[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 104 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate now turn to Calendar No. 520, H.R. 4624, the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4624) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and or 
     sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on Appropriations, with 
amendments, as follows:

  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets, and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown 
in italic.)

                               H.R. 4624

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for 
     sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration

                       compensation and pensions

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 
     13, 51, 53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 
     55, and 61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency 
     and other officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits 
     and certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life 
     insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of Article 
     IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as 
     amended, and for other benefits as authorized by law (38 
     U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, 
     and 61; 50 U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 
     735; 76 Stat. 1198), $17,626,892,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $25,750,000 of 
     the amount appropriated shall be reimbursed to ``General 
     operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' for necessary 
     expenses in implementing those provisions authorized in the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-
     508, and in the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, Public Law 
     102-568, the funding source for which is specifically 
     provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation: 
     Provided further, That $6,000,000 of the amount appropriated 
     shall be transferred to ``Medical facilities revolving fund'' 
     to augment the funding of individual medical facilities for 
     nursing home care provided to pensioners as authorized by the 
     Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992, Public Law 102-568: Provided 
     further, That of the $15,622,452,000 made available under 
     this heading for fiscal year 1994 in Public Law 103-124, the 
     $9,863,265,000 restricted by section 509 of Public Law 103-
     124 for personnel compensation and benefits expenditures is 
     reduced to $9,813,256,000.

                         readjustment benefits

       For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 
     chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61), 
     $1,286,600,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds shall be available to pay any court order, court 
     award or any compromise settlement arising from litigation 
     involving the vocational training program authorized by 
     section 18 of Public Law 98-77, as amended.

                   veterans insurance and indemnities

       For military and naval insurance, national service life 
     insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled 
     veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as 
     authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 
     Stat. 487), $24,760,000, to remain available until expended.

                 guaranty and indemnity program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the purpose of the program, as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $65,226,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

                     loan guaranty program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the purpose of the program, as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $59,371,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

                      direct loan program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the purpose of the program, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That during 1995, within the 
     resources available, not to exceed $1,000,000 in gross 
     obligations for direct loans are authorized for specially 
     adapted housing loans (38 U.S.C. chapter 37).
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $1,020,000, which may be transferred to 
     and merged with the appropriation for ``General operating 
     expenses''.

                  education loan fund program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,061, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross 
     obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to 
     exceed $4,034.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $195,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

            vocational rehabilitation loans program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $54,000, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $1,964,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $767,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

          native american veteran housing loan program account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program authorized by section 38, U.S.C. chapter 37, 
     subchapter V, as amended, $218,000, which may be transferred 
     to and merged with the appropriation for ``General operating 
     expenses''.

                     Veterans Health Administration

                              medical care

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for 
     furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient 
     care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities 
     not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, and furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, 
     and equipment; funeral, burial, and other expenses incidental 
     thereto for beneficiaries receiving care in Department of 
     Veterans Affairs facilities; administrative expenses in 
     support of planning, design, project management, real 
     property acquisition and disposition, construction and 
     renovation of any facility under the jurisdiction or for the 
     use of the Department of Veterans Affairs; oversight, 
     engineering and architectural activities not charged to 
     project cost; repairing, altering, improving or providing 
     facilities in the several hospitals and homes under the 
     jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs, not 
     otherwise provided for, either by contract or by the hire of 
     temporary employees and purchase of materials; uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
     5902); aid to State homes as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 
     1741); and not to exceed $8,000,000 to fund cost comparison 
     studies as referred to in 38 U.S.C. 8110(a)(5); 
     $16,232,756,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That of the 
     funds made available under this heading, $771,000,000 is for 
     the equipment and land and structures object classifications 
     only, which amount shall not become available for obligation 
     until August 1, 1995, and shall remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 1996.

                    medical and prosthetic research

       For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical 
     and prosthetic research and development as authorized by law 
     (38 U.S.C. chapter 73), to remain available until September 
     30, 1996, $252,000,000, plus reimbursements.

                health professional scholarship program

       For payment of health professional scholarship program 
     grants, as authorized by law, to students who agree to a 
     service obligation with the Department of Veterans Affairs at 
     one of its medical facilities, $10,386,000.

      medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses

       For necessary expenses in the administration of the medical 
     hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction, supply, 
     and research activities, as authorized by law; administrative 
     expenses in support of planning, design, project management, 
     architectural, engineering, real property acquisition and 
     disposition, construction and renovation of any facility 
     under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, including site acquisition; engineering and 
     architectural activites not charged to project cost; and 
     research and development in building construction technology; 
     $69,808,000, plus reimbursements.

               grants to the republic of the philippines

       For payment to the Republic of the Philippines of grants, 
     as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 1732), for assisting in the 
     replacement and upgrading of equipment and in rehabilitating 
     the physical plant and facilities of the Veterans Memorial 
     Medical Center, $500,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1996.

                   transitional housing loan program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $7,000, as authorized by 
     Public Law 102-54, section 8, which shall be transferred from 
     the ``General post fund'': Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $70,000. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program, 
     $54,000, which shall be transferred from the ``General post 
     fund'', as authorized by Public Law 102-54, section 8.

                      Departmental Administration

                       general operating expenses

       For necessary operating expenses of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law; not to 
     exceed $25,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and reimbursement 
     of the General Services Administration for security guard 
     services, and the Department of Defense for the cost of 
     overseas employee mail; [$887,909,000] $893,285,000, of which 
     $25,500,000, for the acquisition of automated data processing 
     equipment and services to support the modernization program 
     in the Veterans Benefits Administration, shall not become 
     available for obligation until September 1, 1995, and shall 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 1996.

                        national cemetery system

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     the National Cemetery System not otherwise provided for, 
     including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 
     law; cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of 
     three passenger motor vehicles, for use in cemeterial 
     operations; and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $72,663,000.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, [$32,219,000] $31,819,000.

                      construction, major projects

       For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of 
     the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, or for any of the purposes 
     set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 
     8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States Code, 
     including planning, architectural and engineering services, 
     maintenance or guarantee period services costs associated 
     with equipment guarantees provided under the project, 
     services of claims analysts, offsite utility and storm 
     drainage system construction costs, and site acquisition, 
     where the estimated cost of a project is $3,000,000 or more 
     or where funds for a project were made available in a 
     previous major project appropriation, [$101,965,000] 
     $208,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That, except for advance planning of projects funded through 
     the advance planning fund and the design of projects funded 
     through the design fund, none of these funds shall be used 
     for any project which has not been considered and approved by 
     the Congress in the budgetary process: Provided further, That 
     funds provided in this appropriation for fiscal year 1995, 
     for each approved project shall be obligated (1) by the 
     awarding of a construction documents contract by September 
     30, 1995, and (2) by the awarding of a construction contract 
     by September 30, 1996: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     shall promptly report in writing to the Comptroller General 
     and to the Committees on Appropriations any approved major 
     construction project in which obligations are not incurred 
     within the time limitations established above; and the 
     Comptroller General shall review the report in accordance 
     with the procedures established by section 1015 of the 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (title X of Public Law 93-
     344): Provided further, That no funds from any other account 
     except the ``Parking revolving fund'', may be obligated for 
     constructing, altering, extending, or improving a project 
     which was approved in the budget process and funded in this 
     account until one year after substantial completion and 
     beneficial occupancy by the Department of Veterans Affairs of 
     the project or any part thereof with respect to that part 
     only.

                      construction, minor projects

       For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of 
     the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, including planning, 
     architectural and engineering services, maintenance or 
     guarantee period services costs associated with equipment 
     guarantees provided under the project, services of claims 
     analysts, offsite utility and storm drainage system 
     construction costs, and site acquisition, or for any of the 
     purposes set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 
     8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States 
     Code, where the estimated cost of a project is less than 
     $3,000,000, $153,540,000, to remain available until expended, 
     along with unobligated balances of previous ``Construction, 
     minor projects'' appropriations which are hereby made 
     available for any project where the estimated cost is less 
     than $3,000,000: Provided, That funds in this account shall 
     be available for (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical 
     facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs which are necessary because of 
     loss or damage caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe, 
     and (2) temporary measures necessary to prevent or to 
     minimize further loss by such causes.

                         parking revolving fund

       For the parking revolving fund as authorized by law (38 
     U.S.C. 8109), $1,400,000, together with income from fees 
     collected, to remain available until expended. Resources of 
     this fund shall be available for all expenses authorized by 
     38 U.S.C. 8109 except operations and maintenance costs which 
     will be funded from ``Medical care''.

       grants for construction of state extended care facilities

       For grants to assist the several States to acquire or 
     construct State nursing home and domiciliary facilities and 
     to remodel, modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home 
     and domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing 
     care to veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 8131-8137), 
     [$37,397,000] $47,397,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

        grants for the construction of state veterans cemeteries

       For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or 
     improving State veteran cemeteries as authorized by law (38 
     U.S.C. 2408), $5,378,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1997.

                       administrative provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Any appropriation for 1995 for ``Compensation and 
     pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans 
     insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred to any other 
     of the mentioned appropriations.
       Appropriations available to the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs for 1995 for salaries and expenses shall be available 
     for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       No part of the appropriations in this Act for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs (except the appropriations for 
     ``Construction, major projects'', ``Construction, minor 
     projects'' and the ``Parking revolving fund'') shall be 
     available for the purchase of any site for or toward the 
     construction of any new hospital or home.
       No part of the foregoing appropriations shall be available 
     for hospitalization or examination of any persons except 
     beneficiaries entitled under the laws bestowing such benefits 
     to veterans, unless reimbursement of cost is made to the 
     appropriation at such rates as may be fixed by the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs.
       Appropriations available to the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs for fiscal year 1995 for ``Compensation and 
     pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans 
     insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for payment of 
     prior year accrued obligations required to be recorded by law 
     against the corresponding prior year accounts within the last 
     quarter of fiscal year 1994.
       Appropriations accounts available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 1995 shall be available to 
     pay prior year obligations of corresponding prior year 
     appropriations accounts resulting from title X of the 
     Competitive Equality Banking Act, Public Law 100-86, except 
     that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts they 
     shall be payable from ``Compensation and pensions''.
       Of the budgetary resources available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs during fiscal year 1995, $20,742,000 are 
     permanently canceled. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     allocate the amount of budgetary resources canceled among the 
     Department's accounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses. Amounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses in each such 
     account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to such 
     account. For the purposes of this section, the definition of 
     ``procurement'' includes all stages of the process of 
     acquiring property or services, beginning with the process of 
     determining a need for a product or service and ending with 
     contract completion and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 
     403(2).

                                TITLE II

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                            Housing Programs

   homeownership and opportunity for people everywhere grants (hope 
                                grants)

       For the homeownership and opportunity for people everywhere 
     (HOPE grants) program as authorized under title III of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437aaa et seq.) 
     and subtitles A, B, and C of title IV of the Cranston-
     Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (Public Law 101-
     625), [$100,000,000] $50,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which up to one and one-half percent may be made 
     available for technical assistance to potential applicants, 
     applicants and recipients of assistance under this head as 
     authorized under subtitle E of title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1992.

                  home investment partnerships program

       For the HOME investment partnerships program, as authorized 
     under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (Public Law 101-625), as amended, 
     [$1,275,000,000] $1,500,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


           national homeownership trust demonstration program

       For the National Homeownership Trust Demonstration program, 
     as authorized by title III of the National Affordable Housing 
     Act, as amended by section 182 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992, $50,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

               annual contributions for assisted housing

             (including rescission and transfers of funds)

       For assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937, 
     as amended (``the Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 1437), not 
     otherwise provided for, [$11,473,019,000] $10,600,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That to be added 
     to and merged with the foregoing amounts there shall be up to 
     $200,000,000 of amounts of budget authority (and contract 
     authority) reserved or obligated in prior years for the 
     development or acquisition costs of public housing (including 
     public housing for Indian families), for modernization of 
     existing public housing projects (including such projects for 
     Indian families), and, except as herein provided, for 
     programs under section 8 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f), which 
     are recaptured during fiscal year 1995; and up to 
     $100,000,000 of transfers of unobligated balances from the 
     Urban Development Action program: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount provided under this head, [$263,000,000] 
     $300,000,000 shall be for the development or acquisition cost 
     of public housing for Indian families, including amounts for 
     housing under the mutual help homeownership opportunity 
     program under section 202 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1437bb); and 
     $598,000,000 shall be for the development or acquisition cost 
     of public housing, of which up to .67 per centum shall be 
     available for technical assistance and inspection of public 
     housing agencies by the Secretary: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount provided under this head, [$3,600,000,000] 
     $3,800,000,000 shall be for modernization of existing public 
     housing projects pursuant to section 14 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1437l), including up to [.54 per centum] $15,000,000 for the 
     inspection of modernization units and provision of technical 
     assistance by the Secretary and contract expertise to assist 
     in the oversight and management of the public and Indian 
     housing modernization program, including an annual resident 
     survey: [Provided further, That of the amounts provided under 
     this head for modernization of existing public housing 
     projects, $85,000,000 may be used for the Tenant Opportunity 
     Program:] Provided further, That of the total amount provided 
     under this head, [$2,643,000,000] $2,144,582,000 shall be for 
     rental assistance under the section 8 existing housing 
     certificate program (42 U.S.C. 1437f) and the housing voucher 
     program under section 8(o) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)): 
     Provided further, That of the amount provided for rental 
     assistance, up to $350,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Pension Fund Partnership program, as authorized by section 6 
     of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-120); 
     $20,000,000 shall be for the Community Viability Fund; 
     $50,000,000 shall be for the Colonias program; and 
     $500,000,000 shall be for the Neighborhood Leveraged 
     Investment Program (LIFT): [Provided further, That those 
     portions of the fees for the costs incurred in administering 
     incremental units assisted in the certificate and housing 
     voucher programs under sections 8(b), 8(o), and 8(e)(2) shall 
     be established or increased in accordance with the 
     authorization for such fees in section 8(q) of the Act:] 
     Provided further, That of the total amount provided under 
     this head, $17,300,000 shall be available for fees for 
     coordinators under section 23(h)(1) for the family self-
     sufficiency program (42 U.S.C. 1437u): Provided further, That 
     of the total amount provided under this head, 
     [$1,202,100,000] $765,000,000 shall be for amendments to 
     section 8 contracts other than contracts for projects 
     developed under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, as 
     amended, and $555,000,000 shall be for section 8 assistance 
     for property [deposition] disposition, and [$100,000,000] 
     $250,000,000 shall be for assistance for State or local units 
     of government, tenant and nonprofit organizations to purchase 
     projects where owners have indicated an intention to prepay 
     mortgages and for assistance to be used as an incentive to 
     prevent prepayment or for vouchers to aid eligible tenants 
     adversely affected by mortgage prepayment, as authorized in 
     the Emergency Low-Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987, as 
     amended: Provided further, That 50 per centum of the amounts 
     of budget authority, or in lieu thereof 50 per centum of the 
     cash amounts associated with such budget authority, that are 
     recaptured from projects described in section 1012(a) of the 
     Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 
     1988 (Public Law 100-628, 102 Stat. 3224, 3268) shall be 
     rescinded, or in the case of cash, shall be remitted to the 
     Treasury, and such amounts of budget authority or cash 
     recaptured and not rescinded or remitted to the Treasury 
     shall be used by State housing finance agencies or local 
     governments or local housing agencies with projects approved 
     by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for which 
     settlement occurred after January 1, 1992, in accordance with 
     such section: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     provided under this head, $156,000,000 shall be for housing 
     opportunities for persons with AIDS under title VIII, 
     subtitle D of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act; [$150,000,000] $75,000,000 shall be for the 
     lead-based paint hazard reduction program as authorized under 
     sections 1011 and 1053 of the Residential Lead-Based Hazard 
     Reduction Act of 1992; and $30,000,000 shall for service 
     coordinators in public housing pursuant to section 
     9(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the United States Housing Act of 1937; and 
     $30,000,000 shall be for service coordinators in project-
     based section 8 housing, pursuant to section 8(d)(2)(F)(1) of 
     the Act, tenant-based section 8 housing, pursuant to section 
     8(q) of the Act and, for service coordinators in multifamily 
     housing assisted under the National Housing Act, pursuant to 
     section 676 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1992[: Provided further, That of the total amount provided 
     under this head, $149,100,000 shall be for moving to 
     opportunity]: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
     language preceding the first proviso of this paragraph, 
     $135,000,000 shall be used for special purpose grants in 
     accordance with the terms and conditions specified for such 
     grants in Senate Report 103-311.
       Of the total amount provided under this head, 
     [$1,158,000,000] $1,300,000,000 shall be for capital 
     advances, including amendments to capital advance contracts, 
     for housing for the elderly, as authorized by section 202 of 
     the Housing Act of 1959, as amended, and for project rental 
     assistance, and amendments to contracts for project rental 
     assistance, for supportive housing for the elderly under 
     section 202(c)(2) of the Housing Act of 1959: Provided, That 
     $22,000,000 shall be for service coordinators pursuant to 
     section 202(q) of the Housing Act of 1959 and subtitle E of 
     title VI of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
     1992, other than section 676 of such Act and section 
     8(d)(2)(F)(i) of the Act.
       Of the total amount provided under this head, $387,000,000 
     shall be for capital advances, including amendments to 
     capital advance contracts, for supportive housing for persons 
     with disabilities, as authorized by section 811 of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act; and for 
     project rental assistance, and amendments to contracts for 
     project rental assistance, for supportive housing for persons 
     with disabilities as authorized by section 811 of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act.

   assistance for the renewal of expiring section 8 subsidy contracts

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     (42 U.S.C. 1437) not otherwise provided for, for use in 
     connection with expiring section 8 subsidy contracts, 
     [$3,705,000,000] $3,062,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That to the extent the amount in this 
     appropriation is insufficient to fund all expiring section 8 
     contracts, the Secretary may transfer to and merge with this 
     appropriation such amounts from the ``Annual contributions 
     for assisted housing'' appropriation as the Secretary shall 
     determine, and amounts earmarked in the foregoing account may 
     be reduced accordingly, at the Secretary's discretion: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary may maintain 
     consolidated accounting data for funds disbursed at the 
     public housing agency or Indian housing authority or project 
     level for subsidy assistance regardless of the source of the 
     disbursement so as to minimize the administrative burden of 
     multiple accounts.
       [Further, for the foregoing purposes, $800,000,000, to 
     become available for obligation on October 1, 1995, and to 
     remain available for obligation until expended.]

                       rental housing assistance

                              (rescission)

       The limitation otherwise applicable to the maximum payments 
     that may be required in any fiscal year by all contracts 
     entered into under section 236 of the National Housing Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1) is reduced in fiscal year 1995 by not 
     more than $2,000,000 in uncommitted balances of 
     authorizations provided for this purpose in appropriations 
     Acts: Provided, That up to $66,000,000 of recaptured section 
     236 budget authority resulting from the prepayment of 
     mortgages subsidized under section 236 of the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1) shall be rescinded in fiscal 
     year 1995.

                        homeownership assistance

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For payments under section 235(r) of the National Housing 
     Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1715z) for incentives to 
     mortgagors to refinance mortgages that are insured under such 
     section 235 and for closing and other costs in connection 
     with such refinancing, $6,875,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That up to $50,000,000 of recaptured 
     section 235 budget authority resulting from reducing the 
     interest rate on such refinanced mortgages shall be reused 
     for payments under this heading: Provided further, That up to 
     $184,000,000 of additional recaptured section 235 budget 
     authority from refinancing section 235 mortgages shall be 
     rescinded in fiscal year 1995.

                          congregate services

       [For contracts with and payments to public housing agencies 
     and nonprofit corporations for congregate services programs, 
     $6,267,000, to remain available until September 30, 1996, in 
     accordance with the provisions of the Congregate Services Act 
     of 1978, as amended.]
       For contracts with payments to public housing agencies and 
     nonprofit corporations for congregate services programs, 
     $25,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1995, of 
     which up to $6,267,000 shall be for entities operating such 
     programs in accordance with the provisions of the Congregate 
     Services Act of 1978, as amended, and the balance shall be 
     for programs under section 802 of the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act (Public Law 101-625).

         payments for operation of low-income housing projects

       For payments to public housing agencies and Indian housing 
     authorities for operating subsidies for low-income housing 
     projects as authorized by section 9 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437g), 
     $2,900,000,000.

                   severely distressed public housing

       [For the revitalization of severely distressed public 
     housing program, as authorized by section 24 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437), 
     $500,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which up 
     to one-half of one percent may be used for technical 
     assistance under this program, to be made available directly, 
     or indirectly under contracts or grants, as appropriate.]
       For the HOPE VI/urban revitalization demonstration program 
     under the third paragraph under the head ``Homeownership and 
     Opportunity for People Everywhere grants (HOPE grants)'' in 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1993, Public Law 102-389, 106 Stat. 1571, 1579, $500,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding the first proviso of such third paragraph, 
     the Secretary shall have discretion to approve funding for 
     more than fifteen applicants: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding the third proviso of such third paragraph, 
     the Secretary may provide funds for more than 500 units for 
     each participating city: Provided further, That in selecting 
     HOPE VI implementation grants recipients in fiscal year 1995, 
     the Secretary must first award such grants to those cities or 
     jurisdictions which have received HOPE VI planning grants in 
     fiscal year 1993 or fiscal year 1994: Provided further, That 
     the requirement of the immediately proceeding proviso shall 
     not limit the Secretary's discretion to limit funding to 
     amounts he deems appropriate, nor shall it prevent the 
     Secretary from guaranteeing that all implementation grant 
     recipients conform with the requirements of the HOPE VI/urban 
     revitalization demonstration program: Provided further, That 
     of the foregoing $500,000,000, the Secretary may use up to 
     $2,500,000 for technical assistance under such urban 
     revitalization demonstration, to be made available directly, 
     or indirectly, under contracts or grants, as appropriate: 
     Provided further, That nothing in this paragraph shall 
     prohibit the Secretary from conforming the program standards 
     and criteria set forth herein, with subsequent authorization 
     legislation that may be enacted into law.

             drug elimination grants for low-income housing

       For grants to public housing agencies for use in 
     eliminating drug-related crime in public housing projects 
     authorized by 42 U.S.C. 11901-11908, and for drug information 
     clearinghouse services authorized by 42 U.S.C. 11921-11925, 
     [$265,000,000] $315,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $10,000,000 shall be for grants, technical 
     assistance, contracts and other assistance training, program 
     assessment, and execution for or on behalf of public housing 
     agencies and resident organizations (including the cost of 
     necessary travel for participants in such training) [and of 
     which $1,500,000 shall be for grants for an after school 
     demonstration program in public housing projects, run by the 
     4H Clubs of America and co-sponsored by private sector 
     firms]: Provided, That not more than $236,250,000 shall be 
     available for grants to housing authorities with greater than 
     1,250 public housing units: Provided further, That not more 
     than $63,000,000 shall be available for grants to housing 
     authorities with less than 1,250 public housing units: 
     Provided further, That not more than $15,750,000 shall be 
     available for grants for federally-assisted, low-income 
     housing: Provided further, That the Secretary may utilize all 
     funds made available under this heading for a community 
     partnership against crime program if authorized by law prior 
     to November 1, 1994: Provided further, That the Secretary may 
     use the authority provided in the immediately preceding 
     proviso only if the apportionment of funds ensures that 
     public housing authorities with greater than 1,250 units 
     receive three-quarters of all such COMPAC funds.

           indian housing loan guarantee fund program account

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $3,000,000, as authorized 
     by section 184 of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1992 (106 Stat. 3739): Provided, That such costs, 
     including the costs of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of 
     which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $22,388,000.

                           youthbuild program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For youthbuild program activities authorized by subtitle D 
     of title IV of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act, as amended, $50,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended. In addition, the unexpended balances from the 
     $28,000,000 made available for subtitle D of title IV of such 
     Act under the head ``Homeownership and opportunity for people 
     everywhere grants (HOPE Grants)'' in the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994 shall be 
     transferred to and merged with this appropriation: Provided, 
     That none of the funds made available under this heading may 
     be obligated until the Secretary proposes and implements a 
     consolidation plan for all youth-related programs now in 
     operation within the Department: Provided further, That the 
     aforementioned consolidation plan, to meet the requirements 
     of the immediately preceding proviso, must establish a 
     continuum of youth activities that includes apprenticeship 
     activities.

                     housing counseling assistance

       For contracts, grants, and other assistance, other than 
     loans, not otherwise provided for, for providing counseling 
     and advice to tenants and homeowners--both current and 
     prospective--with respect to property maintenance, financial 
     management, and such other matters as may be appropriate to 
     assist them in improving their housing conditions and meeting 
     the responsibilities of tenancy or homeownership, including 
     provisions for training and for support of voluntary agencies 
     and services as authorized by section 106 of the Housing and 
     Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, $50,000,000.

                         flexible subsidy fund

       For assistance to owners of eligible multifamily housing 
     projects insured, or formerly insured, and under the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, or which are otherwise eligible for 
     assistance under section 201(c) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Amendments of 1978, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1715z-
     1a), in the program of assistance for troubled multifamily 
     housing projects under the Housing and Community Development 
     Amendments of 1978, as amended, $50,000,000, and all 
     uncommitted balances of excess rental charges as of September 
     30, 1994, and any collections and other amounts in the fund 
     authorized under section 201(j) of the Housing and Community 
     Development Amendments of 1978, as amended, during fiscal 
     year 1995, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     assistance to an owner of a multifamily housing project 
     assisted, but not insured, under the National Housing Act may 
     be made if the project owner and the mortgagee have provided 
     or agreed to provide assistance to the project in a manner as 
     determined by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

                     Federal Housing Administration

             fha--mutual mortgage insurance program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       During fiscal year 1995, commitments to guarantee loans to 
     carry out the purposes of section 203(b) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed a loan principal of 
     $100,000,000,000.
       During fiscal year 1995, obligations to make direct loans 
     to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed $180,000,000: 
     Provided, That the foregoing amount shall be for loans to 
     nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with sales 
     of single family real properties owned by the Secretary and 
     formerly insured under section 203 of such Act.
       For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the 
     guaranteed and direct loan program, $308,846,000, to be 
     derived from the FHA-mutual mortgage insurance guaranteed 
     loans receipt account, of which not to exceed $302,056,000 
     shall be transferred to the appropriation for salaries and 
     expenses; and of which not to exceed $6,790,000 shall be 
     transferred to the appropriation for the Office of Inspector 
     General.

             fha--general and special risk program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by sections 
     238 and 519 of the National Housing Act, as amended (12 
     U.S.C. 1715z-3(b) and 1735c(f)), [$152,000,000] $188,395,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 1996, of which up to 
     $132,903,000 is to be derived from the FHA--general and 
     special risk, negative subsidies receipt account: Provided, 
     That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize total loan principal any part of which 
     is to be guaranteed of not to exceed $20,885,072,000: 
     Provided further, That of the foregoing amount provided to 
     subsidize program costs, not more than $47,098,750 may be 
     obligated by January 1, 1995, not more than $94,197,500 may 
     be obligated by April 1, 1995, not more than $160,135,750 may 
     be obligated by July 1, 1995.
       Gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans, 
     as authorized by sections 204(g), 207(l), 238(a), and 519(d) 
     of the National Housing Act, shall not exceed $220,000,000; 
     of which not to exceed $200,000,000 shall be for bridge 
     financing in connection with the sale of multifamily real 
     properties owned by the Secretary and formerly insured under 
     such Act; and of which not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for 
     loans to nonprofit and governmental entities in connection 
     with the sale of single-family real properties owned by the 
     Secretary and formerly insured under such Act.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the guaranteed and direct loan programs, $197,470,000, of 
     which $193,299,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for salaries and expenses; and of which $4,171,000 shall be 
     transferred to the appropriation for the Office of Inspector 
     General.

                Government National Mortgage Association

guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account

                      (includes transfer of funds)

       During fiscal year 1995, new commitments to issue 
     guarantees to carry out the purposes of section 306 of the 
     National Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), shall 
     not exceed $142,000,000,000.
       For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the 
     guaranteed mortgage-backed securities program, $8,824,000, to 
     be derived from the GNMA--guarantees of mortgage-backed 
     securities guaranteed loan receipt account, of which not to 
     exceed $8,824,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for salaries and expenses.

