[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 18, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION FATALLY FLAWED

                                 ______


                            HON. TIM ROEMER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 18, 1994

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, the proposed joint U.S./Russian space 
station effort is a phoenix rising from the ashes of the recent, failed 
U.S. space station redesign effort. Early this year, the President 
asked NASA to prepare three options for a replacement for space station 
Freedom, to cost $5 billion, $7 billion, and $9 billion respectively. 
The result were five, not three options, dubbed A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2, and 
C.
  These options, in turn, evolved into space station Alpha, an amalgam 
of these five versions and the original Freedom. The pricetag: about 
$19.5 billion. NASA has publicly stated that the two countries did not 
have the resources to keep two space station programs going. 
Presumably, this is an admission that NASA knows we cannot go forward 
with a space station alone.
  But this proposal to turn to the Russians for help is fraught with 
peril. The events in Russia of last October, and the alarming 
demonstrations of ardent nationalism since, clearly demonstrate that 
the political instability in Russia could threaten the program. There 
remains great skepticism that the Russian launch facility, in the 
country of Kazakhstan, can be maintained in good working order without 
tens or even hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars. In fact, this 
facility known as the Baikinour Cosmodrome, is located in Lenisk, a 
crumbling city with no real resources.
  Mr. Speaker, far too many other questions remain unanswered. NASA has 
yet to determine or release any accurate cost figures for this program, 
but continues to offer robust assurances that it will save money. NASA 
has yet to provide any public information on a dollar value of the 
Russian contribution, how much cash, hardware and services the United 
States will be required to give the Russians, and how many U.S. jobs 
will go to Russian citizens.
  In fact, there are far too many questions that require good answers 
for the United States to be comfortable in signing any lasting 
agreements. The issue of control over the space station remains 
paramount. NASA has offered only assurances that the United States can 
control the proposed space station while it is largely a Russian 
project, but no scientific proof. U.S. citizens are not going to 
support building a space station largely with U.S. dollars that the 
Russians control. And make no mistake, the Russians continue to insist 
that they control the station.
  I am all for working with our former adversaries, and sharing our 
knowledge of important scientific issues, aiding Russian democracy and 
providing economic leadership skills. But NASA is not the place for a 
massive foreign aid program to Russia. Furthermore, according to a 
recent New York Times article, the Russians are quickly moving away 
from big government space programs and toward smaller private programs 
involving communications, satellites, earth imaging, and commercial 
launches.
  The United States and Russian space agencies have taken two large, 
difficult and complex space station programs, both of which cost huge 
amounts of money, neither which produces affordable quality science, 
and proposed to merge them, thereby making them even more complex and 
riskier without increasing the promise of success or results.
  The space station program has been through at least seven revisions, 
and yet sees no improvement. Yet the costs continue to increase, the 
unanswered questions continue to mount, and the promise has long since 
died.
  I am today introducing legislation to end the space station program. 
In my view, such a measure is the only way we can save our space 
leadership role, a vital and healthy space program, and restore NASA's 
role as a leading agency of new and useful technologies. I urge my 
colleagues to cosponsor and support this legislation.
  It is time to end this program before it deflates NASA and America's 
space mission. There would be no shame in admitting problems and going 
back to the drawing board to define a new and better role for manned 
space missions. Pushing forward is an affront to the taxpayers and to 
good science. The choice is clearer than ever.

                                H.R. --

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the International Space Station Alpha program is 
     neither necessary nor affordable to the United States at this 
     time:
       (2) the presence of this ``mega-project'' is causing 
     schedule delays, funding cuts, cost-overruns, and 
     cancellation of other, worthier National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration programs;
       (3) the cancellation of the International Space Station 
     Alpha program will require a number of close-down costs in 
     order to end production and buy out certain contracts;
       (4) current political turmoil in Russia, which is very 
     likely to continue into the foreseeable future, creates grave 
     doubts about the suitability of building a joint project 
     costing tens of billions of dollars to the United States;
       (5) Russian insistence on continuing some control over the 
     space station components is unacceptable to this country; and
       (6) in the absence of the International Space Station Alpha 
     program, billions of dollars in Federal obligations will be 
     available for other National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration projects.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF PROGRAM.

       No Federal funds may be appropriated or obligated for the 
     International Space Station Alpha program, except for funds 
     necessary to terminate such program.

     SEC. 3. REDIRECTION OF AMOUNTS SAVED.

       The amounts appropriated for the Space Station before the 
     date of enactment of this Act are authorized to be 
     appropriated for expenses necessary for the termination of 
     the program, and the remainder are authorized to be 
     appropriated to proportionately increase the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration budget for--
       (1) civil aviation programs, to ensure that the United 
     States can continue to compete in and lead international 
     markets for the development and production of aircraft, 
     meeting the challenge posed by such competitors as the Airbus 
     consortium;
       (2) other space science, research, and education programs 
     which can further build on the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration successes and economic contributions of the 
     past; and
       (3) other such purposes and programs within the mission of 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
       Pursuant to Clause 4 of the rule XXII of the rules of the 
     House of Representatives, the following sponsors are hereby 
     added to H.R. --. Mr. Zimmer, Mr. Penny, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Klein, Mr. Upton, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. 
     Sanders, and Mr. Mann.

                          ____________________