[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14224-S14245]
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 Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are anxiously awaiting colleagues who 
want to come down and either offer amendments or debate the measures 
before us. Several of our colleagues have expressed an interest in 
speaking on the space station. We have a 1\1/2\-hour time agreement, 
equally divided. At least on our side, that time is almost completely 
used up.
  So, if anybody feels the need to speak for the space station--it 
might also be true for those opposing it--this would be a good time to 
come. We would like to hear what they have to say. But as we indicated 
yesterday, the majority leader and the Democratic leader, as well as 
the rest of us, know we have to get these appropriations bills finished 
by September 30, and our ability to begin the recess on October 2 
depends upon our completing this work. So we are pressed for time. We 
do invite anybody who has measures or has views on measures that will 
be on this bill to come down and address them now because this will be 
the best time to do so.
  But since we do have some time, I thought it might be helpful for my 
colleagues who may be getting all kinds of calls from organizations 
that are opposed to measures that we put forth in the bill to explain a 
little bit about what we have done in the EPA section. The National 
Wildlife Federation has a hotline going out saying there are damaging 
riders; we are doing all kinds of terrible things to the Environmental 
Protection Agency. The National Audubon Society says we are crippling 
the Agency and there is a backdoor attempt to strike out provisions in 
the EPA laws.
  Frankly, that is just not true. The environmental progress in this 
country has been significant. We have in the last 25 years come a long 
way toward cleaning up our environment. I am very proud of the progress 
we have made. I want to see that progress continue.
  But I think we have come to the point now where we demand that the 
progress be on the basis of common sense, of justifiable actions, of 
using sound science, of not duplicating efforts, and making sure that 
the dollars we spend on the environment, whether they are appropriated 
dollars or whether they are dollars that others, State governments, 
local governments, not-for-profits businesses, and individuals have to 
pay to comply with the environmental laws are spent properly.
  Now, let me go through, for the benefit of my colleagues and those 
who may be watching, the so-called riders or legislative provisions 
that are included in this bill. The recommendation of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has seven legislative provisions within EPA. 
All but one of the so-called riders in the House bill have not been 
included in this measure. The committee in the Senate limited the 
provisions in our bills to ones that have been included in previous VA-
HUD bills or other legislation or that eliminate duplication or 
unnecessary spending. Let me tell you about the provisions.
  First, we would prohibit the EPA from requiring centralized 
inspection maintenance facilities in fiscal year 1996. This is the same 
language that was included in the National Highway System bill, 
supported by a large number of Senators. It is clear that the 
provisions for central inspection and maintenance are going to cause 
tremendous headaches without the benefits that are needed, and we can 
do it in a less intrusive, bureaucratic way.
  Second, this measure, as reported out of the committee, would 
prohibit the EPA from requiring employers to adopt car-pooling plans in 
fiscal year 1996. This language is one of the House riders. It is the 
same language included in the fiscal year 1995 rescission bill. If 
workers in America want the Federal Government telling them how they 
can get to work and demanding putting restrictions and requirements on 
how they go to work, then they should not support this rider. I do not 
believe, talking to the people in my State, that they want the Federal 
Government telling them how they get to work in the morning and how 
they get home in the evening.
  Third, we would in the committee recommendation prohibit EPA from 
regulating radon and several other drinking water contaminants in 
fiscal year 1996 unless the drinking water law is reauthorized. It is a 
very important measure pending before the Environment and Public Works 
Committee to reauthorize the safe drinking water law. I think the 
provision that we have in this measure is fully consistent with the 
attempts by the EPA, which itself has been trying to negotiate 
extensions to court-ordered deadlines for low-priority contaminants. 
For each of the contaminants in question, the risk is relatively low or 
the science is not fully supported by science-based rulemakings. This 
action has been requested by the National Governors' Association, the 
League of Cities, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the 
American Waterworks Association, the National Association of Water 
Companies, the National Rural Water Association, and the Natural Water 
Resources Association.
  Frankly, there has been a lot of concern these days about E. coli and 
cryptosporidium, and these agencies want local water systems to devote 
their time and their resources to keeping those known, dangerous 
contaminants out of the water supply. To the extent that they are 
required to test for and develop means of dealing with other low-
priority contaminants where the science may be uncertain, it will take 
away from their efforts to keep the water supply system clean from 
these dangerous, well-recognized, well-defined contaminants.
  Fourth, we would prohibit EPA from requiring in fiscal year 1996 the 
use of 

[[Page S 14225]]
MTBE in Alaska because of health concerns raised there associated with 
the use of MTBE. There have been serious instances where MTBE use has 
thought to cause very serious health effects. This provision was 
carried in the fiscal year 1994 VA-HUD bill and does not exempt Alaska 
from clean air requirements. It is saying, do not require something 
that appears to be causing very significant health problems in Alaska.
  The next one would prohibit EPA from adding new sites to the 
Superfund national priorities list in fiscal year 1996 unless requested 
by the Governor or tribal leader unless or until the Superfund law is 
reauthorized. Everyone recognizes that the Superfund law badly needs 
revision. The Superfund law has generated a tremendous amount of 
resources going to lawyers and for administrative costs. A report done 
by the General Accounting Office at our request shows that only about 
30 percent of the Superfund sites currently being worked by the EPA 
involve current risk to human health or even potential risk to human 
health under current usages.
  We think the time has come to reauthorize the Superfund law to bring 
sound science and to target the resources. Therefore, we say do not 
move forward expanding the reach of Superfund until it is reauthorized 
and Congress has had an opportunity to act on the substantive 
requirements in the Superfund legislation.
  This language was included in the fiscal year 1995 rescission, 
adopted, and signed into law by the President this summer. It is 
consistent with the committee's decision to limit Superfund spending to 
current health risks pending reauthorization.
  The next measure in the bill authorizes an exemption from water 
pretreatment standards for industrial discharges to the Kalamazoo water 
plant if environmental standards are met through a local pretreatment 
plant. This provision has been narrowly crafted, and it will not result 
in any environmental degradation. It will prevent duplicative and 
unnecessary water treatment construction. Kalamazoo has already entered 
into a plan to be financed by the major industrial concerns in that 
city to deal with the effluent from their plants.
  Since Kalamazoo is getting a water treatment plant financed by those 
who are making the discharges, it does not make any sense to go forward 
with an overlapping, a duplicating requirement to have another 
treatment plant to do exactly the same thing when one is already being 
financed.
  Next, we would prohibit EPA from enforcing the foreign refiner 
baseline for reformulated gasoline. This is the same provision as 
included in the fiscal year 1995 VA-HUD bill, and it would ensure quite 
simply that foreign refiners are held to the same higher environmental 
standards as domestic refiners. If we do not do this, foreign refiners 
will be able to send in products that do not meet the environmental 
standards that we expect of our domestic refiners.
  Mr. President, what sense does that make? Why should we give foreign 
refiners a free pass to send in products that have not met the same 
standards that we require of our domestic refiners? I think this is 
another sound environmental measure that is included in this bill. I 
urge my colleagues, and those who are interested, to look at the 
environmental impacts of these provisions.
  The final one I want to talk about would eliminate duplicative and 
wasteful efforts by the EPA. This would prohibit the Environmental 
Protection Agency from vetoing decisions made by the Corps of Engineers 
regarding wetlands permits in fiscal year 1996.
  The provision is intended to keep EPA from overfiling or second-
guessing the Corps of Engineers. It will streamline the corps' 
permitting process. EPA still has a wide range of responsibilities 
dealing with wetlands. We are not changing those. We are only saying to 
the EPA and to all of the affected landowners that you have a right to 
get an answer, a final answer from one Federal agency.
  The Corps of Engineers operates with EPA in the regulation of 
wetlands. Where does it make any sense to the landowner who goes to the 
Corps of Engineers and says, ``OK, here is what I propose to do. Grant 
me a permit,'' and, as it stands now, the Corps of Engineers can say, 
``OK, you meet all our standards,'' and then the next day the EPA comes 
in and says, ``Oh, but we don't like what the Corps of Engineers did''?
  Frankly, this is a duplicative, wasteful, and, I think, 
unsatisfactory service to our citizens to say that you are going to 
have to take two chances to get the Federal Government to tell you they 
do not like what you are doing. We have standards, and the Corps of 
Engineers is to follow those standards. Why do we give the power to the 
EPA to come in and say, ``Oh, well, you may have satisfied the Corps of 
Engineers, but you don't satisfy us''?
  As Senators know, the corps has the authority and the expertise to 
administer the Wetlands Program, and it does not, in my view, make any 
sense to say that the same law can be administered by two separate 
agencies, particularly when we are in a time of strained budgets when a 
second agency should not be duplicating the efforts of the first one. 
That is why we say, ``EPA, if the corps has already done it, go on and 
do the other work you are supposed to do; don't second-guess the 
corps.''
  The Senate should know this provision does not affect the multitude 
of other EPA authorities under the Clean Water Act. It in no way 
undermines wetlands protection. According to the Corps of Engineers, no 
other Federal regulatory program gives two agencies different authority 
over the same permit decisions. I understand there are some who believe 
this redundancy is defensible. During the committee markup, some 
Members suggested that they would offer an amendment to strike the 
provision on the floor. If so, we will be happy to discuss it.
  As many of my colleagues know, the House did include a provision in 
the bill preventing funding for the entire 404 wetlands permit law, 
noting that it was necessary to provide Congress additional time to 
determine the proper management of the Nation's wetlands.
  The Corps of Engineers, as we all know, has the responsibility of 
administering the day-to-day permitting. The States, EPA, the National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, Fish and Wildlife, and Marine 
Service also have roles. There are pages and pages of regulations and 
memorandums of agreement governing the complex permitting process.
  Under section 401 requirements, for a 404 permit to be issued, the 
corps must first obtain a certification from the applicable State--the 
State--that water quality standards will not be violated as a result of 
the discharge of fill material. This essentially gives the States veto 
authority over permit applications. It guarantees a State role in the 
process.
  Of the additional resource agencies, EPA is perhaps the most 
influential. Besides having authority under section 404 to veto permit 
decisions, EPA is responsible for developing guidelines, known as 
404(B)(1) guidelines, which are the substantive environmental criteria 
that are binding on the corps in the permitting process.
  To me, it makes no sense to say that once you have laid out all those 
standards, once the Corps of Engineers has gone through the process, 
once they have gotten the approval of the State and they are following 
the EPA regulations, if they grant a permit, EPA should come in and 
say, ``Oh, we don't agree with the corps' action.'' If there is one 
thing that constituents in my State are fed up with, it is being told 
two different things by two different Federal agencies. They expect the 
Federal agencies who serve them to give them one answer and to give 
them the right answer.
  This measure would say, ``Corps of Engineers, if you grant a permit, 
then we are not going to have the EPA using its time and resources to 
come in and change the direction given to the person, the individual or 
the organization, applying for that permit.''
  I hope that those who hear scare stories about the provisions in this 
bill will take a look at the substantive provisions and realize they 
are necessary to streamline and to ensure the effective administration 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, to ensure we continue the 
progress that we have made and must continue to make toward assuring a 
clean environment for ourselves and our children. 

[[Page S 14226]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
international space station program. This program is out of the 
planning stages and is well underway. The space station is real. Space 
shuttle missions in support of phase one of the station program began 
in February 1994. The most recent phase one mission ended with the 
successful return of astronaut Norm Thagard from his record breaking 
stay in space. Over 48,000 pounds of station hardware have been 
manufactured and 75,000 pounds will be completed by the end of this 
year.
  The space station is real to communities, students and teachers 
throughout the Nation. Teachers are already using space station 
concepts in the classroom. Students have participated in activities 
including living in a bus outfitted as a space station, complete with 
living facilities, experiments, and communication to Earth. Today the 
space station is capturing the imagination of the leaders of the future 
and encouraging students to study math, physics, chemistry, biology, 
geography, and Earth science.
  When I grew up as a boy, we had tree houses, and you would have a lot 
of activity playing in tree houses. I think you will see space station 
houses in trees and other locations that kids will be playing in as we 
move forward and start moving toward the deployment of the space 
station.
  Benefits of the station program are already being realized. 
Researchers seeking to develop a station bioreactor for cell cultures 
have developed a way to grow tumor tissues outside the body, so 
chemotherapy and other treatments can be tested without harm to the 
patient.
  The space station will create a permanent orbiting science institute 
in space capable of performing long duration research in a nearly 
gravity-free environment. Research in medicine, materials and 
processes, engineering and technology will have immediate, practical 
application for life on Earth and will create jobs and economic 
opportunities today and in the decade to come. Information gathered 
about how humans react and adapt to weightlessness will allow 
scientists to further understand conditions such as balance disorders 
afflicting 90 million Americans, osteoporosis affecting 24 million 
Americans, and cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death in 
the United States. Every dollar spent on the station is spent here on 
Earth and will provide an excellent return on investment. If planned 
orbital research in combustion science improves combustion processes 
only a modest 2 percent, then the annual savings would be approximately 
$8 billion a year in the cost of energy produced through combustion in 
the United States.
  In June 1995, the General Accounting Office completed a review of the 
current estimated cost of the space station program. The GAO concluded 
that ``the program has made major progress since last year in defining 
its requirements, meeting its schedule milestones, and remaining within 
its annual operation budgets. Nevertheless, the program faces 
formidable challenges in completing all its tasks on schedule and 
within its budget.'' Of course the station program faces challenges as 
does any new endeavor. However, we should judge the ability of NASA to 
meet these challenges on the performance of the station program since 
it was redesigned in 1993. As the GAO discovered, NASA is performing as 
promised and is successfully meeting the stated objectives of the 
station program.
  It is unfortunate that the biggest challenge the station program 
faces appears to be the Congress of the United States, specifically a 
small handful of Members who continue to offer legislation aimed at 
terminating the station program. Since the inception of the program, 
votes have been held over 18 times on the station. We must continue to 
reject these attempts and continue our support of the space station 
program. We owe this to the future of the citizens of the United States 
and to all the people of Earth.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily society aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2777

 (Purpose: To make available $38 million for construction at the Spark 
  M. Matsunaga Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Hawaii)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2777.

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

       On page 22, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. 111. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     title, the amount appropriated by this title under the 
     heading ``Departmental Administration'' under the paragraph 
     ``construction, major projects'' is hereby increased by 
     $38,000,000.
       (b) Of the amount available under the paragraph referred to 
     in subsection (a), as increased by such subsection, 
     $38,000,000 shall be available for construction at the Spark 
     M. Matsunaga Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 
     Honolulu, Hawaii.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the 
     amount appropriated by this title under the heading 
     ``Departmental Administration'' under the paragraph ``general 
     operating expenses'' is hereby reduced by $38,000,000.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this is a very simple, forthright 
amendment. It calls for the completion of the Spark M. Matsunaga 
Medical Center in Honolulu. It provides for $38 million.
  Mr. President, there are 127,600 veterans residing in the State of 
Hawaii. The State of Hawaii is one of only two States in our Union 
without a VA hospital. The other State is the State of Alaska. Per 
capita spending in the State of Hawaii is the lowest in the Nation.
  At the same time, Hawaii has the highest ratio of veterans per capita 
and the highest proportion of disabled veterans over 65 years of age or 
older.
  In World War II, the State of Hawaii, which was then a territory, 50 
years ago, had more volunteers per capita than any other State or 
territory of our Union. While serving far fewer veterans, the State of 
Montana and the State of Wyoming have two VA hospitals apiece. We have 
more veterans, but we have none; they have less veterans, but they have 
two apiece.
  In the case of Wyoming, the veteran population is less than half of 
the State of Hawaii. South Dakota, with 42,000 fewer veterans than 
Hawaii, has three VA hospitals. We are still waiting for our first VA 
hospital.
  The current system in Hawaii is a fragmented one. It is costly. It is 
inefficient and places the quality of care rendered to veterans at a 
great risk.
  We receive fine service from Tripler Army Hospital, our major 
military facility in Hawaii. Inpatient care at this great institution 
is dependent upon space availability. If there is no space, we are the 
lowest priority. The veterans are the lowest priority, and 
understandably so.
  Mr. President, as we downsize our military, that downsizing will also 
affect Tripler Army Hospital.
  What does that mean? Fewer beds, fewer nurses, fewer doctors, and 
with the veterans as the lowest priority, I do not think I need to draw 
a picture for my colleagues.
  Today, many of the united hospital services such as cardiology, 
orthopedics, ophthalmology--severe limitations and restrictions are 
placed upon veterans in Hawaii. For example, at this moment, VA 
cardiology and orthopedic patients are evaluated by visiting 

[[Page S 14227]]
Palo Alto, CA, VA physicians. They come around about twice a year. As a 
result of that evaluation, they are shipped to a facility on the west 
coast, usually in the State of California.
  Mr. President, I think all fairness and equity would lead us to 
conclude that to ask our veterans to undergo long, long, separations 
from their families 2,500 miles from home is not acceptable. I think 
all physicians would suggest that from the standpoint of long-term 
care, that is not acceptable.
  In 1993, 950 qualified veterans were denied service in Hawaii; in 
1994, 1,300 qualified war veterans were denied inpatient service in 
Hawaii. This year, through the month of May, because of the lack of 
eligibility and lack of services, 582 war veterans were denied service.
  Mr. President, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am 
fully aware of the problems we have. I am fully aware of the budgetary 
constrictions that we are required to live under. I know that my 
chairman, the Senator from Missouri and the ranking member, the Senator 
from Maryland, have done their utmost in their effort to accommodate 
the veterans of the State of Hawaii.
  As it is commonly said, one cannot squeeze blood out of a turnip. It 
is not my desire to do that.
  Reluctantly, I will be withdrawing this amendment with the hope that 
my colleagues from Missouri and Maryland will sit down and work 
together with the veterans of Hawaii to see if something can be done.
  This can be a national disgrace. We have the highest per capita 
veteran population, the lowest per capita spending, the highest per 
capita disabled veterans, highest per capita volunteers, and no 
hospitals.
  Other States with less than Hawaii have three or two. All we are 
asking for is one. And the one we are asking for is not a hospital. It 
is a medical center, which is one grade below a hospital.