                          Homeless Assistance

                       homeless assistance grants

       For the emergency shelter grants program (as authorized 
     under subtitle B of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act (Public Law 100-77), as amended); the 
     supportive housing program (as authorized under subtitle C of 
     title IV of such Act); the section 8 moderate rehabilitation 
     single room occupancy program (as authorized under the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937, as amended) to assist homeless 
     individuals pursuant to section 441 of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; the shelter plus care 
     program (as authorized under subtitle F of title IV of such 
     Act); and the innovative homeless initiatives demonstration 
     program (as authorized under section 2 of the HUD 
     Demonstration Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-120)), 
     $1,120,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                   Community Planning and Development

                      community development grants

       For grants to States and units of general local government 
     and for related expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     necessary for carrying out a community development grants 
     program as authorized by title I of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301), 
     $4,600,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1997: 
     Provided, That $46,000,000 shall be available for grants to 
     Indian tribes pursuant to section 106(a)(1) of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     5301), and [$61,500,000] $44,000,000 shall be available for 
     ``special purpose grants'' pursuant to section 107 of such 
     Act: Provided further, That not to exceed 20 per centum of 
     any grant made with funds appropriated herein (other than a 
     grant using funds under section 107(b)(3) of such Act or 
     funds set aside in the following provisos) shall be expended 
     for ``Planning and Management Development'' and 
     ``Administration'' as defined in regulations promulgated by 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development[: Provided 
     further, That $35,000,000 shall be made available from the 
     total amount provided to carry out an early childhood 
     development program under section 222 of the Housing and 
     Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983, as amended (12 U.S.C. 
     1701z-6 note), including services for families that are 
     homeless or at risk of becoming homeless: Provided further, 
     That $10,000,000 shall be made available from the total 
     amount provided to carry out a neighborhood development 
     program under section 123 of said Act (42 U.S.C. 5318 note).]
       During fiscal year 1995, new commitments to issue 
     guarantees to carry out the purposes of section 108 of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 5301), shall not exceed $2,054,000,000.

                    Policy Development and Research

                        research and technology

       For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs 
     of research and studies relating to housing and urban 
     problems, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by title 
     V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 
     amended (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out 
     the functions of the Secretary under section 1(a)(1)(i) of 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, [$40,000,000] $44,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 1996.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

                        fair housing activities

       For contracts, grants, and other assistance, not otherwise 
     provided for, as authorized by title VIII of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 
     1988, and section 561 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1987, as amended, $33,375,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1996: Provided, That 
     $26,000,000 shall be available to carry out activities 
     pursuant to section 561 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1987.

                     Management and Administration

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary administrative and nonadministrative expenses 
     of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, not 
     otherwise provided for, including not to exceed $7,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses, 
     [$962,173,000] $953,973,000, of which $495,355,000 shall be 
     provided from the various funds of the Federal Housing 
     Administration, and $8,824,000 shall be provided from funds 
     of the Government National Mortgage Association.

                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $47,388,000, of which $10,961,000 shall 
     be transferred from the various funds of the Federal Housing 
     Administration.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

                         salaries and expenses

                   (including transfer [or] of funds)

       For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprise Financial 
     Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, $15,451,000, to remain 
     available until expended, from the Federal Housing Enterprise 
     Oversight Fund: Provided, That such amounts shall be 
     collected by the Director as authorized by section 1316 (a) 
     and (b) of such Act, and deposited in the Fund under section 
     1316(f).

                       administrative provisions

       None of the funds provided under this title to the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, which are 
     obligated to State or local governments or to housing finance 
     agencies or other public or quasi-public housing agencies, 
     shall be used to indemnify contractors or subcontractors of 
     the government or agency against costs associated with 
     judgments of infringement of intellectual property rights.
       Of the budgetary resources available to the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development during fiscal year 1995, 
     $3,538,000 are permanently canceled. The Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development shall allocate the amount of budgetary 
     resources canceled among the Department's accounts available 
     for procurement and procurement-related expenses. Amounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses in 
     each such account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to 
     such account. For the purpose of this paragraph, the 
     definition of ``procurement'' includes all stages of the 
     process of acquiring property or services, beginning with the 
     process of determining a need for a product or service and 
     ending with contract completion and closeout as specified in 
     41 U.S.C. 403 (2).
       [Of the $150,000,000 earmarked in Public Law 102-139 for 
     special purpose grants (105 Stat. 736, 745), $1,000,000 made 
     available to the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency to 
     complete renovation and revitalization of the Saquoit Silk 
     Mills in Scranton into low-income elderly apartments shall 
     instead be made available for such low-income elderly 
     apartments on the site of the existing Lackawanna Junior 
     College in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.
       [Notwithstanding any provision of law or regulation 
     thereunder, the requirement that an amendment to an urban 
     development action grant agreement must be integrally related 
     to the approved project is hereby waived for project numbers 
     B87AA360540 and B87AA360521.]
       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used in 
     violation of section 214 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1980 or of any applicable Federal law or 
     regulation of the United States.
       [Subparagraph (A) of the first sentence of section 203(b) 
     (2) of the National Housing Act is amended by striking clause 
     (ii) and all that follows through ``1992;'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the following--
       [``(ii) 85 percent of the dollar amount limitation 
     determined under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation Act for a residence of the applicable 
     size; except that the applicable dollar amount limitation in 
     effect for any area under this subparagraph (A) may not be 
     less than the greater of--
       [``(I) the dollar amount limitation in effect under this 
     section for the area on the date of enactment of the Housing 
     Choice and Community Investment Act of 1994; or
       [``(II) the applicable average area purchase price 
     determined under section 143(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, adjusted by the Secretary to reflect a single 
     amount using purchase prices for residences that have been 
     previously occupied, and for residences that have not been so 
     occupied, which amount shall be adjusted by the Secretary 
     annually on the basis of the Constant Quality Housing Price 
     Index;''.]
       Subparagraph (A) of the first sentence of section 203(b)(2) 
     of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(2)) is amended 
     by striking clause (ii) and all that follows through ``May 
     12, 1992;'' and inserting the following:
       ``(ii) 75 percent of the dollar amount limitation 
     determined under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation Act for a residence of the applicable 
     size;

     except that the applicable dollar amount limitation in effect 
     for any area under this subparagraph may not be less than the 
     greater of the dollar amount limitation in effect under this 
     section for the area on the date of enactment of the Housing 
     Choice and Community Investment Act of 1994 or 38 percent of 
     the dollar amount limitation determined under section 
     305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act 
     for a residence of the applicable size;''.
       Notwithstanding subsection 306(g) (3) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, fees charged for the guaranty of, or 
     commitment to guaranty, multiclass securities backed by a 
     trust or pool of securities or notes guaranteed by the 
     Government National Mortgage Association prior to February 1, 
     1993, and other related fees, shall be charged in an amount 
     the Association deems appropriate.
       Beginning fiscal year 1995, the Government National 
     Mortgage Association shall permit Ginnie Mae II mortgage-
     backed securities to be eligible as collateral for multiclass 
     securities that such Association guarantees, in accordance 
     with the Notice published at 59 Fed. Reg. 27290 (May 26, 
     1994) and successor Notices.
       Section 8(c)(2)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     is amended by inserting at the end the following: ``However, 
     where the maximum monthly rent, for a unit in a new 
     construction, substantial rehabilitation, or moderate 
     rehabilitation project, to be adjusted using an annual 
     adjustment factor exceeds the fair market rental for an 
     existing dwelling unit in the market area, the Secretary 
     shall adjust the rent only to the extent that the owner 
     demonstrates that the adjusted rent would not exceed the rent 
     for an unassisted unit of similar quality, type, and age in 
     the same market area, as determined by the Secretary. The 
     immediately foregoing sentence shall be effective only during 
     fiscal year 1995.''.
       The immediately foregoing amendment shall apply to all 
     contracts for new construction, substantial rehabilitation, 
     and moderate rehabilitation projects under which rents are 
     adjusted under section 8(c)(2)(A) of such Act by applying an 
     annual adjustment factor.
       Section 8(c)(2)(A) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937, as amended by the immediately foregoing amendment to 
     such section, is further amended by inserting at the end the 
     following: ``For any unit occupied by the same family at the 
     time of the last annual rental adjustment, where the 
     assistance contract provides for the adjustment of the 
     maximum monthly rent by applying an annual adjustment factor 
     and where the rent for a unit is otherwise eligible for an 
     adjustment based on the full amount of the factor, 0.01 shall 
     be subtracted from the amount of the factor, except that the 
     factor shall not be reduced to less than 1.0. The immediately 
     foregoing sentence shall be effective only during fiscal year 
     1995.''.
       The immediately foregoing shall hereafter apply to all 
     contracts that are subject to section 8(c)(2)(A) of such Act 
     and that provide for rent adjustments using an annual 
     adjustment factor.
       The Secretary shall, by regulation, specify that the 
     criteria used to determine existing housing fair market rents 
     under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 
     shall include use of the 40th, in lieu of the 45th, 
     percentile rent of standard quality rental housing. Such 
     subsection shall be effective only during fiscal year 1995.
       The United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended in each of 
     sections 6(c)(4)(A)(ii) and 8(d)(1)(A)(ii), by striking ``and 
     (V)'' and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``(V) 
     assisting families that include one or more adult members who 
     are employed; and (VI)''; in sections 6(c)(4)(A)(ii) and 
     8(d)(1)(A)(ii), by inserting after the final semicolon in 
     each the following: ``subclause (V) shall be effective only 
     during fiscal year 1995;''; and in the penultimate sentence 
     of section 16(c), by striking ``under the system'' and all 
     that follows up to the period.

                               TITLE III

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission, including the 
     acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries; 
     purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national 
     cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its 
     territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space 
     in foreign countries; purchase (one for replacement only) and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and insurance of official 
     motor vehicles in foreign countries, when required by law of 
     such countries; $20,265,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That where station allowance has been 
     authorized by the Department of the Army for officers of the 
     Army serving the Army at certain foreign stations, the same 
     allowance shall be authorized for officers of the Armed 
     Forces assigned to the Commission while serving at the same 
     foreign stations, and this appropriation is hereby made 
     available for the payment of such allowance: Provided 
     further, That when traveling on business of the Commission, 
     officers of the Armed Forces serving as members or as 
     Secretary of the Commission may be reimbursed for expenses as 
     provided for civilian members of the Commission: Provided 
     further, That the Commission shall reimburse other Government 
     agencies, including the Armed Forces, for salary, pay, and 
     allowances of personnel assigned to it: Provided further, 
     That section 509 of the general provisions carried in title V 
     of this Act shall not apply to the funds provided under this 
     heading: Provided further, That not more than $125,000 of the 
     private contributions to the Korean War Memorial Fund may be 
     used for administrative support of the Korean War Veterans 
     Memorial Advisory Board including travel by members of the 
     board authorized by the Commission, travel allowances to 
     conform to those provided by Federal travel regulations.

            [Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board

                         [salaries and expenses

                             [(rescission)

       [Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $1,730,000 are rescinded.]

              Community Development Financial Institutions


   community development financial institutions fund program account

       For grants, loans, and technical assistance to qualifying 
     community development lenders, and administrative expenses of 
     the Fund, $25,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1996, of which up to $10,000,000 may be used for the cost 
     of direct loans, and up to $1,000,000 may be used for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program: 
     Provided, That the costs of direct loans, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be defined as in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, 
     That these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations 
     for the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed 
     $75,815,000: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available under this heading may be used for programs and 
     activities of the Bank Enterprise Act.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the 
     rate for GS-18, purchase of nominal awards to recognize non-
     Federal officials' contributions to Commission activities, 
     and not to exceed $500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, [$43,486,000] $40,509,000.

             Corporation for National and Community Service

       national and community service programs operating expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service in carrying out the programs, activities, 
     and initiatives under the National and Community Service Act 
     of 1990, as amended (Public Law 103-82) (hereinafter referred 
     to as ``the Act''), [$490,388,000 to remain available until 
     September 30, 1996, except as provided hereafter] 
     $610,000,000, of which $411,212,000 is available for 
     obligation for the period September 1, 1995 through August 
     31, 1996: Provided, That not more than [$27,400,000] 
     $29,400,000 is available for administrative expenses 
     authorized under section 501(a)(4) of the Act, of which not 
     more than [$13,700,000] $14,700,000 shall be for 
     administrative expenses for State commissions pursuant to 
     section 126(a) of subtitle C of title I of the Act: Provided 
     further, That not more than $2,500 shall be for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not more than [$125,900,000] $155,900,000, to remain 
     available without fiscal year limitation, shall be 
     transferred to the National Service Trust Fund for 
     educational awards as authorized under subtitle D of title I 
     of the Act: Provided further, That not more than $9,450,000 
     of the $155,590,000 for the National Service Trust shall be 
     for educational awards authorized under section 129(b) of the 
     subtitle C of title I of the Act: Provided further, That 
     $6,500,000 shall be made available for the Points of Light 
     Foundation for purposes authorized under title III of the 
     Act: Provided further, That no funds from any other 
     appropriation, or from funds otherwise made available to the 
     Corporation, shall be used to pay for personnel compensation 
     and benefits, travel, or any other administrative expense for 
     the Board of Directors, the Office of the Chief Executive 
     Officer, the Office of the Managing Director, the Office of 
     the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of National and 
     Community Service Programs, the National Civilian Community 
     Corps, or any portion of any of the Corporation's field 
     offices or staff working on National and Community Service or 
     National Civilian Community Corps programs.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, [$1,000,000] $2,000,000.

                       Court of Veterans Appeals

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation of the United 
     States Court of Veterans Appeals as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
     sections 7251-7292, [$9,289,000] $9,429,000, to be available 
     without regard to section 509 of this Act, of which not to 
     exceed [$650,000] $790,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1996, shall be available for the purpose of 
     providing financial assistance as described, and in 
     accordance with the process and reporting procedures set 
     forth, under this head in Public Law 102-229.

                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for 
     maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National 
     Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, 
     including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; $12,017,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    Environmental Protection Agency

              [research, prevention and program activities

       [For research and development, prevention, abatement, 
     compliance and enforcement activities, including hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and operation of 
     aircraft; purchase of reprints; library memberships in 
     societies or associations which issue publications to members 
     only or at a price to members lower than to subscribers who 
     are not members; construction, alteration, repair, 
     rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to exceed 
     $75,000 per project; and not to exceed $9,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; $1,600,300,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1996: Provided, That not 
     more than $250,000,000 of these funds shall be available for 
     operating expenses, including not more than $55,000,000 for 
     procurement of laboratory equipment, supplies, and other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be available to the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration pursuant to section 118(h)(3) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended: Provided 
     further, That from funds appropriated under this heading, the 
     Administrator may make grants to federally recognized Indian 
     governments for the development of multimedia environmental 
     programs.]


                        research and development

       For research and development activities, including 
     procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development; 
     and construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; 
     $350,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1996: 
     Provided, That not more than $50,567,000 of these funds shall 
     be available for procurement of laboratory equipment, 
     supplies, and other operating expenses in support of research 
     and development.


                   abatement, control, and compliance

       For abatement, control, and compliance activities, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; 
     library memberships in societies or associations which issue 
     publications to members only or at a price to members lower 
     than to subscribers who are not members; construction, 
     alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of 
     facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; and not to 
     exceed $6,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; $1,427,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1996: Provided, That not more than $296,772,500 of these 
     funds shall be available for operating expenses: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated under this head 
     shall be available to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration pursuant to section 118(h)(3) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act, as amended: Provided further, 
     That none of these funds may be expended for purposes of 
     resource conservation and recovery panels established under 
     section 2003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 
     as amended (42 U.S.C. 6913), or for support to State, 
     regional, local, and interstate agencies in accordance with 
     subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, other 
     than section 4008(a)(2) or 4009 (42 U.S.C. 6948, 6949): 
     Provided further, That from funds appropriated under this 
     heading, the Administrator may make grants to federally 
     recognized Indian governments for the development of 
     multimedia environmental programs.

                    program and research operations

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     personnel and related costs and for travel expenses, 
     including uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; and for services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the 
     per diem rate equivalent to the rate for GS-18; 
     [$935,000,000] $922,000,000.

                      office of inspector general

                    [(including transfers of funds)]

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to 
     exceed $75,000 per project, [$44,595,000, of which 
     $15,384,000 shall be derived from the Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund trust fund and $669,000 shall be derived from the 
     Leaking Underground Storage Tank trust fund: Provided, That 
     not more than $41,150,000 of these funds shall be available 
     for administrative expenses] $28,542,000.

                   [facilities and nationwide support

       [For construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of 
     or for use by the Environmental Protection Agency, and for 
     nationwide support of facilities-related activities, 
     $174,700,000, to remain available until expended.]


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, 
     or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     $43,870,000, to remain available until expended.

                     hazardous substance superfund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111 (c)(3), 
     (c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; 
     [$1,435,000,000] $1,200,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, consisting of [$1,185,000,000] $950,000,000 as 
     authorized by section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as amended by Public Law 
     101-508, and $250,000,000 as a payment from general revenues 
     to the Hazardous Substance Superfund as authorized by section 
     517(b) of SARA, as amended by Public Law 101-508, plus sums 
     recovered on behalf of the Hazardous Substance Superfund in 
     excess of $229,391,000 during fiscal year 1995: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated 
     to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a) 
     of CERCLA: Provided further, That $15,384,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be transferred to the 
     Office of Inspector General appropriation to remain available 
     until September 30, 1995: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 111(m) of CERCLA or any other 
     provision of law, not to exceed $69,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available to the 
     Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to carry out 
     activities described in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 
     111(c)(14) of CERCLA and section 118(f) of the Superfund 
     Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall 
     be available for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
     Registry to issue in excess of 40 toxicological profiles 
     pursuant to section 104(i) of CERCLA during fiscal year 1995: 
     Provided further, That no more than $308,000,000 of these 
     funds shall be available for administrative expenses of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated in this Act may be made available 
     for program management of Alternative Remedial Contracting 
     Strategy (ARCS) contracts exceeding 11 percent of the total 
     cost of such contract.

              leaking underground storage tank trust fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and 
     for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, 
     $70,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $8,150,000 shall be available for 
     administrative expenses: Provided further, That $669,000 of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading shall be 
     transferred to the Office of Inspector General appropriation 
     to remain available until September 30, 1995.

                           oil spill response


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990, $20,000,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability trust fund, and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That not more than $8,420,000 of these funds shall 
     be available for administrative expenses.

              [water infrastructure/state revolving funds

       [For necessary expenses for capitalization grants for State 
     revolving funds to support water infrastructure financing, 
     and to carry out the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended, the Water Quality Act of 1987, and 
     the Public Health Service Act, $2,732,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $1,787,000,000 shall not 
     become available until authorized by law: Provided, That of 
     the amount which becomes available on October 1, 1994, 
     $22,500,000 shall be for making grants under section 
     104(b)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
     amended; $100,000,000 shall be for making grants under 
     section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
     amended, and shall not become available until authorized by 
     law; $52,500,000 shall be for section 510 of the Water 
     Quality Act of 1987; and $70,000,000 shall be for making 
     grants under section 1443(a) of the Public Health Service 
     Act: Provided further, That the grant awarded from funds 
     appropriated under the paragraph with the heading 
     ``Construction grants'' in title III of the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 858) 
     for construction of a connector sewer line, consisting of a 
     main trunk line and 4 pump stations for the town of Honea 
     Path, South Carolina, to the wastewater treatment facility in 
     the town of Ware Shoals, South Carolina, shall include 
     demolition of Chiquola Mill Lagoon, Clatworthy Lagoon, Corner 
     Creek Lagoon, and Still Branch Lagoon.]


               water infrastructure/state revolving funds

       For necessary expenses for capitalization grants for State 
     revolving funds to support water infrastructure financing, 
     and to carry out the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended, and the Water Quality Act of 1987, 
     $3,400,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $22,500,000 shall be for making grants under section 
     104(b)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
     amended; $100,000,000 shall be for making grants under 
     section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
     amended; $52,500,000 shall be for section 510 of the Water 
     Quality Act of 1987; $47,500,000 shall be made available in 
     consultation with the appropriate border commission for 
     architectural, engineering, and design, and related 
     activities in connection with wastewater facilities in the 
     vicinity of Nogales, Arizona, and Mexicali, Mexico, and 
     planning and design of other high priority wastewater 
     facilities in the area of the Mexican border, the purpose of 
     which facilities is to control municipal wastewater from 
     Mexico; $50,000,000 shall be for grants to the State of 
     Texas, which shall be matched by an equal amount of State 
     funds from State sources, for the purpose of improving 
     wastewater treatment in colonias in that State; $10,000,000 
     shall be for a grant to the State of New Mexico, which is to 
     be matched by an equal amount of State funds from State 
     sources, for the purpose of improving wastewater treatment in 
     colonias in that State; $70,000,000 shall be for making 
     grants under section 1443(a) of the Public Health Service 
     Act; and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $369,700,000 shall be for making grants with a 55 percent 
     Federal share for the construction of wastewater treatment 
     facilities in accordance with the terms and conditions 
     specified for such grants in Senate Report 103-311: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, $500,000,000 
     made available under this heading in Public Law 103-124, and 
     earmarked to not become available until May 31, 1994, which 
     date was extended to September 30, 1994, in Public Law 103-
     211, shall be available immediately and without further 
     authorization for making grants with a 55 percent Federal 
     share for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities 
     in accordance with the terms and conditions specified for 
     such grants in Senate Report 103-311: Provided further, That 
     the grant awarded from funds appropriated under the paragraph 
     with the heading ``Construction grants'' in title III of the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1990 (103 Stat. 858) for construction of a connector sewer 
     line, consisting of a main trunk line and 4 pump stations for 
     the town of Honea Path, South Carolina, to the wastewater 
     treatment facility in the town of Ware Shoals, South 
     Carolina, shall include demolition of Chiquola Mill Lagoon, 
     Clatworthy Lagoon, Corner Creek Lagoon, and Still Branch 
     Lagoon: Provided further, That none of the funds provided 
     under this heading for State revolving funds shall be 
     allocated based on the 1992 Needs Survey Report to Congress.

                       [administrative provision]


                       administrative provisions

       Of the budgetary resources available to the Environmental 
     Protection Agency during fiscal year 1995, $7,525,000 are 
     permanently canceled. The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall allocate the amount of budgetary 
     resources canceled among the agency's accounts available for 
     procurement and procurement-related expenses. Amounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses in 
     each such account shall be reduced by the amount allocated to 
     such account. For the purposes of this paragraph, the 
     definition of ``procurement'' includes all stages of the 
     process of acquiring property or services, beginning with the 
     process of determining a need for a product or service and 
     ending with contract completion and closeout, as specified in 
     41 U.S.C. 403(2).
       None of the funds provided in this Act may be used within 
     the Environmental Protection Agency for any final action by 
     the Administrator or her delegate for signing and publishing 
     for promulgation a rule concerning any new standard for radon 
     in drinking water.
       None of the funds provided in this Act may be used during 
     fiscal year 1995 to sign, promulgate, implement or enforce 
     the requirement proposed as ``Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 
     Additives: Individual Foreign Refinery Baseline Requirements 
     for Reformulated Gasoline'' at volume 59 of the Federal 
     Register at pages 22800 through 22814.

                   Executive Office of the President

                office of science and technology policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 
     Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia, $4,981,000: Provided, That the 
     Office of Science and Technology Policy shall reimburse other 
     agencies for not less than one-half of the personnel 
     compensation costs of individuals detailed to it.

  council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

       For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to 
     the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act 
     of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $997,000.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                            [disaster relief

       [For necessary expenses in carrying out the functions of 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $320,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.]


            disaster assistance direct loan program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $2,418,000, as authorized by 
     section 319[, and $1,980,000, as authorized by section 417] 
     of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.): Provided, That such 
     costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be 
     as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $175,000,000 under section 319 
     [and not to exceed $3,000,000 under section 417] of the 
     Stafford Act: Provided further, That any unused portion of 
     the direct loan limitation and subsidy shall be available 
     until expended.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, [$145,000] $95,000.


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     including hire and purchase of motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 
     1343); uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     but at rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for GS-18; expenses of attendance of 
     cooperating officials and individuals at meetings concerned 
     with the work of emergency preparedness; transportation in 
     connection with the continuity of Government programs to the 
     same extent and in the same manner as permitted the Secretary 
     of a Military Department under 10 U.S.C. 2632; and not to 
     exceed $2,500 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; [$165,000,000] $162,000,000.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $4,400,000.

              emergency management planning and assistance

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to 
     carry out activities under the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 
     1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
     1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.), the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as 
     amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2251 et seq.), the Defense Production 
     Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), 
     sections 107 and 303 of the National Security Act of 1947, as 
     amended (50 U.S.C. 404-405), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 
     1978, [$220,345,000] $212,960,000.

                   emergency food and shelter program

       There is hereby appropriated $130,000,000 to the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency to carry out an emergency food 
     and shelter program pursuant to title III of Public Law 100-
     77, as amended: Provided, That total administrative costs 
     shall not exceed three and one-half per centum of the total 
     appropriation.

                     national flood insurance fund

                          (transfers of funds)

       Of the funds available from the National Flood Insurance 
     Fund for activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 
     $14,913,000 shall be transferred as needed to the ``Salaries 
     and expenses'' appropriation for administrative costs of the 
     insurance and flood plain management programs and $49,229,000 
     shall be transferred as needed to the ``Emergency management 
     planning and assistance'' appropriation for flood plain 
     management activities, including $4,720,000 for expenses 
     under section 1362 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4103, 4127), which amount shall 
     be available until September 30, 1996. In fiscal year 1995, 
     no funds in excess of (1) $32,000,000 for operating expenses, 
     (2) $253,641,000 for agents' commissions and taxes, and (3) 
     $12,000,000 for interest on Treasury borrowings shall be 
     available from the National Flood Insurance Fund without 
     prior notice to the Committees on Appropriations.

                       administrative provisions

       The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall promulgate through rulemaking a methodology for 
     assessment and collection of fees to be assessed and 
     collected in fiscal year 1995 applicable to persons subject 
     to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's radiological 
     emergency preparedness regulations. The aggregate charges 
     assessed pursuant to this section during fiscal year 1995 
     shall approximate, but not be less than, 100 per centum of 
     the amounts anticipated by the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency to be obligated for its radiological emergency 
     preparedness program for such fiscal year. The methodology 
     for assessment and collection of fees shall be fair and 
     equitable, and shall reflect the full amount of costs of 
     providing radiological emergency planning, preparedness, 
     response and associated services. Such fees will be assessed 
     in a manner that reflects the use of agency resources for 
     classes of regulated persons and the administrative costs of 
     collecting such fees. Fees received pursuant to this section 
     shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as 
     offsetting receipts. Assessment and collection of such fees 
     are only authorized during fiscal year 1995.
       Of the budgetary resources available to the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency during fiscal year 1995, 
     $1,441,000 are permanently canceled. The Director of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency shall allocate the amount 
     of budgetary resources canceled among the Agency's accounts 
     available for procurement and procurement-related expenses. 
     Amounts available for procurement and procurement-related 
     expenses in each such account shall be reduced by the amount 
     allocated to such account. For the purposes of this 
     paragraph, the definition of ``procurement'' includes all 
     stages of the process of acquiring property or services, 
     beginning with the process of determining a need for a 
     product or service and ending with contract completion and 
     closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 403(2).

                    General Services Administration

                      consumer information center

       For necessary expenses of the Consumer Information Center, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $2,008,000, 
     to be deposited into the Consumer Information Center Fund: 
     Provided, That the appropriations, revenues and collections 
     deposited into the fund shall be available for necessary 
     expenses of Consumer Information Center activities in the 
     aggregate amount of $7,500,000. Administrative expenses of 
     the Consumer Information Center in fiscal year 1995 shall not 
     exceed $2,454,000. Appropriations, revenues, and collections 
     accruing to this fund during fiscal year 1995 in excess of 
     $7,500,000 shall remain in the fund and shall not be 
     available for expenditure except as authorized in 
     appropriations Acts.

