttle program to develop a reusable
spacecraft for taking crews and cargo into Earth orbit. The first shuttle flight occurred in
CRS-1

---

IB92011
09-02-03
1981 and the system was declared operational in 1982. The Challenger tragedy in January
1986 suspended shuttle operations for 32 months. Flights resumed in 1988, but on February
1, 2003, the space shuttle Columbia was lost during its return to Earth. An investigation
concluded that it was caused by both technical and organizational failures and made 29
recommendations (see CRS Report RS21408 and CRS Report RS21606). The space shuttle
is currently grounded. NASA hopes to resume flights in March/April 2004, but concedes
that date may slip as it responds to the recommendations. The space shuttle is NASA’s sole
means of launching humans into space. NASA, sometimes with DOD, has been attempting
since the 1980s to develop a replacement for it, expecting to phase out the shuttle in 2012.
Those programs were not successful, however, and in November 2002, NASA announced
that it would keep the shuttle operational at least until 2015, and perhaps until 2020 or
longer. What impact the Columbia tragedy will have on that decision is not yet known.
In 1984, President Reagan directed NASA to build a permanently occupied space
station “within a decade.” The space station has been very controversial since it began.
Twenty-two attempts in Congress since 1991 to terminate the program in NASA funding
bills have failed. In 1988, Europe, Canada and Japan agreed to be partners with the United
States in building the space station. Redesigned and rescheduled repeatedly, President
Clinton called for yet another redesign in 1993 and later that year merged NASA’s space
station program with Russia’s. That program, the International Space Station (ISS), is
currently underway (see CRS Issue Brief IB93017). Six major modules and other hardware
are in orbit, and the station has been permanently occupied since November 2000. From then
until May 2003, three-person crews rotated on 4-6 month shifts. Following the Columbia
accident, crew size has been reduced to two in order to reduce resupply requirements while
the shuttle fleet is grounded. Crews and cargo can be taken to the space station by Russian
Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, respectively. The Russian Soyuz spacecraft remain docked
to the station as “lifeboats,” and must be replaced every 6 months. Thus, the two-person
crews will be rotated at 6-month intervals. Although returning the shuttle to flight status is
the focus of attention currently, once it resumes service, issues surrounding the space
station’s future remain to be addressed. For example, in 2001, cost growth led the Bush
Administration to decide to truncate construction of ISS at a phase it calls “core complete.”
If that decision is maintained, ISS crew size could not increase to seven as planned, affecting
how much scientific research can be conducted there, as well reducing the number of
opportunities for astronauts from all partners in the program to be members of ISS crews.
How much of the space station to build, and how to ensure that all the partners can make full
use of it, remains to be resolved.
Science Programs. NASA has launched many spacecraft for space and earth
science. Robotic probes served as pathfinders to the Moon for astronauts, and have visited
all the planets in the solar system except Pluto; a mission to Pluto is expected to be launched
in 2006. Many of the probes have been quite successful, but there were failures, too. In
1999, for example, two NASA Mars missions failed, at a combined cost of $328.5 million.
They reflected NASA’s “faster, better, cheaper” (FBC) approach to scientific spacecraft,
replacing large, complex spacecraft that can acquire more information, but take longer and
cost more to build.
The FBC approach was subsequently scrutinized and NASA
restructured its Mars exploration program significantly. Instead of launching orbiter-lander
pairs in 2001 and 2003 and a sample-return mission in 2005, NASA launched an orbiter in
2001 (Mars Odyssey), which is now orbiting that planet together with another NASA probe
(Mars Global Surveyor) launched in 1996. Twin landers were launched in 2003 and are
CRS-2

---

IB92011
09-02-03
expected to arrive in January 2004. NASA plans to launch an orbiter in 2005 and additional
spacecraft through the remainder of the decade. Plans for a sample-return mission have been
terminated. NASA also has sent, or plans to send, spacecraft to other planets, comets, and
asteroids, including Cassini, which is enroute to Saturn (arrival expected in July 2004).
Space-based observatories in Earth orbit have studied the universe since the 1960s,
creating new fields of astronomy since space-borne telescopes can intercept wavelengths
(such as x-rays and gamma rays) that cannot penetrate Earth’s atmosphere. In the 1980s,
NASA embarked upon building four “Great Observatories” for studies in different parts of
the electromagnetic spectrum. All four have been launched: Hubble Space Telescope,
launched April 1990 (primarily for the visible wavelengths); Compton Gamma Ray
Observatory, launched April 1991, deorbited June 2000; Chandra X-Ray Observatory,
launched July 1999; and Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF), launched August 2003.
NASA also has solar-terrestrial physics programs that study the interaction between the
Sun and the Earth. In FY2001, NASA began the Living with a Star program that envisions
the launch of many spacecraft over the next decade to obtain more accurate information on
how the Earth and society are affected by what has come to be known as “space weather” —
including, for example, negative effects of solar activity on telecommunications.
The 1960s witnessed the development of communications and meteorological satellites
by NASA, and in the 1970s, land and ocean remote sensing satellites. NASA’s role in this
aspect of space utilization traditionally is R&D. Once the technology is proven, operational
responsibility is transferred to other agencies or the private sector. NASA continues to
perform research in many of these areas. NASA’s major environmental satellite research
program today is the Earth Observing System (see Environment).
NASA also has an Office for Biological and Physical Research (OBPR) that conducts
research related to ensuring that humans can live and work safely and effectively in space,
and for fundamental research that can be conducted in microgravity environments. The
space shuttle Columbia’s final mission (STS-107) was devoted in large part to OBPR
experiments. The loss of much of the data acquired during Columbia’s 16-day mission, and
the impact of that tragedy on scientific use of the space station while the shuttle fleet is
grounded, are challenges currently facing OBPR.
Other Civilian Government Agencies
Beginning in the 1960s, other civilian agencies became involved in space. At that time,
operation of weather satellites was transferred to what is now the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce. The Landsat land
remote sensing satellite system was transferred to NOAA in 1979. (Later, NOAA oversaw
private sector operation of the system, but in 1992, Congress moved the program back into
the government; see below). The Department of Commerce is involved in space issues due
to its role in trade policy and export of items on the Commerce Control List, and has an
Office of Space Commercialization to facilitate commercial space businesses. In 1983, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) was given responsibility for facilitating and regulating
commercial launch services companies. This function is performed through the Federal
Aviation Administration. DOT and DOD co-chair a group that oversees use of DOD’s
Global Positioning System of navigation satellites. DOT represents civilian users and has
CRS-3