  Mr. President, I hope that my patient colleagues from this 
subcommittee will join with me in trying to work out a solution for 
this. I would be glad to do that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first I would like to thank my 
colleague, Senator Inouye, for his extraordinary advocacy in behalf of 
American veterans. As the ranking minority member on this bill, it 
pains me and grieves me that a Senator who bears the permanent wounds 
of war, who wears with pride the Congressional Medal of Honor, must 
come before the U.S. Senate and plead for a VA hospital; an American 
hero coming to speak in behalf of all other veterans of all other wars 
saying: Please give me a medical center to meet the needs of other men 
and women who served in the military, who themselves bear the permanent 
wounds of war.
  What we face here is the fact that in Hawaii there is a unique 
situation because of its geographic location. They cannot go to the 
trauma centers. Everything has to be in Hawaii. Also, there has been a 
unique linkage between veterans and military hospitals.
  So I want to acknowledge the validity of the Senator's plea. I want 
to acknowledge the validity of the plight of veterans in Hawaii. I 
pledge to him the desire, the deep desire, to work with him to ensure 
that the Hawaiian veterans have the medical care that they need and 
they deserve, and how we could do a linkage with perhaps the military 
hospitals and perhaps the private sector.
  But I believe that if we are as creative in helping these veterans 
with their medical care as we have been in other areas of national 
defense and security, we will be able to do this.
  I also thank the Senator for withdrawing the amendment, though I know 
it is deeply troubling to him to do so. But we have no money in this 
budget. The only way we could have funded it is if we had gone to the 
backlog claims. Right now there is a waiting list of over 6 months to 3 
years for veterans trying to process their claims for their pensions 
and their disability benefits. American veterans should not have to 
stand in line for 6 months or more because of the sluggish nature of 
the bureaucracy with the way they have modernized, and so on.
  So we have now put resources in to deal with the backlog of claims. I 
am glad we are going to let that stand.
  Again, I would like to thank the Senator for his defense of America, 
for the worthy nature of the Congressional Medal of Honor which he 
wears and which I see on his lapel this morning, and for his defense of 
veterans who in many ways do not have a voice; and, of course, for his 
own constituents of Hawaii.
  I also want to acknowledge the staunch defense of veterans and health 
care of my colleague, Senator Akaka.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Maryland 
for her very sensitive and generous concern. But much as I would be 
most proud to wear a Congressional Medal of Honor, my medal is one 
notch below, the Distinguished Service Cross. But I thank my colleague.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, if I had the opportunity to award the Senator a 
medal, I believe he deserves the highest recognition for his gallantry 
and his bravery.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I echo the generous words of my good friend 
and colleague, the ranking member, the Senator from Maryland. I too 
appreciate the very strong advocacy of the very able senior Senator 
from Hawaii. He has met with us and talked from his very heartfelt 
commitment to the veterans of Hawaii, and he has talked about the 
difficult situation that the veterans there face. I know how long and 
hard he has worked on the project.
  We were unable to put construction funding in fiscal year 1996 for 
any major new construction. As the Senator from Maryland pointed out, 
we fear that the offset would have taken away vitally needed funds for 
handling claims of veterans.
  Second, the committee agreed to a moratorium on new medical 
construction projects, as recommended by the General Accounting Office 
and the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. The committee's decision 
was driven by budgetary concerns, as well as based on the fact that the 
VA is on the verge of a major reorganization which may result in 
significant changes to its facilities' needs, and we hope a better 
direction of care.
  The Hawaii project would require an additional $60 million in 
construction costs in the future, and another $100 million to operate 
when it opens.
  Having said that, we look forward to the Veterans' Administration 
reorganization plan. It is intended to change the VA into a managed 
care operation. As part of this reorganization, the VA must develop a 
long-term strategic plan for medical care, recognizing the change in 
demographics of veterans population, and a shrinking budget.
  The General Accounting Office has found that there are additional 
unused facilities. In the 1993 report, the General Accounting Office 
found that the Tripler Army Hospital--with which the Veterans' 
Administration has a sharing arrangement--had capacity and ``Demand for 
VA-sponsored care at Tripler has consistently been well below the 69-
bed constructed capacity'' at Tripler.
  As a result of these things, I think the VA should look to increasing 
its sharing arrangement with Tripler and community facilities in order 
to meet the needs of Hawaii's veterans.
  I fully understand and I am sensitive to the Senator's concern that 
the VA is sending veterans to the west coast for treatment at the Palo 
Alto VA Hospital. I agree with the Senator that this is an 
extraordinary inconvenience. VA has in the past sent cardiology 
patients to the west coast when services were not available to Tripler 
Army Hospital because VA says it is less expensive than treating the 
veterans in a community hospital.
  I assure the Senator from Hawaii that I will work with him to see 
that the VA discontinues the practice and treats veterans in community 
facilities when services at Tripler are not available.
  I pledge to work with the Senator from Hawaii to ensure that excess 
capacity at Tripler may be used by veterans.
  I have offered an amendment, which I would like my distinguished 
colleague from Maryland to review to see if we 

[[Page S 14228]]
may be able to agree on that amendment, and to see if this will meet 
the needs of the Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator that this is very 
acceptable to me because it ensures that the veterans of the State of 
Hawaii are given appropriate equal access to veteran medical care 
commensurate with the medical care provided in the 48 contiguous States 
so that the veterans of Hawaii are not penalized for their geography.
  I also want to acknowledge, with the Senator from the majority, that 
the VA is organizing and modernizing its delivery of care, moving from 
strictly and chiefly a trauma model to continuing care, emphasizing 
primary care, to decentralize the services.
  So I think we are all in agreement with this. I think this is an 
excellent amendment. If it meets with the concurrence of the senior 
Senator and the junior Senator from Hawaii, it is fine with me. I think 
it is excellent.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee for his very understanding and sensitive response to our 
concerns. We look forward to working with him to someday come up with a 
solution that will be mutually acceptable for all of us.
  But in the meantime, the amendment, I think, will serve our veterans 
very well.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set 
aside the pending committee amendments to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2778

  (Purpose: To ensure that veterans in the State of Hawaii are given 
        appropriate and equal access to VA-funded medical care)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of 
myself, and Senators Mikulski, Inouye, and Akaka. We will leave it open 
for others to join as cosponsors, as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Akaka, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2778.

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

       On page 22, line 5, insert: ``Sec. 111. The Department of 
     Veterans Affairs shall provide hospital care and medical 
     services to eligible veterans in the State of Hawaii at 
     levels commensurate with levels of care provided in the 
     forty-eight contiguous states. The Secretary shall utilize 
     the contract authority prescribed in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1703 to 
     treat eligible veterans residing in the State of Hawaii 
     wherever appropriate.''

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as I indicated, we do share the grave 
concern both Senators from Hawaii have for veterans care in the State 
of Hawaii.
  I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. I believe the junior 
Senator from Hawaii wishes to speak, after which, if there are no 
further discussions on it, I think we can proceed to a vote without a 
rollcall.
  Mr. AKAKA addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the committee action. 
I commend my colleague for taking this issue forward, and I thank the 
committee for its considerations.
  I stand today just to impress the Senate with the fact that the Aloha 
State, the State of Hawaii, has needed a veterans hospital for many 
years. Since 1987, our predecessor in the Senate tried to establish a 
veterans hospital in Hawaii.
  Hawaii is one of two States that has no veterans hospital. Although 
the VA operates 172 medical centers throughout the Union, including a 
hospital in Puerto Rico, the Department has never established a medical 
center for veterans in the 50th State, and this is the reason why my 
colleague and I have been pressing for this.
  Under the circumstances, we will certainly accept the committee's 
action. And again I wish to thank the committee for what they are 
doing. This is a step in that direction, and we will be back to ask for 
more help for our veterans. We have 130,000 veterans in the Pacific, 
120,000 from Hawaii and another 10,000 in the Pacific from Guam and 
Samoa. We take care of these veterans, and we still do not have a 
hospital there.
  So, Mr. President, I look forward to a day when we can come back and 
seek a full-blown hospital that will help the veterans of the Pacific. 
I thank my colleague and the committee for their efforts.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I do not believe there are any other 
Senators seeking to be heard on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment 2778 by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. 
Bond].
  The amendment (No. 2778) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to make several comments about the 
underlying bill.
  First, I have a comment I should like to direct to the managers of 
the bill. I am a member of the subcommittee, and I wish to congratulate 
the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Maryland for the 
outstanding way in which they have handled this particular piece of 
legislation. It has been a difficult time, and they have been faced 
with difficult questions and challenges. So I am grateful for my first 
experience as a member of the Appropriations Committee to serve on this 
subcommittee and watch Senators Bond and Mikulski work through these 
very difficult issues.
  There is one specific issue about which I have talked to Senator Bond 
that I would like to make mention of in the Chamber to make sure it 
does not get lost. This has to do with the expiring contracts under HUD 
housing programs. In the city of Salt Lake, where we are enjoying boom 
economic times, the vacancy rate for many of these houses is around 1 
percent. If people who have contracts that expire are forced to leave 
their housing at the moment of that expiration, they will have a very 
difficult time finding additional housing.
  I have talked to the chairman, Senator Bond, about this issue and 
asked him to please work with the authorizing committee to see if there 
can be an extension of those contracts under this circumstance so 
people who are in this kind of housing are not faced with the immediate 
challenge of finding housing in an extremely tight housing market. He 
has assured me of his willingness to work on this issue, and I publicly 
thank him for that assurance and tell him that I will be working with 
him in any way I can to see that this problem gets resolved.
  The second issue I should like to discuss has to do with the space 
station, about which we have heard so much on this floor in the last 24 
hours or so.
  The Senator from Arkansas, with his traditional persistence, has once 
again challenged the wisdom of the space station and will once again 
bring the Senate to a vote on whether or not this should be continued. 
He does this in every session of Congress, as is his right. Many of us 
admire him for his tenacity on issues in which he believes strongly. 
Each time he has failed.
  I rise to say that I think he should fail this time as well. In my 
opinion, the space station should go forward for a variety of reasons, 
many of which were outlined by our colleague from Ohio, Mr. Glenn, last 
night. I will not take the time to repeat all of the tangible benefits 
that the Senator from Ohio listed, but I will call the attention of the 
Senate to his presentation because it was an excellent one.
  There is an interesting juxtaposition of events in this debate for 
me. Just last week, in Utah, we have had the fourth edition of Space 
Talk, a conference on space that I had the honor to originate back in 
1992.
  In 1992, there were not very many people who were interested in 
coming. I was then a candidate for the Senate, and they thought it was 
just an election year gimmick for me to get some out-of-State speakers 
to come to the 

[[Page S 14229]]
State and, hopefully, get a little press and link that press to my name 
and thereby help me in the campaign. But I promised on that occasion 
that if I were elected, I would continue this annual conference on 
space and the issues of space that have grown into Space Talk.
  I am delighted to be able to report to the Senate that Space Talk has 
grown every year, has been more and more successful every year, and 
that the centerpiece of Space Talk in terms of public awareness has 
been the exhibit at the Utah State Fair.
  When we first put it on 3 years ago, NASA was a little nervous about 
bringing exhibits all the way to Utah, but they were willing to try it. 
We got the appropriate cooperation from the State fair board and the 
Utah National Guard and mounted the exhibit.
  NASA was stunned at the response that came from the citizens of Utah 
in general and the schoolchildren of Utah in particular. Space Talk 
became the No. 1 attraction at the Utah State Fair, and fair officials 
said to us, ``You must bring this book next year,'' which we did. And 
then again this year NASA brought a mockup of the space station to 
Space Talk, and once again this year it was the No. 1 attraction at the 
Utah State Fair. Many schoolteachers would plan field trips to the 
State fair just to come to Space Talk, so that the schoolchildren could 
get the educational experience of finding out about space.
  The space station mockup this year made a strong point of outlining 
those portions of the space station that would be built by other 
countries.
  ``This would be the Japanese section of space station,'' we were told 
as we walked through the mockup. ``This is where the Europeans will be 
working. This is where the Russians will be,'' and so on, demonstrating 
that the space station is not only a technological breakthrough for the 
United States, but it represents an international exercise in 
understanding and cooperation that can have fallout far beyond the 
technological areas, but in the diplomatic area as well.
  So, coming off this successful and growing support for our Nation's 
space program in Utah, I come now to the floor of the Senate to find 
once again an effort to cut back our activity in space and particularly 
with respect to the space station.
  Now, Mr. President, there is a quote that has been used many times. 
But I am going to repeat it. I have discovered since I have been in the 
Senate that there is no such thing as repetition. We go on again and 
again and again and always act as if it is new. I think my friend from 
Arkansas will understand that, because most of the arguments he is 
raising against the space station are repetitious of arguments he has 
raised before.
  So I think this quote deserves repeating. It is by the historian 
Samuel Eliot Morison. He said, ``America was discovered accidentally by 
a great seaman who was looking for something else. When discovered, it 
was not wanted, and most of the exploration for the next 50 years was 
done in the hope of getting through or around it. America was named 
after a man who discovered no part of it. History is like that. Very 
chancy.''
  We look back on Columbus and his activity here and Amerigo Vespucci, 
after whom it was named, and the lack of activity that he put forward 
here, and we see the truth of the historian's comment, ``History is 
like that. Very chancy.'' But as we look at history as a whole, we 
realize that out of the chanciness of history comes a whole series of 
unexpected benefits or, in some cases, unexpected difficulties.
  I was interested, Mr. President, at one of the Space Talk 
presentations to be told by one of our speakers that prior to the great 
European era of discovery in exploration when the Europeans ended up 
coming to these shores and for them discovering what is now called 
America, there was another nation that was a great explorer nation, 
sending out ships onto the uncharted seas for the sole purpose of 
seeing what they could find. The ships of this great nation ended up 
ultimately on the shores of what we now call Africa, a tremendously 
exotic discovery for those who sailed the ships. The great nation that 
sent those ships out on that discovery mission was China.
  Now, whoever governed China in those years decided that they had 
budget problems at home and that it was time to cut back on the 
exploration, that they had more urgent budget pressures domestically, 
and so they stopped their exploration. They brought the ships back, and 
they became wholly insular in their administration.
  I have stood upon the Great Wall of China, which I think stands in 
history as one of the prime examples of a public works project gone 
wrong. They started building it and they simply could not stop. And so 
in their budget priorities to do something for home, they built the 
Great Wall that stands in great disrepair, and it serves primarily now 
as a tourist attraction. They turned their back on the exploration that 
would have made the Chinese, and not the Europeans, ultimately the 
masters of the world, as the Europeans picked up the challenge of 
exploration, not knowing what they were going to find, not knowing what 
the return would be, but, in fact, laying the groundwork for the 
ability to govern the entire world.
  Mr. President, history is like that. Things start out very small, 
with unintended consequences later on. We do not know who first thought 
of the notion of interchangeable parts, the idea that instead of 
building every carriage fresh and new as a single work of art, you 
would build a series of axles, every one exactly alike that would be 
interchangeable with each other so you could assemble a whole bunch of 
carriages. But upon the principle of interchangeable parts rests the 
concept of mass production and ultimately the entire industrial 
revolution, a simple little idea that somebody started somewhere, we do 
not know, upon which the entire world was changed.
  Just when we get used to that concept, let us think then of the 
notion of digital code. Somewhere, somebody--probably the historians 
know this name, but I do not--came up with the idea that a switch is 
either on or off. And if you line up enough switches in a row, you can 
create a computer that by calculating whether this row of switches are 
either on or off, can do calculations beyond the human ability to do 
those calculations.
  So early computers were built with the understanding that a 
transistor was either on or off. And those computers were created 
primarily to make calculations concerning ballistic projectiles for 
wartime. If we shoot this, what is the trajectory it will follow? We 
cannot figure it with pen and pencil or even slide rule. Let us get a 
bunch of switches lined up and put electricity through them; and 
through writing digital code, we figure that out.
  From that, of course, has come the entire information revolution that 
has changed all of our lives, and an idea that someone who started out 
had no concept of. Now we come, of course, to the space station.
  Can I tell the Senator from Arkansas what is going to happen in the 
space station? No; I can tell him the experiments that will be run. I 
can tell him the efforts that will be made. But I cannot tell whether 
or not some discovery as simple but as far reaching as the notion of 
interchangeable parts or the notion of digital code will come out of 
our activities on space station.
  We do know the kinds of things that can happen on space station. It 
will serve as a laboratory for materials processing in zero gravity. We 
have never been able to do that before. There are a myriad of 
industrial and scientific research projects that can be run in that 
kind of an environment. It will provide a platform for astronomical 
observations, the study of our Earth's development and current 
conditions. Then it will provide a base to further the exploration of 
the solar system as the first component in a space-based international 
industrial park.
  Well, maybe we cannot put a dollar value on this. And unable to put a 
dollar value on this, maybe we should do as the ancient Chinese 
mandarins did and say, ``Bring the ships home. Let us spend our time 
taking care of our domestic priorities. Leave that for some future 
time.''
  I believe if we do that, the human spirit to explore is sufficiently 
strong elsewhere that we will see someone other than the Americans take 
over this lead. I think we will see Europeans or someone else, maybe 
not yet on the screen, some Asians, perhaps, as those 