                Department of Health and Human Services

                       office of consumer affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Consumer Affairs, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $2,166,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     that Office may solicit, accept and deposit to this account, 
     during fiscal year 1995, gifts for the purpose of defraying 
     its costs of printing, publishing, and distributing consumer 
     information and educational materials; may expend up to 
     $1,100,000 of those gifts for those purposes, in addition to 
     amounts otherwise appropriated; and the balance shall remain 
     available for expenditure for such purposes to the extent 
     authorized in subsequent appropriations Acts: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds provided under this heading 
     may be made available for any other activities within the 
     Department of Health and Human Services.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration

                           human space flight

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of human space flight research and 
     development activities, including research; development; 
     operations; services; maintenance; construction of facilities 
     including repair, rehabilitation, and modification of real 
     and personal property, and acquisition or condemnation of 
     real property, as authorized by law; space flight, spacecraft 
     control and communications activities including operations, 
     production, and services; and purchase, lease, charter, 
     maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative 
     aircraft; [$5,592,900,000] $5,573,900,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 1996.

                  science, aeronautics and technology


                    (including rescission of funds)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for the 
     conduct and support of science, aeronautics, and technology 
     research and development activities, including research; 
     development; operations; services; maintenance; construction 
     of facilities including repair, rehabilitation and 
     modification of real and personal property, and acquisition 
     or condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; space 
     flight, spacecraft control and communications activities 
     including operations, production, and services; and purchase, 
     lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of mission and 
     administrative aircraft; $5,901,200,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 1996.
       Of the amounts provided under the heading, ``construction 
     of facilities'', for the Consortium for International Earth 
     Science Information Network in Public Law 102-389, 
     $10,000,000 are rescinded.


                    national aeronautical facilities

       For construction of new national wind tunnel facilities, 
     including final design, modification of existing facilities, 
     necessary equipment, and for acquisition or condemnation of 
     real property as authorized by law, for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, $400,000,000, to remain 
     available until March 31, 1997.

                            mission support

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in 
     carrying out mission support for human space flight programs 
     and science, aeronautical, and technology programs, including 
     research operations and support; space communications 
     activities including operations, production, and services; 
     maintenance; construction of facilities including repair, 
     rehabilitation, and modification of facilities, minor 
     construction of new facilities and additions to existing 
     facilities, facility planning and design, environmental 
     compliance and restoration, and acquisition or condemnation 
     of real property, as authorized by law; program management; 
     personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902); travel 
     expenses; purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and 
     operation of mission and administrative aircraft; not to 
     exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and purchase (not to exceed thirty-three for 
     replacement only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     [$2,549,587,000] $2,559,587,000.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, [$16,000,000] $16,800,000.


                       administrative provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       [Of the budgetary resources available to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration during fiscal year 1995, 
     $59,003,000 are permanently canceled. The Administrator of 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall 
     allocate the amount of budgetary resources canceled among the 
     agency's accounts available for procurement and procurement-
     related expenses. Amounts available for procurement and 
     procurement-related expenses in each such account shall be 
     reduced by the amount allocated to such account. For the 
     purposes of this paragraph, the definition of ``procurement'' 
     includes all stages of the process of acquiring property or 
     services, beginning with the process of determining a need 
     for a product or service and ending with contract completion 
     and closeout, as specified in 41 U.S.C. 403(2).]
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this 
     appropriations Act, when any activity has been initiated by 
     the incurrence of obligations for construction of facilities 
     as authorized by law, the amount available for such activity 
     shall remain available until expended. This provision does 
     not apply to the amounts appropriated in ``Mission support'' 
     pursuant to the authorization for repair, rehabilitation and 
     modification of facilities, minor construction of new 
     facilities and additions to existing facilities, and facility 
     planning and design.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this 
     appropriations Act, the amounts appropriated for construction 
     of facilities shall remain available until September 30, 
     1997.
       No amount appropriated pursuant to this or any other Act 
     may be used for the lease or construction of a new 
     contractor-funded facility for exclusive use in support of a 
     contract or contracts with the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration under which the Administration would be 
     required to substantially amortize through payment or 
     reimbursement such contractor investment, unless an 
     appropriations Act specifies the lease or contract pursuant 
     to which such facilities are to be constructed or leased or 
     such facility is otherwise identified in such Act. The 
     Administrator may authorize such facility lease or 
     construction, if he determines, in consultation with the 
     Committees on Appropriations, that deferral of such action 
     until the enactment of the next appropriations Act would be 
     inconsistent with the interest of the Nation in aeronautical 
     and space activities.
       The unexpired balances of prior appropriations to NASA for 
     activities for which funds are provided under this Act may be 
     transferred to the new account established for the 
     appropriation that provides funds for such activity under 
     this Act. Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in 
     the newly established account and thereafter may be accounted 
     for as one fund to be available for the same purposes and 
     under the same terms and conditions.
       The fourth proviso in the paragraph under the heading 
     ``Science, space, and technology education trust fund'' in 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development--Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1989 (Public Law 101-404, 102 
     Stat. 1014, 1028) is amended by striking out ``for a ten-year 
     period'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``hereafter''.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall 
     convey, without reimbursement, to the City of Slidell, 
     Louisiana, all rights, title, and interest of the United 
     States in the property, including all improvements thereon, 
     known as the Slidell Computer Complex, and consisting of 
     approximately 14 acres in the City of Slidell, St. Tammany 
     Parish, Louisiana: Provided, That appropriated funds may be 
     used to effect this conveyance: Provided further, in 
     consideration of this conveyance, the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration may require such other terms and 
     conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate to protect 
     the interests of the United States.
       Of amounts made available within this Act to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, not more than 
     $108,900,000 shall be obligated to satisfy the requirements 
     set forth in section 9(e)-(r) of the Small Business Act, as 
     amended (15 U.S.C. 638(e)-(r)), and any related requirements, 
     including such requirements enacted in Public Law 102-564.

                  National Credit Union Administration

                       central liquidity facility

       During fiscal year 1995, gross obligations of the Central 
     Liquidity Facility for the principal amount of new direct 
     loans to member credit unions as authorized by the National 
     Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (12 U.S.C. 1795) 
     shall not exceed $600,000,000: Provided, That administrative 
     expenses of the Central Liquidity Facility in fiscal year 
     1995 shall not exceed $901,000.

                      National Science Foundation

                    research and related activities


              (including transfer and rescission of funds)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1861-1875), and the Act to establish a National Medal 
     of Science (42 U.S.C. 1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109; maintenance and operation of aircraft and 
     purchase of flight services for research support; acquisition 
     of aircraft; [$2,216,923,000] $2,300,000,000, of which not to 
     exceed $225,430,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     Polar research and operations support, and for reimbursement 
     to other Federal agencies for operational and science support 
     and logistical and other related activities for the United 
     States Antarctic program; the balance to remain available 
     until September 30, 1996: Provided, That receipts for 
     scientific support services and materials furnished by the 
     National Research Centers and other National Science 
     Foundation supported research facilities may be credited to 
     this appropriation: Provided further, That to the extent that 
     the amount appropriated is less than the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for included program 
     activities, all amounts, including floors and ceilings, 
     specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities 
     or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally: 
     Provided further, That amounts appropriated in prior fiscal 
     years for the United States Polar Research Programs, the 
     United States Antarctic Logistical Support Activities, and 
     the Critical Technologies Institute shall be transferred to 
     and merged with this appropriation and remain available until 
     expended.
       Of the amounts made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 103-124, $35,000,000 are rescinded.

                        major research equipment

       For necessary expenses in carrying out major construction 
     and procurement projects pursuant to the purposes of the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, 
     [$105,000,000] $150,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                    academic research infrastructure

       For necessary expenses in carrying out an academic research 
     infrastructure program pursuant to the purposes of the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109 and rental of conference rooms in the District of 
     Columbia, [$100,000,000] $300,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 1996: [Provided, That these funds shall 
     not become available for obligation until March 31, 1995] 
     Provided, That $190,000,000 of the funds under this heading 
     are available for obligation for the period September 1, 1995 
     through August 31, 1996.

                     education and human resources

       For necessary expenses in carrying out science and 
     engineering education and human resources programs and 
     activities pursuant to the purposes of the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and rental 
     of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, 
     [$585,974,000] $605,974,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 1996: Provided, That to the extent that the 
     amount of this appropriation is less than the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for included program 
     activities, all amounts, including floors and ceilings, 
     specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities 
     or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally.


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary salaries and expenses in carrying out the 
     purposes of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed 
     $9,000 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902); rental of conference rooms in the District 
     of Columbia; reimbursement of the General Services 
     Administration for security guard services; $123,966,000: 
     Provided, That contracts may be entered into under salaries 
     and expenses in fiscal year 1995 for maintenance and 
     operation of facilities, and for other services, to be 
     provided during the next fiscal year.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, [$4,000,000] $4,380,000.


          national science foundation headquarters relocation

       For necessary support of the relocation of the National 
     Science Foundation, $5,200,000: Provided, That these funds 
     shall be used to reimburse the General Services 
     Administration for services and related acquisitions in 
     support of relocating the National Science Foundation.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

          payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation

       For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 
     for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as 
     authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $38,667,000.

                        Selective Service System

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System, 
     including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training 
     for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service 
     System, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 4101-4118) for 
     civilian employees; and not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; $22,930,000: Provided, 
     That during the current fiscal year, the President may exempt 
     this appropriation from the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1341, 
     whenever he deems such action to be necessary in the interest 
     of national defense: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be expended for or in connection 
     with the induction of any person into the Armed Forces of the 
     United States.

                                TITLE IV

                              CORPORATIONS

       Corporations and agencies of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development which are subject to the Government 
     Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby authorized to 
     make such expenditures, within the limits of funds and 
     borrowing authority available to each such corporation or 
     agency and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Act as may be necessary in 
     carrying out the programs set forth in the budget for 1995 
     for such corporation or agency except as hereinafter 
     provided: Provided, That collections of these corporations 
     and agencies may be used for new loan or mortgage purchase 
     commitments only to the extent expressly provided for in this 
     Act (unless such loans are in support of other forms of 
     assistance provided for in this or prior appropriations 
     Acts), except that this proviso shall not apply to the 
     mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of these 
     corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are 
     necessary to protect the financial interest of the United 
     States Government.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                         fslic resolution fund

       For payment of expenditures of the FSLIC Resolution Fund, 
     for which other funds available to the FSLIC Resolution Fund 
     as authorized by Public Law 101-73 are insufficient, 
     $827,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                    [fdic affordable housing program

       [For the affordable housing program of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation under section 40 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831q), $15,000,000 to pay for any 
     losses resulting from the sale of properties under the 
     program, and for all administrative and holding costs 
     associated with operating the program.
       [Notwithstanding any provisions of section 40 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act or any other provision of law, 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall be deemed in 
     compliance with such section if, in its sole discretion, the 
     Corporation at any time modifies, amends or waives any 
     provisions of such section in order to maximize the efficient 
     use of the available appropriated funds. The Corporation 
     shall not be subject to suit for its failure to comply with 
     the requirements of this provision or section 40 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act.]

                      Resolution Trust Corporation

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $32,000,000.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Section 501. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III 
     of this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no 
     specific limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures 
     for such travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth 
     therefor in the budget estimates submitted for the 
     appropriations: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to travel performed by uncompensated officials of local 
     boards and appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to 
     travel performed directly in connection with care and 
     treatment of medical beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs; to travel performed in connection with 
     major disasters or emergencies declared or determined by the 
     President under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; to travel 
     performed by the Offices of Inspector General in connection 
     with audits and investigations; or to payments to interagency 
     motor pools where separately set forth in the budget 
     schedules: Provided further, That if appropriations in titles 
     I, II, and III exceed the amounts set forth in budget 
     estimates initially submitted for such appropriations, the 
     expenditures for travel may correspondingly exceed the 
     amounts therefor set forth in the estimates in the same 
     proportion.
       Sec. 502. Appropriations and funds available for the 
     administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be 
     available in the current fiscal year for purchase of 
     uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902); hire of passenger motor vehicles; and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 503. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act 
     or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available, 
     without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses, 
     for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for 
     utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of 
     Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National 
     Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 
     Federal Financing Bank, Resolution Trust Corporation, Federal 
     Reserve banks or any member thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, 
     and any insured bank within the meaning of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 
     1811-1831).
       Sec. 504. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 505. No funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     expended--
       (1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee 
     of the United States unless--
       (A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a 
     voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and 
     the items or services for which such expenditure is being 
     made, or
       (B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such 
     certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is 
     specifically authorized by law; and
       (2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the 
     General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law 
     from such audit.
       Sec. 506. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency may be expended for the transportation 
     of any officer or employee of such department or agency 
     between his domicile and his place of employment, with the 
     exception of any officer or employee authorized such 
     transportation under title 31, United States Code, section 
     1344.
       Sec. 507. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients 
     that do not share in the cost of conducting research 
     resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the 
     Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the 
     recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the 
     grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
       Sec. 508. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used, directly or through grants, to pay or to provide 
     reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant 
     (whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at 
     more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for Level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by 
     law.
       Sec. 509. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act for personnel compensation and benefits shall be 
     available for other object classifications set forth in the 
     budget estimates submitted for the appropriations: Provided, 
     That this section shall not apply to any part of the 
     appropriations contained in this Act for Offices of Inspector 
     General personnel compensation and benefits.
       Sec. 510. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal 
     parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory 
     proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of 
     the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
       Sec. 511. Except as otherwise provided under existing law 
     or under an existing Executive order issued pursuant to an 
     existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any 
     appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting 
     service shall be limited to contracts which are (1) a matter 
     of public record and available for public inspection, and (2) 
     thereafter included in a publicly available list of all 
     contracts entered into within twenty-four months prior to the 
     date on which the list is made available to the public and of 
     all contracts on which performance has not been completed by 
     such date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall 
     be updated quarterly and shall include a narrative 
     description of the work to be performed under each such 
     contract.
       Sec. 512. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of 
     any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or 
     expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et 
     seq.) for a contract for services unless such executive 
     agency (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in full 
     compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder, and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to 
     such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies, 
     analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency 
     which is substantially derived from or substantially includes 
     any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain 
     information concerning (A) the contract pursuant to which the 
     report was prepared, and (B) the contractor who prepared the 
     report pursuant to such contract.
       Sec. 513. Except as otherwise provided in section 506, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of such department or agency.
       Sec. 514. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001 
     with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than 
     22 miles per gallon.
       Sec. 515. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1995 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 516. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this 
     Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real 
     property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000 
     unless the Secretary submits, in writing, a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a period of 
     30 days has expired following the date on which the report is 
     received by the Committees on Appropriations.
       [Sec. 517. (a) The Resolution Trust Corporation 
     (``Corporation'') shall report to the Congress at least once 
     a month on the status of the review required by section 
     21A(b)(11)(B) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and the 
     actions taken with respect to the agreements described in 
     such section. The report shall describe, for each such 
     agreement, the review that has been conducted and the action 
     that has been taken, if any, to rescind or to restructure, 
     modify, or renegotiate the agreement. In describing the 
     action taken, the Corporation is not required to provide 
     detailed information regarding an ongoing investigation or 
     negotiation. The Corporation shall exercise any and all legal 
     rights to restructure, modify, renegotiate or rescind such 
     agreement, notwithstanding any other provision of law, where 
     the savings would be realized.
       [(b) To expend any appropriated funds for the purpose of 
     restructuring, modifying, or renegotiating the agreements 
     described in subsection (a), the Corporation shall certify to 
     the Congress, for each such agreement, the following:
       [(1) the Corporation has completed its review of the 
     agreement, as required by section 21A(b)(11)(B) of the 
     Federal Home Loan Bank Act;
       [(2)(A) at the time of certification, in the opinion of the 
     Corporation and based upon the information available to it, 
     there is insufficient evidence or other indication of fraud, 
     mis-representation, failure to disclose a material fact, 
     failure to perform under the terms of the agreement, 
     improprieties in the bidding process, failure to comply with 
     any law, rule or regulation regarding the validity of the 
     agreement, or any other legal basis sufficient for the 
     rescission of the agreement; or
       [(B) at the time of certification, the Corporation finds 
     that there may be sufficient evidence to provide a legal 
     basis for the rescission of the assistance agreement, but the 
     Corporation determines that it may be in the best interest of 
     the Government of restructure, modify or renegotiate the 
     assistance agreement; and
       [(3) the Corporation has or will promptly exercise any and 
     all legal rights to modify, renegotiate, or restructure the 
     agreement where savings would be realized by such action.
       [Sec. 518. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       [(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.]
       Sec. 517. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     reimburse grantees for indirect costs at an amount that 
     differs from procedures in use by Federal agencies on June 1, 
     1994 or from OMB Circular A-21, as published in the Federal 
     Register on July 26, 1993 on pages 39996 through 39999.
       This Act may be cited as the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that two 
individuals on detail to the VA-HUD subcommittee, Dr. Chris Gabriel, 
and Ms. Ann Watt, be given unlimited floor privileges during the 
consideration of H.R. 4624.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, you saw me leap to my feet and 
overlook the reading of the bill because I am quite anxious to bring to 
the U.S. Senate the VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill 
for 1995.
  This has been a strong bipartisan effort trying to achieve 
investments in America's future, promises made, promises kept to our 
veterans, and at the same time fiscal affordability.
  Ordinarily, I would be joined by my ranking minority member, Senator 
Phil Gramm of Texas. He is now involved in the Whitewater hearings and 
will not be on the floor during this debate. He will submit his 
statement as appropriate and will speak to the Senate tomorrow morning. 
So, we understand why he cannot be here.
  In the bill before us today, the Committee on Appropriations is 
recommending just over $70.4 billion in new discretionary budget 
authority for the programs within the jurisdiction of the VA, HUD, and 
independent agencies subcommittee.
  That means VA, HUD, FEMA, space, the National Science Foundation, and 
several other independent agencies.


                           funding shortfall

  As my colleagues know, this year we have faced a daunting, if not 
nearly impossible, task. The Senate VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies 
Subcommittee has a 602(b) allocation that is $729 million in outlays 
below the President's budget request.
  In addition, the chairman of the House VA-HUD subcommittee and I have 
jointly identified four areas of need where the President's budget 
request is inadequate: VA medical care, VA medical research, VA pension 
claim processing, and public housing operating subsidies. To fix these 
four areas costs an additional $354 million in outlays.
  Combining this shortfall of $729 million and these liens of $354 
million, we faced an outlay gap of almost $1.1 billion.
  We also received nearly 1,100 requests from Members for individual 
projects, all with merit, with a dollar total requested of more than 
$96 billion, about $26 billion more than the subcommittee's 602(b) 
allocation.
  As a result of these demands, the committee has derived savings in 
this bill, as did our counterparts in the House, by including certain 
legislative provisions, largely in the housing area, which will 
generate significant outlay savings.
  That means where the money came from. It meant that, with the 
concurrence of the authorizing, certain legislative provisions in 
housing will give us these outlays that we need.
  However, because the Senate VA-HUD subcommittee had a 602(b) 
allocation which was $316 million less in outlays than the House, we 
have been forced to include certain additional housing provisions to 
make up, in part, for a smaller outlay allocation.
  With the use of these provisions, the bill before the Senate 
represents a balanced package that accomplishes the tasks we set out to 
do at the beginning of this year: Meet our commitments to veterans; 
fund a balanced U.S. space program; address the highest priority 
housing areas; continue our investments in science and technology; 
preserve the environment; and keep our commitment to national service.
  I would like to highlight our efforts in some key areas:
  Veterans: We are recommending a total VA appropriation of more than 
$37.4 billion, $136 million higher than the House and $314 million 
above the President's budget.
  Medical care: We are added $111 million to the budget request for 
veterans medical care, for a total medical care budget of more than 
$16.2 billion--an increase of more than $610 million above the 1994 
level.
  Prosthetic research: We have added $41 million to the budget for 
veterans medical and prosthetic research, providing a total of $252 
million.
  Pension claim processing: Because we were deeply concerned about the 
backlog for veterans pensions and insurance claims processing, we have 
added $50 million to the budget request. This will mean a total general 
operating expenses budget of $893 million, almost $67 million above the 
1994 appropriations.
  State nursing homes: For State veterans nursing homes we have added 
$10 million to the budget request, a total of $47.4 million.
  In the area of housing, for HUD, we are recommending $25.6 billion in 
new budget authority. However, using unused and unneeded funds from 
prior years, we will be able to provide a program level for housing of 
close to $26 billion.
  CDBG: For CDBG, we are retaining the House increase of $200 million 
above the budget, for a total CDBG program of $4.6 billion.
  Elderly housing: We have provided a total of $1.3 billion for elderly 
housing, restoring the proposed budget cut, and adding about $150 
million above the House.
  Public housing: We have also restored proposed cuts in public 
housing, provided $500 million for Hope VI, and retained the House 
level for operating subsidies.
  Home: We have added $225 million for the home program, for a total of 
$1.5 billion.
  Homeless: For the homeless, we have provided the full budget request 
of $1.25 billion, but agreed to leave FEMA's food and shelter program 
in FEMA.
  Space: For NASA, the bill proposes more than $14.4 billion, more than 
$200 million above the budget request and $440 million above the House.
  Space station: Included in this recommendation is $2.1 billion for 
the space station, maintaining its core science capability and our 
partnership with Russia, the European Community, Canada, and Japan.
  Space science: The bill recommends full funding for all major NASA 
space science initiatives, including the Cassini planetary mission to 
Saturn, the advanced x ray astrophysics facility, and the Mars global 
surveyor mission.
  Mission to Planet Earth: For the Earth observing system, we have 
added an additional $50 million in order to get spacecraft after the 
first EOS satellite back to their original schedule.
  We are also making a major investment to make our aeronautics 
industry remain competitive. It has been deeply disturbing to this 
Senator, and I know to the Presiding Officer, and to other Senators on 
the floor. It has been our aeronautics industry that has always led the 
way, both in this Nation and around the world. It was our aeronautics 
superiority that enabled us to win World War II and continue to be a 
superpower.
  But, at the same time those extraordinary objectives that we 
achieved--often because of the military objective, because of the kind 
of Nation we are--we moved into the civilian economy. Now we face new 
challenges.
  Our American aeronautics industry is competing not only with other 
companies, but with other countries. Therefore, we wanted to make sure 
they have the research capability in a public-private partnership to 
work with them.
  Wind tunnels: In addition to NASA's core program, we have added $400 
million for a new wind tunnel initiative in aeronautics. This will help 
our aeronautics industry to be competitive and have the technology-
tools to be able to jump-start the agency's work. And working in this 
public-private partnership, that will keep us not only a military 
superpower but an economic superpower with aeronautics heading the way.
  Water infrastructure: For water infrastructure activities, we are 
providing nearly $3.4 billion. This includes $700 million for drinking 
water grants, $100 million for non-point source pollution, $2 billion 
for wastewater State revolving funds, and just over $500 million for 
needy city wastewater grants.
  Environment: For EPA, we are providing a substantial increase. The 
committee recommended an appropriation of nearly $7.5 billion, more 
than $800 million over last year, $300 million above the budget 
request, and $466 million higher than the House.
  Operating Programs: EPA's operating programs would grow by more than 
7 percent over 1994, one of the largest increases in the bill. By 
providing this amount, I think we have answered critics who suggest 
that full funding of the space station would gobble up funds otherwise 
going to the environment.
  Science: For NSF, we are recommending more than $3.4 billion. This is 
$436 million above last year, $256 million above the budget request, 
and $349 million above the House.
  Over the past year, the National Science Foundation has willingly 
accepted the challenges in strategic research which the committee set 
out for it last year. We believe that Dr. Neal Lane's efforts, and 
those of his associate directors, should therefore be rewarded.
  Research: We are recommending $2.3 billion for basic research, about 
$83 million more than the House.
  Education: We propose $606 million for science education, $20 million 
above the House.
  Facilities modernization: To improve facility modernization at our 
campuses so they can make sure that our young people are as fit for 
duty as we can, we are recommending a total of $300 million, including 
$190 million for a new merit-based inter-agency facilities program run 
by NSF.
  National Service: Finally, for national service, we are providing 
$610 million, almost the entire budget request.
  This is among the President's highest priorities in this legislation 
and I am happy we could accommodate this priority of his.
  Along with this increase, we've added funds for the national service 
inspector general. We want to make sure that as funding for national 
service programs increase, our stewardship over these expenditures 
increases as well.
  In summary this has been a tough bill to assemble. I am deeply 
appreciative of the cooperation I have received from our full committee 
chairman, Senator Byrd, and his staff.
  I also want to thank Senator Phil Gramm, my ranking member, all the 
members of our subcommittee, and the members of the Banking Committee, 
for their cooperation in putting this bill together.
  We have not provided for all the needs for which requests where made. 
And many will be unhappy that our wallet was not as large as the wish 
lists of those who sought funds from the subcommittee.
  On balance, however, I believe it addresses the highest priority 
matters of the United States of America in a way that is fair and 
balanced, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Madam President, I note that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a strong 
supporter of this bill, would like to make an opening statement. After 
her statement, we will move to the space station amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam President.
  First, I want to thank the Senator from Maryland for her leadership 
in this effort. She has been a proponent of NASA and space because she 
went to NASA and she saw all the things that were done there that 
affect the everyday day lives of Americans. She could see immediately 
that we had to be leaders and we had to look to the long term. Madam 
President, that is what we are talking about today.
  Two weeks ago marked the 25th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon 
landing, the culmination of one of the most significant undertakings 
this Nation has ever known. On the eve of this historic anniversary, 
the House voted overwhelmingly, 278-to-155, to support the space 
station. Yet, the Senate is here today, debating this bill once again. 
And we will have an amendment to once again eliminate the space 
station.
  President Kennedy started it with his vision that we would be able to 
do things beyond our dreams when we went into space research. The years 
proved President Kennedy was right. We have been able to do things that 
we hardly could dream about when he started this project.
  The race to the Moon required great advances in engineering and 
technology that still fuel our economy today. Some 30,000 spinoff 
technologies are employed regularly in computers and communications, 
health and medicine, the environment, home and recreation, and public 
safety. Less obtrusive hearing aids and better pacemakers. CAT scans 
and surgical lasers. Velcro closing devices.
  The space station will be a test bed for the technologies of the 
future, and a laboratory for research. For example:
  A better understanding of the combustion process in space can lead to 
energy conservation on Earth. A 2-percent increase in burner efficiency 
for heaters would save the United States $8 billion per year;
  Research on large space vehicles will lead to improved computer 
software for developing new, lightweight structures such as antennas 
and solar collectors with precision pointing accuracy. Such 
developments will greatly benefit the communications, utility, and 
transportation industries; and
  Research already scheduled for the space station will address several 
perplexing women's diseases, from osteoporosis to ovarian and breast 
cancer to immune system disorders.
  And, like the Apollo program before it, the space station will enable 
us to develop new and more advanced spinoffs that will help to make 
life here on Earth better and safer.
  Critics in this body have used the budget as an excuse to scuttle the 
space station. But the reality is that if the space station were 
terminated, these dollars would be spent on environmental and social 
programs that have either failed or that we know will never provide a 
return on our investment.
  When we prioritize spending, we have a choice: Do we want the kind of 
spending that is one time only, that will provide jobs for 10 months or 
18 months, or should we spend money where it is going to reap benefits 
twentyfold, or more, as space research has already shown it will do?
  There are people today who are healthy because of space research and 
because our forefathers and mothers had the ingenuity and foresight to 
make those investments.
  We get a thrill from the new horizons opened with space ventures--we 
can see the gains because we can see the liftoff and hear the 
astronauts as they orbit the Earth.
  But, big science and research are more than a cheap thrill.
  Big research projects give us new technologies, new products. Making 
these new products requires engineers and factory assemblers.
  These new jobs keep our economy vibrant and growing--to absorb our 
new entrants into the job market.
  The parents of every child want more than anything for their child to 
have a future. Space research will provide that future.
  Terminating the space station is the equivalent of eating our seed 
corn. We must inspire our children to become engineers and scientists. 
We must then give those engineers and scientists the opportunity to 
develop new products and processes that will make us more competitive 
in the world marketplace.
  We have already sent the wrong message once. A year ago, the Congress 
voted to kill the super collider. That was a mistake. I think many 
people who voted to kill it a year ago realize that it was a mistake.
  It was a mistake because in effect we took a back-seat in high energy 
physics to our technological competitors. We chose to follow when it 
was in our grasp to lead. We sent the wrong signal to our scientific 
community and to our students who we so desperately need to master the 
basic sciences.
  Now the bright minds of today and tomorrow are turning to Europe and 
to projects like CERN. Their research and their discoveries will lead 
to new products and new industries and new jobs for our international 
competitors.
  We cannot afford to make the same mistake with the space station.
  There is another issue here as well. We cannot afford to walk out on 
our international partners. These partners--which include Japan, 
Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and eight other 
European countries--have acted in good faith and have invested millions 
of dollars. It is unthinkable that America would not be a good partner 
and would not live up to its commitment.
  Those who seek to kill space station funding are looking to 
yesterday. Leaders must look to tomorrow.
  We will hear once again that the hardships are too great, the costs 
are too high.
  But, I would remind my colleagues to put the matter into perspective.
  NASA's annual budget accounts for less than 1 percent of total 
Federal spending.
  The space station accounts for one seven-hundredths of the entire 
Federal budget which breaks down to about $8 per person. So, for the 
cost of a hamburger, french fries and a Dr. Pepper each American can 
keep the space station program on track.
  In return for the investment, America receives 370,000 direct and 
indirect jobs which are dependent on the space station, and a return of 
$20 to the U.S. economy for every $1 spent on the space program.
  While there will remain some who claim ``We cannot afford the space 
station''--the truth is--we cannot afford not to keep our commitment to 
big science and the future of this country.

  Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland and I look forward 
to debating those who would look back to yesterday rather than look to 
tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, first of all, I thank my colleague from 
Arkansas for allowing me to proceed at this time. I think he was 
prepared to offer his amendment early this evening so we might start 
consuming the time allotted for his amendment.
  I assume he will discuss, at some length, the many reasons for 
terminating the space station immediately. I would like to take this 
opportunity to focus on the fact that the administration's promise that 
bringing Russia into the program will reduce its costs is, in fact, 
false, as demonstrated by a recent GAO report that I requested.
  A year ago, the space station was on the verge of being terminated, 
but in a desperate effort to save it, the administration brought Russia 
into the program, asserting that this would reduce the cost to build 
the space station by $2 billion, from $19.4 billion down to $17.4 
billion. This promise of $2 billion in savings was critical to gaining 
congressional support to save the station last year.
  The GAO, however, has recently found this claimed $2 billion is about 
as empty as the space through which the station would fly. According to 
GAO, far from saving $2 billion, bringing the Russians into the program 
will increase the costs by nearly $2 billion. Russian participation 
does yield about $500 million worth of savings for certain items. But 
it also requires additional spending for the space station program of 
about $900 million for such things as a fourth solar array and the cost 
of integrating the Russian equipment. So within what NASA defines as 
the space station budget, Russian participation adds a net cost of $400 
million.
  But, in addition to this, there is another $1.4 billion in added 
spending that will be required by the Russian participation, but which 
NASA conveniently failed to include in its estimates of the station's 
costs.
  NASA's failure to include this extra $1.4 billion required by Russian 
participation reminds me of Steve Martin's routine about how to be a 
millionaire and pay no taxes.
  First, he said, get $1 million. Then, do not pay any taxes. And then 
when the tax man comes around to find out why, simply slap yourself on 
the forehead and declare, ``I forgot.''
  Including the Russians in the space station will require two more 
shuttle flights to build the station. This will cost $746 million. Why 
did NASA not include this in the costs? NASA forgot.
  Including the Russians in the space station program would require the 
space shuttle fleet to be enhanced so the station could be built in the 
Russian's higher inclination orbit. This will cost $185 million. Why 
did NASA not include this in the costs? NASA forgot.
  Including the Russians in the space station will require a second 
space shuttle orbiter to be modified so it can dock with the Russian 
Mir. This will cost an additional $44 million. Why did NASA not include 
this in the costs? NASA forgot.
  Including the Russians in the space station reduces NASA's launch 
window to only 5 minutes, and overcoming this limitation will require 
up to $20 million. Why did NASA not include this in the cost? NASA 
forgot.

  Including the Russians in the space station led to a $400 million 
contract between NASA and the Russian space agency for the first two 
phases of this three-phased program, including the development of space 
station hardware. Why did NASA not include this cost? NASA simply 
forgot.
  Madam President, NASA's creative accounting appears to be a 
deliberate effort to mislead Congress and the American people. We have 
had this on many other types of programs. I could go back and cite the 
B-1B program, whose original cost projections excluded billions 
associated with the program and which ultimately cost the American 
taxpayer much more beyond that or, indeed, the B-2 bomber, among 
others. But rather than joining NASA in forgetting the facts and in 
forgetting whose money it is we are talking about, I suggest we ought 
to forget about the space station program.
  If these findings were not enough to persuade Senators, GAO also 
identified problems that could delay the station's schedule and 
increase the cost even more.
  NASA, for example, is developing a new super lightweight fuel tank to 
help the shuttle reach the Russian orbit. GAO found that ``in 
developing the super lightweight tank, NASA is experiencing significant 
development problems.''
  NASA claims that this will not delay the schedule at all, but GAO 
warned that the fixes that are needed to develop these programs and to 
correct these problems could ``increase tank development costs, reduce 
the amount of lift gain provided by the new tank, or both.'' And 
reducing the shuttle's lift could necessitate more shuttle flights to 
assemble the station, resulting in schedule delays and large additional 
costs.
  As it is, NASA says the new Russian Alpha station will cost about $71 
billion to build and to operate. But I would submit that given that the 
average cost overrun of NASA programs is 77 percent, no one should be 
surprised when future cost estimates of the station rise above $100 
billion. We will not be able to come back and say, ``We forgot.''
  Even at $71 billion, we cannot afford the Russian Alpha station any 
more than we could afford the $120 billion space station Freedom, which 
the administration terminated last year, and neither can our children, 
from whom we, once again, will be borrowing the money.
  NASA cannot afford it. As the GAO and CBO have warned in several dire 
reports, NASA's budget over the next 5 years falls at least $10 
billion, and conceivably $20 billion, short of what it needs to pay for 
various programs that it plans to conduct.
  So a failure to terminate this program will result in NASA stretching 
out the other programs to live within its budget, wasting billions in 
taxpayers' dollars, and causing the outright cancellation of other NASA 
programs that do support real science.
  It also means that every year for the next decade there is going to 
be terrible pressure on all programs funded through the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill, which includes health care for veterans, programs 
for the homeless, environmental protection, and real science programs 
funded by the National Science Foundation.
  Terminating the space station now would save $10 billion over the 
next 5 years, relieving the pressure on these other important programs 
and allow NASA to carry out some worthwhile research projects.
  In this regard, it cannot be repeated too often that the efforts to 
justify the station on scientific grounds have been refuted by the most 
credible source possible: The very scientists who purportedly are going 
to benefit from the station.
  Proponents argue that the space station is needed to advance research 
against cancer. Why, then, does the American Association for Cancer 
Research oppose the space station as being of ``little scientific or 
technical merit?''
  Proponents argue that the space station is needed for ground-breaking 
research on crystals. Why, then, is the station opposed by the 
association of American scientists who study crystals, the American 
Crystallographic Association?
  It has been argued that the space station is needed for research on 
semiconductors. Why, then, is the space station opposed by the 
principal professional organization of semiconductor researchers, the 
Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers?
  Proponents claim the space station is critical to the future of 
scientific research in this country in general. If that is so, why has 
Science magazine, the premier scientific journal of the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, called it ``90 percent 
public works, 9 percent public relations, and 1 percent science?''
  Why have the leading professional associations of American 
physicists, chemists and biologists call it a ``multibillion dollar 
project of little scientific or technical merit that threatens valuable 
space-related projects and drains the scientific validity of 
participating nations?''
  The answer is that the scientific justification is the station is 
simply not there. Even station advocates have acknowledged as much in 
unguarded moments: 2 years ago, the White House science adviser was 
asked, ``Is there any scientific value to the space station?'' And his 
candid response was, ``No. None whatsoever.''
  What the space station really is, Madam President, is a jobs program, 
and while we are all for jobs, Senators ought to be aware that this 
program is really directed to a few selected States. Nearly four-fifths 
of the money spent and the jobs paid for by the space station will be 
directed to only three States: California, Texas, and Alabama.
  I understand the concerns of those 10,000 employees who are working 
in these States on the space station. But my concern is with the tens 
of millions of taxpayers who see half their Federal income taxes go for 
interest on the debt and too much of the rest squandered on unjustified 
programs.
  My concern is for America's children, who may see two-thirds of their 
Federal income tax going for interest on the debt because we continue 
to pile up these astronomical deficits year after year.
  My concern is for all those who benefit from and the scientists who 
do the research on cancer, crystals, semiconductors, chemistry and 
physics--scientists who almost uniformly say that proceeding with the 
space station will waste money that can be better spent on real 
research to fight cancer, advance science and improve our economy.
  On behalf of our children and those who would conduct and benefit 
from such research, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Bumpers 
amendment when it is offered to terminate the space station now before 
we waste billions more that we simply cannot afford.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DASCHLE). The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 2444

  (Purpose: To reduce the appropriation for the implementation of the 
   space station program for the purpose of terminating the program)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
committee amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Warner, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Simon, Mr. 
     Bryan, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. DeConcini, 
     Mr. Chafee, and Mr. Wofford, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2444.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike the figure on line 6 on page 70 and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following: ``$3,634,200,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 1996. Provided, that of the funds 
     provided under this heading, no funds shall be expended on 
     the space station program, except for termination costs.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is, I guess, the fifth year in a row 
in which I have come to the floor on the space station and tried to 
separate the doers from the talkers on fiscal responsibility.
  Let me just start by reviewing the bidding on how we got to this 
point.
  To begin, let me refresh the memory of my colleagues. On the evening 
of January 25, 1984, at the State of the Union Address by Ronald 
Reagan, which I attended, President Reagan said as follows:

       Tonight I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned 
     space station and to do it within a decade.

  The cost was to be $8 billion. I asked myself then and I have been 
asking myself for the past 11 years now: Why a space station?
  After we went to the Moon ahead of the Soviet Union, there was no 
point in them going to the Moon, so they decided to build a space 
station, and they did.
  And since 1974, the Soviets and now the Russians have continued to 
keep a space station in orbit. I think the one up there now is the 
seventh space station that the Russians have built and launched.
  Now, Mr. President, I will come back in a moment to just what 
benefits the Russians have received from their seven space stations. 
But I can tell you after I review what the Russians have received out 
of their seven space stations over the last 20 years, I would again 
pose the question: Why on Earth do we want to emulate them?
  I feel comfortably certain that President Reagan's initial reason for 
building a space station was because the Soviets had one in orbit. That 
is a very poor reason. But I remember in the beginning when we started 
talking about space station Freedom what all we were going to do. We 
were going to put this space station up and we were going to use it for 
a staging base in case we wanted to go to Mars or the Moon. We were 
going to use it for a manufacturing facility, to manufacture all kinds 
of things in space. We were going to make it a space-based observatory, 
a transportation node, which is a fancy word for high-priced garage and 
filling station. It was going to be a servicing facility, an assembly 
facility, a storage facility, and a research laboratory.
  Those were the eight things for which we were designing the space 
station Freedom.
  Now, Mr. President, here is another chart that shows you what has 
happened to those eight reasons for building space station Freedom. 
Staging base, deleted; manufacturing facility, gone; space-based 
observatory, gone; transportation node, gone; service facility, gone; 
assembly facility, gone; storage facility, gone. Only a research 
laboratory remains. The only remaining rationale of the original eight 
reasons for building the space station is a research laboratory. And we 
are going to squander and have already squandered over $13 billion and 
given up on seven of the eight original purposes.
  We are in the 11th year, and we did not spend $8 billion as President 
Reagan said we would spend to build and deploy the space station. We 
are in the 11th year, and as of this moment, Mr. President, all we have 
is a design of a space station--nothing up there yet. After 11 years, 
we have a design called space station Alpha.
  You are going to hear people pop up on this floor tonight and in the 
morning saying so far as this research laboratory is concerned, we are 
going to grow crystals, crystals for semiconductors. You will hear 
people talk about a cancer cure. You remember that old expression that 
the last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism? Well, the last refuge of 
those who still favor the space station is that it is going to cure 
cancer. This is either the fifth or sixth year I have stood at this 
desk trying to kill the thing, and every year I get the same response: 
We are going to cure cancer. Is that not curious? Do you know who one 
of the leading opponents of this thing is? The American Cancer Society.
  Now, you would think that if this thing had potential for that kind 
of medical research, the American Cancer Society would certainly favor 
it, but they do not.
  Mr. President, this design called space station Alpha is going to be 
built by the United States, by Russia, by European nations, by Canada, 
and by Japan. If you look at the plan that NASA put out, it shows you 
what part of this station is going to be built by each of them. They 
always say an elephant is a donkey composed by a committee, and that is 
what we are going to build. The Senator from Maine just talked about 
the GAO report that came out yesterday that said Russia's 
participation, for which we were to pay $400 million, is going to 
actually cost the United States $1.8 billion.
  NASA loves to throw around figures like, well, it is only $2.1 
billion. That is right, for this year, 1994. And another $2.1 billion 
next year, 1995. They love to tell you that the $2.1 billion in 1995 
translates into 2.2 cents per day for every man, woman, and child in 
America.
  Who can squawk about 2.2 cents a day? Just peanuts. Count me in. I am 
willing to pay two cents a day except for one thing. It is not 2.2 
cents a day. That is only for 1995. That does not count what we have 
already spent and what we are going to spend, which totes up to $70.8 
billion.
  If you count the $2.1 billion we are spending this year and what they 
are going to spend over the next 15 to 20 years--15 years, roughly--
that is $70.8 billion.
  And the $70.8 billion does not include $1.5 billion for civil service 
costs which NASA says they inadvertently forgot. Now, if they forget to 
count $1.5 billion for civil service costs, I do not want to ride on 
the space station. I do not want to ride on the shuttle to get there, 
and I do not want to be housed in the space station if they forgot and 
inadvertently left out $1.5 billion in civil service cost.
  But when you add that $1.5 billion that they inadvertently left out, 
then the cost goes to $72.3 billion; but that is not all of it either. 
Here is the firecracker. It is not $72.3 billion. Over the next 35 
years, if you compound the interest at 7 percent--because every dime we 
spend is going to be borrowed, and going right smack onto the deficit--
Mr. President, that comes out to a tidy sum of $156 billion.
  Two point two cents a day. The unmitigated gall of somebody to put 
out such a figure as that--$156 billion over a 35-year period counting 
the interest, and that is the real cost. And that is $2,500 for every 
family of four in America. I invite every Senator who intends to vote 
against my amendment to go home and tell all the people in his or her 
State, ``I just voted to tax you $2,500 for a space station that will 
have a life expectancy of 10 years.''
  While you are at it, tell them that once we get it up there, which we 
will, it is just a mechanical problem, an engineering problem, to throw 
it in space. God knows, if the Russians can do it, we ought to be able 
to do it. There is no trick to that. But once you get it deployed, you 
have to operate it, which costs $21 million a day. All you big deficit 
hawks, all you big balanced budget constitutional amendment hawks, go 
home and tell them that you just got through voting for $156 billion 
for a space station. Tell them that comes to $2,500 for their family. 
Then see how rock solid they are about a space station.
  Mr. President, while you are at it, tell them that every pound of 
water we send to the astronauts--make it water, food, supplies, 
everything--every pound of payload we send up on the shuttle to supply 
our astronauts is somewhere between $12,880 and $15,200 per pound. We 
will be happy to supply the astronauts with that good Arkansas Mountain 
Valley Water for that.
  Mr. President, did you know that the space station is going to cost 
14 times its weight in gold? I cannot believe these things myself, yet 
I am sure Members will march through that door in the morning and say, 
``I vote against Senator Bumpers' amendment even though the space 
station costs 14 times more than its weight in gold.''
  But back to the Mountain Valley Water, which I certainly hope we get 
the contract for. It is estimated that each of the six astronauts on 
board will need 9.2 liters of water every day. As Everett Dirksen used 
to say, it soon runs into money, does it not? Over $15,000 a pound for 
water. What does that translate into? That is $319,200 a day just for 
water for each astronaut. I would choke to death on water that 
expensive, as should every Member of this body.
  Do you know what else that translates into, Mr. President? That 
translates into $466 million a year for water for the astronauts; $.5 
billion a year just for water to keep them alive.
  Mr. President, for that $13,000 for every pound of water we send to 
the astronauts on the space station, you could feed a family of four 
for 2 or 3 months, and have $12,000 left to send to the National 
Institutes of Health to do real research right here on Earth--the kind 
that will cure cancer, not ``pie in the sky,'' but honest-to-goodness 
research in the great medical schools and universities of America.
  There is one other point I want to make before I take this particular 
chart down. A lot of people who are going to come in here tomorrow to 
vote against my amendment will do so because the space station will 
provide a few jobs in their State.
  You should know that three States get 78 percent of all of the 
massive amount of money we are going to spend on this--three States.
  Tomorrow, when Senators walk onto the Senate floor, I or somebody 
else will hand them a chart showing them what their States get back 
from the space station in jobs, and also what it is going to cost each 
of their States. I am not sure, but I believe the cost in 1995 for the 
people in my State will be $19.8 million. That is a lot of money for a 
relatively poor State like Arkansas. For Georgia, it is going to cost 
$55 million. If you went down and took a vote in Georgia, and said, 
``How many of you people want to pay a $55 million tax bill for the 
space station?'' you might get three people to say ``aye.'' As long as 
it is some kind of nebulous, arcane concept on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate, the people of Georgia are never going to be presented with that 
proposition.
  Do you remember the Exon-Grassley amendment? Senator Exon from 
Nebraska and Senator Grassley from Iowa offered an amendment to cut an 
additional $26 billion from the deficit over the next 5 years. I voted 
for it because I felt that we could cut $26 billion more over the next 
5 years. When they went to conference with the House, they cut that in 
half, and now we are only obligated to cut $13 billion over the next 5 
years.
  Look at this chart: it is the most powerful chart I have seen since I 
have been in the U.S. Senate. It shows that under Exon-Grassley, we 
have to cut $13 billion over 5 years. We cut $500 million of that for 
1995. But next year, for 1996, when we go through the appropriations 
process, we have to cut $5.4 billion.
  Mr. President, this year, as chairman of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I had 1,100 requests from my colleagues to 
increase spending in that bill. ``Dear Senator Bumpers: Please give me 
$2 million to start this research project at the University of Such-
and-Such.''
  ``Dear Senator Bumpers: We have this nice little laboratory down here 
and we want to expand it.'' There are 1,100 of those requests. Senator 
Byrd, chairman of the Appropriations Committee on Interior, normally 
gets between 3,000 and 4,000 requests a year from Members of the 
Senate. ``Please help me expand this park; please help me with this, 
that, and the other.''
  This year, Agriculture appropriations had to cut $659 million below a 
freeze. I could not help some of my colleagues. But this year is a 
picnic compared to next year when we start looking for $5.4 billion. 
Here on this chart is the Exon-Grassley amendment--$13 billion we must 
cut over the next 5 years. And if you vote for the Bumpers amendment, 
you have found $10.4 billion of it. If you vote for my amendment, that 
is what you save.
  When you tell your constituents that the request they sent to you 
cannot be honored, go home and tell them you would love to do it, but 
you could not see fit to vote against the $156 billion in spending for 
a space station.
  Mr. President, I will tell you what the real mission of the space 
station is. It is because NASA wants to go to Mars. If we had a $4.5 
trillion surplus and not a $4.5 trillion debt, I would want to go to 
Mars, too. Though, for the life of me, I cannot imagine what we are 
looking for there. When I first came to the Senate, I went on the Space 
Committee. Believe it or not, we used to have a Space Committee in the 
Senate. That is how important space was several years ago. But I am 
telling you, it was a spacey committee. I thought I would make the best 
out of it, but I resented being put on it. I had been Governor of my 
State, and all of a sudden I wind up on this lowest of all committees, 
the Space Committee. So I go down to Houston and I look at all these 
magnificent pictures of the Moon those very brave astronauts took, and 
I looked at all of the rock they drilled and brought back. It looked 
just like Arkansas prairie shale to me, or lava. I was not very 
impressed with it. I do not guess anybody else was either, because we 
have not been back to the Moon. Nobody has even suggested going back. 
We beat the Russians there, and that was the goal.
  But if you look beyond the Moon to Mars, which is the real aim of 
NASA, and then you look at the underlying--what can only be described 
as--scam that they tell us is the real reason, they tell us they want 
to grow crystals for semiconductors. They say we are going to get all 
kinds of spinoffs. I suppose if you spend $70 billion, you are likely 
to get some spinoffs. It would be hard for something not to happen when 
you spend $70 billion. I have seen Boeing's advertisement, talking 
about the wonderful virtues of the space station, and one is to grow 
crystals.
  Mr. President, let me read you, at the expense of possibly boring 
you, what people are saying about the space station. But I want to 
read, first of all, what T.J. Rodgers, founder of a semiconductor 
company said. Here is what he says about industrial crystals:

       I run a semiconductor company, and I am the director of 
     Vitesse, a gallium arsenide semiconductor company, so I know 
     about this stuff. All I can say is this program of growing 
     gallium arsenide wafers in space is a colossal con job, and 
     there is no one I know in my industry that wants those 
     wafers. There is no economic benefit to increasing the purity 
     of a crystal beyond the point that we can currently improve 
     it. The cost is huge, and the economic benefit is almost nil 
     for that last stop, going up into space.

  Doctor Al Joseph, founder of the same company, said:

       The idea of making better gallium arsenide crystals in 
     space is an absurd business proposition. Even if you can give 
     me perfect and pure crystals made in space, it won't help me 
     much commercially because 90 to 95 percent of my costs and 85 
     to 90 percent of the integrated circuit yield on a wafer is 
     driven by what I put on the wafer, not by the purity of the 
     wafer itself. The cost of one trip to the space station would 
     finance just about everything the American electronics 
     industry needs to ensure its technological superiority for 
     years to come.

So much for those magnificent crystals.
  Here is what the American Physical Society said about the space 
station. The American Physical Society, Mr. President, is 40,000 
physicists. That is all the physicists in this country, 40,000 of them. 
Here is what they said about this whole thing:

       It is the view of the Council of the American Physical 
     Society that scientific justification is lacking for a 
     permanent manned space station. We are concerned that the 
     potential contributions of a manned space station to the 
     physical scientists have been greatly overstated, and that 
     many of the scientific objectives currently planned for the 
     space station could be accomplished more effectively and at a 
     much lower cost on Earth, on unmanned robotic platforms, or 
     on the space shuttle.

  Perhaps you have heard of Dr. James Van Allen, who discovered the Van 
Allen radiation belt, one of the great all time astrophysicists? Bear 
in mind that I am quoting some of the greatest minds the world has ever 
known. Dr. James Van Allen is one of them, and he says:

       For almost all scientific and utilitarian purposes, a human 
     crew in space is neither necessary nor significantly useful. 
     Nearly all the great advances in space science have been 
     achieved by unmanned, automated space craft. With the benefit 
     of three decades of experience in space flight, it is now 
     clear that the conduct of scientific and applicational 
     missions in space by human crews is of very limited value.

  Dr. Allen Bromley, Presidential science advisor to George Bush said:

       The human habitation of the space station is fundamentally 
     incompatible with the requirement that the microgravity 
     experiments be unperturbed.

  That is, just astronauts walking around in the space station creates 
enough vibration to ruin research being done in what is called 
microgravity. Here is what professor Nicolaas Bloembergen, who was 
President of the American Physical Society said, and he is a physics 
professor at Harvard:

       There is no evidence to suggest that a microgravity 
     environment offers any advantage for processing materials or 
     drugs. Indeed, there are sound reasons for doubting that it 
     would.

  So much for curing cancer. Nine scientific societies, with 41,000 
members--the American Physiological Society; Society for Biochemistry 
and Molecular Biology; Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutic; the 
Society for Investigating Pathology; the Institute for Nutrition; 
American Association of Immunologists; Society for Cell Biology; 
American Association of Anatomists--all say no. The American Physical 
Society went on to say on July 24, 1994, 1 week ago:

       The principal scientific mission of the station is to study 
     the effects on humans of prolonged exposure to a space 
     environment. Medical researchers scoff at claims that these 
     studies might lead to cures for diseases on Earth.