---

IB92011
09-02-03
programs to augment the system’s utility to the civilian community. Other government
agencies involved in space include the Department of Energy, which develops nuclear power
sources for satellites; the U.S. Geological Survey in the Department of Interior which
operates the Landsat satellites; the Departments of Agriculture and other departments that
use satellite data for crop forecasting and map making, for example; and the Department of
State, which develops international space policy and determines whether to grant export
licenses for items on the Munitions List (including some types of spacecraft and launch
vehicles). The National Security Council, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, also are involved.
Commercial Space Programs
Civilian communications satellites have been chiefly a private sector activity since
passage of the 1962 Communications Satellite Act (P.L. 87-624). Attempts to commercialize
other aspects of space activities have yielded mixed success. Congress has passed several
laws to facilitate the commercialization of space launch services for putting satellites into
orbit (the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act, the 1988 Commercial Space Launch Act
Amendments, and the 1998 Commercial Space Act). The development of a U.S. commercial
launch services industry has been largely successful. DOD and NASA continue to play a
strong role in developing new launch vehicles, though private companies are partnering with
the government or developing their own. The most controversial issues are the relative roles
of the government versus the private sector in developing new systems, ensuring that U.S.
companies can compete with foreign launch services companies, and trade and missile
proliferation issues involved in exporting satellites to other countries for launch. See CRS
Issue Brief IB93062.
Congress also sought to facilitate commercialization of land remote sensing satellites
by privatizing the government’s Landsat program through the 1984 Land Remote Sensing
Commercialization Act ( P.L. 98-365). Such satellites provide imagery of the Earth that can
be used for land-use planning, environmental studies, mineral exploration, and many other
uses. After a tumultuous 8 years that saw the effort to privatize Landsat fail, Congress
repealed that Act and replaced it with the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L.
102-555), bringing Landsat back under government sponsorship. Landsat 5 and 7, built by
and operated by the government, are now in orbit (Landsat 7’s imagery is unusable at the
moment because of a technical problem). The Act also promoted development of new
systems by the private sector. Coupled with a 1994 Clinton Administration policy, these
actions led several U.S. companies to initiate programs to build remote sensing satellites and
offer imagery on a commercial basis. Those companies must obtain an operating license from
NOAA for such systems. The first successful launch of a commercial imaging satellite,
Space Imaging’s Ikonos 2, was achieved in September 1999. The market for commercial
satellite remote sensing products continues to be limited, however, and U.S. companies
reportedly are struggling to remain in business. Partially in response to that concern,
President Bush signed a new commercial remote sensing policy on April 25, 2003
[http://www.ostp.gov/html/new.html] that is intended to maintain the nation’s leadership in
remote sensing space activities and sustain and enhance the U.S. remote sensing industry.
The Bush policy encourages companies to build and operate commercial remote sensing
satellite systems that are superior to current or planned foreign systems, subject to
government regulation, and possible additional controls and safeguards if the U.S.
CRS-4

