[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 124 (Friday, July 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7921-H7924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weller). Pursuant to House Resolution 
201 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 2099.

                              {time}  0923


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2099), making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and 

[[Page H 7922]]
Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Combest in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, July 
27, 1995, title III was open for amendment at any point.
  Pursuant to the order of the Committee of that day, the following 
amendments, and any amendments thereto, are debatable for the time 
specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent of the amendment: amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for 20 minutes; amendment No. 26 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento], for 20 minutes; 
amendment No. 57 offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], 
for 50 minutes; amendment No. 66 offered by either by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], or the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], 
for 90 minutes; amendment Nos. 55 or 56 offered by either the gentleman 
from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] or the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone], for 20 minutes; and amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], or the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], 
for 40 minutes.
                    amendment offered by mr. roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Roemer:
       Amendment No. 57: Page 70, lines 13 through 19, strike 
     ``$5,449,600,000'' and all that follows through ``obligation 
     until September 30, 1997'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$3,849,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     1997''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
27, 1995, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and a Member opposed 
will each be recognized for 25 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple. It is an amendment that would 
cancel the space station from the NASA program, and it differs from the 
amendment that we dealt with yesterday, labeled the Obey amendment, in 
that our amendment has all of the savings go for deficit reduction. We 
do not intend to respend any of the remaining monies into other social 
programs or other sundry programs within the Government departments. 
This amendment is intended for deficit reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, I testified the other day before the Committee on Rules 
of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and not only asked the 
gentleman from New York for this opportunity to give this amendment the 
approval of this body, but also to testify strongly in favor of the 
lockbox amendment, so that we could finally get savings from these 
kinds of amendments go directly to the deficit, and not have these 
games being played that we are not saving money if we cut a program. 
Certainly if we cut this program, these monies will not be in future 
budgets.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about what this amendment 
is not about. This amendment is not about taking away Christopher 
Columbus' ship. We are going to hear all these grandiose promises about 
what the space station is capable of doing. We are not trying to wipe 
out past discoveries. We are not trying to take away Charles 
Lindburgh's plane.
  We are not trying to say to Jim Lovell that he did not show a great 
deal of courage in this very, very good movie, ``Apollo 13.'' We are 
not trying to take an Oscar nomination away from Tom Hanks. We are 
saying, ``Judge this program on the merits, not on a movie.'' I saw 
``Apollo 13.'' It is a great movie. I recommend it to everybody in the 
body and people watching throughout the country. However, we do not 
base Federal allocations of resources on money and on movies. If we 
felt that, I think Hoosiers was a great basketball movie about the 
State of Indiana, but I am not up here advocating that we spend Federal 
dollars on Indiana IU basketball programs. I hope that is not the 
justification we hear over there on Apollo 13.
  Sure, it is a great movie, but look at the merits of this program. 
What has the space station done? When Ronald Reagan first devised this 
program in 1984, President Reagan said this:

       This program will cost us $8 billion. It can achieve eight 
     scientific missions here and it will be done in 10 years.

  Today, in 1995, this program has gone from $8 billion to $94 billion. 
I thought these new Republicans coming in the new election were coming 
here to judge these programs on the merits, not on the movies. Here is 
the most recent General Accounting Office report: $94 billion, from an 
$8 billion start. We are going to make tough decisions in this Congress 
to move to a balanced budget, and certainly a program that has had that 
kind of cost increase does not deserve to have taxpayer dollars just 
thrown at it year after year.
  We might say, ``OK, it has gone from $8 to $94 billion. The science 
is magnificent. It is truly inspiring for our country.'' The science 
has gone from eight scientific missions in 1984, where they had a 
platform to study the Earth with environmental problems, a platform to 
look out into the solar system, a stepping stone to help us repair 
Hubble; it cannot do any of those things anymore, Mr. Chairman. All 
this $94 billion space station can do now is help us study the effects 
of gravity on men and women in space.
  If that is all this thing can do, let us continue to dock with the 
Russians at Mir and not buy a $94 billion space station. Let us 
continue our international efforts with the Russians and modify an 
existing space station, and utilize that for these efforts.
  We are also off schedule, overbudget, little science, supposed to be 
done in 1994, and now we will be lucky if this program is completed by 
the year 2004. Members are going to hear a lot of claims from 
proponents of the space station that this is an international 
partnership, and we have to have these international partnerships in 
the future, based upon science. I wish I had the kind of international 
partnership for my investments that the Russians have on this 
international partnership. They are not putting up money; we are 
putting up money for the Russians. We are sending $400 million of NASA 
money, taxpayer money from the United States to Russia, to get their 
international agreement and scientific cooperation. That is not an 
international partnership, that is us putting all the risk and
 liability out there, and the Russians getting all the benefits. Also, 
the Europeans and the Japanese and the Canadians are thinking of 
pulling out of this international space station.