  And on and on. The top scientists in the country are saying: Please 
give us the money for research on Earth, where we can make it count.
  Dr. Bromley said, ``Microgravity is of micro importance.''
  Mr. President, the director of the Washington office of the American 
Physical Society is Dr. Robert Park. Well, I cannot find his quote at 
the moment.
  The other night Walter Cronkite, whom everybody adores, did a 1-hour 
segment on the space station, and he treated me very fairly. I was 
quoted a number of times on the program.
  But in that program, and I do not mean any disrespect to Mr. 
Cronkite, he says, ``Senator Bumpers says he can find no evidence that 
anything has come out of the Russian space station MIR worthy of 
mention.'' And Mr. Cronkite went on to say, ``We could not find any 
Russian scientist to confirm that.'' That is, he could not find a 
Russian scientist that would agree with me that they got nothing out of 
their space station, but neither he nor any Russian scientists 
suggested anything they had gotten.
  I have read every piece of space station literature I could lay my 
hands on for 6 long years, and I have yet to find one single benefit 
the Russians have received out of their space station.
  I used to say when I was a young man, having grown up relatively 
poor, I used to say if I were going to start a popcorn stand I would 
find someone who had been successful in the popcorn business. No matter 
what kind of business I went into, I would want to find someone 
successful in that business and I would take their advice.
  Here the Russians have been a miserable failure with theirs, and we 
want to spend $156 billion to copy their failure.
  If it is such a red hot idea why have we not joined the Russians in a 
joint research venture? I do not know that we have ever even broached 
the subject with them.
  Mr. President, last year, I got 40 votes for my amendment and 59 
against. When I look at all the literature and everything I am saying 
which I have carefully researched and documented, I ask myself, what 
does it take to kill a program around here? And the answer is, nobody 
knows because we have never killed one.
  Mr. President, the economy is booming, people are working, and, more 
importantly, the deficit is going down dramatically.
  I can remember when Ronald Reagan ran for office. Every newspaper in 
the country was covered from front page to back about how terrible the 
deficit was and how it was going to sink this great Nation. Everybody 
talked about it. And when Ronald Reagan became President it went up. It 
did not just go up. It soared. It was absolutely out of control. We 
went from $1 trillion to almost $4 trillion in indebtedness while he 
was President. All the time he was lamenting how terrible the deficit 
was.
  In April 1993, last year, OMB projected we would have a $305 billion 
deficit on September 30 of this year. And in September 1993, 5 months 
later, OMB gave us the good news that it was going to be $260 billion, 
$40 billion less. Then, in January 1994, they said it is going to be 
even less than that: It is going to be $234 billion. And last week CBO 
said the deficit is going to be $200 billion. That is over $100 billion 
less than projected a year and 4 or 5 months ago.
  I do not presume to tell the President very much, but I told him that 
if I were he, I would never make a speech anywhere, whether to the Boy 
Scouts or to the American Physical Society, that I did not remind them 
that I said I would reduce the deficit and we are reducing it.
  When the deficit was soaring, it was all over the front page. Last 
week CBO came out with a dramatic announcement that the deficit was 
going to be $200 billion or less, $100 billion less than projected a 
year and half ago, and it was reported in two lines in the business 
section of the Washington Post.
  Do you know what I hate about seeing that? As rhapsodic as I am about 
the deficit going down, I will tell you what I hate about it. I can 
hear the wheels around here turning. The deficit is going down, the 
economy is great, and so I will just vote for the space station. I can 
do it now because the deficit is going down. And that is exactly the 
mentality that got us into astronomical deficits.
  Mr. President, I will give you an interesting figure: Last year, 59 
people voted to fund this turkey, 59 voted to spend this monumental 
amount of money. Of those 59, 43 of them voted for the balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  Can you imagine 43 people voting to amend the Constitution of the 
United States to provide for a balanced budget because it is very 
popular and they could go back home and make the chamber of commerce 
applaud and then march onto the floor of the Senate 3 months later and 
vote for 156 billion dollars worth in spending? To add insult to 
injury, they see no contradiction. Last year, there were 63 votes for 
the balanced budget amendment. But 43 of those who voted for a balanced 
budget amendment voted for this. Everybody hates deficits but everybody 
loves spending.
  To vote for a balanced budget amendment is like saying ``Stop me 
before I kill again. Please do something to make me quit voting for all 
this spending.'' That is what it translates into.
  Now we come to the point with the space station where it is a foreign 
policy initiative. The President, and especially the Vice President, 
say we want the Russians on board. If we bring all these Russian 
scientists in, they will not be making missiles and selling them to 
Third World countries.
  I say give each one of those Russian scientists $100,000 a year in 
salary and turn them loose. Make it a welfare program.
  If you were to list 50 things that the Russians need desperately, the 
space station would not even be in sight. If you listed 100 things that 
Russia needed, the space station would not make the list.
  Mr. President, I have said about all I know to say. Just remember 
that this thing has a 10-year life term. It is going to take about 20 
or 30 shuttle missions to get it up there. It is going to take 20 or 30 
more to keep them supplied, 5 a year for 10 years. That translates into 
50 or so. With that many shuttle flights, the chances of having a 
disaster are not slim. And how many accidents will we have? I do not 
know.
  Mr. President, I will close with this thought. As a country lawyer in 
a small town in Arkansas, and certainly no foreign policy expert, I 
never could relate to the Vietnam war, but I could never bring myself 
to oppose it.
  I guess you could say I was a little naive, but I could not 
understand what we were doing there and why American boys were dying 
there, and I could not understand what our national security interest 
was there. But I did not openly oppose it. It seemed unpatriotic.
  When my first son turned 17, graduated from high school and was 
getting ready to go off to college, and eligible for the draft, I began 
to look at that war more closely. I never discussed it with him, but I 
discussed it with my wife, who did oppose it. And I suppose, if push 
came to shove, I would have let him register and go to Vietnam and 
maybe have lost him.
  But I thought, if I cannot explain the rationale for that war to my 
17-year-old son, why am I not opposing it? More importantly, why is 
Congress not opposing it? Why is Congress continuing to allow that war 
to go on, and fine, young, innocent men, the flower of our youth in 
this country, being slaughtered? Why did they not have the courage to 
stop it?
  So when I ran for Governor, I took a strong stand against the Vietnam 
war, and I thought it might cause me to lose that race because Arkansas 
is a conservative State.
  But here we have this space station that just goes on and on. It has 
taken a life of its own just by inertia. There are probably few people 
across the country--not like the Vietnam war--but there are few people 
across the country that say, ``Why doesn't Congress have the courage to 
kill that program, save that money for valid research that we need 
desperately? And if you do not want to do that, put it on the deficit, 
so our children will have some kind of future.''
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the amendment 
offered by my good friend and colleague from Arkansas.
  I have not taken as much time to learn this issue as has my good 
friend from Arkansas, but I think the closing statement of the Senator 
from Arkansas basically hits the nail on the head; namely, it is at a 
gut level when we stop to think about this--how expensive the space 
station is, given all our country's other needs, and the large budget 
deficits that we are presented with--it is at a very basic gut level of 
why in the world are we continuing to do this?
  I think that Senator Bumpers' analogy is an apt one. It is an 
interesting story by itself, and also an apt analogy; that is, if it 
does not make sense, why are we continuing to do this?
  I do not have a quarrel with the space station's mission. I think we 
all would like to have some kind of a program that would accomplish the 
same mission. But I do have many questions about its technical merit. 
And I have serious doubts about the priority given this experiment at 
this time.
  Space exploration may be inspiring. Of course, it is. But that is not 
enough to justify spending all of this money, particularly at this 
time. In these days, every dollar we spend on a big project like the 
space station is a dollar borrowed.
  I want to underline that. Every dollar spent on a big project like 
this, like the space station, is a dollar borrowed. And with the price 
tag of $1.2 billion this year--not much less than the entire Montana 
economy--and up to $60 billion in the next 18 years, I do not believe 
that this is the time for the American taxpayers to foot this bill.
  Eleven billion dollars have already trickled away, and we have 
precious little to show for it. We should not spend tens of billions of 
dollars more on this one program, while shortchanging other important 
programs.
  Mr. President, the chairman of the committee, Senator Mikulski, has 
done an admirable job constructing this appropriations bill. It is 
difficult, extremely difficult, to give in to budget caps that we 
appropriately placed upon ourselves. And she was faced with very tight 
budget constraints, which were made much worse by the administration's 
$1.2 billion request for the space station.
  The Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban Development, 
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and even NASA itself must struggle 
to do their jobs because they do not have enough money.
  EPA has yet to completely implement the health and ecological 
safeguards ensured by Federal laws. Homelessness and housing shortages 
are more than realities--they are scandals.
  Veterans' medical programs operate with massive staff shortages and 
are often unable to provide the best possible care. NASA's other 
programs are faltering. Even the National Science Foundation, also 
funded by this bill, could use some of the money spent on the space 
station.
  The space station is a luxury. It is a giant program whose technical 
merit and economic payoffs are big question marks. Going ahead with it 
at this point is simply a bad choice of priorities.
  It is like borrowing to buy a Rolls Royce when you have trouble 
meeting the mortgage payment.
  If we fund the space station, we will take on a large long-term 
spending commitment. At the very same time, we will restrict basic 
program needs for environmental protection, housing, veterans, and 
scientific research--all of which are funded by the VA, HUD, and 
independent agencies appropriations bill.


               space station is technically questionable

  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 one in five chance that floating 
objects in space would seriously harm the station.
  NASA seems to have a habit of biting off more than it can chew, and 
for the time being it should concentrate on getting existing programs 
right rather than starting big new ones.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas is absolutely right. The 
bottom line on our budget this year is a big deficit. It is minus $225 
billion.
  It has come down a lot in the past 2 years, but it is still way too 
big. And with that kind of figure staring us in the face, we have to 
choose our priorities carefully. We simply cannot afford a space 
station.
  Voting for the Bumpers amendment is a vote to save $60 billion. It is 
also a vote for environmental protection, a vote for veterans, a vote 
against homelessness, and a vote for NASA core research programs, all 
of which will be starved of money if the space station goes ahead.
  A vote in favor of this amendment is the right vote, particularly at 
this time. It is important to stand up and exercise the courage to stop 
a program that is not needed, particularly when, in the long term, it 
is going to be so expensive.
  I strongly urge our colleagues to do what is right and that is to 
support the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas.
  I yield the floor
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Ohio such time as he may consume.
  I would like to bring to the Senate's attention that if anyone knows 
the space program, it is our astronaut, Senator John Glenn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Maryland.
  Mr. President, it is always difficult to judge to look into the 
unknown. Yet in whatever endeavor--whether in microresearch in the 
laboratory, microscopic research, chemical research, or whether it is 
looking into macroresearch of expanding our horizons, our 
geographical horizons; looking into the unknown wonders of space, there 
are always those who will doubt the value of the risk, risk of the 
unknown.
  The story is told of Disraeli, the British Prime Minister, going into 
the laboratory with Faraday, where they had developed the capability to 
store electricity in charged bottles and make a spark jump from one 
bottle to another. And, after seeing this demonstration, Disraeli 
asked, ``What good is it, though?''
  And Faraday's reply, I thought, was very good. And if it is reported 
correctly he said, ``What good is a baby?'' In other words, we had made 
some advance. We had learned something. We did not quite know what it 
was all about at that point but it was a start.
  The same thing has gone on, throughout history, whether it is 
Columbus' discovery of America, a journey that experienced a lot of 
anxiety in its time, or whether it was Henry Ford, and the people 
standing alongside the road who said, ``Get a horse, get a horse.'' And 
it turned out that the invention that people ridiculed at that time has 
come to be our basis of transportation today.
  If we all had the lack of foresight even of some of our most learned 
colleagues who have preceded us in this body, we probably would never 
have moved off the east coast of this country. Of course if one studies 
the time period of western expansion, one sees that we had not solved 
all of our problems at that time. There were still poor people. There 
were still lots of things that needed to be done. Yet, there was the 
foresight that went beyond the Appalachians, that went to the Ohio 
River, the Mississippi, and beyond. There was a need to explore the 
unknown territory of the West, a need to expand our horizons.
  We have in this Chamber, over on the other side of the aisle, the 
desk that was used by Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster rose in the Senate 
and commented on plans for westward expansion, plans about moving 
beyond the Mississippi. I hope all of my colleagues who come from 
States west of the Mississippi will pay attention to this.
  Daniel Webster waved his arms, and I am sure pounded on the desk. As 
my colleagues may have noticed, his desk over there on the other side 
of the aisle does not have a top on it that can be raised, because 
supposedly, during his orations, he was so animated that he hit the top 
of his desk so hard that he kept breaking it. Even today if you go over 
there to the other side of the aisle, to the desk of the senior Senator 
from New Hampshire you will notice that it has a solid top on it.
  I can just see him standing in the Senate Chamber and uttering the 
following. He said:

       What do we want with this vast, worthless area, this region 
     of savages and wild beasts, of deserts of shifting sands and 
     whirlwinds of dust, of cactus and prairie dogs? To what use 
     could we ever hope to put these great deserts or those 
     endless mountain ranges, impenetrable and covered to their 
     very base with eternal snow? What can we ever hope to do with 
     the western coast, a coast of 3,000 miles, rockbound, 
     cheerless, uninviting, and not a harbor on it? What use have 
     we for this country?
       Mr. President, I will never vote 1 cent from the public 
     Treasury to place the Pacific coast 1 inch nearer to Boston 
     than it is now.

  That was the view of even such a learned person as Daniel Webster, 
back in the days when we were thinking about moving a little further to 
the west. I think it indicates that there is always doubt about moving 
out into the unknown, about learning new things.
  Where do we find ourselves in our time? We find ourselves presented 
with a new capability, a new frontier. People have looked up to the sky 
for tens upon tens of thousands of years. They have looked up and 
wondered what was up there, wondered what it would be like to go up 
there, wondered what we could learn if we were up there. I consider 
this generation fortunate enough to be present when we developed the 
capability to fly in space and to use space, to develop new 
capabilities in space.
  What if we had taken this same attitude as Daniel Webster, I ask my 
distinguished colleagues what if we had said no more, no more 
exploration, no more science. Where would that find us now?
  Luckily, Mr. President, we have invested billions and billions of 
dollars through the years, many tens of billions of dollars on 
research. Let me use agriculture as an example. We have invested much 
time and money in agricultural research and what has happened? Even 
though there were doubters as to whether we could grow more corn or 
wheat, we went ahead and experimented. We set up experiment stations 
across this country. When I was a boy back in New Concord, OH, a good 
corn crop was probably 48 or 50 bushels per acre. Do you know what it 
is now? The record corn crop just a few miles from there last year was 
239, I think it was, 239 bushels per acre--239 bushels per acre. And 
when I was a boy, it was about 48 or 50.
  Is that because the farmers are working 4 or 5 or 6 times as hard? 
No. It is because we did basic research. We learned more about 
fertilizers and soils and hybrids and all the things nobody had any 
concept of. There were no results guaranteed when we started to look 
into some of these things, and there is no result guaranteed in looking 
into space.
  What is the difference, Mr. President, in research done on earth and 
research that will be performed on the International Space Station? A 
great difference Mr. President, one that we are just beginning to 
understand.
  We heard a little while ago here about some of the efforts to look 
into the area of microgravity research, into crystal growth in 
particular. We heard those efforts belittled. Yet, microgravity 
research in the production of protein crystal growth has the potential 
to pay off tremendously.
  A paper was recently published by NASA listing the achievements of 
the last 10 years of microgravity research. I ask unanimous consent 
that this paper be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAHAM). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, let me go through and pick out just a few 
of the many exciting and promising accomplishments that have been made 
in this field in the last 10 years. In the period between Skylab and 
the present we have seen a wide array of basic applied microgravity 
research, in ground-based and suborbital facilities as well as orbital 
flight.

  Starting back in 1988, scientists began to have some very good 
results from microgravity studies, especially in the field of protein 
crystal growth. We have had some 70 different proteins flown in orbit, 
and this area of research has emerged as one of the notable success 
stories of NASA's microgravity program.
  I will not go through the results of all of these this evening, 
obviously, but let me just say that proteins are the basic elements of 
life. These complex chains of amino acids not only form the physical 
substance of living organisms, but they play an essential role in every 
biochemical process governing the body. Scientists seek to determine 
the molecular structures of proteins and the relationship between 
protein structure and function. This information can provide a better 
understanding of living systems and help develop new drugs for medical 
treatments.
  We are finding that large high-quality crystals of the protein being 
studied can be developed in space better than they can on Earth. 
Crucial proteins fail to adequately form the needed crystals on Earth. 
In many cases, the failure can be attributed to the effects of Earth's 
gravity, which not only generates fluid flows which may damage growing 
crystals but also causes the crystals to sediment to the bottom of 
their growth container.
  In microgravity, these proteins respectively yielded crystals 27 and 
1,000 times larger than the ground-control experiments. The publication 
of the results generated many new questions about the fundamental 
mechanisms of protein crystal growth and led to the organization of the 
first International Conference on Crystalization of Biological 
Macromolecules in 1986 at Stanford. Some of the findings of that 
conference and the space findings revolutionized thought among 
investigators in the field.
  They have come back then to the space environment as a means to gain 
insights into growth processes as a method of obtaining better 
crystals.
  Charles Bugg of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his 
collaborators, subsequently grew crystals on a series of space shuttle 
flights from 1985 to 1986. The experiments contained only a fraction of 
a milliliter of growth solution and had no temperature control, but 
excellent crystals were obtained for human serum albumin, for human C-
reactive protein, canavalin and concanavalin B, which appeared to 
diffract to higher resolution of those grown on Earth. These are all 
involved in drug research for the benefit of every human being right 
here on Earth.
  These early exploratory experiments indicated that larger protein 
crystals could be grown in space, crystals of better purity and 
crystals that are larger and more easily studied.
  The unprecedented success achieved in growing large high-quality 
protein crystals on some of these missions convinced many formerly 
skeptical protein investigators of the utility of the microgravity 
environment.
  In the STS-26 experiment, microgravity-grown crystals of gamma-
interferon D, procine elastase, isocitrate lyase were larger, displayed 
more uniform morphologies and yielded diffraction data to significantly 
higher resolutions than the best crystals of these proteins grown on 
Earth.
  Let me give just a few more examples of important scientific 
experiments that have been studied in a microgravity environment.
  Porcine elastase: Now why would we wish to study this? Because the 
use of porcine elastase in current research is used in a new class of 
inhibitors for treating emphysema. A practical use.
  Gamma-interferon D: Crystals of this protein, grown in space, were 
larger than the best that had ever been produced on the ground. One was 
approximately 50 percent larger than the largest crystal that had been 
obtained previously. These large space-grown crystals displayed an 
increase in resolution data revealing they had higher internal 
molecular order.
  The importance of this? The importance is that pharmaceutical 
companies are interested in using gamma-interferon as a possible drug 
for cancer therapy. Can I guarantee that we will have a cure for cancer 
out of this? No, I cannot. But I know there is enough scientific 
interest in this that this kind of experimentation should continue.
  Human serum albumin, HSA: Why look at this? HSA, human serum albumin, 
is the most abundant protein in the circulatory system. As I stand here 
tonight, and those listening to me, it is the most abundant protein in 
the circulatory system. We are evolving much more knowledge about these 
kinds of protein crystals.
  HSA crystals were grown aboard STS-24. At a recent mission review, 
Dr. DeLucas reported that exceptionally high-quality crystals of HSA 
were grown aboard the mission IML-1 in 1992, and the results have 
allowed the protein structure to be further refined.
  The published results of this work, led by Daniel Carter at MSFC, are 
considered a breakthrough in rational drug design due to the potential 
utility of HSA for the transport of many biological and pharmaceutical 
molecules in the bloodstream. We can enhance other medicines through 
the study of these materials.
  We can perhaps begin to see the day when we will tailor drugs of a 
purity, to a particular use or targeted for a particular disease.
  I quote from this report:

       Ten years of Spacelab experiments have clearly established 
     that protein crystals of superior size and quality capable of 
     providing increased structure data can be grown in 
     microgravity.

  I would add that cannot be duplicated here on Earth. The potential 
for this type crystal growth is tremendous.
  Mr. President, in this same report they just list in tabular form 
proteins grown in space, and the possible uses of those proteins with 
some further experiments. I will not read all of these either.
  But No. 1, done by Mr. Bugg, in one of his experiments, human purine 
nucleoside phosphorylase, that is a protein for immunosuppressive and 
anticancer drugs. Another one of the same type, lysozyme. It is a model 
protein that degrades bacterial cell walls. Can we learn how to use 
this for our benefit? Possibly. Human serum transferrin. Iron transport 
to hemoglobin synthesizing red blood cells. Interferon alpha-2b 
stimulates the immune system, our own immune system.
  I would add another interesting thing. The immune system changes when 
you are up in space for 2 or 3 days. You cannot measure that. It comes 
back to normal when you return to Earth. Why? Why does the immune 
system change? Nobody seems to know that yet, but that is so 
fundamental it seems to me that experiments in space to find out why 
that happens may be fundamental to someday discovering a cure for AIDS 
or cancer or whatever.
  But this goes on and on listing a number of these, and since I have 
entered this in the Record it will be available to those who would like 
to read more of these. It would take a couple hours tonight to go 
through all of these.
  But, Mr. President, the area of protein crystal growth is one that 
has a tremendous amount of promise in science, regardless if some of 
the scientists, of course, are not that excited about it because they 
would rather have some of this money for their own scientific area of 
expertise. They do not want to see money spent some place else so they 
are somewhat jealous of this. I understand that. We talked about that 
with people involved in the program from way back in the earliest days, 
as to whether there was a general benefit to all of science just by the 
fact that we were going into space.
  The space station represents a new frontier, an opportunity and 
challenge for the United States and for the whole world, in spite of 
those who may doubt its benefit. And I do not support this just because 
I happened to be involved with the program at one of its earliest 
stages. I support it because, as I said, from the earliest days back 
when I was in the space program I thought at each stage along the way 
we should not concentrate just on trying to go out further and further 
into space, deeper and deeper into space as was alluded to earlier.
  I agree with Senator Bumpers in that regard. Our objective now should 
not be just going into deeper space. We used to joke about this some 
time back when I was in the space program. We called it ``canned man.'' 
You put a man in a can and see how far out in space you can send him or 
her and bring them back.
  That is not the purpose of this program at all. The purpose, as I saw 
it and as I expressed my views from the earliest days in the space 
program, was that at each step along the way, as we expanded for the 
first time ever in human history, we expanded our ability to travel off 
the Earth, at each step we should maximize the research return 
available that then makes it valuable for people right here on Earth. 
And that is still my view to this day. That is what the space station 
allows us to do. That is the reason I support it.
  If I believed that this was just a waste of $150 billion, as the 
Senator from Arkansas has said, I would not vote for this program in 
spite of the fact that I was involved with it personally at one time. 
But I do firmly believe that this program has a potential every bit as 
much as I alluded to earlier when we talked about Daniel Webster not 
wanting to spend money to explore beyond, or to buy land or acquire 
property beyond the Mississippi River, referred to as that area of 
savages and whirlpools of dust and prairie dogs and so on. ``Of what 
possible use can it be?''
  Well, what a myopic view. And I would say the same thing here. We 
have the ability to do research. We have the ability to develop new 
technologies and procedures to fight disease. We can understand our 
environmental challenges to provide a safe and healthy world for our 
children by looking at the world and making our research from above the 
Earth's atmosphere.
  Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Virginia wished to ask a 
question. I will be glad to yield for purposes of a question without 
losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for 
purposes of asking a question.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.
  For some several years now, I have been associated with the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. Bumpers], opposing this.
  This year, as a means of preparing, I invited to my office one Marcia 
S. Smith, who is a specialist in aerospace policy, Science Policy 
Division of the CRS--a very impressive individual who has dedicated 
much of her professional career to the subject of space and now the 
space station.
  So I asked her, I said to this knowledgeable professional, ``Miss 
Smith, could you summarize for me, what are the benefits if we achieve 
this space station?'' And she stated them orally. I was so astonished, 
I said, ``Could you put that in writing?'' She said, ``I would be glad 
to, Senator.''
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at an appropriate 
place in the Record my remarks together with this may appear in full.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. In summary, she said:

       The major benefits----

  She was speaking of the Russian space station, and there is a direct 
parallel between that and this one.

       The major benefits to humanity----

  That is those of us in this Chamber tonight and across this great 
Nation of ours.

       The major benefits to humanity that have occurred from 
     Russia's space station are (1) understanding the reaction of 
     humans to long durations in space and (2) understanding the 
     Earth and the universe from remote sensing and astronomical 
     research. However, if you believe that people will not travel 
     to Mars (or elsewhere beyond Earth orbit), long duration 
     human studies are not necessary, and remote sensing and 
     astronomical research can be conducted on automated 
     satellites as well as, if not better than, on space stations.

  That is it. We are not going to Mars as far as I know. Does the 
Senator know of any planned trip to Mars? Does it justify this enormous 
expense simply for the benefit of understanding the reaction of humans 
to long duration in space?
  Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield for an answer to his question?
  Mr. WARNER. I am asking the Senator, does he agree with this?
  Mr. GLENN. No, I do not agree. Obviously, the Senator has not been 
listening to my talk for the last half-hour or so.
  Mr. WARNER. Oh, no, I have over the loudspeaker, Mr. President.
  Mr. GLENN. I went into some of the areas--I had not finished yet--
some of the advantages of the space program and the space station. But 
do I think we will go to Mars? Sometime, if that was the question, yes, 
I think we will, but I do not see this as a direct steppingstone to 
that. I think sometime we will go to Mars, but I am not for a Mars 
program at this point. A former Vice President advocated that, but I 
did not go along with him at that time.
  But I have been giving a speech here at considerable length about why 
we need a space station. I think we are into a new element of 
microgravity in which we can do a lot of research. I see it just for 
the protein crystal research that I have been enumerating here; the 
potential of that is so large that I see that as being worth the 
expense of the space station if nothing else was involved.
  But there is a lot more involved than just that, of course. We are 
involved in some international cooperation. I think this has an impact 
on our students and their ability, their willingness to go into math 
and science, and so on. And I would disagree that all of these things 
are something that in our time we should just lay down and say that it 
is not worth the effort. We are going into a whole new laboratory of 
space, and I think it is myopic to think there will not be big 
advantages that come from this as we use this for scientific 
experiments.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GLENN. For a brief question; otherwise, I would like to finish my 
debate.
  Mr. WARNER. I will make it brief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio yielded for one 
question. Does the Senator from Ohio yield for another question?
  Mr. GLENN. I want to continue with the debate. Does the Senator have 
a short question?
  Mr. WARNER. I do, I say to my friend.
  She addressed the very question to which the Senator from Ohio 
alluded. I will read just one short paragraph.

       Research into ``microgravity materials processing'' has 
     been a strong focus of Russian space station research. Mir 
     has a module especially dedicated to this type of research 
     which studies, among other things, how crystals grow in 
     microgravity or how particles suspended in a fluid can be 
     separated by electricity (called electrophoresis), a process 
     for creating very pure pharmaceuticals, for example. The 
     value of conducting this research on a space station is 
     controversial because most of the experiments can be 
     conducted better on automated satellites where they are 
     unaffected by the vibrations caused by the crew.

  Mr. President, does the Senator from Ohio agree or disagree?
  Mr. GLENN. I disagree with that. I think the attendant experiments 
are better. As they go along, and as things develop, the experimenters 
on board can adjust the experiment, as they have already done on some 
of the experiments on existing space lab flights or space flights 
already.
  Mr. President, I would like to finish.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, let me summarize some of the things I have 
been pointing out here. We have always had doubts about looking out 
into the unknown because nobody can pinpoint what the value is in the 
unknown until you do the research to find it out. If there is one thing 
that this Nation has learned, it is that money spent on research seems 
to have a way of paying off in the future beyond anything that we see 
at the outset.
  Here we are moving into this new laboratory of space, moving out into 
microgravity where we never had the ability to do research before in a 
number of different areas; developing new technologies and procedures 
to fight disease, which I have just barely touched on here.
  Mr. President, we are trying to understand environmental challenges, 
to provide a safe and healthy world for our children, we are trying to 
improve our competitiveness in the international marketplace by knowing 
more; we are striving to enhance the quality of our educational system. 
A permanent manned laboratory in space addresses each of these concerns 
while expanding knowledge and exploiting for worldwide benefit a new 
aspect of the human environment. The station is a symbol of our 
commitment to better our quality of life on Earth through research, the 
life sciences, biotechnology, and materials processing.
  What are the benefits of this program, Mr. President? It continues 
our civilian space program and its ability to do this kind of research. 
Manned space missions remain the core of our space activities. It is 
the next logical step for our manned program. The knowledge of how we 
adapt to a weightless environment will lay the groundwork for future 
human exploration. But it also enables us now to do the research on 
board the spacecraft that I think is of value to us right here on 
Earth.
  Second, the station will provide a manned laboratory to provide 
materials and life sciences research in a microgravity atmosphere. The 
space shuttle program has enabled scientists to perform very limited 
microgravity research. The research has already given us clues, 
however, to the causes of osteoporosis, clues to diabetes and other 
diseases.
  The shuttle missions last only a short period of time, and scientists 
agree that a manned orbiting laboratory is needed to fully realize our 
microgravity research capabilities.
  And, Mr. President, I would like to emphasize this next point. I do 
not think this should be dismissed. The space station will be an 
instrument to educate American school children in math and science 
skills and encourage them in that direction. Recent studies have shown 
that skills in math, science, and engineering of U.S. schoolchildren 
has fallen farther and farther behind those of their international 
counterparts. The space station will provide a concrete example to our 
children of current and exciting scientific research and discovery and 
may guide some of them to pursue science and technology as career 
fields.
  All you have to do is talk to the kids about some of these 
experiences in space, and just look at them and the excitement that is 
generated by even discussions on the topic and you will know what I am 
talking about.
  The space station, Mr. President, will represent the largest 
international venture in science and technology ever undertaken. We 
have a leadership role at this time. We have the cooperation of Russia, 
Canada, Japan, and our own United States leadership. I think the 
agreement we have made, and the cooperation, is exemplary.
  President Clinton has stated that pursuing advanced technology is 
essential to a healthy and dynamic U.S. economy. I agree. I think the 
space station will be a key element in developing and utilizing that 
advanced technology.
  The benefits I have just stated are real. They are ours if we choose 
to pursue them. The first 30 years of space flight and exploration have 
provided us with extraordinary advancements with achievements, and 
discoveries. We have learned not only to travel into space, but to live 
and work there.
  And what will the next 30 years hold? I hope that as much opportunity 
for new information will come out of this as came out in the past 30 
years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a series of letters be 
entered into the Record concerning the International Space Station 
Alpha Program, and regarding recommendations of the Advisory Committee 
on the Redesign of the Space Station.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Massachusetts Institute


                                                of Technology,

                                     Cambridge, MA, April 4, 1994.
     Dr. John H. Gibbons,
     Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive 
         Office of the President, Washington DC.
       Dear Jack: Several of us had the opportunity to travel to 
     Johnson Space Center late last month to explore the status of 
     the International Space Station Alpha Program and to assess 
     its progress in the context of the June 1993 recommendations 
     of the Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space 
     Station. I am writing to pass along my personal observations 
     on this matter and have encouraged others who were present to 
     do likewise.
       This program has been dramatically reorganized and has 
     progressed to an extent that greatly exceeded my 
     expectations. This review was informal and intense, but 
     lasted only one and a half days and therefore was of modest 
     depth and detail. Nonetheless. I can state with confidence 
     that the high-level conclusions were self-evident and 
     overwhelmingly positive.