---

IB92011
09-02-03
government is a user (e.g. satellite, ground station, and communications link protection
measures to ensure the U.S. Government can rely on the systems).
Controversy over the fact that the imagery has military as well as civilian uses
complicates this commercial space effort, however.
Though not as precise as military
reconnaissance satellites, two operating U.S. private sector satellites, Ikonos 2 (owned by
Space Imaging) and QuickBird (owned by DigitalGlobe), produce imagery with 1 meter and
0.6 meter resolution (the ability to “see” an object or feature of a certain size), respectively.
Commercial satellites with even better resolution are expected.
Competitors to U.S.
commercial satellite imaging companies include French, Russian,
Indian, and Israeli
companies that offer imagery with 2.5-meter, 1-meter, 1-meter, and 1.8-meter resolution
respectively. One major issue is when the government can exercise “shutter control,”
forcing companies to discontinue obtaining or distributing imagery of certain parts of the
world in times of crisis. DOD took a different approach to controlling access to imagery
when the United States initiated attacks in Afghanistan. For two months, the National
Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) bought exclusive rights to Ikonos imagery of that
area from Space Imaging so that no one else could use the data without NIMA’s approval.
The practice was dubbed “checkbook shutter control” in the media.
Some groups
complained that the media and relief agencies need that data, too.
The government
apparently did not limit access to commercial satellite imagery during the Iraqi war. Another
issue is the government’s role in controlling to whom the imagery is sold and which
countries may invest in the U.S.-owned systems. U.S. companies want time limits on how
long the government can take to decide whether particular sales or investments will be
permitted so they can make wise business decisions. Under the 1992 Landsat Act, the
Commerce Department has 120 days to accept or reject license applications. However,
Commerce must consult with other agencies, including the Departments of State and
Defense, and those departments have no time limits. The new Bush policy states that the
government will provide a timely and responsive regulatory environment.
Special issues have arisen regarding Israel. On October 7, 1994, Senator Bingaman and
63 other Senators sent a letter to the Secretary of Commerce expressing concern that data
from Eyeglass (a U.S. system, subsequently renamed Orbview, that was to be built by Orbital
Sciences Corporation) that could be used against Israel would be made available to Saudi
Arabia, which was providing partial financing for the system and would be the location of
a ground station. The FY1997 DOD authorization bill (P.L. 104-201) prohibits collection
and release, or U.S. government declassification, of satellite imagery of Israel unless such
imagery is no more detailed or precise than what is available from commercial sources.
Potential availability of commercial imagery also has a positive side for the military,
since the U.S. military and intelligence communities could reduce costs by acquiring imagery
commercially instead of building their own systems for some purposes. The House and
Senate Intelligence Committees have strongly encouraged NIMA to purchase commercial
imagery to augment classified imagery. The January 2001 report of the Independent
Commission on NIMA (see Military Space Issues) strongly endorsed NIMA acquisition of
commercial imagery, and supported the proposal to allow private sector companies to build
satellites with half-meter resolution. The 2003 Bush policy directs the U.S. government to
utilize U.S. commercial remote sensing space capabilities, for both civil and national security
purposes, to the maximum extent practicable. Foreign commercial remote sensing space
capabilities may be used consistent with national security and foreign policy objectives.
CRS-5

---

IB92011
09-02-03
Other potential commercial space activities are microgravity materials processing
(making products such as purer pharmaceuticals by utilizing the microgravity conditions in
space), space tourism, and space facilities such as Spacehab’s modules that fly inside the
space shuttle’s cargo bay for scientific experiments or carrying cargo.
Military Space Programs
The creation of NASA was a deliberate step by President Eisenhower to separate
military and civilian space activities. Among other things, he wanted to stress that the United
States was interested in the peaceful uses of space, but recognized that space had military
applications as well. The 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act specified that military
space activities be conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD). The intelligence
community (coordinated by the Director of Central Intelligence) makes significant use of
space-based intelligence collection capabilities, and participates in managing satellite
reconnaissance programs through the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an agency
within DOD. NRO builds and operates intelligence collection satellites, and collects and
processes the resulting data. The data are provided to users such as NIMA and the National
Security Agency (NSA). The Undersecretary of the Air Force is the Director of NRO, the
Air Force acquisition executive for space, and DOD’s executive agent for space.
DOD and the intelligence community manage a broad array of space activities,
including launch vehicle development, communications satellites, navigation satellites (the
Global Positioning System — GPS), early warning satellites to alert the United States to
foreign missile launches, weather satellites, reconnaissance satellites, and developing
capabilities to protect U.S. satellite systems and to deny the use of space to adversaries
(called “space control” or “counterspace systems”). The 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War is
dubbed by some as the first “space war” because support from space displayed great
improvement over what was available during the previous major conflict, Vietnam. These
systems continue to play significant roles in U.S. military operations, including the 2003
Iraqi war and the war against terrorism.
The Bush Administration abolished U.S. Space Command (USSPACECOM) in 2002
when it reorganized the unified command structure largely in response to the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks. USSPACECOM was created in 1985 as a unified command to
oversee space operations. The Commander of USSPACECOM was also the Commander
of the U.S.-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). On October
1, 2002, a new Northern Command was created for homeland defense, and its Commander
assumed command of NORAD. USSPACECOM was merged with U.S. Strategic Command
(USSTRATCOM), which is now responsible for early warning of, and defense against,
missile attacks and long range conventional attacks. USSTRATCOM has three space
components: Army Space Command, Naval Space Command, and Space Air Force (the 14th
Air Force, headquartered at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA). Air Force Space Command
is a major Air Force command headquartered at Peterson AFB, CO.
How to organize DOD and the intelligence community to work effectively on space
matters has been an issue for several years. In three separate FY2000 funding bills, Congress
established commissions to review the NRO (in the FY2000 intelligence authorization act,
P.L. 106-120); NIMA (in the classified annex to the FY2000 DOD appropriations act, P.L.
CRS-6