[[Page S 14230]]
economies become stronger, step into the void that we will create if we 
abandon this leadership challenge.
  So, Mr. President, I rise once again in support of space station. I 
rise once again in support of the spirit of exploration. I rise once 
again in support of the great human spirit of adventure that has served 
us so well throughout the centuries. And I call upon us not to make the 
mistakes of others who have turned their back on this only to discover 
in subsequent years that other human beings have not lacked this spirit 
of exploration, and the torch is passed from American hands to those 
who might wish us ill.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, I support the space station and 
urge the rest of the Senate to do likewise.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2776

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Under the previous order, the 
hour of 11 a.m. having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of 
the Bumpers amendment No. 2776, on which there will be 90 minutes of 
debate equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute just to thank the 
distinguished Senator from Utah for his very, very compelling arguments 
with respect to the space station. I think his historical perspective 
adds a great deal to this debate. I find it a very compelling argument.
  I also want to say I appreciate his comments with respect to the 
problems faced with housing where housing is in short supply, as in his 
State. He has been a very forceful advocate for assuring that those 
people who depend upon assisted housing in Salt Lake City and other 
Utah communities not be thrown out. We are working with him and other 
Members to give HUD the opportunity to make sure that people do not 
lose very scarce public housing.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. Does the Senator from 
Alaska wish time from the Senator from Missouri?
  Mr. STEVENS. I did not know there was controlled time.
  Mr. President, I would like 4 or 5 minutes to discuss a situation in 
my State and to ask a question of the managers of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.


                Typhoon Oscar and Emergency Relief Funds

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, Typhoon Oscar, which came across the 
North Pacific, has wreaked havoc in the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska. I 
have been on the phone yesterday and today following reports we 
received over the weekend concerning the effect of this typhoon. It has 
caused flooding of many rivers, the Kenai River and the Skwentna River.
  The damage runs from Seward, AK, over to Kenai. It is threatening the 
Alaska Railroad. As it goes down into Seward, they apparently lost part 
of that railroad bed already. The area has now been declared to be a 
disaster area under State law, and we are waiting to have the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, people come into the area to 
determine what is going to be available to assist in terms of recovery 
from this disaster.
  The Kenai River is on a rampage. Unfortunately, it has destroyed a 
considerable amount of work we did to rehabilitate that river in the 
last 2 years in order to protect it. It is the greatest king salmon-
producing river in the world. It is a substantial disaster for the area 
because of the loss of homes and really the loss particularly of 
recreation facilities along the river.
  I have come to the floor because I am aware, as a member of the 
committee, of the report on the pending bill that indicates that there 
are no new funds provided for disaster relief in this bill. The report 
points out that the reason is that in the emergency funding bill of 
this year, 1995, Congress made available and the President approved 
$6.55 billion to be added to the disaster relief fund.
  I am sorry I was not aware of the controlled time situation, and if I 
am taking time from my friend from Arkansas, I will be glad to try to 
work that out with him.
  I would like to ask the managers of the bill about this disaster 
relief fund. The question has now been raised with me that the money in 
the fund has already been earmarked for previous disasters and whether 
there is going to be money available during this period.
  Obviously, the final result of FEMA will not be known for a period of 
weeks. I am going to dispatch two of my assistants to go to the area 
this evening to make sure that we are getting all the coordination we 
can among the Federal and State and local people because, as I said, it 
is a very serious flood. It is already above the 100-year-flood mark on 
the Kenai River. That means we are going to have even more damage than 
was estimated.
  The damage in the one area alone of the Kenai is somewhere between $6 
million and $10 million in terms of just immediate damage. I do not 
know what it is going to be in terms of the loss of roads and railroad 
bed and tank farms and all the rest.
  May I ask the chairman of the subcommittee, in terms of the report, 
it indicates there is currently a fund balance of approximately $8 
billion in disaster relief. Has that been earmarked already? Is that 
available for disasters such as the aftermath of Typhoon Oscar?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Alaska 
for bringing this to our attention. The areas of which he speaks I am 
very familiar with. The Senator has been a leader in restoring the 
habitat on one of the most pristine rivers in America, certainly a 
national treasure. We are deeply saddened by the damage and by the 
environmental destruction that is going on there.
  I will say to the Senator from Alaska that we did not include funding 
in this bill for the disaster relief fund because there is currently an 
$8 billion balance, none of which is earmarked. So long as the 
President declares a disaster in Alaska, those funds are available to 
meet the needs.
  I join with the Senator in urging the people of FEMA to respond to 
provide assistance and assess the damage to make the necessary steps to 
determine whether a Presidential disaster declaration is appropriate 
and to lend all appropriate assistance. We have great concern for the 
residents in that area and also for the tremendous natural resources, 
as well as the human infrastructure that has been built there.
  We are very sorry to learn of this problem and assure the Senator 
from Alaska the funds are available should a Presidential disaster 
declaration be made, and we urge FEMA to respond to the Senator's 
concerns as quickly as possible.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I echo the chairman's comments, first to 
the people of Alaska, of our deep concern. As the Senator knows, I have 
visited Alaska. Though I do not have intimate knowledge with the 
specifics of the areas that he has talked about, I can only imagine the 
really sad impact. We believe in helping communities to be able to 
rebuild themselves and restore themselves. I hope that the President 
will declare this a disaster area.
  How we ultimately fund the actual disaster account is a subject of 
which we have had extensive hearings for which we would require an 
authorizing solution. I know this is not the time or the place to 
debate that. I think that is a good topic for 1996.
  Mr. STEVENS. I want to make certain it will not be incumbent upon me 
to offer an amendment at this point to put money into the disaster 
relief fund because of the feeling that there is a zero amount in this 
bill. The indication was there would be none available in fiscal year 
1996. It is my understanding this $8 billion is available and carries 
over to the next year; is that correct?
  Mr. BOND. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do thank the managers of the bill for 
their response. I am certain this will be welcome news to the people of 
south-central Alaska. In 1986, we had an epic flood in this region. It 
was declared to be the 100-year flood. As I said, this flood this year 
exceeds the limits of the 1986 flood, so we have really a new record in 
terms of flood in the area. It is going to involve a considerable 
amount of not only disaster assistance but work to try to find some way 
to handle these floods as they are coming 

[[Page S 14231]]
into this area, because we are having really new stages on these two 
rivers as they reach flood stage.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my 
remarks the report on this flood that appeared in the Anchorage Daily 
News of Saturday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. STEVENS. I will be sending two of my assistants up to look into 
this, including Mr. Staser, who is with me right now. He is formerly 
with the Corps of Engineers. We would like to do everything we can to 
assist in bringing this to a speedy conclusion. This is a tough time 
for Alaska, as I am sure everyone knows. We are near freeze-up now. 
This kind of disaster coming right at the tail of the fall period, 
which is not too long in this area, can mean real difficulty. If we do 
not get assistance in there this year in time to take care of these 
problems before the freeze-up there, we will be in real trouble. I 
appreciate the offer of assistance from my two friends. I appreciate 
the courtesy of the Senators. I will not offer the amendment under the 
circumstances.

                               Exhibit 1

            [From the Anchorage Daily News, Sept. 25, 1995]

                       Kenai Rushes Into Big Eddy

                            (By Tom Kizzia)

       Rising flood waters hit homes along the Kenai and Skwentna 
     Rivers on Friday, while residents of other Southcentral 
     Alaska communities began repairing facilities damaged in 
     flooding this week.
       In Girdwood, city and state workers were moving heavy 
     equipment to Glacier Creek in an effort to protect a bridge 
     from the muddy torrent. Flood waters also damaged the road 
     leading to the Crow Pass trail head, prompting the U.S. 
     Forest Service to close the road.
       An icy Kenai River current several feet deep pushed through 
     the Big Eddy area in Soldotna Friday afternoon, shoving 
     picnic tables and propane tanks downriver. Recreational 
     trailers and camps were under water in the low area, which 
     sits in an oxbow of the river.
       ``This is some serious stuff going on here,'' said fishing 
     guide Joe Hanes, who had his boat tied off to the deck of his 
     home at Big Eddy as water raced through his foundation 
     pilings. He said the river was 3 feet over its banks at noon 
     Friday.
       Swollen by rain in the mountains of north of Seward, the 
     Kenai River has risen more than 5 feet at Cooper Landing 
     since Tuesday, putting it about 2 feet above flood stage, 
     according to the National Weather Service. Roads in the Kenai 
     Keys subdivision were under 3 feet of water.
       Forecasters predicted the river would peak in Soldotna 
     about midday today.
       The Kenai flood appeared to be undoing some of the work 
     done by landowners to halt erosion and improve fish habitat 
     along the river's banks. Fragments of boardwalks and floating 
     docks were mixed in the debris floating downriver Friday.
       ``I think this took people by surprise,'' said state park 
     superintendent Chris Titus. ``Everyone was focused on what 
     was happening in Seward and the eastern Kenai Peninsula. We 
     haven't gotten a lot of rain here.''
       State park officials closed the Kenai to boat traffic 
     Friday afternoon because some fishermen continued to dodge 
     floating oil drums and cottonwood logs in their pursuit of 
     silver salmon. The boats also were creating wakes that in 
     some cases sent water spilling into homes in low areas.
       Three days of heavy rain in the western Susitna Valley 
     brought heavy flooding Friday to Skwentna and the Lake Creek 
     area. Residents gathered at the Skwentna Roadhouse, as 50 to 
     75 buildings had been hit by the flood, according to 
     Matanuska-Susitna Borough officials.
       Joe Delia, who runs the Skwentna post office, said at least 
     six homes there were flooded and several boats had been swept 
     away. Water lapped at the edge of the runway and had 
     surrounded the school, he said. The river itself slowed as it 
     spread across the flat land adjacent to its former banks, but 
     the main channels remained turbulent and full of debris.
       ``It's pretty hairy in some places,'' he said. ``There's 
     cottonwoods, and big rafts of timbers and rollers 2, 3, 4 
     feet high in some places.''
       Gov. Tony Knowles on Friday declared the Kenai Peninsula 
     Borough, Mat-Su Borough and the Municipality of Anchorage, 
     which includes Girdwood, disaster areas. The proclamation 
     qualifies the areas for emergency state funding. Knowles said 
     the state was backing an application for federal disaster 
     assistance for the Seward area, where officials are 
     estimating $4 million to $6 million in damage from floods 
     this week.
       Flooding wiped out parts of several waterfront roads in 
     Seward and poured silt into the city's harbor. The state 
     ferry had to be diverted from Seward to Homer because 
     officials thought the docking area had been filled in with 
     silt from the Resurrection River. Railroad service has been 
     suspended indefinitely.
       City spokeswoman Linda Murphy said less rain fell this week 
     than in the fall of 1986, during the last epic floods in 
     Seward. But damage from the Resurrection River this time was 
     worse, she said.
       ``When all this is over, we need to stop Band-Aiding (the 
     Resurrection River) and fix it,'' Murphy said. ``I'm not sure 
     how. But we can't continue the way we've done.''
       Murphy said inmate volunteers wearing plastic trash bags 
     for rain protection were filling sand bags at Spring Creek 
     Correctional Center, the state maximum-security prison in 
     Seward.
       The Old Glenn Highway between Palmer and Anchorage was 
     closed Friday morning at the Knik River bridge after water 
     ran across the road north of the bridge, said Mat-Su Borough 
     spokeswoman Pat Owens. Water from the Knik River covered 
     roads in the nearby Windsong subdivision, but houses there 
     were still above water, Owens said. Much of Knik River Road, 
     which starts on the south of the bridge, was also closed 
     after a creek near Mile 2 sent more than 2 feet over it.
       Residents of low areas in Seward and along the Kenai and 
     Knik Rivers were being warned about possible contamination of 
     well water by the flooding. Residents should contact nearby 
     offices of the Department of Environmental Conservation about 
     testing their water, disaster officials said.
       Borough officials were also worried by swollen creeks and 
     rivers in the Lake Louise and Nelchina areas, where hunters 
     of moose and caribou may find themselves trapped. Owens said 
     airplanes are searching the area, and helicopters may be 
     called in to lift out hunters who might otherwise try risky 
     river crossings.
       The week's heavy rains were the result of an unusually 
     powerful low pressure system that move north of the Pacific, 
     mixing with the remnants of Typhoon Oscar, said Richard 
     Hanas, lead forecaster at the National Weather Service in 
     Anchorage.


                           Amendment No. 2776

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 45 
minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is the time just used by the Senator from 
Alaska charged against our time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has not been charged to either side. 
So the Senator from Arkansas has 45 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I said about all I know to say yesterday afternoon 
about this subject. I do not know that anybody listened, and I do not 
know that anybody is listening this morning. But when you are talking 
about $94 billion, somebody ought to be listening.
  Just for openers this morning, I want to recommend to my colleagues 
an article that appeared last year in Newsweek magazine, which I will 
be delighted to furnish to anybody who is curious. It is called ``NASA 
Space Station Zero Boondoggles; $11.9 Billion Has Been Spent So Far. 
Can Anybody Explain What it is Supposed To Do?'' That is the headline. 
It is a very telling article. It does not answer the questions because 
NASA cannot answer the questions. Here is one paragraph in this 
article, and it is replete with similar paragraphs.

       Yet, with the silly problems of the space station 
     corrected, the serious ones stand, in greater degree, still 
     unanswered. What's it for? ``It is primarily a research 
     platform,'' said Randy Brinkley, manager of the space station 
     office at the Johnson Space Center. ``There will be life 
     science, but we haven't finalized what. Really, it is hard to 
     answer that question.''

  As for its prospects as a research platform, the National Research 
Council, a preeminent organization in this field, says the station 
``cannot be supported on scientific grounds.'' Many scientific 
organizations have announced opposition to the space station.
  Mr. President, if you want to get up and argue or if any Senator 
wants to argue that the space station is going to cure cancer, AIDS, 
arthritis, or multiple sclerosis, be my guest, I will listen very 
intently. We have been in space for 30 years. The Russians have had 
space stations up since 1971--seven of them. I want the opponents of 
this amendment to tell the Senate what we have accomplished so far as 
life science is concerned. Name me the pharmaceutical companies who are 
contributing their own money to the space station. Name me one medical 
research organization in America that is contributing a thin dime to 
this gigantic research laboratory in space. Every single scientist 
worth his weight in the country, every single medical researcher in the 
country says you cannot justify this on the grounds that 

[[Page S 14232]]
you are going to get some kind of life-saving pharmaceuticals out of 
it.
  As a matter of fact, the American Physical Society said, on January 
20, 1991: ``Scientific justification is lacking for a permanently 
manned space station.''
  Dr. Bloembergen and Dr. Rosenthal, both at Harvard, say you cannot 
justify this because, so far as we can tell, there is absolutely 
nothing to get out of it.
  As for microgravity. Well, we can do research in almost zero gravity. 
So what. You can do that on Earth and in satellites. One semiconductor 
company president has said, ``Do not build that thing because you think 
you are going to get gallium arsenide wafers out of it; we do not want 
the wafers.'' It is an utter, utter waste of money to try to grow 
crystals in space. You might grow some, but you can never make anything 
economically viable.
  And then the spinoffs--if there are so many spinoffs, why is American 
industry not hot to contribute to this almost $100 billion project? It 
will certainly run well over $100 billion over the next 17 years; $94 
billion is the present estimated cost of the space station. Bear in 
mind, that assumes everything is going to go split perfectly. No 
disasters on the launch pad, no malfunctions like on Apollo 13, no 
debris in space hitting the station or any of the shuttles, or anything 
else. No, you get it for $94 billion only if everything goes absolutely 
perfectly.
  I heard the junior Senator from Texas last night talking about 
Velcro. I covered that as well as I could yesterday in talking about 
spinoffs, such as Tang, the orange juice substitute that the astronauts 
drink. It has been around for 35 years, long before we ever went to 
space. Then there is Velcro and magnetic resonance imaging. The space 
program had absolutely nothing to do with any of those things. Yet, 
people continue to talk about those spinoffs. I am willing to admit 
that we got one spinoff. We got a space suit. The demand for space 
suits is not just great enough in this country to warrant a $100 
billion expenditure. I do not want one. I do not have a friend that 
wants one.
  I will tell you what it is all about. Right here on this chart. 
Eighty-six percent of the money spent for 14,000 jobs goes to 
California, Texas, Alabama, and Florida. So the Senators, as far as I 
am concerned, from those States, get a pass. Go ahead and vote for it. 
For the other 46 States, who put more into the space station of their 
tax money than they get back, what is your excuse? Now, it is not 
unusual around here for people to vote for big expenditures because 
there are some jobs in their State. I have done it, and we all do it. 
It is not unusual to vote for big-ticket items that big corporations 
who have big PAC's and big contributors want. I want to tell you before 
you vote, remember that 86 percent of all the money is going to these 
four States.

