[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 27, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9557-H9566]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 228 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 228

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1601) to authorize appropriations to the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop, 
     assemble, and operate the International Space Station. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the 
     bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be considered as read. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this 

[[Page H 9558]]

resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. PRYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring to the floor of 
the House today a straightforward open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1601, the International Space Station 
Authorization Act of 1995.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Science, after which time the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Science, now printed in the bill, as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment, and provides that each 
section shall be considered as read.
  The rule also accords priority in recognition to Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Any such 
amendments shall be considered as read.
  Finally, the rule permits one motion to recommit the bill, with or 
without instructions, as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us makes in order a very important piece 
of legislation which, by many accounts, could be called the Space 
Station Stability, Credibility, and Accountability Act.
  H.R. 1601 restores a sense of stability to the Nation's space program 
by recommending a full-program, multiyear authorization of all funds 
needed to complete assembly of the space station by the year 2002. By 
reducing the need for yearly authorizations, H.R. 1601 signals 
Congress' strong commitment to completing the international space 
station on-time and just as importantly, on-budget.
  H.R. 1601 also restores credibility to the space station program by 
declaring our Nation's intent to honor commitments to our international 
partners in this historic joint effort.
  While the United States has clearly led the effort to design, 
construct, and operate the space station, this legislation recognizes 
that the continued support and participation of our international 
partners is essential to making space station Alpha a success.
  Finally, the bill brings a welcome degree of accountability to the 
American people by requiring the Administrator of NASA to certify 
annually to Congress that the space station is on schedule and capable 
of staying within its budget.
  The bill requires NASA to provide Congress each year with a full 
accounting of all costs associated with the space station, including 
payments which are made to Russia. In these budget-conscious times, 
Congress must ensure that the taxpayers are getting their money's 
worth.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the space station was significantly redesigned 
in order to reduce costs and simplify its management structure. H.R. 
1601 continues that spirit of fiscal responsibility by capping the 
funds which may be appropriated in one fiscal year during the multiyear 
authorization.
  However, spending on the space station would still be subject to the 
annual appropriations process--an important point to keep in mind as we 
further discuss budget priorities.
  While Americans eagerly await the completion of this historic chapter 
in human spaceflight, Congress still has the obligation to review and 
debate the costs involved. H.R. 1601 offers the House a clear-cut, up-
or-down vote on whether we will reaffirm our commitment to building the 
space station or if we will resign ourselves to lesser goals for the 
future of human space exploration.
  Mr. Speaker, Chairman Walker and the members of the Science Committee 
have put together a very responsible bill, and under the open rule, 
Members will have the opportunity to freely debate the many issues 
associated with the space station, not the least of which is its 
pricetag.
  Although an amendment offered by our colleague from Indiana, Mr. 
Roemer, to cancel the space station was defeated in the Science 
Committee, such an amendment can be brought before the entire House 
under this completely open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that House Resolution 228 is a simple, 
straightforward open rule. It was approved unanimously by the Rules 
Committee last week, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to give it their full support.
  Mr. Speaker, I include material compiled by the Committee on Rules 
for the Record, as follows:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                           [As of September 27, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 50                 74
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 15                 22
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  3                  4
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 68                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                           [As of September 27, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/   
 95).                                                              Protection Act.            95).              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95).              


                                                                                                                