---

IB92011
09-02-03
106-79); and overall U.S. national security space management and organization (in the
FY2000 DOD authorization act, P.L. 106-65). The NRO, NIMA, and “Space Commission”
reports are discussed below.
Although U.S. military and civilian space programs are separated organizationally, the
functions performed by satellites and the vehicles that launch them are not easily divided.
Both sectors use communications, navigation, weather, and remote sensing/reconnaissance
satellites, which may operate at different frequencies or have different capabilities, but have
similar technology. The same launch vehicles can be used to launch any type of military,
civilian, or commercial satellite. DOD uses some civilian satellites and vice versa. The
current Administrator of NASA, Mr. Sean O’Keefe, is a former Secretary of the Navy and
is seeking closer cooperation between DOD and NASA.
DOD and NASA both develop space launch vehicles. The Delta, Atlas, and Titan
launch vehicles were all initially developed by DOD, while NASA developed Scout and
Saturn (both no longer produced), and the space shuttle. All except the shuttle are
“expendable launch vehicles” (ELVs) that can only be used once (the shuttle is reusable).
An August 1994 Clinton Administration policy gave DOD responsibility for maintaining and
upgrading the ELV fleet, while NASA maintains the shuttle and develops new reusable
launch technology. Some expect that a space policy review now being conducted by the
National Security Council (see below) will modify that policy so that each agency can invest
in developing new expendable and reusable launch technologies.
After the Cold War ended, DOD and congressional interest in space weapons, both
those to attack other satellites (antisatellite, or ASAT, weapons) and weapons based in space
to attack ballistic missiles, declined initially, but was rekindled beginning with the 104th
Congress. Using satellites to attack ballistic missiles has been controversial since President
Reagan’s 1983 announcement of a Strategic Defense Initiative to study the viability of
building a ballistic missile defense system to protect the United States and its allies. The
Clinton Administration changed the name of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization
to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) to reflect a new focus on theater
missile defense in the wake of the Persian Gulf War, rather than national missile defense.
The Bush Administration changed the name to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to reflect
its interest in broad missile defense goals (see CRS Report RL31111). The concept of
placing weapons in space as part of a missile defense system remains controversial. Whether
missile defense weapons ultimately are based in space or on the ground, a missile defense
system would require satellites for early warning, communications, and other functions.
CRS-7

---

IB92011
09-02-03
Interagency Coordination
Several mechanisms have been tried since 1958 to coordinate interagency space policy.
Dissatisfied with the Reagan Administration’s approach of using a Senior Interagency Group
(SIG/Space) under the National Security Council (NSC), in the FY1989 NASA authorization
act (P.L. 100-685), Congress re-created the National Space Council. The original council,
which included aeronautics, was created in the 1958 Space Act, and abolished by President
Nixon in 1973. Under President George H. W. Bush, the Space Council was headed by Vice
President Quayle. President Clinton decided to merge the Space Council functions into a
National Science and Technology Council, administered through the Office of Science and
Technology Policy. It oversaw civil and commercial space policy; while military space
activities were overseen by the National Security Council. The Space Council still exists in
law, but it is not staffed or funded. Some space advocates hoped President George W. Bush
would reactivate the Space Council, but a mechanism called a Policy Coordinating
Committee under the National Security Council (similar to SIG/Space) was chosen instead.
On July 28, 2002, in NSPD-15, President Bush directed the NSC to chair a review of
national space policies.
The first, on commercial remote sensing, was signed April 25,
2003. Two others, on launch vehicles and overall national space policy, are pending.
International Cooperation and Competition
Virtually every country in the world uses satellites for communications and obtaining
weather data, but the usual measure of whether a country is a member of the “space-faring”
club is its ability to launch satellites. By that criterion, Russia, the United States, China,
Japan, India, Israel, Ukraine, and the European Space Agency (ESA) are members. ESA
developed the Ariane launch vehicle; Ariane launches are conducted by the French company
Arianespace. These countries, including many of the individual members of ESA, present
opportunities for cooperation in space, as well as competition. The 15 members of ESA are
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.
The NASA Act specifically states that NASA may conduct international space
activities. Most NASA programs today have an international component. One of the major
cooperative projects today is the space station (see CRS Issue Brief IB93017). European
countries, both individually and through ESA, Canada, and Japan, in particular, have
participated in many cooperative space programs with NASA. They also compete with U.S.
companies in some space areas. Europe, India, Ukraine, and Russia compete in launch
services for placing satellites into orbit. France, Russia, India and Israel compete in satellite
remote sensing, and Europe competes in communications satellite manufacturing.
Cooperation and competition between the United States and the former Soviet Union
attracted much attention. Competition with the Soviet Union was measured less in economic
terms than in prestige and national defense. The main area of competition today seems to
be on the economic front, although Russian and Ukrainian companies have joint ventures
with U.S. firms to provide launch services, so economic cooperation also exists.
CRS-8

---

IB92011
09-02-03
NASA and DOD Space Budgets
The majority of U.S. government space funding goes to NASA and DOD. This table
shows NASA and DOD space funding, but must be used cautiously. Tracking the DOD space
budget is difficult since space is not specifically identified as a line item in the DOD budget.
OMB and GAO provided CRS with DOD space funding figures through FY1995 including
funding for both unclassified and classified DOD space programs. However, in 1996, the
Director of Central Intelligence decided for the first time to classify the NRO funding figure
so total figures for DOD space spending were not available for more than a year. In the
summer of 1997, the
Administration finally
NASA/DOD Space Funding
released a number for
In Billions of Unadjusted Dollars
the total DOD FY1996
30
)
space
budget,
$11.5
billion, but at the same
25
)
)
)
time revised numbers
)
20
downward for FY1992-
) )
)
'
)
1 9 9 5
w i t h o u t
)
)
15
)
) )
' ' )' '
)
' ' '
)
)
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
explanation. This table
'
) ) ) ) )
10
)
' '
)
uses data in the FY2000
)
'
) ' ' ' '
Aeronautics and Space
5
' ' ' ' '
)
'
' '
)
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Report of the President
'
)' )' )' ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0
(released in 2002), with
59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07
additional
data
from
' NASA ) DOD
N A S A ’ s
F Y 2 0 0 4
b u d g e t
e s t i m a t e
Does not include Transition Quarter. See text for other notes.
(including
out-year
projections), and from DOD for FY2000-2003 DOD space spending figures and out-year
projections. DOD’s space budget for FY2002 was $15.7 billion, for FY2003 is $18.4 billion,
and the FY2004 request is $20.4 billion. NASA received $14.9 billion in FY2002; $15.3
billion in FY2003; and the FY2004 request is $15.5 billion. All NASA figures include
aeronautics funding ($400 million-$1 billion annually in recent years).
Space Program Issues
NASA Issues
The space shuttle Columbia accident on February 1, 2003 undoubtedly will be the focus
of attention at NASA for some time. Apart from the human tragedy, there are practical
aspects of grounding the shuttle fleet that affect the space station and the Hubble Space
Telescope programs. The shuttle is used to service Hubble (the next servicing mission was
scheduled for 2004), and takes crews and cargo to and from the International Space Station
(ISS), which is under construction in orbit. The Columbia tragedy and questions arising from
it are discussed in CRS Report RS21408, CRS Issue Brief IB93017, and CRS Issue Brief
IB93062, and will not be repeated here. The key question from a NASA-wide standpoint is
what impact the Columbia tragedy may have on the agency, and on the space program
overall, as the public and policy makers debate the benefits of human space exploration
CRS-9