  Members are also going to hear a lot about how great this program is 
to solve breast cancer, that we are going to have all these panaceas up 
in space. Mr. Chairman, in the NIH budget today, what we are funding to 
the NIH, we cannot even fund most of the approved grants on breast 
cancer here on Earth with the funding problems we have at the NIH. We 
are going to spend $94 billion up in the sky, and maybe have a 1 in a 
million or a 1 in 10 million chance to do this up there? Let us spend 
that money on Earth, at the NIH, to solve these problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we are also going to hear a claim from the 
other side that we have gone so far and we might as well continue this 
program; we have spent $12 billion. That is not a good argument either, 
Mr. Chairman. How can we justify the expenditure of another $80 
billion? We are not a third of the way, we are not halfway. Measure 
these programs on their merits. All science is not successful.
  Surely Christopher Columbus was successful, and we are proud of that 
effort. Surely Charles Lindburgh was successful, and we are very proud 
of that effort. Surely we have had great successes with Neal Armstrong. 
Every scientific endeavor is not destined to be as successful as those, 
and this, on the merits, does not deserve continued Federal funding.
  Before I yield some of my time to the distinguished cosponsor of this 
amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], let me just 
quote from a famous scientist. Albert Einstein said this:


[[Page H 7923]]

       It is not enough that you should understand about applied 
     science in order that your work may increase man's blessings. 
     Concern for the man himself and his fate must always form the 
     chief interest of all technical endeavors. Never forget this 
     in the midst of your diagrams and equations.