                   Management Costing and Acquisition

       There has been an absolute sea change in the management and 
     organizational structure of this program. As you know, the 
     Advisory Committee was extremely critical of the organization 
     structure that had evolved for Space Station Freedom. The new 
     organization reflects both the recommendations of the 
     Advisory Committee and the modern management practices 
     brought to the table by Boeing, and it is consistent with the 
     themes of Reinventing Government.
       A single prime contractor has been engaged and is firmly in 
     place. Significant levels of management have been removed, 
     and there has been a large reduction in NASA and contractor 
     staff support. The NASA Centers are now used as resources, 
     and their directors have been removed from the line 
     management of the program. The Center at Reston has been 
     closed. The Integrated Product Team [IPT] concept has been 
     implemented effectively and seems to have streamlined 
     decision making and responsibility/authority chains. Program 
     leaders from both NASA and Boeing were impressive in the 
     clarity of their presentations, their command of issues, and 
     their candor.
       There has been an evident improvement in the budgeting and 
     contract process, which inspires greater confidence. The 
     single prime contractor approach, synergy between NASA 
     contractor and oversight organization, concurrent fact-
     finding and constant ``real time'' problem resolution 
     increase confidence that NASA can say within the cost 
     parameters and guidance given by OMB. My colleagues, who have 
     greater expertise that I in costing matters of complex 
     projects, believe that costs within $2.1B per year and $17.4B 
     run out through 2002 are achievable, but they characterize 
     the budget as ``success oriented.''


                   technical and operational matters

       the ISSA is now committed to an orbital inclination of 51.6 
     degrees. Primarily through integration with Russia, there is 
     multiple access to orbit, a well-developed Assured Crew 
     Return Vehicle, an existing propulsion unit for orbital 
     transfer and adjustment, and an increased technology and 
     experience base. This partnership also enables an earlier 
     date for first-element launch.


            science, technology, and engineering utilization

       The overall situation regarding research utilization of the 
     Space Station has greatly improved since the Advisory 
     Committee report was issued. Strategic planning is underway 
     for utilization of the capabilities of both ISSA and MIR. 
     Plans are being made for the use of MIR to explore such 
     important concepts as active control of experimental racks to 
     enhance the microgravity environment for experiments. A peer 
     review and research prioritization process are planned, but 
     will require continual attention. A stronger line management 
     structure is now in place for science, engineering and 
     technology utilization. There is increased emphasis on 
     technology and engineering research as a Station goal, but 
     more should he done in this regard.


                         International Aspects

       Comments by representatives of our international partners 
     seemed to indicate that remarkable progress has been made 
     integrating them into the management and operational 
     mainstream. Integration of the Russians at the technical 
     level appears to be proceeding well, but it is critical and 
     must be made more complete. I encourage you to seek directly 
     the views of the international partners, but the signs were 
     very positive. I am particularly placed by this progress, 
     because our recent national record as dependable partners in 
     large scientific and technical projects has not been good.


                            AREAS OF CONCERN

       It is essential that the process of updating the IGAs and 
     MOUs associated with international participation in ISSA 
     proceed expeditiously. The full integration of the Russian 
     Space Agency and contractors into management and day-to-day 
     activities is critical and should be accomplished as rapidly 
     as possible.
       The Integrated Product Team (IPT) approach will continue to 
     work well as long as there is enthusiasm, commitment, and 
     expertise on the teams and strong leadership and support from 
     above. Leadership and momentum must be maintained.
       Risk assessment and reduction must be an ongoing activity 
     of the highest priority in the program. Nonetheless, I share 
     the concerns of many of my colleagues that the Independent 
     Assessment Team, which has been established, is too large and 
     reduces the concept of continual accountability within the 
     IPT-based organization. This requires careful examination at 
     this time.
       It is absolutely essential that budgetary stability and 
     firm national commitment be established. Any deviation from 
     the path that has been mapped out will result in increased 
     costs and wasted effort.


                             PERSONAL NOTES

       The efforts of the Space Station Redesign team, which last 
     spring worked so intensively and effectively and against 
     significant barriers to change--coupled with the 
     recommendations of the Advisory Committee--have helped to 
     bring profound change and potential stability to this 
     program.
       The International Space Station Alpha gives the nation an 
     opportunity to show that it can establish large international 
     programs in science and technology and that government can 
     operate efficiently by breaking tradition and following 
     contemporary management practices.
       NASA leadership, starting with the Administrator and 
     extending into the new ISSA organization, deserves credit and 
     support for the bold changes they have effected.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                  Charles M. Vest.
                                  ____

         Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory, Stanford 
           University,
                                     Stanford, CA, March 26, 1994.
     Dr. Jack Gibbons,
     Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington DC.
       Dear Jack, As you know a number of former members of the 
     Vest committee were given an informal briefing on the status 
     of the International Space Station Alpha on the 25th and 26th 
     of March, 1994. I felt it might be useful to provide you with 
     my views. Since the panel to which I originally belonged was 
     focused on Technical and Mission Assessment, these 
     observations are also concentrating on those aspects. If 
     there is value in publicizing these remarks feel free to do 
     so.
       I should mention that the available members of the original 
     panel had informal discussions over dinner. The attached 
     remarks generally reflect a consensus of the views expressed. 
     You nay not realize that our panel was very skeptical about 
     this whole project when we first convened last year. Since 
     that time, the changes wrought by Dan Golden, and an 
     outstanding new project management team have won us over. 
     Given our original skepticism, this turnabout is quite 
     remarkable. Much of the advice the new team was given has 
     been followed.
       I believe this important project deserves to be strongly 
     supported by the administration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Brad Parkinson.
                                  ____


              Comments on Technical and Mission Assessment

    (By Professor Bradford W. Parkinson after discussion with peers)


                                OVERVIEW

       The ISSA, as defined at this review, has every prospect of 
     becoming an outstanding international space research 
     facility. The current design has addressed and reduced many 
     of the major risk areas that existed in previous designs. An 
     example is the multiple access now provided with three 
     independent launch systems.
       I most strongly endorse this new approach to the 
     development of Space Station, especially the positive 
     attitudes and leadership. They have made greater progress 
     than was expected; this was a very pleasant and somewhat 
     unanticipated surprise. Managerial competence, philosophies, 
     and morale all are excellent. Especially encouraging was the 
     very positive assessment by the international participants. 
     The use of IPTs is appropriate; it is an excellent 
     development approach for ISSA.


                    IMPACT OF MOVE AND CONSOLIDATION

       This has been positive in virtually every respect. The sole 
     negative might be some loss of NASA expertise, since only a 
     small number of engineers elected to transfer from Reston to 
     Johnson. Because much of the specific knowledge is still 
     retained by the contractors, I do not consider this a major 
     problem. It is more than offset by the streamlined management 
     and the IPT approach.


                          RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT

       Given the cost and schedule constraints, I think this is a 
     viable program only because of Russian participation. This is 
     true because of the system improvements, due to their 
     participation, in virtually all measures: capability, cost, 
     schedule, and risk containment or robustness. Russian 
     contributions should optimize the scientific and engineering 
     returns from this world-class research facility. Specific 
     positive attributes of the Russian involvement include:
       1. Multiple access to space (mentioned above).
       2. A larger, more capable station based on more components 
     with proven space robustness.
       3. Enhancment of Western space technology with the many 
     uniquely Russian advances.
       4. Valuable insights into proven Russian development 
     processes. We should not be arrogant about Western 
     development abilities, it may be useful to find other 
     techniques to ``pick impeding rocks out of the stream''.
       5. Off-loading of the logistics for space.
       6. Improved dialog in the culture of technology.
       7. A blueprint for future international cooperation in 
     space and elsewhere.
       8. An off-the shelf (virtually) ACRV.
       9. Earlier access to space for the science, engineering and 
     technology communities; including use of MIR.
       I recognize that the Russian situation is fluid, it is not 
     clear that they are potentially less reliable than we are.


                 definition of the Russian contribution

       A statement of work and list of contributions has been 
     completed already. Of course, at this early date this 
     definition is not complete. It is becoming completely defined 
     at an accelerated rate. An open and candid dialog has begun, 
     and the effort has been scoped. ICDs have been identified and 
     their requirements drafted, with the interfaces placed in the 
     most sensible way.
       Current success is due, in part, to the close personal 
     relationships developing between the working personnel of all 
     the partners. The next important steps include the completion 
     of a fully integrated schedule, and firm specifications for 
     the furnished and deliverable items. This is being worked, 
     but will require Herculean efforts in the next months. In 
     particular there are a number of high-level strategic issues 
     which remain to be resolved (crew composition, logistic 
     coordination, etc.). I believe the team is up to the 
     challenge.


                          contingency planning

       Preliminary planning has been accomplished for total 
     withdrawal of the Russians, and also for the most probable 
     late deliveries. In the event of late deliveries, the current 
     evolutionary approach provides autonomous operation for over 
     a year in the event of such an event.
       To address these contingencies further will start to 
     require the serious investment of management time and 
     dollars. I strongly recommend that only those contingencies 
     viewed as reasonably likely by the program be further 
     pursued. In this manner, it should be a part of an overall 
     balanced risk assessment and recovery strategy. Since I do 
     not believe the current program (with its cost and schedule 
     constraints) can be reasonably pursued without Russian help, 
     I suggest that efforts be concentrated on making our total 
     international team successful rather than planning for 
     partial failure.


                                  cost

       While cost was not a primary area for our panel, I believe 
     the cost uncertainties are now substantially less due to a 
     more mature and robust design.


                      specific aspects to monitor

       Generally, the monitoring of accomplishments against 
     planned dates for specific major milestones will gain insight 
     into progress. A particularly important yardstick will be the 
     completion of the SOW, ICDs, and specifications. Completion 
     of the IGA (which is, in part, a political problem) should 
     give confidence of positive progress. Most importantly the 
     help of Congress must be enlisted. A major element in 
     achieving more support is greater public exposure of the 
     technological and scientific station-associated 
     possibilities, both as they are currently foreseen and as 
     they emerge.
       As a great nation we must not let this opportunity slip 
     away. Appropriate furthering of the manned space program is a 
     strong symbol of greatness and self-confidence. This symbol 
     has been important to two generations of America's children. 
     Recent successes show that NASA is returning to greatness. I 
     and many of my colleagues believe that we must be unabashed 
     in advocating a strong, balanced NASA program as a harbinger 
     for the future.


                            other comments:

                             Commercial use

       The following comment came from my colleague, Dr. Crawley. 
     It is an appropriate time for the agency and nation to 
     develop and promulgate a consistent policy for commercial use 
     of the Space Station. Such a policy need not be based on an 
     initial, full recovery of cost: it is the role of national 
     governments to develop and provide new research capabilities 
     and underwrite their cost. Such a policy should address: 
     quick and reliable access to space; proprietary data rights; 
     and cost.
       Non-research, commercial utilization should also be 
     considered and rationally regulated.

                    Engineering research on station

       I strongly endorse the inclusion of ``conducting 
     engineering research'' as a major purpose of the ISSA. I 
     assume it's omission in a key viewgraph was only an 
     oversight. However I feel there is not enough evidence of 
     this use in the current organization. Examples include: 
     Micro-Propulsion, Structural Dynamic Research; and Drag-free 
     mechanisms and capabilities
       There is a need to give this Engineering Research more 
     priority. It has a strong payoff in the quest for faster, 
     better, and cheaper exploitation of space by all, both manned 
     and unmanned.
                                  ____

                                                             AT&T,


                                            Bell Laboratories,

                                   Murray Hill, NJ, April 5, 1994.
     Dr. John H. Gibbons,
     Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Jack: This letter conveys to you some of my 
     impressions following the brief review of the redesigned 
     space station that was held on 25-26 March in Houston. I had 
     intended to write to you more promptly following the review, 
     but I found myself burdened with a number of urgent tasks.
       I found that there had been major changes in the program as 
     related to science, technology, and engineering utilization 
     since the last time that I had an opportunity to review the 
     program (late September 1993). In addition to such obvious 
     improvements in eventual utilization as the presence of six, 
     rather than four, crewpersons, there are major changes in the 
     management structure for utilization and in the attitudinal 
     approach by the management toward the use of the facility. 
     All of these can only be termed as positive. I did not sense 
     at this review such an adversarial stance between the 
     builders of the facility and the ``users'' as had often been 
     the case in the past. Indeed, in the past, the attitude could 
     often be characterized as one of ``we will build this 
     facility and you will do good science (or engineering or 
     whatever) with it''. Now there appeared to be more of a team 
     approach to constructing a facility that could be used 
     beneficially for research if that is a national objective.
       I should note that a major caveat to the above is that the 
     management is very new overall, and especially in the 
     utilization area. They remain to be tested by fire, as will 
     happen, as the program proceeds. But they are going forward 
     with the right outlook from the start. Nevertheless, I note 
     that the previous program had a formal science/engineering 
     advisory process in place during the program initiation (mid-
     1980's), and when the users were no longer needed or wanted, 
     they were dismissed (about 1986-'87) and the program went 
     merrily on its way. See the enclosed paper that I co-
     authored.
       In my summary at the review I noted that under what I 
     termed the ``philosophy'' of the utilization, that the need 
     for strategic planning for the usage looms large. In 
     particular, the planning requires much further and continuing 
     work. It requires a continuing process to identify 
     potentially profitable areas of research (areas in both 
     science and engineering that truly require human presence), 
     and to prioritize rigorously these areas. A strong peer 
     review process needs to be in place for this strategic 
     planning. Use should be made of present results and future 
     research planned with the shuttle and spacelab to help in 
     defining not just facilities for a station, but also 
     research areas to pursue (as well as those to abandon).
       I noted two items of concern related to the philosophy of 
     utilization. One of these was that there must be an increase 
     in the contributions to the body of peer-reviewed published 
     knowledge from research made using human spaceflight 
     capabilities. This must happen now, before station 
     completion, as well as after the station is beginning to be 
     used for the research intended. I also noted a possible 
     suggestion for the use of ``rotator'' scientists and 
     engineers at headquarters, on a one or two year term basis, 
     in the peer review/strategic planning efforts. These would be 
     good, senior people, as is done presently in Code S at 
     headquarters.
       As far as I was able to ascertain in the time available, 
     the ``fenced-off'' costs for utilization appear to be 
     reasonable. And it is good to have such amounts identifiable. 
     Of equal importance are the procedures that will be used to 
     apportion costs between the ``users'' and the program when 
     problems arise in facility development and/or when new 
     research approaches are warranted from new understandings 
     achieved (such as in the case of the present uncertainties in 
     the capabilities of MIR for supporting certain important 
     research areas). The process described at the review for 
     addressing such issues appears to be good at this time. But 
     it is certainly an area that warrants watching.
       I noted several issues that continue to bear watching in 
     the case of the international utilization. First, and of 
     major consequence, is the continued evaluation of the true 
     capabilities of MIR, and the processes for making it the 
     facility that could meet the user ``requirements''. The 
     planning for this appears to be in the right direction at 
     this time.
       The entire matter of joint research between nations in 
     terms of intellectual property rights and technology transfer 
     needs more attention. More detailed guidelines and policies 
     must be developed.
       I addressed briefly the issues of the capabilities of the 
     station as outlined in the review. First, the entire matter 
     of the facilities, including the centrifuge, are being taken 
     more seriously than they have been in the past. This is not 
     to say that the issues of costs and schedules have been 
     totally resolved; they haven't. But the process appears to be 
     in place to do the team work to accomplish the goals. The 
     capabilities for research in health maintenance and life 
     support require more attention. It is not merely a matter of 
     ``more money'', it would appear to me (since budgets are 
     going to be limited), but rather a matter of prioritizing 
     such objectives in the over-all strategic planning process. 
     This needs much attention.
       On the basis of discussions with colleagues in attendance, 
     I noted the issue of EVA in the context of human capabilities 
     and involvement. The over-all EVA requirements are larger now 
     than in the past. However, it was pointed out to us that much 
     of the EVA is now, with MIR, less time critical than it was 
     in the past. More research is needed in the area of 
     understanding human capabilities in EVA and the benefits 
     as well as the risks. The best policy would appear to be 
     to continue to try to minimize the EVA demands.
       I left the review team and the station management team with 
     one consideration that my colleagues and I developed 
     regarding future oversight of utilization matters. That is, 
     NASA should consider the establishment of a truly independent 
     expert advisory group/visiting committee that would 
     critically assess the science, technology, and engineering 
     research program plans, progress, directions, and results on 
     a quasi-regular basis.
       I appreciated the opportunity to serve our country as a 
     member of the station redesign review group. I hope that my 
     contributions have been helpful to the federal government 
     with regard to this major space facility.
           Sincerely,
                                              Louis J. Lanzerottl.
                                  ____



                                              JMR. Associates,

                                     Las Vegas, NV, April 5, 1994.
     Dr. John H. Gibbons,
     Science Advisor to the President, Office of Science and 
         Technology Policy, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jack: After attending the review of the International 
     Space Station in Houston on March 25-26, 1994, I wanted to 
     let you know personally how impressed my colleagues and I 
     were at the progress NASA has made since our last meeting in 
     September. There has been nothing short of a dramatic 
     improvement in the program management, budgeting and contract 
     process.
       We spent a full nine hours on March 24th with the NASA and 
     Boeing cost teams. With representatives of NASA IG, GAO, OMB 
     OSTP and NASA Headquarters present, the budget numbers for 
     the reserve contingencies and unresolved adjustments were 
     presented for everyone to see. It is a remarkable statement 
     about the new openness, confidence, candor and philosophy of 
     costing.
       The costing process is consistent with previous Committee 
     recommendations. We believe that the International Space 
     Station Alpha program can be implemented with an expected 
     budget authority of $2.1B/year. The team, where appropriate, 
     has departed from the use of parametrics and ``Freedom'' 
     deltas, and relied more on ``bottoms up'' and/or zero-based 
     estimates. It is a very tight cost picture and we have much 
     more confidence in the costs now than we did a year ago. In 
     our opinion, NASA has successfully implemented a process 
     which exemplifies the concept of the national performance 
     review.
       NASA's incorporation of progressive Integrated Product Team 
     concepts, i.e. each team with authority, accountability and 
     responsibility, will maximize the likely achievement of 
     financial objectives. The new single prime and realigned 
     contractor's approach, synergy between NASA, contractor and 
     oversight organization, concurrent fact-finding and constant 
     ``real time'' problem resolution, provide confidence that 
     NASA can stay within the cost parameters and guidance given 
     by OMB. The Boeing personnel, led by Mr. Larry Winslow, and 
     NASA's new business manager, Mr. Dan Tam, have the leadership 
     and expertise to successfully implement the current station 
     plans on schedule and on cost. As the ``scrubbing'' process 
     continues toward definitization of the contract, there 
     appears to be resolution of acceptable costs, reserves and 
     award fee structure.
       Areas of uncertainty still exist within the Russian area of 
     participation. The NASA program office has not had the 
     opportunity to finalize costs for upgrading the MIR, a 
     service module, the tug and other modifications. The scope of 
     the Russian participation is not as clearly delineated as 
     other participants. However, both parties are actively 
     pursuing resolution and clarification with a target of June 
     1994. The Russian reserves and cost estimates appear adequate 
     and the contracting process with a ``cap'' on incurred costs 
     minimize risk of additional NASA expenditures.
       We believe that the costs of $2.1B year and $17.4B run-out 
     through 2002 are success-oriented but achievable. It is 
     critical to understand that it is priced to specific launch 
     and operational readiness dates. At this point, critical 
     elements of a successful space station program include a 
     strong national commitment and appropriation stability.
       If I can be of further help, please do not hesitate to 
     call.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jay W. Chabrow.
                                  ____

         U.S. Department of Commerce, The Under Secretary for 
           Technology,
                                    Washington, DC, April 1, 1994.
     Dr. John H. Gibbons,
     Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Gibbons: During the meeting on the International 
     Space Station last week, I relayed a saying from an old 
     friend that seemed to capture what I saw during the review in 
     Houston. ``Unless you create a burning platform, you can't 
     get people to do their best.'' I think we must have created a 
     burning platform under space station management last summer.
       The original Vest Panel report was particularly critical of 
     the management structure which had evolved to design, 
     develop, and operate Space Station Freedom. Our earlier 
     assessment included such tough statements as ``if you can't 
     fix the management structure, you ought to think twice about 
     doing it at all''. Many specific recommendations were made 
     which the panel felt were essential for the ultimate success 
     of the program. A comparison between those recommendations 
     and the current management structure is most encouraging. The 
     specific accomplishments are very impressive since last 
     summer. I've listed some of the key ones below:
       A quality, single prime contractor has been engaged and is 
     firmly in place.
       The NASA Center Directors have been removed from the direct 
     line of management control for the Space Station project.
       Significant levels of management have been removed.
       The science team leader has been integrated into the 
     management system in an appropriate way.
       There has been a large reduction in NASA and contractor 
     support staff.
       The Integrated Product Team concept has been aggressively 
     implemented and seems to have removed the bureaucratic 
     oversight functions which previously frustrated decision 
     making and responsibility/authority decision chains.
       Safety and mission assurance and audit functions are now 
     essential parts of the overall team approach. The audit 
     integration teams are integral parts of the management 
     structure and safety personnel are assigned to each of the 
     integrated product teams.
       Training issues have been faced head-on and is a priority 
     for the management team.
       The international partners have become much more integrated 
     into the management and operational structure, and their 
     feedback at the meeting indicated a remarkable turnaround in 
     this area.
       The quality of the management personnel, especially the 
     prime contractor, seems outstanding. The experience level is 
     completely appropriate to the tasks.
       Relationships with the sub-contractors appears to be 
     appropriate and effective.
       From my perspectives, the major areas of remaining concern 
     are:
       The newly chartered independent assessment group seems to 
     be redundant and has the potential of reverting back to the 
     old paradigm of quality control at the end of the process 
     rather than built in as an integral part of the process. If 
     an external review is deemed necessary, it should be a small, 
     expert group that advises the Administrator on an ``as 
     needed'' basis. A new 110+ organization represents a ``back 
     slide'' to the previous management style.
       The integration of the Russian Space Agency into the 
     management and day-to-day activities is critical and should 
     be accomplished as rapidly as possible.
       The articulation of the rationale for the space station has 
     not reflected a strategy which captures the imagination of 
     the public and the Congress. A more realistic vision of the 
     Station as an advanced technology testbed, as a space 
     laboratory, as a testbed for international cooperation in 
     large science and technology undertakings, and as a vehicle 
     for future space industry development must be developed and 
     communicated.
       All in all, I think NASA has made great strides forward in 
     addressing the management concerns we voiced last summer. In 
     Houston, we saw an enthusiastic and highly competent space 
     station team that seems fully capable of leading the 
     development of the station and quickly identifying and 
     resolving unforeseen problems in an expeditious manner.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Mary Good.
                                  ____



                                                        ANSER,

                                    Arlington, VA, March 30, 1994.
     Dr. John H. Gibbons,
     Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jack: Our meeting in Houston last week clarified a 
     number of issues on the international space station. I was 
     highly pleased with the cultural change, management approach, 
     and implementation of Vest Committee recommendations. Russian 
     participation is now largely defined, lacking only the 
     interface control document level of detail. The new 
     partnership and associated communications are working. My 
     confidence level has reached an all-time high and for the 
     first time I can really call myself a ``Station advocate.''
       The reason for this change is simple--Now it makes sense! 
     The program is viable with its new management structure and 
     Russian participation. The Station will be more capable with 
     Russian components. Development risk is reduced with Russian 
     hardware. Operations will begin sooner, at lower costs with 
     Russian contributions. Early use of the Russian Mir Station 
     will refine and enhance operations while we gain valuable 
     experience in long duration space flight. We have multiple 
     access and broader Earth coverage using Russian launch sites. 
     Logistical support, using Russian launchers, will decrease 
     dependence on the Space Shuttle. We will perform more science 
     with the larger crew, including Russians.
       It is often stated that ``Russian participation in the 
     Station program is motivated by U.S. foreign policy 
     objectives.'' Clearly this is as true as it should be; and as 
     it has ever been. However, the statement misses the point. 
     Russian participation brings added capability and credibility 
     to a previously much maligned and troubled Space Station 
     program.
       I now strongly endorse the program. NASA has performed a 
     remarkable management turnaround and the Administration's 
     Russian initiative has brought great strength and agility at 
     reduced cost, while supporting broader foreign policy goals.
       I am pleased to have been able to participate in this 
     effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John M. Fabian.
                                  ____


                    Wind Tunnel Status--May 20, 1994

       The National Facilities Study led by NASA with DOD, 
     Commerce, Transportation, and Energy participation, was 
     released May 9. The study recommends the construction of two 
     new wind tunnels to provide U.S. industry with a competitive 
     edge in the next round of wide-body commercial transport 
     competition. The latest cost estimate for the tunnels is 
     $2.55B; however, the Administration's cost target is two 
     tunnels for $2B.
       On April 12, a notice was published in Commerce Business 
     Daily announcing NASA's intent to award a sole source 
     contract to Boeing to perform studies associated with the 
     proposed tunnels. These technical studies are needed to 
     better estimate the capabilities and cost of the tunnels. The 
     contract may be awarded within the next few weeks.
       NASA has $74M which was appropriated in FY 1994 to perform 
     studies; it is NASA's intent to use those funds over FY 1994 
     and FY 1995 to perform technical studies, preliminary design 
     activities and relevant siting and environmental activities. 
     In the near-term, only non-site specific activities will be 
     conducted.
       An industry teaming agreement was signed on May 9 to 
     conduct Phases 1 and 2 of the wind tunnel program. Boeing is 
     the team leader (and prime contractor for above-mentioned 
     contract). Other participants are McDonnell Douglas, 
     Lockheed, Pratt and Whitney and General Electric Aircraft 
     Engines. Rockwell and Northrop also may join the team. The 
     industry team has agreed in principle to an innovative 
     approach to manage, finance, and construct the tunnels, which 
     would make them more affordable, including an equity 
     investment by industry.
       On May 16, the industry team met with Administration 
     officials from OMB, OSTP, National Economic Council, Council 
     of Economic Advisors, Department of Treasury, National 
     Security Council, Commerce, and NASA to discuss the economic 
     rationale and national need for the tunnels. Additional 
     meetings are scheduled.
       Regarding siting of the proposed tunnels, the goal is a 
     fair and open evaluation and selection process, driven by 
     best commercial practices. A final site selection may come as 
     late as late 1995, pending successful conclusion of the 
     Environmental Impact Statement process at one or more 
     candidate sites. The proposed process will be reviewed with 
     the Administration and Congress before implementation.
       A ``go/no go'' decision on this initiative will be made by 
     the Administration as part of the FY 1996 budget process.

  Mr. GLENN. I know I have talked awhile tonight.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment proposed by 
Senator Bumpers. I think it would be tragic if we went this far and 
then did not avail ourselves of the opportunity we have with the space 
station.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bumpers amendment.
  I think we have to recognize that we have to make some tough choices 
around here. This is one of those things that is, frankly, just not 
necessary. I think the evidence on that is overwhelming.
  I would like to first of all commend Senator Bumpers. He has been a 
tiger on this. I saw an earlier chart with a balanced budget amendment. 
My hope is that Senator Bumpers will join the Presiding Officer and me 
and others in voting for the balanced budget amendment. The reality is 
we do not have to make the tough choices around here because we do not 
have that fiscal discipline.
  Thomas Jefferson was right when he suggested the need for a balanced 
budget amendment, as he was on so many other things.
  This is going to cost $2.1 billion for the next couple of years, and 
then it goes up from there. What could we do with $2.1 billion? First 
of all, I hear a lot of talk about the GATT treaty and where we are 
going on that. If we adopt the Bumpers amendment, that takes care of 
the cost of the GATT treaty. We could double the amount we spend on 
cancer research at the National Cancer Institute. We could double AIDS 
research. In 2 months of the space station, we could pay for the entire 
Rwanda relief program.
  I heard my friend, Senator Glenn, and I have great respect for 
Senator Glenn. I think he is one of the really fine, capable Members of 
this body. If anybody ever has any question about his courage, just 
look at that little tiny thing he got into, which is infinitely smaller 
than these shuttles that we send up to space now. It took incredible 
courage to get into that thing and be the first American to go into 
space. But he mentioned the math benefits. For $2.1 billion, we could 
have the finest summer institutes for every grade school, high school, 
and college math teacher and science teacher--summer institutes to 
bring them up to grade and really do something in education, infinitely 
more than we are going to do here.
  Listen to what Lennard Fisk, former NASA administrator for space 
science, has to say. This was in Aerospace America magazine in May of 
this year:

       Space science is poised to decline, and human space flight 
     is left with a Faustian bargain. It can spend over $6 million 
     a day plus related shuttle costs, pursuing an ever-elusive 
     station. Or, by Herculean effort and perhaps sheer good 
     fortune, it can actually build the station--in which case 
     NASA will be burdened for a political eternity with 
     operational costs, restricting it from making a meaningful 
     contribution to the advancement of technology and science.

  That is the former NASA administrator.
  James Van Allen, for whom the Van Allen radiation belts are named, in 
Discover magazine of July, a month ago, wrote:

       The shuttle and space station represent precisely the 
     opposite of everything (Dan) Goldin says he wants . . . they 
     are bigger, slower, more expensive, and worse.

  The evidence from the scientific community is simply overwhelming, 
unlike some other things that we have turned down. I am not saying we 
were wrong in turning them down, but the big project in Texas, the 
scientific community was overwhelmingly for it, and we said no, we do 
not have the funds for it. Here the scientific community is 
overwhelmingly against it, and we seem determined to go ahead with it. 
I will be pleasantly surprised if Dale Bumpers prevails on this 
amendment. But I occasionally have been pleasantly surprised around 
here.
  Let me quote from a CBO study:

       NASA's strong tendency to underestimate the costs of its 
     project is a third characteristic that compounds the risk of 
     the agency's marginal adjustment strategy.