---

IB92011
09-02-03
versus its risks and costs. Some may argue that more emphasis should be placed on robotic
exploration instead of risking human lives, while others may view the tragedy as the time to
recommit to the vision of human space exploration as humanity’s destiny.
NASA conducts many other activities separate from human spaceflight, and issues may
arise with some of those programs, too. For example, NASA is requesting $279 million in
FY2004 for Project Prometheus, which is the combination of NASA’s Nuclear System
Initiative (NSI) and a Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO). The 5-year (FY2004-2008) budget
projection for Project Prometheus is $3 billion. NASA estimates that JIMO would be
launched in 2012 to 2013, and the total estimated program cost through 2012 is $8-9 billion,
although NASA stresses that the estimate is very preliminary. The NSI portion of Project
Prometheus was approved in the FY2003 budget, and will develop space nuclear power and
propulsion for planetary spacecraft. JIMO, a new request in the FY2004 budget, is a
spacecraft designed to successively orbit three of Jupiter’s moons (Europa, Callisto, and
Ganymede) to determine if liquid water is present beneath their surfaces. Water is essential
to life, and the discovery of liquid water would suggest the possibility of life. NASA had
been planning a mission to Europa, which was supported by the planetary science community
and Congress. In the FY2003 budget, however, NASA canceled the Europa mission because
it was too expensive. The decision to initiate an even more expensive mission may raise
questions. Congress did appropriate $20 million for JIMO in the FY2003 Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7), however, even though NASA did not request
funding for it in FY2003. Congress approved NASA’s request to initiate the NSI, but cut
$19 million from the $125 million request. The House approved full funding for Project
Prometheus in the FY2004 VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill (H.R. 2861). It should be noted
that in the FY2004 budget, NASA moved to “full cost accounting” where personnel and
facilities costs are included in program budgets, instead of being accounted for separately,
as in the past. Thus, FY2003 (and prior) budget figures are not directly comparable to
FY2004 figures. See CRS Report RL31821 for a discussion of full cost accounting and other
changes in NASA’s budget structure in FY2004.
In addition to programmatic issues, NASA also is seeking to address human capital
challenges stemming from its aging workforce. Human capital is a government-wide issue
addressed in the President’s Management Agenda, and NASA is seeking legislation that will
provide the agency with more flexibility in hiring and retaining workers. H.R. 1085
(Boehlert) and S. 610 (Voinovich) address NASA specifically. H.R. 1836 (Davis) addresses
NASA, DOD, and the Security and Exchange Commission. See CRS Report RL31991 for
a comparison of those bills.
Military Space Issues
During the Clinton Administration, questions arose about whether DOD was effectively
managing its space activities. Congress created a commission in the FY2000 DOD
authorization bill to make recommendations on the overall management of national security
space programs. Chaired by Donald Rumsfeld, the Commission released its report on
January 11, 2001, shortly after Mr. Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense. The Rumsfeld
Commission (or “Space Commission”) made sweeping recommendations for management
of DOD and intelligence community space programs (see CRS Report RS20824 for a
synopsis). Some observers believed that implementation of the recommendations was
moving slowly. GAO has issued two reports (GAO-02-772, June 2002; GAO-03-379, April
CRS-10