  Diagrams and equations, technical endeavors, they are surely what we 
need to base so much of our hopes and dreams on in the future, but ask 
Thomas Edison how many successes he had. He did not succeed with every 
single invention. He was wise enough to know which ones to pursue and 
which ones to table.
  Let us as a Congress make some decisions around this body to cut some 
of the programs that have had Federal funding for years and years and 
do not deserve continued funding. Let us make some tough decisions 
around here to cut spending, whether it be a B-2 bomber, whether it be 
a space station, whether it be a tobacco subsidy. Let us move toward a 
balanced budget, in the best interests and the best endeavors, as 
Albert Einstein said, of men and women.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from the State of New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], the cosponsor of 
the amendment and somebody I have a great deal of respect for.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  One of the arguments we have heard yesterday and we will hear today 
is that without the space station, there will be no space program. The 
proponents of the space station sincerely believe that proposition, but 
I think they have it exactly wrong. The space station is killing our 
space program.
  In years past, when the budget for NASA was rising at a healthy clip, 
the space station's voracious appetite made it impossible for us to 
conduct some very important and worthwhile programs of NASA. The 
Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility was scaled down and delayed, the 
Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby was canceled, the Space Infrared 
Telescope Facility was scaled down and it was delayed, the Compton 
Observatory was scaled down and delayed, the Stratospheric Observatory 
for Infrared Astronomy was scaled down, the Cassini Saturn mission was 
scaled down, the Earth Observation System was scaled down. These are 
some of the NASA programs that have already been victims of a static 
budget, or a slowly increasing budget.
  We now have a declining budget for NASA, and a voracious appetite for 
a space station which is going to consume more valuable programs in 
space and on Earth.
  I am not alone in believing that the space station means death for a 
good space program. There is nobody in this House who believes more 
deeply in space exploration than the former chairman of the Committee 
on Science, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. Until this year, 
he was one of the most forceful, effective, and knowledgeable 
proponents of the Space Station as part of a comprehensive program for 
us to explore space and learn more from space. However, yesterday he 
came to the painful decision that we cannot afford the space station 
and still have a decent space program. He concluded, as a number of us 
have concluded in years past, that in a period of static and now 
declining NASA budgets, the space station will surely cannibalize the 
truly valuable aspects of the space program.
  Before I yield back my time, and I would hope to have an opportunity 
to speak again, I do want to point out to my Republican colleagues, 
particularly, that there is a major difference between this amendment 
and the Obey amendment. Whereas the Obey amendment distributed most of 
the savings from cutting the space station to social programs, this 
amendment applies every penny of net savings to deficit reduction.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the Committee on 
Science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, as you listen to today's space station debate you will 
hear the voices of fear. That's right--fear. Fear of the unknown. 
Throughout history there have been those who feared the future so 
intently that they refused to invest in it. They justified their fear 
by pursuing objectives closely tied to present needs with the claim 
that only by spending on the known can we prepare for the unknown.
  Invariably those who refused to focus on the future have been wrong. 
History has been unkind to those peoples and nations who pursued 
policies tied to fear.
  Today we debate the future. We debate the promise of the future 
against the fear of the future.
  I am hopeful this Congress will come down on the side of the promise. 
The space station is all about vision, hope, and promise.
  What we are creating in the space station is a unique laboratory 
environment in which scientific work, unthinkable on Earth, can be 
done.
  The station is a unique laboratory. You cannot replicate on Earth a 
microgravity environment where long duration study can be done.
  The work in that laboratory is scientific, meaning that we are 
pursuing the new knowledge needed for our economic future.
  The work cannot be totally quantified at this point because some of 
it, perhaps most of it, is unthinkable until the new environment and 
the new experience has been created.
  What we are doing when we build a space station is crating for 
ourselves and our posterity the ability to touch tomorrow.
  Is there anyone among us who does not believe that at some time now 
or in the future men and women will go beyond the bounds of Earth and 
explore the plants and the universe? How can you not believe that? 
After all, we already have left our footprints on the Moon and sent our 
technology to the cosmos.
  And what have we learned? We have learned exploration is very 
difficult with the chance of unplanned consequences. But we have also 
learned that exploration of the most hostile frontier humankind has 
ever encountered has made us more creative.
  President Kennedy told us that we would go to the Moon and do the 
other things, not because they were easy, but because they were hard.
  That's the point. If this was easy or inexpensive there would be no 
challenge. The hardships and the sacrifices necessary to have humans 
live in, work in, and explore space, make us better, stronger, and 
richer. We learn new things. We create new technology. We build new 
relationships. We prove to the world why we are capable of leading the 
world technologically and economically.
  When the question is asked, can we afford this project, that's the 
wrong question. The real question should be, how can we afford not to 
build a space station? How can we deny the destiny of humankind? How 
can we not do what we are now capable of doing to push further toward 
gathering the new knowledge that can only be found on a distant 
frontier?
  The only real reason for not doing what we can do and should do is 
fear. Space station is something we can do. The technology is feasible. 
The research is valuable. The potentials are enormous. And the cost is 
assumed within our balanced budget goal. We can do this. We should not 
fear it.
  The space station is something we should do. As a nation that has 
been built by explorers and investors, we should continue to build, 
explore and invent. As a nation committed to pushing frontiers, we 
should not back away from the space frontier. As a nation that seeks to 
lead the world in the next century, we should demonstrate the 
leadership our technology, and our courage can provide us.
  Only fear can stop us. Fear too often blurs vision. Fear too often 
results in hopelessness. Fear too often negates promise. Fear too often 
undermines judgment. Debilitating fear of a great unknown that we are 
capable of exploring and exploiting would be a modern tragedy.
  Make no mistake, a vote to cancel the space station has consequences 
well beyond that singular decision. A cancellation of space station is 
a decision that ultimately will stop America's human spaceflight 
program. A cancellation of space station will forfeit America's 
established leadership in space endeavors--leadership that has paid 
back to our economy at a rate of more than $2 for every dollar 
invested.
  Don't capitulate to fear of the unknown. Join us in one of 
humankind's 