  Now, Mr. President, we had a revolution last fall. The Republicans 
wiped the Democrats out. Everybody has been analyzing it ever since. 
What happened? How did it happen? Why are the people so upset? Why are 
they mad?
  I do not know the answer to it. I wish I did. I think it is a serious 
question. Certainly it is serious for my party.
  Let me make a couple of observations. We are getting ready to spend 
$32.7 billion over the next 7 years on this space station.
  Now, let me ask you, where is the money coming from? Take your 
choice. I want you to listen to this: $32.7 billion for the space 
station, which has absolutely no tangible payback to the American 
people.
  Where do we find the money to do it in these budget constrained 
times? As I say, take your choice. We are cutting education over the 
next 7 years $40 billion. What do you get out of this? A lot of 
ignorance.
  We are cutting the earned-income tax credit, according to the Senate 
version, $40 billion, which represents a $457 annual tax increase for 
the poorest 17 million people in America who work, that are not on 
welfare.
  Ask yourself, is it fair to penalize the people who are working to 
feed, clothe, house, and educate their children and the lowest paid 
workers on Earth trying to stay off welfare? Is it fair to levy a $457 
tax increase against them to pay for the space station? If you believe 
that, vote against my amendment. If you think this country will be 
better off when we cut education by $40 billion over the next 7 years 
in order to fund the space station, you vote against my amendment.
  If you think it is right to cut Medicare by $270 billion--and I am 
willing to participate in some of that; not to provide this massive tax 
cut we are talking about, but simply because we do have to do something 
to salvage Medicare--do you think it is fair to cut Medicare by $40 
billion of that $270 billion in order to pay for this?
  Do you think it is fair to cut $180 billion in Medicaid which 
provides health care for the poorest of the poor--yes, working people, 
too--to pay for this? If that is what the revolution last fall was 
about, then God save America.
  What else are we doing? We are spreading the already terrible 
disparity of income in this country. Everybody knows and they talk 
about it, but nobody wants to address it. The disparity between incomes 
in America is twice as great as any of the 18 developed nations on 
Earth. The only country even close is Britain and we have a 2-to-1 
margin on Britain.
  How do we rectify this? We raise taxes for the poor, we cut health 
care for the poor, and we provide $250 billion in tax relief--for the 
poor?; no--for people who make over $100,000 a year. That includes 
everybody in the U.S. Senate.
  Yes, Senators, you will get a nice tax cut next year. So what happens 
to the working poor who have two or three children and because of the 
exemptions for those children do not make enough money to pay taxes? Do 
they get any of it? No.
  When you read in the paper that the tax increase proposed by the 
Republicans provides $500 tax credit for each child, do not believe it. 
That sounds so good. Is that not wonderful? That is a family issue, is 
it not? We will give it to families.
  One of the biggest hoaxes ever pulled off in this country--yesterday, 
I alluded to a woman I knew who is a waitress. She has two children. 
She has to keep both of them in day care in order to work and stay off 
welfare. The chances of her getting $1,000, $500 for each one of her 
children, is point blank zero. But Members of this body, Members of 
this body who have children will get it. All of this so we can pay for 
the space station?
  I could go on and on. The list is endless.
  I saw in the reconciliation bill passed out of the Senate Energy 
Committee big relief for the oil companies, the biggest corporations in 
America, if they drill below a certain depth in the Gulf of Mexico or 
off shore. It seems they they cannot take care of themselves. We have 
to give them a big tax royalty bonus to drill.
  The Minerals Policy Association says there are 625 applications for 
lands that have billions and billions of dollars' worth of gold, 
platinum, palladium, silver underneath it, from the biggest mining 
companies in the world. What do we do? We mandate that the Secretary of 
Interior give them a deed as we have done on 3.2 million acres of lands 
in this country since 1872.
  The 625 applications for deeds which Secretary Babbitt will have no 
choice but to deliver to the biggest mining companies on Earth for 
$2.50 to $5 an acre has over 15.5 billion dollars' worth of gold, 
silver, and hard-rock minerals under it.
  How are we going to pay for that? You already heard me give speech 
after speech on that subject. We are going to cut $70 billion off of 
welfare--very popular in this country. Those worthless, no-good, 
shiftless people on welfare. Some of them are indeed no-good, shiftless 
people. But some of them simply did not happen to choose their parents 
as well as I did. That is their only sin. They did a lousy job of 
picking their parents.
  What are we going to do? We are going to bless the poor unless they 
get pregnant at the age of 17. What are we going to do with food 
stamps? We are going to cut food stamps. Maybe we can get a few more 
homeless people on the streets. All so we can pay for the space 
station.
  Mr. President, the National Institutes of Health, who do honest-to-
God research--go out to the National Institutes of Health and ask what 
have they done. They have developed antibiotics; they have developed 
all kinds of drugs 

[[Page S 14233]]
that give AIDS patients a little longer life; chemotherapy for cancer 
patients. They are doing honest-to-goodness research--a new chicken pox 
vaccine for our children, a new hepatitis vaccine for our children. Not 
one person in America quarrels with that priority.
  I had pneumonia twice before I was 6 years old and all my mother and 
father could do was pray. There were no antibiotics, nothing. When I 
was in the Pacific in World War II, we took sulfur to keep from getting 
malaria, sulfur developed by the National Institutes of Health. You 
will not get sulfur, you will not get penicillin, you are not going to 
get anything out of this $100 billion expenditure.
  I might just say here that the 40,000 physicists in this country 
belong to an organization called the American Physical Society. Do you 
know who one of the strongest opponents of the space station is? It is 
the American Physical Society. Do you know why? Because they know the 
benefits are very, very minimum and the costs of real research very, 
very great. They have a 50-percent backlog at NIH of applications for 
good research. And, yet, this space station is like Rasputin. You 
cannot kill it. There are too many big corporations, too many jobs--
14,000 jobs at $147,000 each. I would like to go to General Motors and 
say, ``You know I come from a poor State. We need jobs. We will give 
you $147,000 for every job you create in Arkansas.'' General Motors 
would say, ``Where would you like for us to locate?'' That is what 
these jobs cost, $147,000 each.
  You can buy chicken downtown at the Giant grocery store for 69 cents 
a pound. But once you deploy this thing and you start sending chicken 
up to them to eat, it is $12,880 a pound. For 10 years of the operation 
of the space station, we will spend $25 million every day. Can you 
fathom such a thing?
  For every pound of water we send to the astronauts to drink, $12,880 
a pound. That is in today's dollars; it will be more by then.
  Your mother used to tell you, ``Oh. Such and such is worth its weight 
in gold.'' The space station cost 25 times its weight in gold. That is 
right. The weight of the space station is 25 times the cost of its 
weight in gold.
  Carl Sagan says the only scientific reason in the world to build a 
space station--and he is not alone; every single physicist in the 
country says--the only justification for the space station is to 
explore Mars and beyond.
  So when you vote against this amendment today--and a majority of 
Senators will. This is my sixth year, I guess, to try to kill it. When 
you vote no today, you are going to be voting to go to Mars. In today's 
dollars that is $500 billion. That is twice NASA's budget every year 
for 20 years to go to Mars. Why? Because it is there. It is like 
climbing a mountain.
  Mr. President, Carl Sagan, as I was about to say, is a fine man, a 
good scientist, and he favors the space station because he says it will 
help us go to Mars. He says the only justification for this is to 
explore Mars and beyond. If you believe that, vote against this 
amendment. I would like to go to Mars. I would like to be able to fund 
this space station if we had a balanced budget and if we were not 
cutting every defenseless person in America.
  So, Mr. President, I have other people who are here who wish to 
speak. I thank them for it. But one final point on international 
cooperation, which Carl Sagan says he thinks justifies this program, is 
that the Russians are going to participate. Do you know why? We are 
going to give them the money. We are going to give them the money. And, 
by the way, where are the launches in Russia going to come from? There 
will be no launches in Russia. The launches will come from Kazakhstan, 
not Russia, where the cosmonauts of Russia are located.
  So I would like to say, for gosh sakes, colleagues, do your duty in 
the certain knowledge that my amendment will be defeated, and what a 
tragedy. Our priorities are so terribly skewed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the chairman, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by 
Senator Bumpers to shut down the space station. He is correct when he 
says every year for the last 6 years he has introduced this amendment 
to eliminate all funding for the space station, in effect killing the 
programs that have provided most of the technological advance and 
promises for many more, and, of course, it promises to have many more 
to come.
  Mr. President this program is probably one of the most vital programs 
we have when we start talking about science and technology and 
research, and it is a catalyst that spurs the curiosity of all the 
young people going into those fields. The space station is the driving 
force for emerging science and technology and the inspiration for young 
people. It makes them want to excel in the sciences and, of course, in 
math. To dampen the spirit of our children to succeed in science and 
math, and that education, would be by dampening this space station and 
killing their hopes for the future. You cannot put a price tag on that. 
There is no way to measure that. But I know one thing; it is not 
measured in dollars and cents.
  The international space station is the most important U.S. space 
effort since the Apollo program, and its foundation for the future in 
human space flight programs in the post-cold-war era. It combines 
America's technological mastery, the United States' international 
leadership, and the pioneering spirit from which Americans find 
themselves in the center of modern history.
  Nobody supports reducing the Federal deficit or balancing the budget 
more than I do. But we also have to worry about the pioneering spirit 
that really is the foundation of building this great country. We cannot 
afford not to do that.
  Let me make an analogy. Let us draw from another time. Maybe it is a 
pretty important time for the State from which Senator Bumpers comes 
from. But let us compare this time to the time of President Thomas 
Jefferson when he requested support of the Lewis and Clark expedition 
that finally led to the Louisiana Purchase--or it was after the 
Louisiana Purchase. At the time of Jefferson's request, about half of 
the Federal budget was going toward debt retirement and interest on the 
national debt. He requested $2,500 for that expedition. We all know 
what that expedition did for our country. Personally, I know what it 
did for my State--not my home State of Missouri but of my home State 
now of Montana.
  Today the interest on the national debt is around 14 percent of the 
Federal budget, and the space station request is one-seventh of 1 
percent of the Federal budget.
  So I would say that both the President and the Congress have the 
multiyear balanced budget plans, and the full funding of the space 
station which is included should stay there, and is a bold step. And 
another bold step would be making that investment in the future. It is 
the right way. It is the right thing to do.
  America does have a role in shaping the future of humanity in the 
21st century, and it should be no less than what it was. It has been 
great. But also it is our big step in space. There are many 
justifications that are cited for the program: It stimulates technology 
and provides commercial opportunities. And if we will look to see the 
direction in which we are going, we are going in that direction; more 
commercialization will be a part of NASA.
  The fundamental reason though basically is it expands the frontier, 
the frontier of knowledge and understanding, a frontier where humans 
can live and work.
  The space station is an international space station. It is a 
cooperative program. It draws the resources and the scientific 
expertise not of just the United States but 13 nations. So cancellation 
would severely undermine the credibility of this country with its 
international partners. International investments in the station are 
substantial and represent the centerpieces of the space program of our 
international partners.
  I chair the authorizing committee of NASA. It has had its troubles in 
the past, but for the last 3 years it has been within, and sometimes 
under, cost and schedule, and that has been something unusual, because 
we have taken a personal interest in NASA to make sure it does what it 
is supposed to do, when it is supposed to do it, within budget. 

[[Page S 14234]]

  We have tried to iron out its problems. We have a director who, 
before he was ever told there were going to be cuts, walked up to the 
bar and said, ``I will take $1 billion out of my budget a year for the 
next 5 years if that will help you on the Hill to balance your budget 
and still keep this very vital, important program underway.''
  This Thursday, aboard the space shuttle, the United States will 
launch its second microgravity laboratory which will be in space for 16 
days. The mission will be a precursor to the space station laboratory. 
We will try out a lot of things.
  I held a hearing last May on the space station. From that hearing, 
the subcommittee determined that NASA has overcome some of those 
problems I was talking about earlier and they are ready to come up to 
the bar, deal with those, finish the development, and start using this 
unique laboratory that we will use for a long, long time.
  By the way, Lewis and Clark had their problems getting started, too. 
They underestimated by a factor of three the number of people required 
to execute the expedition. So what else is new? Everything we have done 
always operated under Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong will.
  But if you look at the history of our space program, from the day of 
inception, when we had a President stand up in this town and inspire 
this country to reach out into space, it has probably been one of the 
most successful that we have ever undertaken, especially going into the 
unknown, dealing with technologies that were unknown at the time.
  Today, our manned flight program represents the pinnacle of human 
achievement and it transcends everybody in this country. It is a center 
of pride. It is that part of America that is the example of what we are 
as a people. We are a curious people. We are people who reach out. Only 
this country can do it. And some pride has to be taken for that.
  I am committed to this project, not merely because of the high 
technology jobs it brings to 37 States, but because it is the right 
thing to do for America.
  I noticed with interest the map of the Senator from Arkansas. I did 
not see Montana as one of those blackened in places that receives all 
the aid money. But I know the effect it has on our young people 
whenever a shot goes up, and as we perform some of the successful 
operations in research and development practices in space. We should 
not be so shortsighted to shackle ourselves to this planet. After all, 
space is the next frontier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BURNS. That concludes my remarks. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, by consent of the Senator from Arkansas, I 
yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] has 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is not a debate between those who 
support a space program and those who do not. It is not a debate about 
whether there ought to be a pioneering spirit in this country. The 
question is, Should we build this space station? I have supported the 
space program. I think some of the things we have done in our space 
program have been breathtaking. I am enormously proud of our astronauts 
and the people who have developed this space program.
  The question for this Congress is, should we build this space 
station? The point is that the purpose for which the space station was 
originally developed represents a purpose that the space station can no 
longer achieve. Most of the scientific data indicate to us that if we 
build this space station as it is now conceived, it will represent a 
giant funnel through which will go an enormous amount of research 
dollars, taking away from so many other important research projects--
yes, space research projects --that there simply will not be enough 
money available for things we are doing because it will all be sunk 
into this space station.
  So it is not about the space program. It is not about the pioneering 
spirit. It is about this space station. It is about choices, hard 
choices, tough choices. I suppose everyone here would say if we can do 
it all, let us do it all. Let us build the space station. But the 
forced choices as a result of the fiscal policy problems in our country 
need to make us look at all of these issues and say, are there ways for 
us to do this better, less expensively? Must this be a manned space 
flight in a space station? Can there be microgravity experiments and 
work done in space with automated space flights?
  The answer is, of course, yes. It is less expensive to do it that 
way, in fact. So I am supporting the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Arkansas. He is correct about other choices, as well. He said this 
is a set of choices. If we do not build the space station, what else 
can we do? What else needs to be done in this country? I said a year or 
so ago, when I was in the Chamber, nobody is going to give a plaque to 
the Senator from Arkansas for coming here trying to kill something. 
There will be a banquet someplace tonight in town, I am sure, where 
someone is going to invite a Member of Congress and give him a plaque 
in recognition of his achievements.
  What are his achievements? For helping that group or that industry or 
that organization build something or get something, the man of the year 
probably, or the woman of the year. That is the honor. Nobody is going 
to give a plaque to the Senator from Arkansas for trying to kill the 
space station. But he comes to the floor with an amendment which raises 
a critically important question for this Senate: Is this the way we 
should spend our money? Will this advance our interests? Will it 
advance our space program, in fact? That is the question he raises.
  This is an interesting time. We have already been told just recently, 
a week or two ago, that we must now advance a program called star wars 
or the antiballistic missile system, and we must deploy it almost 
immediately--1999, the first deployment. We can afford that. We can 
afford trucks the Department of Defense did not order, jet airplanes 
they said they did not want. We say, well, we cannot afford, however, 
Head Start for 350,000 kids that are now getting Head Start. So we are 
going to take 350,000 kids and say, ``We are sorry; we cannot afford 
you and the Head Start Program.'' We are going to say to 600,000 kids 
in inner cities, disadvantaged kids, ``We are sorry. We do not have 
enough money for summer jobs for disadvantaged youth.''
  We are going to say to 170,000 veterans who are incapacitated, 
``We're sorry, we're cutting your benefits.'' We are saying, ``We're 
not very interested in a real serious review of whether the space 
station makes good research and scientific sense in this country's 
future because this is our pioneering spirit and our international 
agreements and what we've been doing, so let's keep doing what we've 
been doing.''
  It seems to me if there is a status quo around here, it is the folks 
who every year trod over to the Chamber to vote no on an amendment that 
asks us to review whether this is something this country ought to 
continue to do.
  Now, I stand here today with the Senator from Arkansas. And let me 
end where I began. I am not opposed to the space program. I have 
supported much of the space program. A young astronaut from North 
Dakota, Rick Hieb, has been on many space missions and was one of the 
fellows up in the space station Endeavor when they grabbed the Intelsat 
traveling 16,000 miles an hour with a 10,000 pound satellite in outer 
space. They worked for 4 days to try to fix this Intelsat. Many of us 
watched them working for 5 or 6 hours in space.
  I am enormously proud of what they have done in the space program. 
This is the question: Is this in the advancement of the space station? 
I think not, and I support the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOND. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member for leading in the effort once again for the 20th time 
to support the space station.
  In fact, Congress has reaffirmed year after year that it is committed 
to the space station and the new endeavors that are being made every 
day because we are willing to take this chance to go out and look for 
new industries and look for new technologies. 