---

IB92011
09-02-03
2003) summarizing the status of implementation of those recommendations. According to
GAO, DOD intends to implement 10 of the 13 Rumsfeld Space Commission organizational
recommendations, and by April 2003, nine had been implemented. GAO added that is too
early to assess the results of the organizational changes.
Meanwhile, DOD’s space budget is growing significantly — from $15.7 billion in
FY2002, to a FY2004 request of $20.4 billion, to a projected $28.6 billion in FY2008. Some
of that will be needed to address increased funding requirements for existing DOD space
programs that are encountering technical and schedule challengers — such as the Space
Based Infrared System and the Space Tracking and Surveillance System discussed below —
but if the anticipated increases are realized, new initiatives could be supported as well.
Early Warning Satellites: the SBIRS/STSS Programs. Among the most
prominent DOD space programs are efforts to develop new early warning satellites (see CRS
Report RS21148). Briefly, DOD is attempting to develop more capable satellites to provide
early warning of foreign missile launches, and to support missile defense objectives. The
Space Based InfraRed System (SBIRS) was proposed and approved in the FY1996 DOD
budget. It evolved to envision satellites in both high orbits and low orbits. The high orbit
system, SBIRS-High, is managed by the Air Force, and would replace existing Defense
Support Program satellites, with the primary goal of detecting missiles when they are
launched. The low orbit system was called SBIRS-Low, but was renamed the Space
Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) in 2002. It is managed by the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA), and would track missiles from launch to intercept or reentry; track warheads
deployed from the missiles; discriminate between warheads and decoys; and pass data to
other systems that would attempt to intercept and destroy the missiles or warheads.
SBIRS-High and STSS have each encountered technical challenges, schedule delays,
and cost increases. Congress has expressed concern about the programs for several years,
and in the FY2002 DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117), reduced funding for both. Both
programs were restructured during the FY2003 budget process. F o r S B I R S - H i g h , i n
FY2003 Congress cut $30 million from the $815 million requested (an 85% increase over
FY2002 funding) in the FY2003 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 107-248). The FY2003 DOD
authorization act (P.L. 107-314) cut it by $40 million. For SBIRS-Low, the FY2003 DOD
appropriations act (P.L. 107-248) and authorization act (P.L. 107-314) approved the full
$294 million requested.
For FY2004, DOD is requesting $617 million for SBIRS-High research and
development, plus $95 million for procurement of a backup mission control station. For
STSS (formerly SBIRS-Low), DOD is requesting $300 million, but is also requesting
funding to assess ground- and sea-based alternatives to it.
In the FY2004 DOD
authorization bill (H.R. 1588/S. 1050), the House added $15 million for SBIRS-High
RDT&E, and approved the requested funding for STSS; the Senate approved the SBIRS-
High funding, but cut STSS by $15.5 million because of “unjustified” growth in program
management costs. The House (H.R. 2658) fully funded SBIRS-High and STSS; the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended (S. 1382, S. Rept., 108-87) full funding for
SBIRS-High, and a cut of $15.5 million for STSS.
Space-Based Lasers and Space-Based Kinetic Energy Weapons for
Boost-Phase Missile Defense.
Space-based lasers (SBL) and space-based kinetic
CRS-11

---

IB92011
09-02-03
energy (KE) “hit-to-kill”weapons have been of interest in the context of missile defense since
President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) program in 1983.
Conceptually, these weapons would be able to attack missiles while they are still in their
boost phase (from launch until burnout), prior to when warheads or decoys are deployed.
Funding for research on SBL has waxed and waned over the years. From 1995-2001,
Congress added funds to the DOD request for SBL ($50 million in FY1996, $70 million in
FY1997, $98 million in FY1998, and $74 million in FY1999). Congress directed DOD in
the FY1999 DOD authorization conference report to release promptly a request for proposals
(RFP) for a space based laser readiness demonstrator, but the Air Force Scientific Advisory
Board concluded that technology was not sufficiently advanced to proceed with it. A
Boeing-Lockheed Martin-TRW team jointly began work on the demonstrator, called the
Integrated Flight Experiment (IFX), and Congress approved $148.8 million for FY2000, and
$148 million for FY2001.
In FY2002, SBL was transferred from the Air Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO, now the Missile Defense Agency). BMDO requested $165 million
for IFX, plus $5 million for SBL optics, but Congress cut $120 million in the FY2002 DOD
appropriations act (P.L. 107-117), effectively killing IFX. Funding for technology work
continued in FY2002 and FY2003 ($49 million and $25 million respectively). In the
FY2004 budget, SBL work has been folded into the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA’s)
technology budget and is not identified separately.
The FY2002 budget also included funds for BMDO to resume work on space-based
kinetic energy (KE) weapons: $5 million for experiment design and $15 million for concept
definition.
The FY2002 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 107-117) cut $10 million. The
FY2003 request was $54 million, which was approved in the FY2003 DOD appropriations
act (P.L. 107-248), but cut by $21.3 million in the authorization act (P.L. 107-314).
In
FY2004, the space-based KE interceptor effort has been folded into the overall BMD
interceptors line and is not identified separately.
Antisatellite Weapons and Space Control. DOD has a long standing interest in
developing capabilities to protect U.S. satellite systems and to deny the use of space to
adversaries. For many years, antisatellite (ASAT) weapons designed to attack other satellites
in orbit were viewed as the primary means for denying the use of space to adversaries. More
recently, the term “space control” has come into use. Although ASATs are one means of
space control, the latter term includes other methods of denying the use of space to
adversaries, such as jamming satellite command links, or destroying ground control and
launch infrastructure.
One disadvantage of ASAT weapons is that they may create debris
that could damage other satellites. In 2001, the Commander in Chief of U.S. Space
Command expressed reservations about using “kinetic energy” ASATs because of the
collateral damage that could be inflicted on U.S. government and commercial satellites
(Aerospace Daily, March 29, 2001).
An Air Force ASAT development program, using F-15 based interceptors, was
terminated in the 1980s because of limitations set by Congress on testing the system. An
Army ground-based kinetic-energy ASAT (KEAsat) program was later initiated, but was
terminated by the Clinton Administration in 1993 ( although technology studies continued).
DOD has not requested KEAsat funding since then, focusing instead on other space control
CRS-12