  Finally, it says:

       The analysis suggests that if spinoffs from NASA's program 
     were important in the past, they are unlikely to be as 
     important in the future.

  We have to make tough choices, and I think this is one where the 
American people--while there is some popularity to a space station, it 
simply is not worth the expenditure.
  I am pleased to cosponsor and support the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of the Bumpers amendment at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 
August 3; that there then be a time limitation of 1 hour and 45 minutes 
remaining on the amendment, with 30 minutes under Senator Mikulski's 
control, 16 minutes under Senator Bumpers' control, and 15 minutes 
under Senator Metzenbaum's control; that a vote occur on or in relation 
to the Bumpers amendment at 10:45 a.m.; that no amendments be in order 
to the Bumpers amendment; and that no other space station amendments be 
in order to the bill; and that at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Senator Gramm of 
Texas be recognized to speak on Senator Mikulski's time for up to 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. A vote will occur 
on or in relation to this amendment at 10:45 a.m. tomorrow morning.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I ask unanimous consent that a legislative fellow serving 
in my office, Deborah Reilly, be granted the privilege of the floor 
during the consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that while the 
Bumpers amendment strikes the amount of money allocated toward the 
space station, it does not direct where it will go. It is not a deficit 
reduction amendment. It is an amendment that, in effect, means that the 
Appropriations Committee could allocate in ways that it might deem 
appropriate to certain other areas of activity. Some could be in this 
particular area, the VA-HUD Independent Agencies, or some could go to 
others. So there is no assurance, according to what we have here, as to 
where the money might go. So a person who is weighing in balance one 
program against another program therefore has nothing to weigh. So you 
do not know where it is.
  In effect, by voting for the Bumpers amendment, you are giving the 
Appropriations Committee a pig in a poke, and saying ``Here is over--
what I believe is around $3 billion,'' somewhere in that neighborhood 
of what it strikes altogether--saying, ``You go ahead and take this 
money. The Appropriations Committee has met and has gone through their 
allotments, and they have divided it up, and we do not know exactly 
where it might go into the future.''
  Therefore, a person who is called upon to vote, who normally would 
weigh various projects in balance and say, well, we need this program 
as opposed to that program, is not given that opportunity. So I just 
wanted to mention that in the beginning here.
  I am in strong opposition to the amendment before us, and it is my 
privilege to report to the Senate today on the remarkable 
accomplishments of NASA and the new International Space Station 
management team, headed by a very able and outstanding administrator, 
Dan Goldin. I have been, and continue to be, a strong and vocal 
supporter of the International Space Station and vigorously oppose this 
attempt to terminate the program.
  I share with many in this Nation and this Congress a vision of 
maintaining and expanding the human experience in space. We have taken 
a huge step forward on the path to realizing this vision, and I am 
pleased to share with you the accomplishments of the new project 
management team.
  The program now has a distinct management structure with clear lines 
of responsibility and authority. One center has been designated as a 
host center to facilitate program administration, and one contractor 
was selected as the prime, with all others working as subcontractors. 
Transition to the new configuration and management structure is 
complete. The new management structure includes a concept widely 
embraced within the private sector, a tenet of total quality management 
known as the Integrated Product Team. These teams are a flexible 
management tool designed to bring together experts from several fields 
to work individual issues, solve problems, improve communications, and 
speed decisionmaking.
  Each station product will be managed by a team of NASA, contractor, 
and international partner experts. Teams include operations, science 
utilization, safety, procurement, and program control analysts to 
ensure all requirements are met. Early interaction with hardware and 
software suppliers assures requirements are understood and checked 
throughout development. The Integrated Product Teams control their own 
technical plans, schedules, and budgets.
  All team members are accountable for results and understand that 
their decisions affect overall station resources, costs, schedules, and 
success. Team members may change as life cycle development requires 
different areas of expertise. Use of the Integrated Product Team places 
both authority and responsibility right where it belongs, where the 
work is being done.
  This is a level of accountability which encourages everyone to get 
the job done, and get it done right the first time. The incredible 
amount of work delivered over the past year reinforces the value of the 
Integrated Product Team and demonstrates what our talented, skilled, 
and experienced workforce is capable of accomplishing when given the 
proper environment to excel.
  The accomplishments of 1993 and to date are many. The system design 
review in March of this year provides the following information 
relative to the status of the space station program.
  The critical design review has been completed for five major 
components, including the U.S. laboratory module.
  All subcontractor design reviews have been completed and over 90 
percent of review actions coming out of them have been closed.
  Over 4,800--or 89 percent--of the flight hardware design drawings 
have been released.
  Thirty-eight thousand five hundred pages of software requirements and 
detailed design documents have been released.
  A space station environmental control and life support experiment was 
fabricated and flown on a recent shuttle flight.
  Portions of node 1, the payload for the first U.S. launch, have been 
completed. Several sections of the main truss structure, the backbone 
of the station, are complete. Solar array equipment is being built and 
tested, and test components are being delivered to Russia. Over 25,000 
pounds of test hardware have been built, much of which will serve as 
flight hardware. By this time next year, over 75,000 pounds will be 
completed.

  The international space station design incorporates approximately 75 
percent of its predecessor's hardware. It is not as though previous 
plans were completely scrubbed and the redesign sketched on a clean 
sheet of paper. In fact the new design provides some significant 
advantages.
  Compared to the Freedom design, the international space station has 
nearly twice the power, almost double the pressurized volume, and twice 
the number of laboratory modules. The station will orbit at a higher 
inclination, broadening the band of the Earth's surface and atmosphere 
visible to the station. The crew size has been increased from four to 
six full-time crew members. The amount of extra-vehicular activity, or 
spacewalks required to construct the station has been drastically 
reduced, thereby reducing program risk.
  Dedicated and skilled men and women from around the country, and 
around the world, have been working hard toward accomplishing their 
goal of building the world's first international orbiting laboratory in 
space.
  Our international partners report their progress toward our mutual 
goal:
  Canada completed the critical design review for its component in 
1993.
  Japan completed its preliminary design review for the Japanese 
experiment module in 1992, and has its critical design review schedule 
for 1996.
  The European Space Agency's attached pressurized module will be ready 
for its scheduled launch date, and the Ariane 5 launcher is under 
development.
  The Memorandum of Understanding and Joint Management Plan with Russia 
is nearly completed. The Statement of Work leading to a fixed-price 
contract has been developed.
  Several members of the Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the 
Space Station, which is commonly known to those in the space and 
scientific area as the Vest Committee, chaired by the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, has had the opportunity to review the status 
and progress of the space station program when they met with program 
managers in Houston during the spring. The committee had been formed as 
an independent group of academic, scientific, and business leaders to 
evaluate the redesign effort last year. The findings of the committee, 
published in June 1993, expressed some rather pointed concerns relative 
to the execution of the program and made a number of recommendations 
intended to enhance program management.
  I was pleased to learn of the reaction of the Vest Committee members 
to the briefings presented during the system design review. The members 
were encouraged to share their personal observations regarding the 
status of the program. Their review was intense and their comments are 
dramatic.
  Dr. Charles Vest, president of the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology and committee Chair reported that there had been an absolute 
``sea'' change, meaning a complete wave change in the management and 
organizational structure of the program and that it had progressed to 
an extent that greatly exceeded his expectations. He detailed evident 
improvements in the budgeting and contracting process which inspired 
greater confidence that NASA and its prime contractor can stay within 
the cost parameters and guidance given by OMB.
  He noted improvements in technical and operational matters, as well 
as in research utilization of the completed station. He observed 
remarkable progress in integrating our international partners into the 
management and operational mainstream.
  Dr. Vest stated categorically that it is absolutely essential that 
budgetary stability and firm national commitment be established.
  And to me this vote that we are having today will go a long way 
toward giving us budgetary stability and firm national commitment. I 
feel if we win this vote in the neighborhood of 60 votes it ought to 
send a message that we ought to have budgetary stability and firm 
national commitment and to proceed with certainty in order to have 
proper planning.
  John Fabian, a member of the Vest Committee and president and CEO of 
Anser states ``My confidence level has reached an all-time high and for 
the first time I can call myself a `Station advocate'.''
  Let's repeat that. He says that. . . . ``for the first time I can 
call myself a `station advocate'.''
  Professor Bradford Parkinson of the Hansen Experimental Physics 
Laboratory at Stanford University provided extensive comments relative 
to technical and mission assessment. He states that the Russian 
contributions should optimize the scientific and engineering returns 
from this world-class research facility. He concludes by stating that 
he and many of his colleagues believe that we must be unabashed in 
advocating a strong, balanced NASA program as a harbinger for the 
future.
  I applaud the efforts of the Vest Committee Members and value their 
assessment.
  I would like to also take the time at this time to applaud the 
efforts of the administrator Dan Golden, who has worked so diligently 
and has provided great leadership in regard to the redesign of the 
space station and in regard to the management of a proper approach that 
we have today and for his approach toward the fiscal matters pertaining 
thereto. He has done a tremendous job.
  Proponents of this amendment contend that within the NASA budget 
space science mission have been delayed, starved, or cancelled for want 
of funds while NASA spends an ever greater share of its budget on 
manned space flight. Actually, shuttle operations have been cut 15 
percent per year for the past 3 years, and the science budget has 
increased from 22.4 percent of the budget in 1994 to 24.3 percent in 
1995. Since 1991, funding for Mission to Planet Earth has increased 69 
percent, Aeronautics funding increased by 42 percent and Microgravity 
and Life Sciences funding is up 40 percent. Two new robotic planetary 
missions were started this year, and a low-cost, rapid-schedule mission 
is planned for 1996. Long-distance, high-endurance missions are best 
performed through robotics. There are other missions which require the 
flexibility and judgment to receive, interpret, and manipulate data, 
and adapt as the mission progresses. These missions require a more 
sophisticated computer--the human mind. The goal is to program the 
right balance between these two types of missions. And thanks in large 
part to the dedicated efforts of both NASA programmers and the members 
of the Subcommittee on VA-HUD and independent agencies, we have before 
us a balanced program which provides for both types of missions.
  Another comment frequently made on this floor is that the station, 
and NASA, have eroded the budgets of the other agencies represented in 
this bill. That charge is completely unfounded. A comparison of the 
fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995 recommendations for the major 
agencies contained in this bill clearly shows that NASA is the only 
appropriation whose budget recommendation declined. The VA 
appropriation went up 3 percent, the HUD appropriation went up 3 
percent, the EPA appropriation went up 13 percent, and the NSF 
appropriation increased by 15 percent. Clearly, NASA and the space 
station are not being funded at the expense of other agencies.
  Mr. President, the international space station is well on its way to 
reality. I am convinced that the time is right for the Senate to 
state--categorically--its commitment to the international space 
station. The House has voted overwhelmingly--278 to 155--in support of 
the station. The administration is firmly committed to achieving the 
promise of this program. NASA, its contractors, and the thousands of 
men and women around the world who are dedicated to the construction 
and operation of the international space station have done everything 
we have asked of them, fixed each of our concerns. We must tell them 
today that we have seen their hard work and recognize their 
accomplishments.
  I strongly encourage my fellow colleagues to stand with me in 
supporting the completion of this truly visionary project.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold].
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise this evening to support the amendment offered 
by the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers]. If I did nothing 
else tonight, I want to take this opportunity to again say that the 
senior Senator from Arkansas has really been an inspiration since I 
have been here on the deficit reduction issue. A lot of us who were 
elected in 1992 thought we would come here as a new group and we would 
have to sort of stimulate the deficit reduction issue here. But I found 
that there is no one who is more dedicated to try to cut out waste in 
our Federal Government than Senator Bumpers. I greatly appreciate his 
making this effort with regard to the space station possible.
  With this amendment, Mr. President, we have an opportunity and 
really, unfortunately, I have to say, yet another opportunity, to 
terminate funding for the space station.
  I have been somewhat gratified by the work this Congress and 
President Clinton have done in reducing the Federal budget deficit. We 
have done a fair amount in the last year and a half.
  Through targeted revenue increases and substantial cuts in Federal 
spending programs, the Federal budget deficit is anticipated to be well 
under $200 billion for fiscal year 1995. And while we should all be 
pleased with the direction we are going in terms of deficit reduction, 
Mr. President, getting the deficit under $200 billion is similar to the 
mountain climber who has climbed just half way up the mountain. We have 
come a long way, but we have much more progress to make, and perhaps 
the toughest work and the most painful decisions lie ahead of us.
  Mr. President, I think this is true, even if our goal is not to 
completely eliminate the Federal deficit, which is what I would prefer. 
Even if we want to maintain a level of annual deficits, say, of $150 
billion a year, where we are approaching at this point, we will have to 
make many more tough decisions, and those decisions will have to 
include, in my view, further cuts in the Federal Government.
  I know that over the course of this debate several Senators will 
mention that we have recently celebrated the 25th anniversary of the 
first manned lunar landing. Thanks to the vision and commitment of 
President John F. Kennedy and many others, the United States was able 
to complete this remarkable achievement in less than a decade after 
President Kennedy had suggested that such an endeavor could occur and 
could be achieved.
  I recall, as a small child, when Alan Shepard first went into space. 
I recall very well being told in grade school when our dear colleague, 
Senator Glenn, did his famous mission. And I remember 1969, when the 
three astronauts landed on the Moon. I was aware of that; every child 
in America was aware of that, and we felt tremendous patriotic pride 
each time one of those events occurred.
  But what I did not know was going on, which was also good, was at 
that time during the 1960's, the primary decade that the United States 
was investing billions of dollars into the space program, the average 
annual deficit in the Federal budget was only $5.5 billion. In 1969, 
the year the Apollo 11 landed on the Moon, we had a surplus in the 
Federal budget of about $3 billion.
  This was, in fact, the last time we had a surplus in the Federal 
budget. Since 1969, the year of the landing on the Moon, the size of 
the annual deficits has risen dramatically, and through 1994, the 
average annual budget deficit for the 1990's has been a staggering $253 
billion. With this in mind, we must ask ourselves if we can truly 
afford a project that will cost us at least $75 billion using even the 
most conservative estimates.

  Many of my colleagues have made strong arguments with regard to the 
merits of building the space station. It is possible that investing in 
the space station may harvest long-term scientific benefits. But I am 
certainly not willing to gamble on this possibility with the financial 
future of our children and grandchildren.
  Since President Reagan initiated the space station Freedom project in 
1984, we have spent over $11 billion. Many of my colleagues and fellow 
space station opponents assert that we have spent this $11 billion and 
have nothing to show for it--no hardware, no shuttle launches, and 
certainly no breakthroughs to date in medical research. What we do have 
to show for this is an additional $11 billion tacked on to our nearly 
$5 trillion debt, not to mention the interest we will be paying on this 
tab over the next several years.
  Now, after countless redesigns and funding reestimates, NASA is again 
coming to us and saying ``Trust us, this time we know what we are 
doing--and, oh, by the way we need another $2.1 billion for operating 
and construction expenses this year.'' Though NASA tells us that the 
total cost estimates through 2002 will be only $17 billion--only $17 
billion--these are only the construction costs to build the station and 
do not take into account the $13 billion it will take to operate the 
station and the over $32 billion in shuttle launches that NASA tells us 
will be necessary over the 10-year life of the space station. When you 
add up the real costs of the space station you find that the total 
price tag will be at least $75 billion. And again, this does not take 
into account how much our children and grandchildren will be paying in 
interest payments on this $75 billion that we will need to borrow.
  I would also like to point out, Mr. President, that in opposing the 
space station, I am not necessarily indicating opposition to all space 
programs and scientific research initiatives. I support many of the 
programs NASA is currently involved with. Part of my concern about the 
space station funding comes from the recent report by the Congressional 
Budget Office that this program, with its tremendous costs, is draining 
scarce NASA funds away from other research-oriented projects, and 
funneling virtually all of that money into the space station.
  Moreover, one of the great promises of the space station is that it 
will lead to enhanced efforts in medical research and biotechnology. I 
must point out that the $1.9 billion we are debating here today rivals 
the roughly $1.9 billion that constitutes the entire annual budget for 
the National Institute of Cancer. I welcome the opportunity to discuss 
and compare with any of my colleagues the recent track records of those 
who are constructing the space station and those invaluable scientists 
and medical professionals who have made dramatic progress in 
discovering effective treatments and cures for various forms of cancer.
  Finally, I recognize that there are many jobs that could be put at 
risk if the funding for the space station is terminated. No question 
these are good-paying, high-technology jobs in the aerospace industry, 
the kind of jobs that we as a nation should be investing in. I am 
prepared to work with my colleagues from Texas, Alabama, California, 
and other affected States in finding alternatives to completely 
eliminating these jobs. I think it is reasonable to look at that. If it 
means retraining programs, I am prepared to consider that. The 
aerospace industry is an important one, and shifting our spending 
priorities within the space program does not necessarily mean that we 
have no more use for these workers. I firmly believe however, that we 
cannot continue a Federal spending program for the sole reason that it 
provides high-paying jobs in a select number of States. We must look at 
more important factors, such as the merits of the programs and whether 
we as a nation can afford to spend billions of dollars on a project of 
questionable value.
  I would like to conclude by reminding my colleagues that we have all 
heard the grandiose speeches calling for spending cuts. But time and 
time again those speeches are disregarded when it comes time to vote in 
the U.S. Senate on specific spending items. I have repeatedly voted for 
spending reductions, not always necessarily because I oppose those 
particular programs, but because I am convinced that the dangers of 
continue bloated deficits far outweigh the merits of those programs I 
voted to cut. I do not see a lot of difference between this debate and 
last year's debate over the superconducting super collider which this 
Congress, somehow--almost miraculously was able to defeat. That debate 
seemed to send a message that Members of Congress were willing to put 
all spending programs on the table, and even projects with arguable 
scientific merit should be closely scrutinized at a time of fiscal 
crisis. I am deeply troubled that when the final vote on this debate is 
taken, that this body will have taken a giant step backward even though 
a host of nonprofit organizations including the National Taxpayers 
Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Friends of the Earth all 
agree that this is one of the biggest pork-barrel items in the Federal 
budget. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin yields the floor.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby].
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by 
the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers.
  Commitment, Mr. President, that is what this debate is about. It is 
about this country's commitment to the future, to improving life on 
Earth and to creating new opportunities and hope for our children and 
our children's children. It is about sustaining human life beyond this 
planet.
  The world, the universe we live in is only as big or small as we 
choose to make it, Mr. President. Columbus' discovery of the new world 
demonstrated this; although trying to prove the latter rather than the 
former, it was his foresight, his forbearance, his sacrifice and his 
commitment to discovery that set him on a course toward the unchartered 
boundaries of the world he lived in.
  Where would we be today if Congress had pulled the plug on the space 
program in the early sixties because of the high cost and low return on 
the NASA space program? I suggest we might be reading about Yuri 
Gagarin in our history books instead of Neil Armstrong as being the 
first man to walk on the Moon.
  Conquering new frontiers is expensive and it is a long-term effort to 
be sure. But, Mr. President, this is undisputed: The issue raised here 
is not whether or not the space station costs a lot of money, it is 
whether we should spend all of our money on today or invest a little 
bit in tomorrow.
  Opponents suggest that as a practical, budgetary matter, the Space 
Station costs more than it is worth and that we should therefore stop 
funding it now and redistribute that money to more pressing social 
programs.
  As a practical, budgetary matter, we would be foolish to withdraw our 
investment in the space station now.
  It would cost us more now to back out of this international venture 
than it would to continue. And it could cost us more than the billions 
of dollars we have already invested in developing the space station.
  It could cost us years of hard won preeminence in space research and 
exploration; it could cost us international credibility as a 
world leader; it could cost us incalculable opportunities and 
discoveries--about this world and the universe we live in.

  We do not know what all the costs are because we don't know what we 
may be missing out on by canceling funding for this program.
  As I see it, one of the most important Federal priorities of any 
government is to create opportunities for a better life in the future. 
We can not effectively do that anymore by just pumping money into life 
on Earth today. We must look ahead. We must search for ways to sustain 
our society, our culture, our life into tomorrow.
  Indeed, the answers to many of our problems on Earth today may be 
answered from our knowledge and understanding of space. There is no way 
we can conduct the kind of advanced research and development necessary 
to such an understanding by looking through a telescope. We need to be 
in orbit not on Earth.
  The space station is not some pie in the sky ideal, some multibillion 
dollar floating piece of nuts and bolts as the cynics would argue--
rather, it is only as real and tangible and successful as we choose to 
make it.
  The space station represents a legacy for our children and our 
grandchildren--and it may be the only positive, beneficial legacy we 
leave them at the rate we are going in this country.
  About all this body does, sometimes is spend for the present and 
worry about the future tomorrow. It is our trademark. Half of every 
Federal dollar is already spent on direct benefits to individuals. What 
is $2 billion out of a budget of $1.5 trillion? I say it is a small, 
but significant, investment in tomorrow.
  The administration thinks this program is important, the majority of 
Congress thinks this program is important and the American people think 
this program is important--and it is.
  Look at your corner marquee, or drop by your neighborhood video 
store, or check your local listings.
  What was once considered the stuff of fantasy or science fiction is 
now accepted as predictions into our future--previews of the reality of 
tomorrow. ``Star Wars'', ``Star Trek'', ``Buck Rogers''--much of our 
modern culture sees space exploration and travel as the logical 
evolution of our civilization. And, I believe it is well-placed, it 
could be the future of our civilization if we choose to make that 
commitment--that commitment of leadership, that commitment of purpose, 
and that commitment of resources that is prerequisite to any successful 
space program.
  So, tonight I ask my colleagues to join me in reaffirming this 
country's commitment to our future by opposing this short-sighted 
attempt to strip funding from the space station.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] yields 
the floor.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the presiding officer very much.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment that calls for 
an end to the space station--complete, total end.
  Everybody in this body knows how the Senator from Arkansas feels 
about the space station. He has had the conviction and the courage to 
wage this fight for many, many years. I respect him for that. But in 
the meantime, a lot has changed to convince me that the Congress now 
should support, and should fund, and should take an immense interest in 
NASA's space station program.
  Last year, I became chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Science, 
Space and Technology, and that entailed on my part the immediate 
obligation to take a very fresh look at NASA's mission, the entire 
agency's mission, and our country's objectives in our overall space 
program. I take that work seriously and I will continue to take that 
work seriously.
  I made a special point of taking an intense and, frankly, somewhat 
wary look at the space station program. At the very same time, it 
turned out that the new administration had exactly the same questions 
and the same interest in addressing past criticisms, some of which had 
been valid. They were willing to look at problems forthrightly that had 
cast such dark shadows over NASA as a whole and this particular program 
for far too long.
  Within his first months in office, President Clinton directed a major 
redesign of the space station to reduce its costs. I know that is the 
kind of thing people say, but I talked with the President during the 
campaign a number of times about this, as I did the Vice President, and 
he was determined in this mission: Redesign, better use of money, 
better efficiency, better purpose.
  But his charge was really much more than saving money. He called on 
NASA to rethink its programs's objectives--the entire agency--and 
address some very valid concerns of our main international partners in 
space then--Japan, Europe, and Canada.
  As a result of this, when NASA ultimately produced the station's 
redesign last year, it won the seal of approval from a very good West 
Virginian, who happens to be the president of the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology, Dr. Charles Vest, and a resounding endorsement 
from a team of highly respected independent experts assigned to review 
the new program.
  My conversations with Charles Vest have been very important to me 
because he is a stringent critic in general of science, and he deals 
with it, obviously, at his institution. He had major questions. He is a 
very different person about the space station now than he was several 
years ago. I know that from experience.
  President Clinton, for his part, went on to recommend to Congress the 
idea of supporting a very bold initiative: Russian participation in the 
space station program, something most Americans would have never 
thought about or thought possible if they did think about it.
  From a purely cost-saving perspective, and budget has been brought up 
tonight, NASA has estimated that Russia's participation will lower our 
own costs of development through the purchase of existing Russian space 
hardware and technology. In fact, Mr. President, in exchange, NASA 
values Russia's contribution to the program at roughly $5 billion--$5 
billion--that they pay that we do not.
  Over the past 20 months, I have worked very closely with my 
colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives and key 
officials from NASA and the administration, to review the progress made 
to reinvent NASA in the post-cold-war era. With my very good friend and 
colleague, the Senator from Montana, Conrad Burns, who is the ranking 
member, I have held a number of hearings on NASA, including its 
relevance to the economy. And here the Senator from Maryland and I, 
once again, share very strong solidarity. Relevance to the economy is 
important in everything, to the American economy now. Also, its 
performance and its annual budget requests.
  But by far the greatest amount of time that I spend on NASA has been 
spent on this one program--the space station.
  Meeting with experts and outside groups, I have had intense 
discussions with the Vice President and the NASA Administrator on the 
role the space station plays within NASA and its importance to the 
foreign policy and science objectives of the United States.
  A word on Dan Goldin. NASA has not had a leader like Dan Goldin. Dan 
Goldin, Mr. President, if you have met and talked with him, is 
abrasive, abrupt, fairly curt, and almost always right.
  I have not seen an Administrator like that in my time in the Senate. 
I am impressed by Dan Goldin. In my remarks, I have given sort of the 
image of Dan Goldin directing not only NASA but the importance of the 
space station within NASA. He is an extraordinary leader of that 
agency.
  So based on all of this, I have concluded that the space station 
program that we have today is sustainable, and is sustainable on many 
grounds. My distinguished colleague from Arkansas has argued that we 
should terminate funding for the space station today because we have 
funded the program for 10 years with nothing to show for it. My friend 
from Wisconsin, made the same point.
  I acknowledge the validity of that point if we were standing on this 
floor a couple of years ago. But we are not. Again, we are now debating 
a redesigned, rejuvenated, and redirected program housed in an agency 
that also is expected to get leaner and better at everything that it 
does. Layers of management and bureaucracy have disappeared from NASA 
to reduce the station's development costs.
  And now finally, Americans can look forward to the first element 
launch of the space station in 1997, only 3 years away, and permanent 
human capability in the year 2002.
  My colleague has also questioned how Congress can vote for deficit 
reduction and yet fund the space station, and my colleague from 
Wisconsin raised the same point. I start by pointing out that Federal 
funding in this country for research and development has continued to 
shrink as a percentage of our budget.
  This is not welcome news and, yes, Congress has to make the difficult 
choices among competing demands that are put before us. Just within 
this appropriations bill, which is extraordinarily complex, many tough 
decisions were made to make resources available for some priorities at 
the expense of other requests that did not seem as urgent and 
essential. A lot of very tough decisionmaking was made in this 
appropriations bill. That will not be appreciated by many because they 
did not have to go through what the Senator from Maryland has gone 
through, but she has gone through it and has done it, and there are 
extraordinary decisions that are made here.
  However, our responsibility to future generations--and I think this 
is an important point. We talk constantly about the budget deficit. I 
voted for Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, I voted for the Budget Act, 
reconciliation bill. I did not use to be as concerned about budget 
deficits as I am now. I now take it as part of my being that we must 
spend less, do more with less.
  It is a challenge to a modern legislator. But I repeat, our 
responsibility to future generations is not summed up in one act, and 
that is the one act of reducing the Federal deficit. That is not the 
entirety of what defines our responsibility to those who follow us. If 
we pursue that necessary and worthy goal by cutting a destructive path 
on the way, we will do far more harm than good. Ask a family, ask a 
business whether it understands the difference between investments and 
paying off debt. You have to do both, and you have to do them at the 
same time if you are looking ahead.
  That is what funding the space station is about. We can continue to 
reduce the deficit, as some of us insured through what I really do 
consider an historic vote for the economic plan that we passed last 
year, but at the same time we can invest in the elements of a country 
whose strength is about breaking barriers, whose vision and magic is 
about exploring frontiers, making progress in knowledge and in 
technology. If we are to reach our 11- and 12-year-olds and 13-year-
olds, and have any expectation that they will desire someday to be 
engineers and scientists, we have to reach them in more ways than 
simply the classroom and the books that they read in the classroom 
alone. There has to be a larger vision. There has to be an imagination 
which is uniquely American, which captures their attention and 
redirects some of them off into our future makers of genius.
  The space station is one of the key science and technology 
investments that we must make to maintain the vitality of our 
industrial base, Mr. President. That is especially true as we try to 
find ways to pour less into defense and more into the civilian sector 
and into what produces jobs and skills for our people.
  A final point is how important today's concept of the space station 
is to something called foreign policy and international cooperation. 
The creation of NASA in 1958 and the race to the moon that the Senator 
from Wisconsin was speaking about sprang from the hostilities of the 
cold war. Forging a partnership with Russia on the space station, in 
addition to those already forged with Japan, Europe and Canada, 
encourages our countries to work together, to work peacefully in the 
new frontiers of outer space. It is a very exciting start--very, very 
exciting. Our own national and global security in fact is tied to a 
stable Russia that is an engaged, constructive member of the 
international community.
  The space station may be our country's best example of international 
cooperation in the post-cold-war era. That is quite apart from all of 
the other arguments for it. We are no longer debating a program mired 
in confusing agendas and careless planning. I voted against the space 
station several years ago because of confused agendas and no sense of 
purpose and no sense of leadership. I did not have confidence. I have 
confidence now in the leadership, in the product, in the planning, and 
the management of NASA in general and the space station in particular.
  This Congress has properly demanded a program that has a mission, a 
design worthy of support. I believe it has earned our respect. I 
believe it is now a program that should go forward and chart an 
exciting part of the future that will help us conduct better research 
on Earth, that has united the space faring nations and provides a path 
for former adversaries to work towards a common goal.
  West Virginia steelworkers and software engineers and thousands of 
other Americans have needed roles in this program. There is nothing 
wrong with that argument.
  Gathered together, these tangible and intangible benefits of the 
space station leave no doubt in my mind that we must continue its 
support. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, 
and I would like to specifically thank Senator Mikulski for her 
valuable leadership in this debate and commend her for successfully 
balancing very complex, very important priorities in this very 
complicated appropriations bill.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arkansas. Much of the discussion presented 
thus far has focused on the national aspects of this program, but I 
feel compelled to raise some broader points in support of the 
international space station.
  As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have strong 
reservations about any unilateral action to terminate the space station 
program. America's investment in the space station is not just an 
investment in the American space program--it is an investment in the 
international exploration of space. It is a commitment to a new level 
of international scientific coordination that we must honor.
  Questions have been raised about the cost of such a venture. I think 
it is important to realize just how seriously NASA and its 
international partners have taken those questions. Over the past year, 
engineers, scientists, and program directors from the entire space 
community have come together to meet the challenge of building and 
integrating a completely new, less costly space station.
  Today, the fruits of that effort are tangible. The international 
effort has produced an unparalleled product--and for less cost than the 
original space station Freedom design. Clearly, NASA and our 
international partners have answered the cost challenge.
  Likewise, financial commitments from our international partners have 
increased. Today, our international partners have expended almost $4 
billion on the space station program. That figure will likely increase 
to almost $8 billion with continued contributions to the annual 
operations cost of maintaining the station. The message is clear--our 
international partners have put their money where their mouths are, and 
we should do no less.
  Consider for a moment the synergistic benefits of such an investment. 
Each international partner will bring crucial and innovative 
technologies to the orbiting laboratory, and each will take new 
approaches to the problems that we seek to solve in the weightless 
environment of space. Our joint planning efforts are nearing 
completion. A new and even more ambitious space station design is 
ready. We are literally on the brink of a new international effort to 
explore the last frontier.
  This new level of cooperation and exploration could bring the 
cumulative knowledge and experience of the world's greatest space 
programs together for the purpose of peaceful scientific research. 
Imagine the possibilities.
  This is not a dream. It is a serious commitment to the future of 
extended space exploration and research. It brings together the 
talents, the experience and the financial investment of the 
international community to further the goal of peace. It is a 
commitment we must not, and cannot, abandon.
  Our commitment is crucial, and it must not waver. We must not permit 
the naysayers to cloud the argument. America must continue its 
commitment to space.
  I therefore, respectfully urge my colleagues to reject the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers].
  The most important argument against the space station is quite 
simple: We cannot afford it.
  As the cost of the space station continues to escalate, its potential 
usefulness continues to decline. The latest NASA estimates reveal an 
anticipated total cost to complete the space station and operate it for 
a decade of $72.3 billion--or nearly 10 times the initial estimate of 
$8 billion proposed by President Reagan in 1984.
  We have already wasted $11 billion on the space station. The 
amendment offered by Senator Bumpers simply cuts our losses, and saves 
the American taxpayer over $60 billion in future expenses for this 
unwise and imprudent project.
  Standing on its own, the $2.1 billion a year funding for this space 
station is questionable, at best. In conjunction with the federal 
budget deficit, and its effects on other programs, spending $2.1 
billion a year on the space station is inexcusable.