[[Page S 14235]]

  I have two points, Mr. President. First, we are not doing the space 
station alone. This is not any longer just a U.S. mission. It is an 
international mission. We have international partners. Many countries 
in Europe, Japan, Canada, and Russia are putting money into this 
program because they know this joint effort is so very important. Are 
we going to be a bad business partner? That is the question here. Are 
we going to say, ``Yes, put in $4.5 billion,'' which our international 
partners have done, ``but we are not really committed. We are going to 
walk away from this project after we have told you that we are going to 
do it.''
  Mr. President, I do not think the United States is going to be a bad 
business partner. And, in fact, I think if we did the ethical thing, if 
we did decide to walk away from it, we would have to reimburse the $4.5 
billion to the partners that have put up the money. That would be a 
terrible waste. It would be the wrong thing to do. That is on the 
business side. That is on just being a good partner. That is on ethics.
  Let us talk about the merits, and that is my second point. Let us 
talk about the merits. You heard people say that the science is not 
there; this is going to crowd out other science projects. In fact, this 
is a science project that has cut its budget, that has streamlined, 
that has not put its head in the sand to say, ``Oh, we are scientific, 
we cannot cut our budget.'' In fact, we have cut our budget $40 
billion. We are cutting by streamlining the project.
  But the point is, there are things being done in the space station 
that cannot be done in any other way. And that is because the 
microgravity conditions that we find in space are so important for 
cancer research, especially women's cancer research, such as breast 
cancer and osteoporosis, which hits women the hardest. Those can only 
be done in the microgravity conditions which cannot be duplicated on 
Earth. So we are looking at scientific advances that cannot be done in 
any other way but this one. And we are on the brink of making 
breakthroughs.
  We also are on the brink of learning how we are going to be able to 
live better in space. And, Mr. President, we have to be looking to the 
future. We have to see what kind of environment there is, what we can 
get from the environment and the environmental lessons that we learn in 
space. So the science is good.
  Mr. President, we have been able to grow in this country. We have 
been able to absorb the immigrants that come to our country, the new 
people that grow up in our country because we have been willing to do 
the basic research that may or may not produce something. We know it is 
always chance when you go out and you burst forward to do the new 
things that have not been done before. We have been willing to do that 
in America. We have been willing to spend that extra money to try to 
find out what the new technologies are and to grab those new 
technologies and turn them into new products, new technologies, and the 
new jobs that go right down to the grassroots of the success of our 
country and our economy.
  We have been willing to do that. That has been the hallmark of our 
country. We have the can-do spirit. We are the leaders of the world in 
research and technology and development. We are acknowledged as that. 
Are we going to turn around and say, ``No, let's be stagnant. Let's 
look back 200 years ago and see what was done then. We don't need to do 
any more. We have actually done everything that we need to do now.'' If 
we do that, Mr. President, that is the beginning of the end of this 
dynamic country that is the greatest superpower in the world.
  That is not America, Mr. President. That is not the way we have built 
this country, and it is not the way we are going to keep this country 
strong, we are going to keep our economy vital, we are going to create 
the new jobs for the young people coming out of high school and 
college, the immigrants that come into our country looking for the 
opportunity that this country has always provided.
  We are going to continue to have those opportunities and to make 
those opportunities by investing in research. Our research budget in 
this country used to be about 4 percent. Now it is below 2 percent. We 
must not walk away from that in the name of cutting spending. That is 
eating our seed corn. Our seed corn is what gives us the opportunity to 
create those new technologies that will absorb the new people in our 
system and keep us vibrant and robust.
  I thank the Chair.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would be happy to.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Could the Senator elaborate on what the space station 
means to the women's health agenda? As the Senator knows, we worked on 
women's health on a bipartisan basis, particularly in the area of 
breast cancer and ovarian cancer and others. Could the Senator take a 
second or two to elaborate on that? And I would like to thank her for 
working on a bipartisan basis.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I appreciate the question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator, all time has 
expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I can have a minute to answer, I would be happy 
to. But I understand if others are seeking to speak, that----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I will elaborate.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Because we have done it on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. BOND. I will yield 2 additional minutes to be shared by the three 
of us. In my comments, I want to express my thanks to the Senator from 
Texas, who led us on a tour of the Johnson Space Center in Houston and 
has been a strong proponent of space exploration. I thank her for her 
comments.
  I now ask her to respond to the question raised by the ranking 
member.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the chairman for letting me have this minute 
to respond to my colleague, because her point is so very important. And 
that is, Senator Mikulski and I and the other women Senators have 
looked at the amount of money that has been spent on women's health in 
this country. It is appallingly small, Mr. President. The women's 
health issues have not been addressed to anywhere near the degree that 
would be required according to the number of people in our country who 
are stricken by these women's diseases.
  In fact, we are on the cusp, because of the space station and because 
of the microgravity conditions, of being able to have breakthroughs 
both in breast cancer research and osteoporosis. That is why this is so 
very important for us to continue. I appreciate the emphasis of the 
Senator from Maryland on women's health care issues, and it is because 
of her leadership that we all know that women's health care research 
has not had the funding that we have needed through all these many 
years, and now is the time that we have the ability to do it. I 
appreciate her support in a bipartisan way for us to be able to 
continue the space station, which is going to give us the chance to 
have those breakthroughs that we hope will be able to cure breast 
cancer and stop osteoporosis, which is causing so much pain for the 
elderly people in our country. I thank Senator Mikulski.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I will use 1 minute of speaking on this 
and will speak again on my own time.
  I believe the American people want us to work on a bipartisan basis 
to save lives and to save jobs in the United States of America and to 
develop those lifesaving techniques that we can export around the 
world. Working on a bipartisan basis, we have worked on saving lives, 
and the special emphasis on women's health care that we have done on a 
bipartisan basis has been extraordinary.
  Let me tell you what working together has meant and working with 
NASA. It means that for the victims of osteoporosis, NASA has developed 
instruments to measure bone loss and bone density without penetrating 
the skin that is now being used in hospitals. It also means that in the 
absence, that research equipment developed by the space station is 
already paying dividends on the ground by growing ovarian tumor samples 
in NASA's new cell culturing device, called a bioreactor, so that 
tumors can be studied outside the body without harm to the patient and 
developing the technique to intervene.
  This is an enormous breakthrough, and while we are concentrating 
using 

[[Page S 14236]]
space science focusing on ovarian tumors, this will have incredible 
consequences also for brain tumors and other diseases that are terminal 
because of a tumor effect.
  This is absolutely crucial. Working with the NIH on joint ventures, 
on hormonal disorders, immune system dysfunctions and also on heart 
disease, now the No. 1 killer of women in the United States of America, 
shows this. I know that the Senator from Texas is aware that because of 
our efforts, NASA and NIH have entered into a joint agreement on how we 
can do things in space that we could never do here. By doing things in 
space collaboratively, it will not only be in the laboratory, it will 
be in the doctor's office and in pharmaceutical devices we can sell 
around the world. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from 
Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 8 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I thank my friend.
  Madam President, if this were construed to be an antiwomen's health 
issue vote, an anti-breast-cancer vote, an anti-ovarian-cancer vote, I 
would not be on the floor supporting the Senator from Arkansas. I have 
never known him to be antiwomen. I have never known him to cut back on 
funds for research, be it for osteoporosis or cancer of any form. In 
fact, he has probably been one of the leaders in favor of more 
research.
  So the notion that somehow this vote, by failing to support the space 
station, is now going to be an antiwomen's health vote, is that what we 
have come to?
  Madam President, I would like to support the space station, which 
will cost probably about $100 billion. I would even like to support the 
B-2 bomber, which the occupant of the chair also supports. That is 
another $30 billion. And we are probably going to get both. Probably 
when all is said and done, we are going to have another $130 billion 
just in these two programs.
  By the same token, we stand over here on this side of the aisle and 
we talk day after day about budgets, about how we have to save money 
for our children, the crushing debt we are putting on their shoulders. 
We heard words quoted from Jefferson and the implication from President 
Kennedy. Maybe we should say we will pay any price, will bear any 
burden, will borrow any money in order to build a space station, 
whatever its costs, whatever the merit of the scientific experiments. 
Last year, we heard the debate on the NAFTA vote. Maybe the giant 
sucking sound we are going to hear will be all those dollars being 
drained into a large black hole.
  Madam President, 2 years ago, this program was on the verge of being 
terminated, and at that time, in a desperate effort to save it, the 
Clinton administration brought Russia into the program and they 
asserted this was going to reduce the cost by nearly $2 billion, down 
from $19.4 billion to $17.4 billion, and that promise of $2 billion of 
savings was critical to saving this particular program.
  I was suspicious at those claims. I asked the GAO to make an analysis 
of those claims, and they found that $2 billion savings to be about as 
thin as the space through which the space station is going to fly. As a 
matter of fact, the Russians, by coming into the program, are actually 
going to cost us almost $2 billion more. Contrary to the claim of 
saving $2 billion, it is going to be about $2 billion more.
  NASA failed to take into account and to identify the additional costs 
of involving the Russians in our program. It reminds me somewhat of the 
Steve Martin routine where he says:
  ``I can tell you how to make a million dollars and pay no taxes. The 
first thing you do is make a million dollars. The second thing, you pay 
no taxes. Then when the IRS shows up, slap yourself on the forehead and 
say, `I forgot, I forgot.' ''
  What NASA has forgotten to do is to identify the additional $1.4 
billion in costs of bringing the Russians into the program by forcing 
us to have to accommodate their technologies with ours and match them 
up.
  But beyond that, we have heard a lot of talk about being a good 
business partner, about this being an international project. Indeed, it 
is. Just yesterday, the trade press reported that officials at Russia's 
Mission Control Center at Kaliningrad said low salaries are making it 
difficult to prepare, with Johnson Space Center in Houston, to run the 
international space station.
  And Russia is not the only international partner backing away from 
this program. Canada already reduced its commitment. Yesterday's press 
account indicated Italy is backing away from its contribution to the 
space station and wants other European countries to pick up the slack. 
According to the media reports again yesterday, German and French 
officials are calling Italy's action the death knell for European 
participation in the United States-led effort.
  If any more of our partners decide to cut back, guess where the cost 
is going to come from? Good old Uncle Sam is going to have to cough up 
the money our international partners are starting to back away from.
  NASA says this program is going to cost roughly $71 billion. Given 
the fact that the average cost overrun in NASA programs is about 77 
percent, it should come as no surprise that this program will probably 
come nearer to $100 billion. But even if you assume it is going to come 
in right on target, $71 billion is something that we cannot afford for 
the Russian Alpha station any more than we could have afforded the $120 
billion space station Freedom which the administration terminated back 
in 1993. Neither can our children, from whom this money is going to be 
coming. NASA cannot afford it. As the GAO and CBO both warned in 
several dire reports, NASA's budget over the next 5 years falls $10 
billion short. They cannot account for how they are going to come up 
with another $10 billion to fund the programs already scheduled for 
their funding.
  So we have so much money going into the space station now that they 
are not going to be able to carry on the kind of programs that are 
going to be necessary for them to carry out their mission.
  Another disturbing discovery by GAO is that most of the research 
proposals submitted to NASA for funding were described as being rather 
mediocre or even worse. Nearly two-thirds--nearly two-thirds--according 
to the GAO, said they were not considered scientifically meritorious by 
scientific peer review panels. We heard a lot about all the experiments 
that are going to take place only in space, and yet two-thirds of the 
proposed experiments are not supported by scientific peers.
  Madam President, the reason I rise in support of the amendment is 
that we cannot, on the one hand, continue to talk to our colleagues and 
our countrymen and women about the need to restrain spending, and then 
come up with B-2 bombers that we have to fund at $30 billion or come up 
with a space station that will cost another $100 billion. And there may 
be no end in sight, indeed, as far as infinity itself may carry us into 
space, as to how much this program is ultimately going to cost.
  On the one hand, we are cutting back from major programs--from 
Medicare, from homeless, from Head Start and all those that have been 
articulated--and we are going to commit endless billions of dollars to 
this program with no end in sight. For that reason, Madam President, I 
rise in support of the Senator's amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield 8 minutes to the very 
distinguished Senator from Ohio who comes to this body with a great 
knowledge of space and speaks on the basis of his personal knowledge, 
as well as his legislative experience.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank my distinguished colleague for his great, kind 
remarks.
  Madam President, I think this country became what it is, largely 
because we were a research-oriented Nation.
  We expressed our curiosity; curiosity became a way of life. We 
applied it to everything. We applied it to medicine, teaching, 
agriculture, government. How can we do things better? What new things 
can we learn and put to use? One thing we have learned, even though 
every time we set out for research it is 

