[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          OPPOSITION TO FUNDING FOR THE SPACE STATION PROGRAM

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, during the coming months, we will make 
funding decisions that will affect the future for every man, woman, and 
child in the United States. Our votes will have an impact on the 
quality of environmental protection, the scope of Federal public health 
programs, veterans benefits, housing assistance, educational aid, 
national defense, scientific research, law enforcement, agricultural 
assistance, and many other matters of vital concern to our country.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government cannot afford to pay for all of 
the country's needs. Tight budget caps--a direct result of the massive 
budget deficit--makes it impossible to fully fund everything we 
require. So this year, in our consideration of fiscal year 1995 
appropriations, we will be forced, perhaps more than ever before, to 
make tough funding choices.
  We must set priorities that put people first by preserving the 
programs Americans need the most and cutting back on those that are of 
less importance to the health and well being of the country. Among the 
programs we must continue to support are those administered by the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Opinion polls consistently show that Americans believe environmental 
protection is a top priority and should be fully funded.
  There is good reason for our concerns about the environment. Cancer 
deaths attributable to pollution are rising; we are twice as likely to 
die of cancer as our grandparents. Degradation of our air and water 
continues to be a serious threat. Our children remain dangerously 
exposed to hazardous substances such as lead. More than 100 million 
citizens live in areas of the country where air pollution exceeds 
Federal health standards.
  Yet EPA lacks the resources to fully implement environmental 
protection laws. The Agency cannot provide the level of protection 
promised by Federal statutes, and is unable to conduct sufficient 
research to ensure that pollution standards are based on the sound 
science all of us have called for at one time or another.
  EPA's budget shortfall has serious consequences for all of us. The 
Agency's pesticides program has a backlog of toxicity studies that have 
not been reviewed on nearly 15,000 pesticides, many of which are used 
on food crops. Thousands of permits for water discharges and waste 
storage cannot be processed by the Agency in a timely manner. A number 
of new regulations required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
will be delayed or poorly implemented without sufficient resources. 
State and local governments, already hard pressed to implement Federal 
requirements, will have even less money available to enforce Federal 
environmental laws. For business, the result of all this is a lack of 
certainty and an inability to plan.
  EPA is funded by the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies bill, which 
also supports programs for housing, veterans, aerospace, and the 
National Science Foundation. All of the programs funded by this 
appropriations bill are in jeopardy.
  There is a nearly $800 million gap between the President's budget 
request for the programs contained in the bill and the Senate's budget 
cap for this allocation. Unless we remedy this situation, veterans will 
go without medical assistance and other benefits they require may be 
lessened. Programs designed to provide low-income housing and ease the 
homeless crisis will be unfunded. And the environment and public health 
gains of the last two decades will be reversed.
  NASA's budget of nearly $15 billion is twice the size of EPA's 
budget. The administration's request for one NASA program alone, the 
space station, is $2.1 billion in fiscal year 1995, an amount nearly 
equal to all of EPA's core operating programs this year.
  The space station is not only a drain on veterans, housing, and 
environmental programs, it takes money away from NASA itself. NASA is 
overextended and cannot afford to manage all of its programs, largely 
because of the resources that are diverted to the space station.
  While there may be noble intent behind the space station, it is of 
questionable value and a largely speculative venture. Much of its goals 
are based on untested theory. It is unclear that the station will even 
survive damaging space debris. NASA estimates that there is a 1 in 5 
chance that the space station would be seriously harmed by floating 
objects in space. NASA may well be able to correct these problems, but 
the bottom line is that we cannot afford to fund the space station this 
year.
  Our needs here on Earth are far too great for us to be spending money 
on an outpost in outer space. Does it make sense for us to fund a space 
station at the expense of environmental protection programs designed to 
save our planet, programs enacted to sustain and protect our veterans, 
or programs created to provide basic housing in a country besieged by 
homelessness.
  Reportedly, the President's No. 1 priority in the VA, HUD, and 
independent agencies appropriations bill is the space station. I 
suggest that the administration's priorities, in this case are 
misplaced, and do not reflect the needs or desires of the American 
people. I will be sending a letter to the President, asking him to 
withdraw his support for the space station. I also intend to work with 
my distinguished colleagues, Senator Bumpers and Senator Cohen, who 
have demonstrated tremendous leadership in opposing the space station. 
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the space station and 
seeking a reallocation of the funding to other, more necessary 
programs.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________