Exploring the Unknown - NASA's History Office

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 327
U.S. Government.
The proposed sale of weather satellites would not save the Government any money.
The Defense Department estimates that the sale would cost tax-payers about $800 million
more over 10 years than it would cost the Government to continue to operate them.
Congressional hearings have brought out considerable opposition to selling off the
Government’s satellites. The administration’s own private sector survey on cost control,
the Department of Defense, NASA, and other Government groups all find that there is no
advantage to commercializing the weather satellites.
My main concern about the satellite sale proposal is the effect it would have on our
farmers and ranchers, pilots, and other citizens who depend on accurate and timely
reports on the weather. The future of the present weather reporting systems would be in
doubt with the sale of our “eyes in the sky.” There are no answers to the questions about
future availability of weather information, the national security implications of selling our
satellites, or the safety implications because this idea has not had enough study. Let us
adopt this simple resolution and give the whole issue of weather satellites and Landsat
thorough study.
Mr. McGRATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes, for debate only, to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. BATEMAN).
Mr. BATEMAN Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman’s yielding this time to me.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by the distinguished
Members who preceded me who spoke in favor of the resolution and against the
proposition of commercializing our weather satellite systems.
As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ANDREWS) observed, earlier this year I offered an
amendment which was adopted and has passed both Houses of the Congress which would
have made the prior consent of the Congress as to the commercialization of the weather
satellites a condition of such a step being taken. In view of the fact that the other body has
conclusively and unanimously indicated that it is not disposed and would not consent to
any commercialization of the weather satellites, it is my feeling, which I share with the gentleman
from Texas, that private industry and the Government itself should not be put
through a frivolous exercise, with the expenditure of a great deal of money, research,
investigation, and study, all to come to absolutely naught.
For those reasons Mr. Speaker, I think this resolution is well conceived and should be
supported.
Mr. McGRATH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. NELSON), a member of the committee.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for
yielding this time to me.
I just want to say that this resolution sponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
ANDREWS) is a resolution that we should not have to be debating here. But here is constitutional
government working at its best, one branch balancing off against the other
branch. The executive branch has simply made a mistake. And they have to be brought
back onto the correct course by the congressional branch.
With security at risk, we should not be sending our weather satellites to the commercial
sector where in a time of emergency the Government may not have access to that
weather information.
So, Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge a yes vote on this resolution.
Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
delegate from Puerto Rico (Mr. CORRADA).
Mr. CORRADA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I join in voicing my strong support for House Concurrent Resolution 168
which expresses the sense of the Congress that the civil meteorological satellite system