[[Page S 14237]]
not a 100 percent home run, the money spent on research seems to almost 
always have a way of coming back and giving us tremendous benefits not 
seen at the outset.
  Here, for the first time in all the tens upon tens of thousands of 
years of human history, we have the chance to do research away from the 
confines of mother Earth. It is stimulating and interesting. I meet 
almost daily with young people in school groups, who want to talk about 
this. It has stimulated their curiosity, our work in space. I think it 
is much more than a childhood interest in wanting to fly. The space 
program is stimulating their interest in science, math, and 
exploration. Along with this interest, we are getting the benefits for 
future generations. Research in microgravity is in keeping with the 
long American tradition of research in medicine, teaching, agriculture, 
government, and continuing this curiosity that has been the hallmark of 
Americans since our founding days.
  The space station is the greatest international scientific 
cooperative effort ever put together. In addition to the very real 
importance of international cooperation, there are very specific 
benefits which will accrue to each one of us here. Now these benefits 
are not in areas like Velcro and Tang and some of the things we were 
talking about on the floor here last night. All of those things were 
invented long before the space program. So those were not benefits that 
came out of this program.
  But what we are talking about is very basic, fundamental research--
research that may give us benefits in how we cope with osteoporosis, 
which causes hundreds of thousands of broken bones every year; it is a 
weakening of the human body. It may give us a new approach on colon 
cancer, breast cancer and ovarian cancer. This is not theoretical now. 
We are working with a bioreactor, which was mentioned by Senator 
Mikulski a few moments ago.
  We actually have tested a bioreactor in space successfully. Why is 
that important? Because a bioreactor is capable of more accurately 
simulating how tissues grow in the body than any other way of tissue 
culturing. If you experiment in a lab here on Earth using traditional 
tissue culturing mechanishm, the usual outcome is that the tissue 
settles to the bottom of the test tube, or Petri dish, or whatever. In 
space using a bioreactor, tissues grow in three dimensions, much more 
similar to what you find in the human body. As we have shown on the 
last Space Shuttle flights that used the bioreactor, cultures can be 
grown at least twice as large as any in a similar situation here on 
Earth. This could give us a whole new approach to colon cancer, breast 
cancer, and ovarian cancer. When you culture things like this in space 
and they grow to a larger size and you learn how to work with them 
better there and bring them back to Earth, it could give a whole new 
approach. AIDS, osteoporosis, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer are the 
chief focus of attention so far.
  I ask, what if we have a new breakthrough in just one of those areas? 
It may be worth everything spent on the whole space station program by 
itself if just one of these cultures coming back now--and we had 
pictures of them on the floor yesterday--gives us a clue as to how to 
take care of the problems of AIDS-HIV, ovarian cancer and breast 
cancer. Current digital technology gives us a 5 times more accurate 
diagnosis of breast cancer over previous technologies. This exists 
right now because of the space program. So when we say there has not 
been anything coming out of this program, it is just not true.
  Osteoporosis is another one that is particularly amenable to the 
research in space because that occurs in the astronauts at an 
accelerated rate over and above anything that occurs here on Earth. One 
of the major areas of research in biotechnology is to provide research 
results that can revolutionize drug development. There are current 
projects for AIDS and emphysema by major pharmaceutical firms.
  I add, when the Station opponents say nobody wants these programs and 
there is no basic support for the research here, that is just not true. 
Many companies and research laboratories --the National Research 
Council, Bristol-Myers Pharmaceutical Research Institute, and a policy 
adopted by the American Medical Association--support the space station. 
There are also different medical centers, a whole list of them here. I 
do not have time in my 8 minutes to go into them this morning.
  In addition to biotechnology, biomedical, and biological research, 
muscle and bone growth, NASA is aiding in the development of techniques 
for counteracting the effects of aging, and on down the line--material 
science, combustion science. At the last international consortium on 
combustion, over 10 percent of the papers were given on findings out of 
the space station. If we make a small step forward in combustion 
research, who knows what energy savings we can make here on Earth.
  Another area is low temperature microgravity physics. These are 
things that are of benefit right now, and they are not things that are 
just going to be looked at in the future. These things are in research 
and giving results right now.
  As I said, I think money put into our research program in this 
country has paid off at the outset more than anything we have seen. 
Right now, our problem is that many of the companies that did basic 
research, and were willing to put money into the 5-, 10-, 15-, even the 
20-year programs, are cutting back. They are cutting back on the money 
they are putting into research at the same time we are proposing that 
we cut back on Government research. This, at a time when we are moving 
into new international competition, where we need more research, more 
of the new, more curiosity in how we deal with these matters for the 
future, so that our children have the good jobs of the future right 
here. Nothing is as stimulating to our children right now as this 
interest in the space program and their interest in science and math 
and exploration. The space station literally has become symbolic of the 
United States and how we look at our future.
  I will point out one other thing. There is about one-fourth of the 
space station already built. We do not talk about that much. We have 
put together 50,000 pounds of this 400,000-pound station; 60,000 pounds 
already has been put together by our allies that are working together 
on this project. So we have about a little over one-fourth of the 
project--the space station--that has already been built. So it is not 
just something that it theoretical out there, that if we chop the 
budget, we save all the money. We do not. That is not the main reason 
for going ahead with the program. The reason is the potential for 
research that we have for the future.
  Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator is up.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 14 minutes. The 
Senator from Arkansas has 7 minutes 52 seconds.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I first would like to deal with a 
couple of rebuttals on issues that came up. The distinguished Senator 
from Arkansas talked about how Carl Sagan had opposed the space 
station. I would like to bring to the Senate's attention that Carl 
Sagan, since his book was published, has now endorsed the international 
space station. We now have the endorsement of the Planetary Society. He 
also talks about how the American Physical Society does not endorse the 
space station. I would like to bring out that the Institute for 
Electrical and Electronic Engineers does; the American Astronautical 
Society does; the AMA does; the American Women's Medical Association 
does.
  Now, Madam President, I was once a skeptic of the space station. I, 
too, wonder if we were building this huge technological endeavor to be 
a condo in the sky for astronauts to be able to jump to Mars. I no 
longer share that belief. Why? First, on the drawing books is no plan 
or no budget for us to take manned space flights to Mars in this 
century. But there is a space station that is not going to be a condo 
for astronauts, but it is going to be a space 

[[Page S 14238]]
lab for American scientists and ingenuity. That is why I support it.
  Now, like you, Madam President, I am a hands-on, get-out-and-about 
type Senator. I did not want to make my mind up on the basis of memos 
and papers about pie-in-the-sky or space-station-in-the-sky activity. I 
went down to Houston. I went to where they are actually working on what 
the future of the space station is. I was impressed, and I came back a 
passionate supporter of the American space station because of its 
impact on saving lives, saving jobs, and making sure that we have 
lifesaving devices and pharmaceuticals, and once again America has jobs 
in the scientific area but in the blue-collar manufacturing area.

  I saw what are the projected activities for being able to do life 
science and microgravity research.
  Now critics could say, ``Point to one thing that the space station 
has done in life science.'' We cannot because the space station is not 
yet flying. We can point to what NASA has already done in the area of 
medical research and life science.
  The Senator from Ohio, an astronaut Senator, has said it. Who are you 
going to believe? Some wonky report from a critic? Or are you going to 
believe one of the most famous Senators in the world?
  I put my belief in John Glenn. I put my belief in what I saw at 
Houston. I put my belief in the fact that what NASA has already done is 
come up with a pacemaker that can be programmed outside of the body, a 
cold suit which has been developed to improve the quality of life of MS 
patients. I could go on about other activities. NASA has a clear, 
demonstrable record on what it has already done in life science. One 
can only estimate what it will mean in the future.
  We also have an international impact. We are not in this by 
ourselves. We are in it with the Europeans, the Japanese, and the 
Canadians. We have a treaty relationship with them to build this space 
station. To abrogate that responsibility puts at risk the credibility 
of the United States with its international partners.
  I believe that is a mistake. Yes, the Russians are in it. We used to 
compete with the Russians. Now we cooperate with the Russians to make 
sure that we make maximum use of our financial resources and maximum 
use of our scientific capability.
  Is this not what we dreamed about when the cold war came down? That 
we would put our hand out with the Russians, and in the area of 
civilian research that in no way weakens our national security, we 
could put our best minds together? Is that not one of the dreams of the 
cold war, that by working in space out there we can further peace and 
scientific advancement here?
  That is what America is all about. We are known for our social 
inventions, like our Constitution and our democratic framework, and our 
technological inventions. People come from around the world to do that.
  Now, when we build the space station, we do not do it alone. We have 
international partners. We have the best minds here collaborating with 
the best minds over there, to go into space, to come back and save 
those jobs, save those lives, right here in the United States of 
America.
  I am for the space station.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Dorgan and Senator Baucus be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I tell you who I put my confidence in: Every physicist in America who 
said you cannot do one thing in space that you cannot do on Earth for a 
lot less money.
  I put my faith in the guy who runs the Johnson Space Center. There 
will be life sciences here, but we have not finalized that. Really, it 
is hard to answer that question. This is the man who runs the program.
  I intentionally did not bore the Senate today with the myriad of 
hundreds of quotes from every physicist, virtually every medical 
researcher in America, all of whom say that this is a terrible, 
terrible way to spend the taxpayers' money when it comes to research.
  The Senator from Ohio, John Glenn, and I came to the Senate at the 
same time. We have been close, steadfast friends ever since. There is 
not anybody in the body for whom I have greater respect.
  It pains me when we disagree, which we do strongly on this issue. I 
know Senator Glenn's great talents. He is a genuine, certified America 
hero. But even Senator Glenn will only tell you what we hope to do.
  I tell you, we have been hoping for 30 years. That is how long we 
have been in space--30 years--and I am still waiting for somebody in 
the Senate not to just talk about AIDS and cancer and multiple 
sclerosis, but to tell me what the space station has done. I can tell 
you--zip, zero, for AIDS and cancer.
  When it comes to women's health issue, I thank the Senator from Maine 
very much for pointing out that nobody has been stronger for medical 
research in this country than I. I sit on the committee that 
appropriates money for the National Institutes of Health so I know how 
they are starved to death. They are located in Maryland. They cannot 
even begin to get the money they need to do the research that needs to 
be done.
  When have you seen a story out of NIH on what we are doing on 
hepatitis? What we are doing on Lyme disease? Cancer? Chemotherapy? 
Almost daily there are reports from the National Institutes of Health 
on gigantic medical advancements.
  I invite Members to tell me in 30 years when have you seen one single 
announcement come about as to what we have done for the welfare of our 
people from the space station.
  I believe strongly in the space program. I will tell you that I 
believe strongly they are cutting back on space programs that I applaud 
and you applaud in order to make room for this thing which Newsweek 
called a boondoggle.
  What is it for? Why, I have heard talk about children getting 
excited. It is a new frontier. It is all those things. I get excited 
about Apollo 13. I get excited when I see astronauts retrieving a 
satellite. But that does not mean I have to take leave of my senses and 
vote for $100 billion project--$100 billion.
  Do you know what children in this country are entitled to? They are 
entitled to grow up secure from crime on the streets. They are entitled 
to grow up not hungry. They are entitled to grow up with an education 
so they can do honest-to-God research when they are adults. They are 
entitled to grow up in a decent home that does not leak, that is warm 
in the wintertime.
  What is the U.S. Congress doing? We are assaulting the children of 
this Nation, cutting food stamps, cutting housing, cutting education. 
Educational loans will be cut $8 billion more over the next 7 years 
than this thing will cost.
  I look at it and I cannot believe it. I wonder, what kind of values 
does this place have? I believe in research. I believe in women's 
health issues. I defy anybody to show me where I ever voted against it. 
I do everything I possibly can from my position on the Health and Human 
Resources Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Betty Bumpers has spent her entire public life taking advantage of 
the fact that her husband was Governor and Senator to bring 
immunization programs to every State in the Nation. The pharmaceutical 
companies of this country have been champs in the area. They have 
developed new vaccines--not on the space station; they did it in their 
laboratories.
  I agree with Carl Sagan. I agree with every physicist in the country 
who says there is only one rationale for the space station--that is to 
go to Mars. If you want to go to Mars, fine. We went to the Moon.
  I went down to the Johnson Space Center to see what we got. We got 
some drillings. It was exciting. I got as teary eyed as any Member of 
the Senate when Neil Armstrong stepped off, but I did not say I wanted 
to waste $100 billion because I am excited today, not at the expense of 
the tremendous needs of this Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Madam President, we have had some very spirited debate. Let me 
address some of the points that have been raised by my good friend, the 
Senator from Arkansas. 

[[Page S 14239]]

  He has made very compelling arguments about how we have not learned 
anything from the space station. Small wonder, when we have not built 
the space station. It is not up there yet. It has not done anything 
yet. We have had successes exploring in space but we have not built a 
space station.
  The people would have been up there who are doing research said we 
need to have that permanent presence in space so we can find out over 
time how these experiments work. That is the whole purpose. If we 
applied that test to all basic research, that you cannot support basic 
research until you show what it has done, we would be shutting down 
federally funded facilities at universities and every other scientific 
organization because you do not know what you will get from basic 
research until you get there.
  Certainly, I will go with the scientists who are planning on the 
experiments that will take the time that a space station can afford 
them to determine what the impact of microgravity and the other 
exigencies of space produce in scientific research.
  Now, the question is raised about the National Institutes of Health. 
NASA and NIH have executed 18 cooperative agreements since 1992, and 
joint activities have included scientific workshops, ground-based and 
flight investigations, other specialized activities such as the space 
line reference system developed by the National Library of Medicine. 
NASA expects an expanding level of cooperation with NIH as research 
enters the space station era.
  NIH researchers are expected to use the space station's next 
generation life-support sciences facilities, including the human 
research facility, the gravitational biology facility, and the 
centrifuge facility in pursuit of national biomedical research goals.
  We have heard the figure bandied about that the space station costs 
$94 billion. More than half of that, to be quite frank with my 
colleagues, to set the record straight, comes from the shuttle. That is 
how we get up there. That is costing $50 billion. I hope the objective 
of this amendment is not to kill the space shuttle and kill all space 
research. I think that would be a double tragedy. Recall that the total 
$94 billion not only funds the shuttle, it funds the building and the 
operation of the space station. We do not justify other programs this 
way by saying the total cost of 20 years of operations is such. We talk 
about the yearly cost. We could have tremendous figures if you took any 
program and built the continuing costs over years. We judge them on an 
operational year-by-year cost.
  This idea that we are going to make great savings overlooks the 
tremendous potential for great contributions to our scientific and 
engineering knowledge from the space station.
  Yesterday, my good friend from Arkansas quoted extensively from Carl 
Sagan and quoted all the arguments that Carl Sagan had made to support 
the position of the Senator from Arkansas that we ought to cancel the 
space station. The Senator from Maryland said it very well. But let me 
just quote from a letter dated July 24, 1995, from the same Carl Sagan. 
He said:

       For Congress to cancel the space station now would cause 
     huge disruptions in many local and regional economies, and, 
     worse yet, it would scar our national psyche. It would end 
     the rationale for America's manned space program, and with it 
     would die some of the spirit of a great nation bold enough to 
     seek great achievements.

  Madam President, it would be a tragedy, an utter tragedy, to kill the 
space station. It is the most ambitious and exciting program since the 
Apollo program of over 25 years ago.
  I, with my son, enjoyed the smashing success this year of the movie, 
``Apollo 13,'' that drew in millions of people--those who recall those 
glory days, a time when America set ambitious goals and moved to 
accomplish it; and those who are too young to have lived through those 
heydays yet are naturally drawn by its spirit of exploration, bravery, 
and discovery. That is the spirit that made America great.
  The international space station will mark America's next great step 
in this endeavor. The station will become a visible symbol of our 
commitment to the future as our children will watch it move elegantly 
across the nightly sky.
  Although the space station has many of the same characteristics as 
the Apollo program, it is also different in important ways. The Apollo 
program was motivated by the cold-war need to beat the Russians to the 
moon. Space station, in contrast, will involve the cooperation of 13 
nations, making it the largest cooperative science program in history. 
The international partners have spend billions on the program to date. 
Instead of beating the Russians, we will be working closely with them 
to build a better, more robust orbital laboratory.
  It is time to stop with these incessant attempts to kill the space 
station. Over the last 4 years, there have been 13 attempts in the 
House and Senate to kill the program and all have fortunately failed. 
Last year, a resounding 64 senators voted against this amendment and I 
among them. The arguments used by station opponents this year are the 
same old, tired arguments that have been used in years past--the claims 
were not true then, and they are not true now. Here are some of the 
facts:
  First, the space station is no longer a dream but a reality. Thanks 
to prior year congressional commitments, the program has finally 
entered a period of stability. After a tumultuous decade, NASA has a 
design and schedule that work. There is not talk of redesigns or 
restructuring today, only building hardware. About 50,000 pounds of 
hardware have been built already. Some 75,000 pounds of hardware will 
be built by the end of 1995. The final contract has been signed between 
American and Russian companies for the first piece of the space 
station--the FGB module--scheduled for launch in November 1997. 
Construction is underway in Moscow.
  Second, the space station is perfectly on schedule and on budget. 
NASA has kept its promise to maintain the first element launch in 
November 1997, and at a total cost of $17.4 billion through the end of 
construction in 2002. The space station has successfully gone through 
its first incremental design review. NASA has identified no technical 
show-stoppers to building this space station.
  Third, a streamlined management team is in place. NASA has reduced 
its in-house work force on the program by 1,000 people--from 2,300 to 
1,300--and is managing the program better than ever. NASA and the space 
station's prime contractor, Boeing, signed a $5.63 billion contract 
earlier this year to build the space station. This contract reflects 
NASA's new procurement philosophy of motivating contractors to avoid 
cost growth, and includes incentives for getting the job done for less 
than the target cost, and penalties if there are overruns. This is 
exactly the kind of procurement reform that's needed.
  Fourth, cooperation with Russia is working as planned. NASA has made 
two space shuttle flights to Russia's Mir space station already this 
year. The first shuttle rendezvoused with Mir, and the second docked 
with it--the first United States-Russian docking in 20 years. These 
flights proved not only the technical feasibility of our two countries 
working together in space, but the political feasibility as well. With 
each of these flights--and another is scheduled in 6 weeks--we learn 
more about working together and overcoming technical and cultural 
barriers. The inclusion of Russia will enable space station to be 
completed 15 months earlier than the previous design and have more crew 
and more research volume--all at a savings of approximately $2 billion 
to United States taxpayers.
  Fifth, this program is not a budget buster. It fits within the budget 
resolution. The House version of the budget resolution specifically 
included space station funding all the way to the end of construction 
in 2002, and the conference agreement with this body provides $2 
billion more in function 250 than the House did. We can balance the 
budget and invest in the future.
  Sixth, space station will not undermine the balance among NASA 
programs in human spaceflight, science, technology, and aeronautics. 
This very bill shows how NASA can afford space station, Mission to 
Planet Earth, new aircraft technology, a new reusable launch vehicle, 
and a host of other programs, while maintaining that balance--which is 
so crucial to NASA's future. With the zero-base review 

[[Page S 14240]]
changes that NASA is now implementing, NASA can afford this program, 
and so can the Nation.
  This country must continue to invest in the future. A research 
laboratory in space can provide unimaginable benefits to the American 
people. The space station is the only facility where research can be 
conducted for long durations in microgravity. This unique environment 
has only begun to be explored scientifically. American taxpayers are 
certain to benefit, just as they have from other basic research, and 
probably in ways we least expect.
  This amendment to terminate the space station threatens the very 
existence of the U.S. human space flight program and would abdicate 
U.S. world leadership in the largest international science project in 
history. With only 2 years left before the first launch, I hope this 
will be the last of a long line of attempts to end this program and its 
defeat will send a strong message of commitment to finish the job we've 
started. I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask for an additional 2 minutes for a 
total of 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, what is the time remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes fifty-three seconds.
  Mr. BOND. I ask for an additional 2 minutes on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas will have 4 minutes, and 2 minutes will be 
added to the Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, the Senator from Missouri, who is my 
good friend, says the Senator from Arkansas is making the same old 
tired arguments that he has made every year. He is absolutely right. A 
good argument against the space station is like a value. It does not 
lose its power just because time elapses. The same arguments that I 
made against the space station 6 years ago are just as compelling today 
as they were 6 years ago.
  We talk about the Russians participating and how wonderful 
international cooperation is. You think about that. The reason the 
Russians are cooperating is because we are going to give them the money 
to cooperate. So much for their cooperation. The Italians and the 
Canadians are cutting their contributions, and Germany and France are 
discussing reformulating their contribution to the space station. Why 
not? They know the United States will pay the difference.
  Madam President, here is a quote that says it all. James Van Allen, 
astrophysicist, discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belt, a premier 
physicist, said:

       With the benefit of over three decades of experience in 
     space flight, it is now clear that the conduct of scientific 
     and application missions in space by human crews is of very 
     limited value.