---

IB92011
09-02-03
methods. Congress has supported DOD budget requests for space control technology
funding, but also revived the KEAsat program in FY1996, adding $30 million that year, $50
million in FY1997, $37.5 million in FY1998, $7.5 million in FY2000, and $3 million in
FY2001. None was added in FY2002 or FY2003, but in its report on the FY2004 DOD
authorization bill (S. 1050), the Senate Armed Service Committee recommended adding $4
million to the funding requested for space control in order to assess and evaluate KEAsat
technologies as part of a space control architecture, and to develop space control technologies
that leverage KEAsat capabilities and the investments already made in KEAsat. In the
FY2004 DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 2658/S. 1382), the House added, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended adding, $7.5 million for KEAsat under the ballistic
missile defense technology line item in the defense-wide R&D budget.
Funding for space control continues. In FY1999, Congress added $15 million for space
control, and allowed some of the $37.5 million allocated to KEAsat to be spent on space
control.
Congress added $3 million to the $9.8 million requested for space control
technology for FY2002; approved the $9.7 million requested for FY2001; approved $32.3
million of the $33 million requested for FY2002; and approved DOD’s FY2003 request for
space control technology of $13.8 million, as well as $40 million for a new “counterspace
systems” line item. Counterspace systems support transition of some space control activities
into the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. The FY2004 request for
space control is $14.7 million, and for counterspace systems is $82.6 million. As noted
above, in the FY2004 DOD Authorization bill (H.R. 1588/S. 1050), the Senate increased the
$14.7 million by $4 million, while the House approved the requested funding level. In the
FY2004 DOD appropriations bill (H.R. 2658/S. 1382), the House approved, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended approving, the requested amounts.
NRO, NIMA, and Imagery. Another aspect of national security space activities
involves the NRO.
Revelations beginning in September 1995 about poor financial
management at NRO led to a review by a panel chaired by retired Admiral David Jeremiah.
The 1997 Jeremiah report made 47 recommendations. Some were adopted while others were
referred for further study. In response to continuing concerns, the FY2000 intelligence
authorization act (P.L. 106-120) established a National Commission on the Review of the
National Reconnaissance Office. That Commission’s November 2000 report found that
NRO requires the personal attention of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the
Director of Central Intelligence and must remain a strong, separate activity focused on
innovation. The Commission warned that without such support, significant intelligence
failures could result.
In the late 1990s, recognizing that future budgets could be constrained, NRO adopted
the Future Imagery Architecture (FIA) plan calling for developing more, smaller, less
expensive intelligence collection satellites.
In the conference report on the FY2003
intelligence authorization bill (H.Rept. 107-789), Congress expressed deep concern about
the FIA, saying that technical and funding problems could force “untenable trades between
critical future capabilities and legacy systems.”
In its report on the FY2004 DOD
authorization bill (S. 1050), SASC added $14 million to accelerate “tasking, processing,
exploitation, and dissemination” (TPED) components of the FIA to support tactical and
operational users. DOD and the intelligence community are augmenting the data provided
by NRO systems with commercial imagery (discussed earlier). According to press reports,
for FY2003, Congress increased the budget available to NIMA for purchase of commercial
CRS-13

---

IB92011
09-02-03
imagery by 13 times (dollar figures were not released). The new Bush Administration policy
on commercial remote sensing directs governments agencies to use commercial imagery to
the maximum extent possible.
Space-Based Radar. The FY2001 DOD appropriations
(P.L. 106-259) and
authorization (P.L. 106-398) acts terminated the Air Force-NRO-Army Discoverer II
program that was to involve the launch of two satellites to demonstrate the ability of radar
satellites to track mobile (as opposed to fixed) targets on the ground. Instead, $30 million
was provided to NRO to develop and mature technologies for such a purpose. Concerns
included whether technology was sufficiently mature; the potential cost of an operational
system (the House Appropriations Committee estimated it at $25 billion); and whether DOD
could use all the resulting data. For FY2002, Congress appropriated $25 million for space-
based radar development instead of the $50 million requested. For FY2003, it approved the
$48 million requested in the Air Force RDT&E account, but did not approve another $43
million requested in the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF). The FY2004 request
is $274 million. In the FY2004 DOD authorization bill (H.R. 1588/S. 1050), the Senate
approved the requested funding and directed DOD to assess the contribution SBR could
make to missile defense; the House approved the requested funding level. In the FY2004
DOD appropriations bill, the House (H.R. 2658) cut this program by $100 million, and said
the remaining funds could be used only for technology maturation and risk reduction. The
Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 1382) recommended a cut of $75 million.
Developing New Space Launch Vehicles
Government and private sector launch vehicles are discussed in CRS Issue Brief
IB93062. Briefly, a 1994 Clinton Administration policy directive gave NASA primary
responsibility for maintaining the reusable space shuttle and developing new reusable launch
vehicles (RLVs), while DOD is responsible for expendable launch vehicles (ELVs). Private
sector companies also are developing new launch vehicles on their own or in partnership
with the government. U.S. government satellites must be launched on U.S. launch vehicles
unless the President grants a waiver. Government and commercial customers in the United
States and commercial customers abroad purchase launch services from launch service
companies in the United States, Europe, Russia, China, Ukraine, or India.
NASA has been attempting since the 1980s to develop a new RLV to replace the space
shuttle that would cost less and have improved safety. Several programs were started and
later abandoned. The most recent program is the Space Launch Initiative (SLI). Initially,
SLI was designed to fund several companies to develop new RLV technologies, leading to
a 2006 decision on what new vehicle to build that would be safer and more cost effective.
In November 2002, NASA refocused the SLI program on developing an Orbital Space Plane
(OS)P, and investing in technologies that would lead to a decision in 2009 on what new
launch vehicle to build. OSP is not a launch vehicle, but a spacecraft to take crews to and
from the space station. It will be launched using an existing ELV, not a new RLV. See CRS
Issue Brief IB93017 for more on OSP, and CRS Issue Brief 93062 for more on the
technology development effort, called NGLT. NASA also announced that it would fund
upgrades to the space shuttle to ensure it can safely operate until at least 2015 and perhaps
2020 and beyond, instead of phasing out the shuttle in 2012 as earlier planned. Whether that
will be impacted by the space shuttle Columbia accident or not is unclear at this time. The
shuttle is discussed in CRS Issue Brief IB93062.
CRS-14

