[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 81 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 SPACE STATION--A FINANCIAL BLACK HOLE

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, it has been claimed by the administration 
that Russian participation in the space station is going to save 
approximately $2 billion. The General Accounting Office, at my request, 
looked into the accuracy of the estimates of the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration [NASA] that expanded Russian participation in 
the station would save us the $2 billion figure.
  The findings of GAO underscore, once again, the need to terminate 
this project. I think the space station is a financial black hole. NASA 
is trying to salvage a project by asserting savings from Russian 
participation, but NASA's own figures do not support the claims. The 
space station is a loser, and the American taxpayers will lose even 
more if we have to continue to foot this bill.
  NASA has already spent $10.5 billion on the space station, which is 
estimated to cost a total of $118 billion to build and to operate. Last 
November 1, NASA and the Russian space agency formally agreed on a plan 
to bring Russia into the program. The GAO has said that NASA's $2 
billion claimed savings from this expanded Russian participation will 
be largely offset by an estimated $1.4 billion that would be spent from 
other portions of NASA's budget as a result of the Russian involvement.
  When all the space station-related elements are considered, according 
to GAO,

       Current estimates would indicate that much of the savings 
     NASA attributes to expanded Russian participation will not be 
     achieved. And furthermore,
  I am quoting from GAO:

     if only part of NASA's estimated $2 billion in savings is 
     attributable to Russian participation, it is possible that 
     expanded Russian involvement could result in little or no net 
     savings.

  The GAO has cited a number of additional costs that will result from 
Russian participation that NASA left out of its calculation of the 
space station's pricetag, and these will include:
  The need for two additional shuttle flights to complete construction 
of the space station estimated by GAO to be $746 million; a $400 
million contract between NASA and the Russian space agency covering 
fiscal years 1994 through 1997; a higher orbit for the space station 
which will require $185 million in enhancements to the space shuttle; 
$73 million to outfit a second orbiter for up to 10 flights to the 
Russian Mir space station, which is part of the agreement; $10 million 
to $20 million for increasing the probability of launching the shuttle 
within a smaller launch window; and because of the changed orbit, the 
shuttle's launch window of opportunity decreases from 50 minutes to 5 
minutes on a given day.
  The scientific and industrial benefits of the space station, I 
believe, have been grossly exaggerated. The money the Nation continues 
to pour into this project will be much better spent on reducing the 
deficit and engaging in more meaningful research for the future.

                          ____________________