  That is echoed by every premier scientist and physicist in America.
  Dr. Van Allen goes on to say:

       For almost all scientific and utilitarian purposes a human 
     crew in space is neither necessary nor significantly useful.

  Dr. Bloembergen says that human crews are inconsistent with most 
microgravity research. But I want my colleagues to answer this one 
question. What is it about space and no gravity that makes it so 
fascinating for medical research, or the development of new crystals 
for our computer industry? I do not know the answer. But I rely on 
those who do. They say there is none. Dr. Van Allen, and Dr. Park, who 
is a leader of the 40,000 physicists in the American Physical Society 
say none. Do you know what else they say? Much of the research for 
microgravity, if it has any beneficial value, can be done on Earth 
which brings me to my final point, and then I will yield the floor and 
I will not say another word about this.
  You ask yourself. What do you think is more important? The planet 
Earth or going to the planet Mars? That is all this is about. Carl 
Sagan and all of them say that, if you want to go to Mars, then build a 
space station. If you do not, do not. You ask yourself about the needs 
of the children of America, about their food and their education and 
their clothing and their housing. They are crying on the streets. Ask 
yourself about the health care of our elderly. The needs are growing, 
but the funding is being cut. That is all happening on the planet 
Earth. The problems are not cosmic. The problems are here on Earth. You 
want to go to Mars? Be my guest. But for God sakes, do not do it when 
we have these unbelievable problems that are growing daily, that $94 
billion would go an awful long way to cure.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam President, my good friend from Arkansas asked to know who, with 
any knowledge of research or interest in scientific exploration, would 
support this. I ask unanimous consent to include statements from the 
Planetary Society, Bristol Myers-Squibb Pharmaceutical Research 
Institute, the American Medical Association, Mount Sinai Medical 
Association, Schering-Plough Research Institute, American Medical 
Women's Association, Baylor College of Medicine, Hauptman-Woodward 
Medical Research Institute, and the Multiple Sclerosis Association of 
America in the Record to answer the concerns of my colleague from 
Arkansas.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 What the Nation's Leading Researchers and Scientists Are Saying About 
                    the International Space Station

       Several years ago, Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray and I (the 
     officers of The Planetary Society) opposed the then-space 
     station plan as serving no national purpose. The present plan 
     is serving national and international interests. For Congress 
     to cancel the space station now would end the rationale for 
     America's manned space program, and with it would die the 
     spirit of a great nation bold enough to seek great 
     achievements.--Carl Sagan and Louis Friedman, The Planetary 
     Society.
       The program of protein crystal growth experiments sponsored 
     by NASA has been one of the real success stories in 
     microgravity sciences and applications. Protein crystal 
     growth research has made much progress, but must now move to 
     the next phase, which requires prolonged access to a 
     microgravity environment with potential for human 
     intervention on a continuing basis. This new phase will 
     require an orbiting platform such as that provided by the 
     International Space Station.--Howard M. Einspahr, Bristol-
     Myers-Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute.
       The AMA supports the continuation of the NASA and other 
     programs for conducting medical research and other research 
     with potential health care benefits on manned space flights, 
     including the continued development and subsequent operation 
     of the international space station.--Policy Adopted by the 
     American Medical Association.
       Through the NASA-NIH linkage, the Space Station has become 
     a vitally important and unique laboratory for biomedical 
     research. In addition to its central role in aerospace 
     engineering and space exploration, the Space Station is an 
     investment in the future of biomedical research.--John W. 
     Rowe, M.D., Mount Sinai Medical Center.
       A commitment to conduct continuous research for longer 
     periods of time in space is also essential. Ultimately, our 
     hope is to be able to crystallize proteins in microgravity, 
     conduct all x-ray data collection experiments in Space and 
     transmit the data to earth for processing. This can only be 
     done in a Space Station.--T. L. Nagabhushan, Ph.D., Schering-
     Plough Research Institute.
       AMWA supports the continuation of funding for NASA's 
     International Space Station because it provides one of the 
     most promising new vistas for medical research on diseases 
     that strike women and have unknown causes or cures.--Dianna 
     L. Dell, M.D., American Medical Women's Association.
       Space laboratories allow scientific experiments that simply 
     cannot be duplicated on Earth. The space station offers the 
     potential of long term studies that are especially exciting 
     to the biomedical researchers seeking to understand how cells 
     grow, divide, and mutate to cause diseases such as cancer and 
     immune deficiencies.--William T. Butler, M.D., Baylor College 
     of Medicine.
       My institute has worked closely with the Center for 
     Macromolecular Crystallography at the University of Alabama 
     at Birmingham to perform two space shuttle crystal growth 
     experiments on the protein recombinant human insulin. It is 
     clear that with the additional capabilities that the Space 
     Station will offer, this type of research will progress at a 
     much more rapid rate. It is also evident to me that the Space 
     Station will offer similar advantages for the many other 
     areas of science that have been proposed for this unique 
     facility.--Herbert A. Hauptman, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate, Pres., 
     Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute. 

[[Page S 14241]]

       NASA's ``cool suit'' literally has changed the lives of 
     some of those suffering from MS. The MSAA is hopeful, as new 
     findings continue to emerge from space-based research and the 
     possibilities that the International Space Station holds. 
     This research could be essential to MS patients.--John G. 
     Hodson, Sr., Multiple Sclerosis Association of America.

  Mr. BOND. I also note that our very distinguished physician Member is 
present. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the space station, and 
I hope to add to this debate with insights from what is a unique 
perspective in this body, that of physician and researcher. Until I was 
elected to represent the State of Tennessee in the Senate, I spent my 
adult life dealing with the daily reality of illness and the 
limitations of our ability, as humans, to diagnose and treat those 
illnesses and to save lives. The limitations I faced as a physician and 
surgeon were numerous: Limitations on the ability of the body to heal 
itself; limitations on the treatments and medicines to augment the 
body's immune system and healing process; limitations on the scope and 
effectiveness of biomedical technology in detecting, diagnosing, and 
treating an illness; and, finally, limitations in funding. It is this 
final limitation which now drives this current debate on the value of 
the space station.
  My colleague from Arkansas has claimed many things in his 
introduction of his amendment, not the least of which is a consensus in 
the scientific community that the possible rewards of space-based 
research are minuscule and do not justify the costs incurred. The 
Senator says that, ``every physicist and physician in the country says 
it is nonsense'' to expect advances in medicine from space-based or 
microgravity research. I disagree. As one physician who believes we can 
reap great rewards from spaced-based research, I suggest that such a 
statement is untrue. As a member of the medical community, who is 
familiar with the opinions on research within that community, I can 
tell you that there are plenty of researchers and physicians who do not 
believe in the merits of microgravity research, and the Senator from 
Arkansas has quoted several of them. As a member of the medical 
community and of the Senate, I can tell you that it is, by no means, 
every one. I dare say that for as many reputable scientists in America 
that do not believe in the value of space-based medical research, we 
could easily find two who hold the opposite opinion, and many of them 
have contacted me.
  I stated moments ago that this debate is about money. The Senator 
from Arkansas says the debate is about priorities. I believe that on 
this point, we are in agreement, and we are both correct. However, the 
conclusions we would draw are markedly different.
  Funding for the space station is has been characterized as being 
based on skewed priorities: that this money is better spent on housing, 
law enforcement, and any other number of pressing domestic needs. The 
implication is that we are facing a zero-sum game where the space 
station is funded at the expense of the poor, of the elderly, or of the 
sick. That, too, is untrue. We in Congress are funding billions and 
billions of dollars worth of programs for the poor, sick, and elderly 
just this year--maybe even more than our constituents want us to 
spend--and we see only rare successes from these grandiose social 
programs.
  I believe that, in fact, funding for the continuation of the space 
station is exactly where our priorities should be: trying to achieve a 
better quality of life for Americans and, potentially, for all humans.
  I would also take a moment to address the question of what has been 
achieved on space platforms so far, and what the goal of establishing 
the space station would be. I am speaking almost solely in terms of 
medical research. The Soviets, and the Russians in turn, have taught us 
quite a bit so far in terms of achieving the engineering feat the space 
station will be. They have also collected massive amounts of 
information on the effects on the human body of the effects of extended 
weightlessness. Finally, they have saved us millions of dollars and 
years of research if, in fact, we would want to launch a mission to 
Mars from a semipermanent platform in space.
  But what is more important to this debate is the fact that the 
Russians have, admittedly, taught us very little about medical research 
in space. Why? Not because they were not seeing the results they wanted 
to from their research in space, but because the medical research the 
Russians were conducting in space lacked the quality and priority our 
own space-based medical research would enjoy. The Russians simply do 
not have the medical infrastructure to support the type of research I 
am talking about, and they have not made such research a priority on 
the Mir space station. It is no wonder that some of the most 
enthusiastic supporters of the cooperative space station program are 
Russians--not because they see a cash cow in our ventures--rather, 
because they believe that, finally, the infrastructure and commitment 
to conduct medical research in space will finally be available.
  Mr. President, the benefits and advancements in medical science and 
technology we can realize from long-term space-based research can be 
divided into three simple categories: First, that which we know is 
immediately or soon achievable; second, those which we can speculate 
about or make an educated guess as to the new possibilities of space-
based research; and third, those achievements and advancements which we 
cannot even begin to assess.
  I will first address the immediate and near term benefits the space 
station can provide in the field of biomedical and life science 
research.
  Support for the space station and space-based research continues to 
grow throughout the medical and research community: the American 
Medical Association, Schering-Plough Research Institute, the Multiple 
Sclerosis Association of America, the American Medical Women's 
Association, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Mount Sinai Medical Center, to 
name a few.
  Space-based research provides unique insights to advance our 
understanding of the heart and lungs, cardio- 
pulmonary research; the growth and maintenance of muscle and bone, 
musclo-skeletal research; the body's ability to sense position and 
maintain balance, neurovestibular research; and the regulation of the 
metabolism, regulatory physiology.
  Space-based researchers can conduct basic and applied research to 
improve the efficiency and reliability of life support systems, such as 
artificial heart valves and pacemakers, or artificial kidneys.
  Space-based research can provide knowledge of protein crystal growth 
physics and kinetics which may lead to improvements in Earth-based 
crystal growth technology and more effective pharmaceutical 
development.
  Another benefit can be realized when using conventional bioreactors 
to culture human cells for cancer research and drug testing because 
cultured cells do not grow in ways representative of how cells develop 
in the human body. In the NASA bioreactor, cells taken from a cancer 
tumor grow and resemble the original tumor, making a much more accurate 
culture available for researchers.
  Additionally, techniques developed for use aboard the space station 
could advance the state-of-the-art growth of tissue samples in the 
laboratory, thus leading to inestimable benefits for medical research.
  Mr. President, this is only an abbreviated list of the immediate and 
near term benefits medicine will experience from space-based research.
  Those benefits to medical research about which we can now only 
speculate are possibly the most exciting and promising of the space 
station's contributions. The benefits of advanced crystal growth 
studies; the ability to observe cell mutation and behavior over the 
long term, without the effects of gravity; and the possibility of 
advanced artificial human tissue growth are extraordinary. The 
implications of the possibilities are nearly limitless: anything from 
cures for cancers and other deadly or debilitating disease, to the 
development of medicines that have crystallin structures which could 
not be achieved in gravity, to the growth of tissues to replace losses 
which would normally kill someone.
  If need be, Mr. President, we can place an actual rough dollar value 
on 

[[Page S 14242]]
such advancements by simply adding up the cost to our economy each year 
incurred by illnesses and loss of life. Personally, I think that is 
rather macabre and beside the point. I believe that the value we can 
place on the known benefits of space-based medical research clearly 
outweigh the costs we now will assume to make the space station a 
reality. If you were to apply a cost-benefit analysis to the space 
station--as we have rightly applied to many federally-funded programs--
I believe it would yield a cost to benefit ratio which could end this 
debate for good.
  Finally, Mr. President, there are advancements in space-based medical 
research which defy both quantification and even qualification in this 
debate. These are the advancements in medical science which we cannot 
even foresee--those which will become hints or reality only when we are 
allowed to explore them fully.
  Some will say these yet-to-be-seen advancements are nothing more than 
fairy tales, or promises wildly beyond what we can possibly deliver, or 
even myths produced in an attempt to justify costs which those of us 
who back the space station cannot currently justify.
  However, I will remind my colleagues that throughout history it has 
been the unforeseen, unplanned benefits of technological advancement 
that have most often proven to be our greatest rewards. I believe that 
even the possibilities of such watersheds in advancement of medical 
science and unforeseen benefits are compelling enough to pursue the 
program further. Just as the medieval scholars could not speculate on 
the profound changes and advancements of the upcoming Renaissance, we 
cannot even guess what we might soon discover.
  Mr. President, I believe we truly are approaching a renaissance in 
medicine and technology with the advent of space-based research, and it 
is exciting as a physician, as well as simply on a human level, to know 
that much of these advancements could come within my lifetime or those 
of my children.
  The bottom line, Mr. President, is that not only can we make a direct 
link between space-based research and improvements in the human 
condition and quality of life, but also, I feel, we can be confident 
that some of the greatest benefits and advancements have yet to be 
seen.
  I believe that advancing the space station program is not pie in the 
sky, so to speak, but money very well spent. It represents the 
opportunity for great advancements in our quality of life and an 
unparalleled opportunity for international cooperation. I believe that 
we have made many difficult but correct decisions concerning the 
funding of the space program and space-based research specifically, and 
I urge my colleagues to continue that series of good decisions by 
defeating the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator 
Bumpers, in support of the amendment we have placed before the Senate 
and is the pending amendment.
  Senator Bumpers and I have collaborated in the past to eliminate 
Federal projects that the Federal taxpayers simply cannot afford in 
these tight budgetary constraints. We were successful in halting 
Federal funding for the super collider, a project whose astronomical 
expense made it a simply unfeasible program in this era of tight 
budgets.
  Mr. President, at a time when Congress is struggling to balance the 
Federal budget, we think it is irresponsible to exempt from any cuts 
NASA's $90 billion-plus program to complete the building of a space 
station.
  There are genuine questions about whether this space station can be 
built on the schedule and for the cost that NASA currently claims. 
Schedule and costs are inextricably connected. If the schedule is not 
met, then the costs will increase.
  There is a major and fundamental question here. Can the timetable to 
build the station, with all of the spacewalks that will be needed to 
assemble the structure, be achieved on schedule?
  Mr. President, NASA is expecting 73 launches to take place on time 
and in sequence over 55 months. Flexibility will not be possible 
because each flight will bring a specific piece of hardware that must 
be attached in a specific order. The assembly sequence cannot endure 
manufacturing delays, launch delays or launch failures.
  I remind my colleagues, that delays mean more costs.
  Mr. President, the number of spacewalks needed to assemble the space 
station has risen significantly in the past year. Reliance on these 
walks increases the risk that the timetable to build the structure will 
not be achieved. Thus, building the space station will be a very risky 
endeavor given the demanding schedule to complete the station and have 
it permanently occupied by 1998.
  Mr. President, Russia and Canada are to have major roles in the 
timely development of the space station. Yet, the involvement of these 
two nations adds critical elements of risk.
  NASA assumes that, with one exception Russia will provide its 
hardware and services as a partner, on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. At 
this time, it may be premature to assume that Russia will not charge 
for anything given the economic problems confronting the country.
  Canada has cut back its contribution to the space station program and 
will not decide until 1997 whether to build the final portion of the 
robotic servicing system that will be used in assembling and 
maintaining the station. Canada is building the arm, but has not 
decided on whether to build the special purpose dextrous manipulator 
that fits at the end of the arm--the fingers. If Canada does not build 
the fingers, then NASA will have to find the funds to build this 
expensive piece of equipment.
  Mr. President, the price tag today for this project is $93.9 billion. 
I have no doubt that this figure will be increasing dramatically once 
more hardware is built, space shuttle launches are delayed, spacewalks 
are increased, and the Russians and Canadians fail to live up to their 
commitments.
  Total spending on the space station from 1985 to 1993 added up to 
about $11.2 billion, and all we have to show for this are diagrams and 
designs.
  Mr. President, it is time for Congress to cancel funding of the space 
station. Let us not embark on an elaborate and expensive journey into 
space until we meet the challenges confronting American taxpayers on 
Earth.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bumpers 
amendment to terminate funding for the space station. It seems to me 
that we have answered the question of whether or not to proceed with 
this historic endeavor. Year after year the Congress has endorsed the 
outreach to space. And we have done so for the right reasons--the space 
station represents the next logical step of man's exploration of the 
universe and it represents the next logical step for understanding our 
own world.
  I will not try and reiterate the many sound reasons for continuing 
this important program. They have been presented in great and 
compelling detail. But I would offer another reason which was recently 
brought to my attention by Ambassador Pickering, our envoy to Russia. 
Clearly the Russians are in dire need of hard currency. Should the 
United States default on our commitment of cooperation with Russia on 
this project, Russia will necessarily look elsewhere--to Iran or Iraq--
nations who have demonstrated a clear desire to possess and proliferate 
technology and weapons of mass destruction. Cooperation with the United 
States on space station is vital to Russian needs for hard currency. 
And the United States will get fare more in exchange--both in 
technology and in stability.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to reject the Bumpers amendment, preserve 
our outreach to the stars, and keep a mindful eye on commitments made 
for the purpose of keeping peace and stability in these difficult 
times.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by 
the senior Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. President, once again we find ourselves debating the merits of 
the space station. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas again tells 
us that America should abandon its commitment as the leader of this 
historic endeavor.
  Supporters of this amendment say we simply cannot afford to continue 
funding the space station. Mr. President, I ask you, Can we afford not 
to? 