[[Page H 7924]]
greatest endeavors. Join us in providing future generations their 
chance to reach beyond themselves. Join us in approving the 
international space station that will extend our reach into the future.
  An old hymn talks about the future's broadening way. We can broaden 
it a little bit today by taking another step into the universe.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Ganske], a distinguished freshman Republican member.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Roemer-
Zimmer amendment.
  The space program has done some wonderful things. I stood in awe when 
man first walked on the Moon. I stand in awe of the space shuttle every 
time it launches. Mr. Chairman, I also stand in awe of our nearly $5 
trillion national debt.
  The space station may be a grand idea, but we must face the reality 
of its $94 billion price tag.
  We must face the reality that the entire project is based on overly 
ambitious goals. Costs for the space station have been rising while the 
target date for its completion has been slipping.
  Many questions remain. To what extent will the Russians, and other 
international partners, participate in this project? Will the shuttle 
program be able to handle the increased flight schedule? Is the target 
cost of the space station going to skyrocket if Boeing cannot reach 
acceptable agreements with the subcontractors?
  But the central question we must face has nothing to do with 
international agreements and theoretical science. The question is, How 
can we stand in this Chamber and heap additional debt on our children 
and grandchildren.
  A vote for the Roemer-Zimmer amendment is not a vote against space 
exploration. It is a vote about economic realities.
  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the American people that President John F. 
Kennedy helped us dream by leading us into space exploration. How much 
excitement and inspiration and anticipation this country faced as we 
began that great historical effort, but in this era of budget cutting, 
some have argued that NASA has to take its share of budget cuts and the 
space station will have to be sacrificed as a result.
  While I have great admiration for the gentleman from Indiana, I also 
admire the fiscal fairness that has to be done. It is imperative that 
we consider the efforts that NASA has already made, the cuts that it 
has already made and the efficiencies that it has already implemented.
  The agency has been standing up and stepping ahead in the realm of 
cost reduction and efficiency improvements. As part of this zero-based 
review, NASA reduced its budget by $5 billion over the next 5 years. 
Over the past 3 years the agency has reduced its multiyear budget plan 
by 35 percent, a savings to the American taxpayer of $40 billion. To 
this point, the space station is on budget and on schedule.
  You might say that is just something you have said; but, no, I have 
asked the project director directly: ``Sir, are you on schedule? Are 
you on budget? Will you be monitoring your contractors? Will you be 
ensuring the American people that you will keep this project on budget 
and on schedule?''
  ``Yes, we will.''
  NASA has clearly demonstrated its commitment, to fiscal 
responsibility and deficit reduction. Do I see opportunities for inner 
city communities in the 18th Congressional District in Houston? Yes, I 
do. Education opportunities for children in my neighborhood schools. 
Frankly, I will say to the Members, jobs for minorities and women in 
America and business opportunities for minorities and women in America, 
that is the new spirit and the opportunity for NASA as it grows with 
space station.
  Let us not forget the benefits we will all reap collectively: 
Research that can benefit all of us, from biotechnology, to 
environmental health, to cardiology, technological research in the 
areas of semiconductors and metal alloys, among others. We cannot 
ignore our international partners who have already contributeed over $9 
billion in investment. We cannot ignore the potential for medical and 
technological breakthroughs that can result from this project.
  Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, we cannot ignore the dreams and 
aspirations and hopes of all Americans that we too can explore. We can 
make the difference. Support the international space station, and do 
not support the Roemer amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive messages from the President.

                          ____________________