[[Page H 9559]]
                    SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS--Continued                    
                                           [As of September 27, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95).     
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95).              
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95).              
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95). 
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/   
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.        95).              
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95).              
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95).    
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95).              
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95).    
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95).    
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95).    
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95).    
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95).              
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95).    
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95).    
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95).    
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95).    
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    PQ: 242-185 A:     
 95).                                                              1996.                      voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 190 (7/17/    O...................  H.R. 2020...........  Treasury/Postal Approps.   PQ: 232-192 A:     
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 193 (7/19/    C...................  H.J. Res. 96........  Disapproval of MFN to      A: voice vote (7/20/
 95).                                                              China.                     95).              
H. Res. 194 (7/19/    O...................  H.R. 2002...........  Transportation Approps.    PQ: 217-202 (7/21/ 
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95).              
H. Res. 197 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 70.............  Exports of Alaskan Crude   A: voice vote (7/24/
 95).                                                              Oil.                       95).              
H. Res. 198 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 2076...........  Commerce, State Approps.   A: voice vote (7/25/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95).              
H. Res. 201 (7/25/    O...................  H.R. 2099...........  VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996..  A: 230-189 (7/25/  
 95).                                                                                         95) .             
H. Res. 204 (7/28/    MC..................  S. 21...............  Terminating U.S. Arms      A: voice vote (8/1/
 95).                                                              Embargo on Bosnia.         95).              
H. Res. 205 (7/28/    O...................  H.R. 2126...........  Defense Approps. FY 1996.  A: 409-1 (7/31/95).
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1555...........  Communications Act of      A: 255-156 (8/2/   
                                                                   1995.                      95).              
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 2127...........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY     A: 323-104 (8/2/   
                                                                   1996.                      95).              
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)  O...................  H.R. 1594...........  Economically Targeted      A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Investments.               95).              
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1655...........  Intelligence               A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Authorization FY 1996.     95).              
H. Res. 218 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1162...........  Deficit Reduction Lockbox  A: voice vote (9/13/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 219 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1670...........  Federal Acquisition        A: 414-0 (9/13/95).
 95).                                                              Reform Act.                                  
H. Res. 222 (9/18/    O...................  H.R. 1617...........  CAREERS Act..............  A: 388-2 (9/19/95).
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 224 (9/19/    O...................  H.R. 2274...........  Natl. Highway System.....  PQ: 241-173 A: 375-
 95).                                                                                         39-1 (9/20/95).   
H. Res. 225 (9/19/    MC..................  H.R. 927............  Cuban Liberty & Dem.       A: 304-118 (9/20/  
 95).                                                              Solidarity.                95).              
H. Res. 226 (9/21/    O...................  H.R. 743............  Team Act.................  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/ 
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 227 (9/21/    O...................  H.R. 1170...........  3-Judge Court............  ...................
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 228 (9/21/    O...................  H.R. 1601...........  Internatl. Space Station.  ...................
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. ____ (9/27/   C...................  H.J. Res. 108.......  Continuing Resolution FY   ...................
 95).                                                              1996.                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my fellow 
Ohioan, Ms. Pryce, as well as my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle for bringing this rule to the floor.
  House Resolution 228 is an open rule which will allow full and fair 
debate on H.R. 1601, a bill to authorize appropriations to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop, assemble, and operate 
the international space station.
  As my colleague from Ohio has ably described, this rule provides 1 
hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science.
  Under the rule, germane amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute 
rule, the normal amending process in the House. All Members, on both 
sides of the aisle, will have the opportunity to offer amendments. I am 
pleased that the Rules Committee reported this rule by voice vote 
without opposition and urge its adoption.
  The international space station will expand our knowledge of the 
universe and assist a wise range of scientific programs. By forming a 
partnership with other nations, we will help defray some costs and 
foster closer relations between our peoples.
  The bill provides authorization levels through fiscal year 2002. This 
will give the project needed stability, while still allowing 
congressional oversight through the annual appropriations process.
  Mr. Speaker, this open rule will permit full discussion of these 
issues and given Members an opportunity to amend the bill. I urge 
adoption of the rule.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1601 and full 
program authorization for the international space station.
  This past summer the attention of America was once again captured by 
the thrilling story of Apollo 13. The only thing more incredible than 
the story this movie told, was the fact that it is all true--that over 
20 years ago, this Nation was united in the greatest technological leap 
the human race had ever undertaken.
  All of America was rightly proud of our astronauts and the thousands 
of dedicated workers that sent them to the Moon and brought them home 
safely.
  We now have a chance to revive that spirit, and display the vision of 
a better future and the leadership of mankind, that has always made 
America great. The international space station is that future.
  And while the space station represents the dreams of our children, it 
is no idle fantasy. To date over 48,000 pounds of station hardware has 
been completed and production remains ahead of schedule. The first 
launch of this hardware is scheduled for November 1997, aboard a 
Russian Proton rocket.
  The United States, and especially the people of Utah, have always 
been pioneers. And I think I've heard someone say, ``space, is the 
final frontier.'' I, for one, believe that Americans should continue to 
lead the world into the new millennium. And while we will--and must--
lead the way, we will not be alone. Many of our allies in the European 
Community, Canada, Japan, and Russia are making very significant 
contributions of people, hardware and financial support. This spirit of 
a new cooperation in space was never more clearly demonstrated than 
last June when the space shuttle Altantis docked with the Russian space 
station Mir and returned to Earth with two Russian 