---

IB92011
09-02-03
DOD pursued the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program to upgrade
U.S. expendable launch vehicles to reduce launch costs by at least 25%. Lockheed Martin
and Boeing each built EELVs—the Atlas V and the Delta IV, both of which have now
successfully launched satellites. The companies and DOD shared the development costs,
although the companies now are seeking to recoup some of their expenses from DOD in the
wake of a downturn in the forecast for commercial launch services that had been expected
to be a source of revenue. DOD is supportive of industry’s position, asserting that by
ensuring the health of both companies, it will have “assured access to space” should technical
problems arise with one of the vehicles. Of its $609 million request for EELV procurement
in FY2004, $157 million is for assured access. In the FY2004 DOD authorization bill (H.R.
1588/S. 1050), the House approved the requested funding level; the Senate fully supported
this philosophy, and added another $60 million. In the FY2004 DOD appropriations bill
(H.R. 2658), the House Appropriations Committee approved the requested funding.
Several private companies are attempting to develop their own launch vehicles,
although market conditions make it difficult to raise financing. Title IX of the FY2003 DOD
appropriations act (P.L. 107-248) created a loan guarantee program for companies
developing in-orbit space transportation systems that could move satellites from one orbit
to another (but not launch them from Earth into orbit).
Commercial Space and Trade Issues
Commercial space launch issues are discussed in CRS Issue Brief IB93062. Briefly,
the role of the government in encouraging the growth of commercial space businesses either
by direct or indirect subsidies, or policies that help stave off foreign competitors, continues
to be debated. Some argue that the government provides indirect subsidies to launch services
companies by allowing them to use government launch sites at nominal costs and providing
a guaranteed market for a certain number of launches. Others insist that the U.S. government
is doing no more than foreign governments.
The main competitors to U.S. companies today are Europe, China, Russia, and Ukraine
(Ukraine’s Zenit launch vehicle is used for the international Sea Launch joint venture that
also includes Boeing, Russia’s Energia, and Norway’s Kvaerner). Most of the satellites that
require launches are built in the United States or contain U.S. components, meaning export
licenses are required to ship them to the launch site. Thus, the United States has substantial
leverage over the success of these competitors in offering launch services.
Bilateral
agreements were signed with China, Russia, and Ukraine setting forth the conditions under
which they offer launch services, both the price they can charge compared to Western prices
and setting quotas on the number of launches. The quotas have since been eliminated for
Russia and Ukraine, and the agreement with China expired at the end of 2001. Concerns
that China acquired militarily useful information by launching U.S.-built satellites resulted
in new U.S. laws and regulations to ensure such technology or information is not transferred
to China or other countries. Aerospace industry representatives argue the new regulations
are hurting U.S. satellite manufacturing companies because customers may chose non-U.S.
companies to build satellites rather than deal with U.S. export laws. (See CRS Issue Brief
IB93062.) As discussed, another commercial space issue concerns the sale of commercial
remote sensing data with very good resolution. At issue is how to allow U.S. companies to
compete in this market without sacrificing national security interests.
CRS-15

---

IB92011
09-02-03
International Relationships
The shifting world political situation has allowed new relationships to evolve in
international space cooperation. Increased cooperation is the result not only of changed
political circumstances, but also of constrained budgets throughout the world. All the major
space-faring countries are questioning how much they should invest in space. The same
budget constraints may preclude the initiation of new programs if a critical mass of funding
is not available.
LEGISLATION
H.R. 1085 (Boehlert)
NASA Flexibility Act. H.R. 1085 (NASA Flexibility Act) introduced March 5, 2003;
referred to Committees on Science and Government Reform. Reported, amended, from
House Science Committee Aug. 4 (H.Rept. 108-244, Part 1). Discharged from Government
Reform Committee Aug. 4.
H.R. 1588 (Hunter)
FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act. H.R. 1588 reported from House Armed
Services Committee May 16 (H.Rept. 108-106). S. 1050 reported from Senate Armed
Services Committee May 13 (S.Rept. 108-46). Passed House and Senate on May 22, 2003.
Senate incorporated text of S. 1050 into H.R. 1588 on June 4. Conferees have met.
H.R. 1836 (Davis)
Civil Service and National Security Personnel Improvement Act. Introduced April 29,
2003. Referred to House Government Reform, Armed Services, Science, and Ways and
Means committees. Reported from House Government Reform Committee May 19, 2003
(H.Rept. 108-116, Pt. I). Discharged from other three committees July 25.
H.R. 2658 (Lewis)/S. 1382 (Stevens)
FY2004 DOD appropriations act. H.R. 2658 reported from House Appropriations
Committee July 2 (H.Rept. 108-187); passed House July 8. S. 1382 reported from Senate
Appropriations Committee July 9 (S.Rept. 108-87), passed Senate July 17.
H.R. 2861 (Walsh)
FY2004 VA-HUD-IA appropriations act (includes NASA). Reported from House
Appropriations Committee July 24 (H.Rept. 108-235); passed House July 25.
S. 610 (Voinovich)
NASA WorkForce Flexibility Act.
Reported (amended) from Committee on
Governmental Affairs July 28 (S.Rept. 108-113).
CRS-16

---