[[Page S 14243]]

  History tells us that mankind is destined to explore beyond the 
bounds of this tiny planet. The question is not whether we should take 
the next logical step. The question is: ``Will we lead or will we 
follow?'' I believe the United States is destined to lead.
  Leadership, Mr. President, requires commitment. America's relatively 
small investment in the space station demonstrates our commitment to 
the future of technology in space. It also demonstrates our commitment 
to our international partners who have joined with us to make this 
dream a reality.
  Abandoning the space station at this late date not only squanders our 
initial investment, but it tells our partners that they can no longer 
depend on us to meet our commitment to international space exploration. 
Our credibility among the space faring nations depends on our actions 
today.
  Mr. President, a leader must also have vision and vision is 
meaningless without the courage to fulfill its promise. When we began 
funding this project, we set out on a journey that held out great 
promise and it continues to do so. Again, we hear from those who do not 
share our vision and are content to quit.
  Opponents suggest that 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. Not only do they fail to 
recognize the enormous potential of space research and exploration, but 
they are content to sacrifice the promise of a better tomorrow for the 
failed programs of today.
  Mr. President, 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. The space station 
holds that promise.
  Mr. President, the space station has a legitimate mission, an 
impressive design and a plan to achieve its goals. Granted, it has had 
its difficulties, but all great endeavors will meet with obstacles. 
Although the space station faces more challenges, NASA is prepared now, 
more than ever, to meet those challenges. This unprecedented example of 
international cooperation is now on schedule, on budget and is worthy 
of our support.
  So, I ask my colleagues that share the vision of space exploration to 
join me in reaffirming our country's commitment to our future by 
opposing this shortsighted attempt to strip funding from the space 
station.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
international space station and in opposition to the amendment offered 
by my colleague, Senator Bumpers. The space station is not only a 
valuable scientific program, but it is a symbol of our Nation's 
commitment to investing in the future.
  More than a quarter of a century ago, the most awe-inspiring words 
were uttered by Neil Armstrong, ``That's one small step for man, one 
giant leap for mankind.'' Those words, delivered from the Moon's 
surface when the Apollo 11 lunar module landed in 1969, resounded 
around the globe. Each and every American whose ears were graced with 
that message, was filled with pride and honor.
  That day in our past served as an inspiration. It showcased the 
technological leadership of the United States, the great will of the 
American people, and the courage of our space pioneers which combined 
to produce a defining moment in history. That mission set the stage for 
several other Apollo missions which sent astronauts to the Moon. It 
served as a precursor to Skylab, the first U.S. space station, launched 
in the early 1970's. And, it led the way for the space shuttle program.
  With each mission, we learn more and more about life sciences, 
materials sciences, Earth sciences, engineering research and 
technology, and commercial development. Also with each new mission we 
explore the unknown and make discoveries that ultimately help improve 
life here on Earth.
  The international space station will have a laboratory to conduct 
experiments and do research on a wide variety of subjects. Astronauts 
will be able to conduct long-duration microgravity investigations, 
which will allow scientists to look deeper into the mechanics of cell 
functions, combustion, liquid behavior, crystallization, and electro-
magnetics. In addition, research that would take place on the space 
station could lead to cures for life-threatening diseases, lower 
pharmaceutical costs, and better prepare astronauts for the rigors of 
space travel.
  Opponents of the space station argue that these justifications for 
the space station cannot hold up to scrutiny. They suggest that 
economic and scientific spinoffs are not applicable for life here on 
Earth. In fact, the opposite is true. Scientific research and 
experiments conducted on the international space station do have real 
life applications here on Earth. Space-based research has led to a 
variety of innovations and technological advances that have, and 
continue to benefit people every day. Included among them are: Long-
distance telephone networks; international TV broadcasts; car chassis 
and brake designs; heart monitors for ambulances; structural designs 
for bridges; laser surgery in hospitals; programmable pacemakers; 
navigational systems for airplanes; and long-range weather 
forecasting--just to name a few.
  Research conducted on the space station will have other important 
applications in the lives of average Americans. In the biotechnology 
field, scientists on the international space station will conduct 
research on tissue culture studies to gain knowledge of normal and 
cancerous tissue development and to discover treatments and cures to 
diseases. They will also study protein crystal growth to design 
pharmaceuticals which block proteins which could lead to the 
development of an AIDS vaccine or cure. Additionally, research on 
droplet/pool burning will help improve understanding of fire 
propagation for improved fire safety.
  The field of fluid physics will also benefit. Scientists will conduct 
research on interface dynamics to improve industrial films and 
coatings, oil spill recovery techniques, tracking of ground water 
contaminants, and processing of semiconductor crystals. At the same 
time, their research will cover cloud formation microphysics, which is 
useful to meteorologists for improved weather predictions.
  Scientists will study electronic materials to investigate the vapor 
phase of crystal growth. This will help produce much higher efficiency 
and density optoelectronics for the communications industry. Also, 
epitaxy liquid phase molecular and beam vapor phase will be studied to 
evaluate high speed switching devices and high density memory. This 
will help to produce smaller, more affordable super computers.
  Scientists will also study environmental health to develop improved 
air and water quality sensors, analyzers, and filtering devices. In 
addition, they will examine automated microbiology systems which 
enhance identification of bacteria population. They will conduct 
engineering research and technology development to support enhanced 
designs for firefighting suits, toxic waste cleanup suits, and deep sea 
divers equipment.
  It is clear that scientific research and experiments like those 
listed above have real life applications here on Earth. At the same 
time, investments in space create valuable economic returns as well. 
Each dollar invested in space programs yields up to $9 in new products, 
technologies, and processes here at home.
  The international space station program also generates more than 
14,000 direct jobs--5,400 of them in my home State of California. 
Indirectly, 40,000 jobs nationwide have been created because of space 
station-related activities. At a time when the country--and California 
in particular--has been impacted by defense downsizing and base 
closures, the space station is an important source of economic 
activity. It is defense conversion at its best and creates new jobs for 
former defense and aerospace workers.
  Aside from the enormous benefits to science, medical research, and 
technology, the space station helps to maintain U.S. leadership in 
space and enhances global competitiveness. It also serves as a source 
of inspiration and encouragement for our children, fostering the next 
generation of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. 

[[Page S 14244]]

  As a powerful symbol of U.S. leadership in a changing world, the 
space station represents an international commitment. Our original 
international partners--Japan, Canada, and Europe--have already 
committed $9 billion to the space station program, and are counting on 
America's continued leadership in space.
  Moreover, with the Russians added to the international partnership, 
the space station has proven to be a test bed for scientific research 
and technological development, while uniting former adversaries in 
peaceful cooperation. Just 6 years ago, this would have been 
unthinkable.
  By asking Russia to join the international space station, the United 
States can channel the Russian aerospace industry into nonmilitary 
pursuits. This gives us more leverage to reduce the risk of nuclear 
proliferation and enhances the United States goals of private sector 
development and demilitarization in Russia. In addition, an 
international space station will use existing Russian space technology, 
capability, expertise, and hardware to build a better space station for 
less money.
  In closing, I would like for you to imagine, if you would, had the 
early pioneers not forged west to explore the frontier. If, for 
instance, in 1803 the Louisiana Purchase had not been completed for $15 
million--which at that time was a large sum of money. The frontier 
purchased in that deal now includes 15 States and generates $200 
billion in Federal taxes annually. The returns on that investment have 
more than paid for the original purchase.
  Let us, for a moment, consider Alaska, which, in 1867, was purchased 
for $7.2 million. At the time it was purchased, Secretary of State 
Seward was derided and mocked for negotiating the terms with Russia. 
Now, we know that Alaska's oil reserves exceed $125 billion, and no one 
has stepped forward to suggest we reverse that transaction.
  The United States must continue its exploration in space with the 
next logical step--a permanently staffed space station. The 
international space station will lead the world toward great advances 
in space exploration. At present, all of the returns on our investment 
in space have yet to reach fruition. We have yet to realize all the 
treasures that are held within the vast resources of space. We have 
learned, however, of its benefits to science and medical research. We 
know that it bolsters global competitiveness and U.S. leadership in 
space. We are also aware of its economic spinoffs, job creating 
capacity and source of inspiration to future generations. I am 
confident that this research will continue to exceed our imaginative 
grasp and reap real benefits that are applicable here on Earth.
  For these reasons, I strongly support the international space station 
and urge my colleagues to oppose the Bumpers smendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the space program is an investment in our 
Nation's future. A commitment to continued space exploration means a 
commitment to providing for the prosperity and wealth of future 
generations. No one can predict the exact outcome of our investment in 
the international space station, but I believe that the continued 
exploration of space will present many positive opportunities.
  First, the space program will provide significant contributions to 
the well-being of mankind, both in America and around the world. We 
have already seen the results of space-related research in life 
sciences, and the potential for expansion and further development is 
virtually limitless.
  Second, we must consider our Nation's leadership role in high-
technology activities and international competitiveness. The areospace 
industry is a significant area of international competitiveness, and we 
should support our space program if we desire to maintain and enhance 
our position as a world leader in space science and exploration.
  Third, the case today for such activities is even more compelling as 
we work on space projects in a collaborative and multinational manner, 
especially with the Europeans, Japanese, and Russians. International 
participation in the program contributes to increased cooperation and 
stability with participating partners, and the space station can be a 
constructive and tangible example of international cooperation at a new 
and more exciting level. We have the opportunity to accelerate the pace 
of our technological and space exploration as well as the strength of 
our good relations with our friendly competitors.
  Mr. President, I believe that these are compelling reasons for the 
continued support of space exploration. The international space station 
is an integral part of our space program. We must invest in our future, 
and we must invest in ourselves.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today, I lend my voice to the advocates of 
project space station. In order to frame this debate for my colleagues, 
I want to pose a few rhetorical questions. What are the critical issues 
surrounding space station on the Senate floor? Is it scientific worth? 
Is it an issue of foreign policy, or national priority? The answer to 
each is yes. But the underlying discontent that many of my colleagues 
harbor is not the scope or importance of space station--rather, it is 
the cost.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I fully and unequivocally 
support balancing the Federal budget by 2002. That task is not only a 
fiscal imperative, it is a moral one on which the future of this 
country depends. Ironically, that is where space station fits squarely 
in this debate. Balancing the budget is an imperative. Beginning the 
groundwork for America's future scientific operations may, in fact, 
help us do just that. Take, for example, research in cardiovascular 
disease. As my colleagues know, heart disease is the leading cause of 
death in both men and women in the United States. One in four Americans 
suffer from cardiovascular disease, costing this country an estimated 
$138 billion in medical expenses and lost productivity annually; $138 
billion annually is not a small figure--it is, in fact, devastating. 
The conditions provided in space, and on space station in particular, 
will allow our doctors and scientists to see a heart functioning in 
microgravity. conditions for an extended duration, something not 
replicable on Earth or the space shuttle. NASA's work on how space 
flight affects blood pressure is aiding scientists to understand the 
complex and sophisticated operations of the heart and circulatory 
system. As gravity lessens, the body's blood pressure controls are 
altered and change. High blood pressure is a major problem for the 
general population of the United States. The opportunities for long 
duration space flight on the space station will provide a laboratory 
for extensive and complex research on blood pressure control and how it 
is affected by the presence or absence of gravity.

  What does this all mean? If 1 percent of that $138 billion can be 
reduced, or even one-tenth of 1 percent, we will have significantly 
reduced some of the massive costs incurred in our battle against this 
terrible, and prevalent, disease.
  By January 1995, 25,000 pounds worth of space station was built. By 
the end of this year, that poundage strides to 100,000. Upon 
completion, the space station will stretch 361 across and 290 feet 
long, with a total weight of 925,000 pounds. Orbiting 230 nautical 
miles above the Earth, it will be accessible to the launch vehicles of 
all its international partners. And with Boeing as the new prime 
contractor, space station is on schedule, and meeting all of its 
critical milestones. Perhaps more importantly, its annual cost has been 
fixed at $2.1 billion--according to NASA that represents less than 15 
percent of the organization's total budget.
  That being said, $2.1 billion is still a significant amount of money 
to be spent, particularly with the Republican goal of bringing the 
country out of its current fiscal mess. Yet I fully support space 
station, and its mission, because I believe the benefits associated 
with this program will be important, numerous and hopefully more 
rewarding than we can predict. From crystalline proteins to the 
research in osteoporosis, space station has the potential, and I 
believe certainty, to deliver important scientific discoveries 
impossible to replicate or produce here on Earth. Does that justify the 
cost? Absolutely. If the cure for one disease--just one disease--is 
found, and that if may not be as big as some of my colleagues assert, 
we will have paid for space station and all its associated costs, 
fully.

[[Page S 14245]]

  Mr. BOND. I conclude my remarks by just saying that this country must 
invest in its future. A research laboratory in space can provide 
unimaginable benefits to the American people. The space station is the 
only facility where research can be conducted for long durations in 
microgravity. The unique environment has only begun to be explored 
scientifically. American taxpayers are certain to benefit just as they 
have from other basic research, probably in ways we can never expect.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the remaining time to our very 
distinguished colleague from Ohio, the former astronaut.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator.
  The Senator from Arkansas is as accomplished an orator as we have I 
think in the whole Congress. He would come closer to equaling Daniel 
Webster, I think, than anyone around here in his ability to give an 
oration.
  Back in 1852, when we were thinking of buying some territory out West 
from Mexico, Daniel Webster rose in the Senate--he was opposed to 
that--and said as follows:

       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 and cactus and prairie dogs? To what use 
     could we ever hope to put these great deserts or the 
     mountains that are 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 rock-bound, cheerless, uninviting, and 
     not a harbor on it? What use have we for this country? Mr. 
     President, I will never vote one cent from the Public 
     Treasury to place the Pacific coast one inch nearer to Boston 
     than it is now.

  Madam President, I think probably the view that Daniel Webster took 
of that acquisition of territory west of the Mississippi is a little 
bit like the Senator from Arkansas proposes now with regard to the 
station.
  I wish to see something come out of the station. We already have 
things coming out of the preparation to even have a station. As the 
floor manager mentioned just a moment ago, we do not even have the 
station up yet. So to say that that is not producing is exactly right. 
It is true. It is in the process of being put up. Over one-fourth of it 
has already been built, 50,000 pounds by our country, 60,000 pounds by 
other people. Less than seven-tenths of 1 percent of our budget is the 
total cost of the space station project right now.
  From what we can see from the space shuttle with the cultures of 
crystals and of the experiments that have already been done on growing 
culture, culturing colon cancer cells, breast cancer cells, ovarian 
cells, what can be done with regard to AIDS, the experiments with 
regard to osteoporosis, right now a solution to any one of those would 
be more than worth all of the money that we are putting into this. This 
is an investment for the future.
  To say that every scientist and physicist is against it is just not 
true. My distinguished colleague read into the Record a few moments ago 
a partial list of those who are for it--the American Medical 
Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research 
Council, and so on.
  This is one country that should have learned throughout its whole 
history that money spent on space research usually has a way of paying 
off in advance--more than anything we ever see at the outset. And with 
this being the first time we have ever had the ability to do 
microgravity research, it has the greatest potential payoff also.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 10 seconds.
  Mr. GLENN. I have 10 seconds remaining. I yield back the remainder of 
my time. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

                          ____________________