  Under constant budgetary pressures, the space station program has 
fallen into a trap all too common in the Federal Government. It is 
driven solely by the budget number NASA can get through Congress. 
Scientific concerns, candid evaluations of its mission, and long range 
thinking about the place for the space station in the context of our 
overall investment in science are all secondary to the budget. The 
overriding factor in determining the future of the space station is its 
budget--a sure recipe for failure.
  A strong case can be made that the space station is, in fact, killing 
NASA. Like many Federal agencies, the NASA budget is essentially a zero 
sum game. For every new program proposed, an old program must be cut. 
In an agency dominated by one program to the extent that NASA is 
dominated by the space station, starting a new program is extremely 
difficult, if not impossible. Continuing to fund the space station 
spells disaster for the future of NASA. In essence, we are sacrificing 
the future of America in space to fund a decade old program with little 
merit or relevance in today's scientific environment.
  As the cost of the space station has increased nearly tenfold, its 
planned mission has been vastly reduced. When proposed in 1984, the 
space station was intended to be an observatory for the stars and for 
the Earth, an assemble point for deep space missions, a satellite 
servicing center, a factory in space, and a laboratory for life 
sciences and microgravity research. As currently designed, the space 
station will serve only as a laboratory.
  Even its function as a laboratory has been significantly compromised. 
The number of racks available for scientific research has been greatly 
reduced, and it now apepars that many of the types of experiments 
proposed for the space station could, and probably will, be performed 
for less cost on Earth, on the space shuttle, or on other, lower cost 
spacecraft.
  I am also concerned by the recent changes which tie the space station 
so strongly to the Russian space program. While I share with most 
people the great interest in what is happening in the former Soviet 
Union, it is clear that Russia, or any other of the former Soviet 
Republics, is not a suitable partner for a scientific project of such 
magnitude. In fact, accommodations made to make our space station 
compatible with Russian involvement have further compromised the design 
of the space station. Quite simply, Russia is unstable, and we should 
not be spending $2.1 billion on a space station program dependent upon 
its future involvement with the United States.
  I am willing to make the prediction that the space station as it is 
currently proposed will never be completed. At some point, NASA will be 
forced to terminate the space station project. It is in the interests 
of the American taxpayer, as well as NASA, that this termination occur 
sooner, rather than later. I urge my colleagues save the taxpayer's $60 
billion by supporting the amendment offered by the Senate from 
Arkansas.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as the chair of the subcommittee 
and in opposition to the Bumpers amendment. But before I do, I would 
like to thank the Senator from West Virginia for his very gracious 
comments about my work as an appropriator. But where an appropriator 
can work with an authorizer, the task is made easier and I believe 
makes for wiser, more prudent and targeted decisions. The Senator from 
West Virginia chairs both the Subcommittee on Space in the Commerce 
Committee and chairs the full Committee on Veterans Affairs. So we have 
been a one-two team here, working in tandem, and it has been a personal 
delight. But I also believe America has been well served by our 
partnership in focusing on what are the real needs and how to address 
them in specific and pragmatic ways.
  Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate on the space 
station. Of course, I have been listening to the debate on the space 
station for 8 years because I chair this subcommittee. I want to say to 
the Senator from Arkansas, who has offered the amendment to defund the 
space station, that I admire him. I know he cares deeply about the 
people of Arkansas and about the people of the United States. And he 
has been a very articulate voice every year on controlling the deficit.
  We have been cutting our deficit. We have been cutting our deficit 
without cutting our future. There are two types of public spending: 
Those that you did not get anything for your money and those that are 
public investments that ultimately generate the new ideas that lead to 
the new products which lead to the new jobs. That is what I believe the 
space station is. It is a public investment in research and new 
technologies that will have important value to both space science and 
also will be value added to commercial products.
  I believe the Senator from Arkansas is making the wrong 
recommendation with his amendment. I believe it is wrong for our 
economic future, and I believe it is wrong for foreign policy.
  Mr. President, 25 years ago, our Nation launched a space program that 
is one of the greatest accomplishments of this century. On July 20, 
1969, our astronauts, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong, became the first 
human beings to walk on the Moon, the crowning moment of the Apollo 
space program. We were all inspired by that. Not only were we inspired, 
but out of the Apollo program came technologies that are benefiting 
American citizens in their day-to-day lives right now. And like all of 
America, I lived through the drama of the cold war space race. I was a 
young woman in college in the 1950's when Sputnik shattered America's 
complacency about its technology superiority.
  In 1969, I was fighting the war on poverty in the streets of 
Baltimore when Armstrong and Aldrin planted a flag on the Moon and made 
America proud again. They landed, they walked, and they broadcast their 
astronomical feats to the world. I was mesmerized by the moment. And 
ever since I became the chairperson of this subcommittee on 
appropriations I have been a strong supporter of the national space 
agency, and America's balanced space program. And I am a strong 
supporter of the space station because it is going to be a significant 
scientific laboratory. If we manage the project with fiscal discipline, 
and if we meet the commitments that we have made with international 
partners, we will be able to hold our head high. And I believe we are 
accomplishing these things with the International Space Station Alpha 
Program.
  A lot of things have happened in the space station program since we 
had this debate in the Senate last year, and since we began this kind 
of rolling debate since 1988. I believe now the international space 
station Alpha looks better than ever. We streamlined the management of 
the space station, reduced its four centers to a single center, and we 
have a single prime contractor, clear lines of authority, budget 
accountability, and the cost of it brought down by $2 billion.
  In the redesigned space station there will be more space, more 
electrical power, and more crew members to do research and experiments. 
With all these improvements, we will be able to save 75 percent of the 
plans we originally had for space station Freedom.
  During the debate last year the administration had begun to negotiate 
with the Russian space agency. Last year, we had not yet finished our 
redesign of the space station. We had a lot of questions about the 
program, and yet people still voted to fund it. This year I am going to 
be able to say that their faith was well balanced. We now have a space 
station that is a major international scientific collaboration 
including Europeans, Canadians, the Japanese, and now the Russians.
  Back in 1989 while we were furiously building bombs, and bomb 
shelters, and missiles to aim at the Soviet Union, and they were 
building bombs, bomb shelters, and missiles to aim at us, we were also 
involved in a space race. And did anyone dare to hope that in 25 years 
we would be working together in an international scientific laboratory 
where all these nations could work on research in space, where we go 
out together from Earth to explore, to learn, and to work together to 
learn about our solar system and our universe, and to build new 
technologies that will improve the lives of our children and our 
grandchildren here and around the world?
  The research we will do on the space station will continue to 
generate the kind of knowledge that will create the products we cannot 
now even imagine and treatments once confined to our dreams.
  Space technology has already helped us wage the war on heart disease 
by developing laser systems. It has helped increase advanced and 
pediatric pacemakers enabling little kids to live longer, and without a 
lot of surgical intervention. Right this minute there is a little girl 
being tucked in by her dad, and who is alive because of the pediatric 
pacemaker and who will be able to replace it as she grows older, 
stronger, larger because of what this space program has done.
  It has created a hearing aid that can be implanted. We have reduced 
cardiac deaths. We have developed new body imaging techniques for early 
detection. Right now it is being used in breast cancer research.
  This is a wise investment even in lean times because we are saving 
lives, generating jobs, developing products for global export. But we 
must invest today to be ready for the world tomorrow.
  The space station is responsible for 40,000 good jobs in this country 
right now, jobs for men and women, blue and white collar, manufacturing 
workers, scientists, engineers, technicians, and clerks. These are the 
kinds of jobs that will carry us into the next millennium.
  The new Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, called this the 
biggest pork project. Well, I did not want to stand up and interrupt 
his argument. But this is not pork. Pork goes ``oink, oink.'' It does 
not go ``go, go.'' Pork is an add on, like a baroque object that looks 
good, but does not necessarily add intrinsic value. It serves either 
ego or a special interest, and it is fat.
  What is the space program and the space station? It is not pork. This 
is not because of ego. This is because of a strategic plan to be able 
to take us into the 21st century.
  Jobs from the new economy will be based not only in traditional 
industries and services but also on new technologies, and new products. 
These are the kinds of investments that will ensure that this Nation is 
not left out and not left behind. We have addressed the concerns that 
some scientists had years ago about the space station. And I know the 
Senator from Arkansas who has returned to the floor would say, ``I 
remember when it was overweight and underpowered.'' Well, so do I. Now 
we have been able to streamline that. The design is more efficient, 
more effective, and more targeted to research. He is going to say, 
``Well, I remember when it was a transportation mode.''
  Then the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, said, ``Well, it is 
only good if you want to go to the Moon.'' I also remember when its 
original design was to be a conduit in the sky for astronauts going to 
Mars. But we knew that astronauts going to Mars is going to be a $500 
billion undertaking. And we said no way, the subcommittee both in 
authorizing and appropriations, because we knew this was not a goal 
that was fiscally achievable in this century.
  What we did say is that we need a space station to do the type of 
scientific research that cannot be done on Earth such as life science 
microgravity, and other areas of activity.
  I believe the space station is on the right track. And I believe our 
collaboration, now with the involvement of the Russians, will enhance 
our work and actually save us money because they have some products 
that we can incorporate, and some technologies that will actually 
enhance the timeline.
  In May 1995 there will be a docking between the United States 
astronauts and the Russians on Mir. For the first time, Russians and 
American astronauts will rendezvous in space, and not only will they do 
an extraordinary handshake of peace and friendship and collaboration 
symbolizing the end of the cold war not only on Earth but in space, but 
that new handshake will take us to, I truly believe, new cures for 
cancer, new products of materials that will be safe, will be resilient, 
will be the kinds of things, alloys, that we cannot yet now dream.
  I believe that in May 1995 it would be a national and international 
embarrassment if we jettisoned the space station and American 
astronauts and the Soviet astronauts along with the Canadians and 
Japanese would look across the solar system and be emptyhanded because 
of the shortsighted nature, the well-intentioned but shortsighted 
nature, of the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Before I yield the floor, I say to my colleague from Arkansas, does 
the Senator wish to continue speaking on this or are we ready to move 
to closure on this night's session? I thought it was very excellent 
debate.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have just 3 or 4 minutes to wrap up.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Arkansas being willing to stay 
late, to lead the debate, and to bring his supporters over. We have 
tried to do the same. I thought the debate was rich in content and in a 
tone civil and courteous.
  We look forward to the wrapup tomorrow morning.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator from Maryland very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arkansas 
[Mr. Bumpers].
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I know that the distinguished Senator 
from Maryland knows that I have the utmost respect for her and her work 
as the chairperson of this very important subcommittee on 
appropriations, dealing with the space station as well as housing, and 
so on.
  I have listened as carefully as I could to some of the statements 
that have been made by people who support the space station. Without 
being disrespectful, or denigrating to any of them, I would just simply 
say that many times when I was a trial lawyer it was much more 
gratifying than debating an issue on the Senate floor.
  When I had 12 jurors to speak to who were anxious to hear what I had 
to say about a case, I knew I had a fighting chance. That is the beauty 
of the American system of justice. But it has plenty of flaws. As a 
trial lawyer, I knew that jury of 12 men and women were going to 
listen. I knew they were going to make up their minds based on the 
evidence they heard, and what the lawyers said to them in what we call 
summations. I must tell you one of the things that makes this a 
depressing place is that speaking in the Senate is not like speaking to 
12 jurors. You are speaking to people who, for the most part, have made 
up their minds. It does not make any difference what the argument is--
the vote is not going to change.
  My guess is that I will receive about the same number of votes I 
received last year. The Director of NASA, Dan Goldin, has gone up and 
down the corridors of the Senate office buildings with a Russian 
astronaut, making the case that this is critical to American-Russian 
relations. The Vice President--my former seatmate, who sat right here, 
my dear friend, who believes strongly not only in the space station, 
but especially the foreign policy initiative of having the Russians 
join us in the space station--has lobbied virtually every Senator that 
he thought might be in doubt.
  So, yes, Mr. President, you do not have the luxury of talking to 
jurors who are undecided and who are going to cast their votes in the 
jury room based on what they heard. No lobbyists, no $160,000 jobs, 
just deciding on the merits.
  Mr. President, that brings me to a couple of the arguments I heard 
tonight--as I knew I would--about the merits of the space station; 
namely, how we would grow protein and material crystals on the space 
station. Everybody including the people who are in the semiconductor 
business, and who use crystals, say they do not need it; that there is 
nothing critical about a wafer or a crystal grown in space that is 
different from any crystal created on the ground. The difference is 
that one costs $156 billion, and the other one costs an awful lot less.
  Here is what Robert Park said before the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation. Now, Dr. Park is, the director of the 
Washington office of the American Physical Society. As I pointed out 
earlier, the American Physical Society is 45,000 physicists in this 
country. In his testimony, he called it the ``microgravity myth''--the 
idea that you can grow crystals for semiconductors or medicine in space 
that are purer than crystals made on Earth. Here is what he said:

       The only unique property of a space station environment is 
     microgravity. It is not surprising, therefore, that much has 
     been made of that property in attempts to sell the space 
     station. But many years of research on shuttle flights, and 
     in continuous operations of the Russian space station, Mir, 
     has produced absolutely no evidence that this environment 
     offers any advantage for processing materials or drugs. 
     Indeed, there are sound reasons for doubting that it could. 
     Gravitational forces are simply too weak to significantly 
     affect most processes.

  He goes on to say:

       In November, however, a team of Americans that collaborated 
     in protein crystal growth experiments on the space station 
     Mir and on the U.S. space shuttle, reported in Nature 
     magazine that 10 years of work, at stupendous costs, have 
     produced no significant breakthrough in protein crystal 
     growth. No protein has been observed to crystallize in 
     microgravity that does not crystallize on Earth.

  Mr. President, everybody who has looked at the growing of protein 
crystals in space says this is utter nonsense.
  But I am not speaking to 12 jurors; I am speaking to Senators who 
have already made up their minds to spend this $156 billion. I said 
earlier--and I misspoke myself--that we had never participated with the 
Russians in a single scientific experiment in space. I stand corrected. 
We did experiment with them on the growth of crystals and found out it 
was nothing. Yet, Senator after Senator will get up on this floor and 
talk about that being one of the principal reasons for going into 
space, to grow crystals and to cure cancer.
  Mr. President, I have never been as certain in my own mind of the 
righteousness of what I believe as I am about this. I have been a 
deficit hawk for as long as I can remember, and I am absolutely rapt 
solid as to how the deficit has been falling. It is the most dramatic 
deficit reduction by far in the history of the country. But the 
mentality here is that the deficit is going down; therefore, it will 
not hurt to go ahead and vote for the space station.
  Here it is: $2.1 billion for the next 3 years. Beginning in 1997, 
almost $4 billion a year. One Senator said that when you consider the 
fact that we have a $5 trillion debt, that is not very much. What we 
would spend on the space station in 1997 would run my State for 2 
years. That is not very much, folks, but it is big bucks in Arkansas.
  So here you see it, Mr. President, $3.9 billion for those years--3.6, 
3.3, 3.2, and 3.1 each year after it is deployed. That is $10 million a 
day. You are not going to believe this, but of this $3.1 billion, 
almost $500 million of that is for water--to supply the astronauts with 
water. That ought to be laughable if it were not so serious.
  But when Senators start stampeding through that door over there, 
these arguments do not mean a thing, and once again we will fund the 
space station and jeopardize the future of the country and the future 
of our children.
  Mr. President, one final thing about the Soviet space station Mir. 
You remember I said they had seven up there. Since 1974, the Russians 
and the Soviets have had seven space stations deployed. They have one 
up there now called the Mir. It is an interesting thing, they said they 
developed a flu vaccine years ago, and it was on the front page of 
every Russian newspaper about how the Russians discovered a flu vaccine 
they could make in space. And nobody ever heard from it again. Do you 
know why? Because they found out they could make it cheaper on ground 
than they could in space. And so it goes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas yields the floor.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah, [Mr. Bennett].
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from 
Arkansas, with whom I sometimes join and with whom I sometimes cross 
swords. This happens to be one of the occasions when we will cross 
swords because I am in a different mode with respect to the space 
station than is he.
  I respect his efforts and I respect his integrity for speaking out 
for what he believes.
  The times when he and I have been together have come on issues 
relating to appropriate business practices, because I come from a 
business environment. My background is in business. And I am doing 
everything I can to maintain a businessman's point of view while I am 
in the Senate and try to avoid the Potomac fever that causes people to 
lose the perspective that they have after they are first elected. After 
I've been around here a little longer, that may happen to me. But I am 
doing what I can to prevent that.
  So, I look at this from a business point of view. You may think, Mr. 
President, I am now going to start to list all of the benefits that 
will come out of the space station in a bottom line balance sheet 
fashion. I could do that, but there are other Senators who do that as 
well or better than I, and I would simply be redundant. Instead I take 
you to a business experience summarized in a conversation I had when I 
was the CEO of a company that was growing very rapidly but was still at 
the time quite small.
  I was spending money as the CEO of that company in a research and 
development mode. Some of the people were concerned that we might not 
have the money. ``Maybe you will postpone spending on those kinds of 
things until we get really stable. You do not know what you are going 
to get out of having these R&D people around. And, Bob, why are you 
spending the money?''
  I remember saying to them, ``If you do not spend the money on your 
future, you are not likely to have one.''
  It just kind of popped out on the occasion, but I liked it, and I 
repeated it. And I want repeat it here in this context. If we do not 
spend some money on our future, we are not likely to have one, even if 
we cannot at this point quantify exactly what will come as a result of 
that spending.
  Just 2 weeks ago, on July 20, 25 years previously American astronauts 
landed on the moon. As I say, just 2 weeks ago we celebrated that 
anniversary. This is an event that I think changed our perception of 
the universe and our place in it forever. It inspired the Nation to 
continue its efforts in space. It also acted as a catalyst to bring our 
people together in a sense of rejoicing over an accomplishment that 
virtually nothing else has ever done.
  The Apollo landing stands out as one of the most significant events 
in our Nation's history. Look back over the great civilizations of 
history. Each one is marked by a crowning achievement that lasts down 
through the ages: the pyramids in Egypt, the building of the Taj Mahal 
in India, demonstrating the apex of their architectural excellence, and 
Angkor Wat in Thailand, and so on--these represent the golden eras of 
these civilizations.
  I think our Nation will be remembered for, among other things, the 
realization of the dream of human space flight and exploration, and 
Apollo will be one of those monuments. But if we do not add to Apollo 
with further monuments, we will end up looking back on that with the 
same kind of nostalgia that we now use to look back on the Greeks and 
the Egyptians and others who do not play a major role in the modern 
world.
  I salute the men and women who made the Apollo landings possible, 
both the astronauts who made the historic voyage and the people on the 
ground who made the trip not only possible but safe and successful.
  When I think on the 25th anniversary of Apollo, it is appropriate 
that we commemorate that by demonstrating our commitment to keep it up.
  As I say, I could give you a list of all of the benefits that come 
out of space and space exploration in terms of things that have changed 
our lives here.
  I remember seeing a video presentation on public television where an 
individual was standing in a room filled with medical equipment and 
said: ``I am here in a room with the very latest medical equipment to 
show you the benefits of space. I am now going to remove from this room 
everything that owes its beginnings and its technological advances to 
the space program.''
  You can anticipate what is coming. In the next visual the room was 
empty. Everything owed its genesis to the space program.
  So I could give you that list. As I say, I will not do that because 
other Senators have done that, and we have that in the Record, and we 
have that in the speeches on the floor.
  I want to concentrate on the issue I have already raised, the issue 
of investing in the future, the issue of our vision and our concern 
about wonder.
  My colleague from Ohio, Senator Glenn, has already touched on this 
with his story about Daniel Webster and his inability to see what could 
come out of the future.
  G.K. Chesterton once said, ``We are perishing for lack of wonder, not 
for lack of wonders.''
  We are indeed surrounded by wonders. But do we have that sense of 
wonder that I am sure he is referring to? As I say, this is the issue 
and this is the idea that I want to emphasize today. Think of it. It is 
a wondrous thing to send a man through space. It is a wondrous thing 
that men have walked on the moon. Somewhere, in our debate about 
appropriations bills and crime, health care procedures, we seem to have 
lost our wonder.
  Mr. President, I am here as the successor to Jake Garn, and those who 
remember Jake remember him for two things. No. 1, he used to complain 
bitterly about late night sessions. I am here at a late night session 
perhaps in honor to Jake's complaint. But, No. 2, he loved space. And 
he came back to the Senate and made a statement to the appropriations 
subcommittee about this which I would like to repeat here because it 
focuses on this issue of wonder.
  He says, now quoting former Senator Jake Garn:

       Each time the shuttle flies is a miracle of human 
     capabilities, both on the ground and in orbit. Each flight 
     may not be as flashy or as notable as the Hubble mission, or 
     Endeavor's maiden voyage. But each one provides a treasure of 
     knowledge with great potential for advancement and 
     improvement of the human condition *  *  *. The possibilities 
     are mind-boggling.
       I have been `out among the people' now for the past year 
     and a half. I have spoken to thousands of people in a wide 
     variety of settings and when I speak to them about space, 
     it's not the science or the technology that seems to strike 
     the deepest chords with them; it's the ``vision'' it's the 
     majesty of it all; the excitement of discovery. In these days 
     when so much of society seems to respond only to things which 
     provide instant gratification, it is heartwarming to me to 
     find so much interest and such an overwhelming response to 
     the ``vision thing.''
       History is filled with examples of once great nations who 
     lost their drive to explore, who turned inward and lost sight 
     of their real place in the world. When they lost that vision, 
     they lost their place of leadership.
       Leadership, like trust, must be earned. It must be 
     reaffirmed and proven by consistency in word and actions. My 
     challenge to the President is to demonstrate this leadership; 
     to support and expand this nation's space program; to not be 
     swayed by the nay-sayers who claim who cannot afford it. I 
     challenge him to allow the space program to embody the 
     fundamental and instinctive need of human beings to explore 
     and expand their horizons--to allow it to hold out the vision 
     of a better understanding of who and what we are, and what 
     part we play in the universe in which we live.

  I know that that is in the report language, but I think it is 
appropriate to repeat it here on the floor because Senator Garn reacted 
to the wonder of this incredible opportunity and was its champion here 
on the floor of the Senate for 18 years. And, as a tribute to him, as I 
say, I think it is appropriate that I repeat this and, it is equally 
appropriate, as a tribute to him, that I do it in a late-night session.
  We will now vote on whether or not to keep the space station. We will 
look at the charts. We will look at the bottom line. We will make the 
decision on a sound economic basis.
  I am certainly not urging us to do anything that would be 
economically foolish or reckless or based on pure fantasy. I believe 
that support for the space station can be justified economically and we 
can demonstrate that the Nation will indeed get its money's worth.
  But I do want to inject this note in the whole debate: Was it worth 
it for this Nation to go to the Moon? Was it worth it to pay what it 
cost us to allow the whole Nation to gather around one figuratively 
giant TV set and watch Neil Armstrong announce his ``one giant leap for 
mankind''? Was that worth it to us as a people?
  I venture to say that we will all say yes, not only from what 
happened on the balance sheet, but for what it did to us as a 
community. It was worth it because of the wonder. It remains one of the 
great moments in American history.
  So looking back on the first quarter century of American space 
exploration as marked by Apollo, recognizing, of course, there was much 
that went on before that, I find inspiration to continue our march of 
destiny beyond the Earth. And we cannot continue it without taking the 
next giant leap for mankind, which is to break beyond our present 
technology, go into a frontier we have not tried before, and build the 
space station.
  For that reason, Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to 
support the space station and help America keep its sense of wonder.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah yields the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his 
excellent remarks. I recall with fondness the work that I did, together 
with Senator Garn, on this appropriation.
  It is a special treat to this Senator to have the support from 
Senator Bennett. That certainly was very much in the Garn tradition.

                          ____________________