[[Page H 9560]]

cosmonauts and American astronaut Norm Thagard.
  However, even with the critical support provided by our international 
partners, it will always require America's technological expertise, 
international leadership, and can-do attitude to make this vision a 
success. Let us now send a clear message to our partners in space that 
America will proudly accept the mantle of leadership.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the future of the human race, 
and to vote for continued American leadership. I urge you all to vote 
for rule and the international space station and support H.R. 1601.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], a valuable new Member of the 
Congress.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this rule and in 
support of H.R. 1601, the 7-year authorization of the international 
space station.
  We, here in Congress, are about the important work of the people's 
business, work like protecting and preserving Medicare for our senior 
citizens, balancing our budget and meaningful welfare reform that 
restores the value of hard work and family.
  But although those issues are very, very important, I know that those 
are not the issues that allow our children to dream about the future, 
and it is things like our space program, and I can say that not only 
from talking to my daughter and children in my district when I talk to 
them about our space program, but also I know that from experience 
because I one day as a young man was able to watch programs like 
Mercury and Apollo and dream someday of being a part of that, myself.
  This international space station program, I think, is the next 
logical step for our space program, and it is amazingly on budget and 
on time, which is truly a rarity for the institution that we work in.
  Each year, the Congress has consistently voted in support of our 
space station, and each year the numbers have grown and grown and 
grown. This year, as the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio alluded 
to, the number was again very, very high, almost 2-to-1 voting in 
support of our space station.
  We now have before us a rule on a bill to authorize this so we no 
longer are getting in the process of redebating this over and over 
again. I think this is a good rule. It allows for amendments. It allows 
for open debate. I thoroughly support it.
  I think the MIR docking mission that my colleague from Utah was 
speaking of earlier clearly shows that the United States has the 
ability to proceed with this program. The question before us is: Do we 
have the will? From the previous votes in this body, it has been 
demonstrated that clearly the will is there, and I applaud my 
colleagues on the Committee on Science who have brought this final bill 
to the floor for a vote. I applaud my colleagues on the Committee on 
Rules on this rule.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule and support the 
final bill in passage.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Rules 
Committee for its decision allowing a 1-hour open rule to debate H.R. 
1601, the multiyear authorization of the international space station. 
In giving preference to amendments preprinted in the Congressional 
Record, the committee has made our efforts family-friendly, which we 
can all appreciate. Finally, the Rules Committee's decisions give us 
the change for a fair and open discussion of the space station, its 
benefits, and the need for a multiyear authorization.
  The international space station is about America's future. With an 
orbiting space station, the United States will have long term access to 
the unique environment of space, which will enable us to conduct 
cutting-edge research in the life and microgravity sciences that we 
cannot do on earth. The space shuttle has been an excellent platform 
from which to conduct research into medicines, materials, and physical 
processes, but our research capabilities are now bumping against the 
shuttle's most significant limitation as a research platform: time. The 
shuttle cannot stay in orbit for more than a few days and flight 
opportunities occur only a few times every year. So, we cannot conduct 
the kinds of long-term experiments necessary to push the state of our 
knowledge to the next level. By operating as a continually manned-
platform, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, the space station will solve 
that problem. With a functioning space station, we can look forward to 
breakthroughs in crystal formation, medical research, biological 
behavior, materials science, and a host of other disciplines that will 
improve our standard of living.
  That's why members of The Seniors Coalition wrote me to express their 
support for the space station and the benefits it will bring to the 
study of aging. That's why the Multiple Sclerosis Association of 
America supports the space station and the potential research benefits 
it will bring to children afflicted by MS. That's why the American 
Medical Women's Association is in favor of the space station and all 
the opportunities it creates to improve women's health.
  The space station program we are considering now is not the same one 
that NASA began in 1984. This space station is managed under a 
streamlined singled-prime contractor scheme that reduces bureaucracy 
and saves money. This space station is capped at $2.1 billion per year, 
less than 15 percent of NASA's annual budget. The station will cost 
$13.2 billion to complete in 2002, by which time it will have already 
begun producing the research results that will benefit every American. 
The space station program we are dealing with today is on budget and on 
schedule for orbital assembly to begin in 1997. American companies and 
our foreign partners have already built over 48,000 pounds of hardware. 
This space station program is a success.
  H.R. 1601, the multiyear space station authorization, will provide 
the funding stability that ensure the space station remains on budget 
and on schedule. In past years, constant redesigns and rescopings 
denied the station that stability and caused delays and cost increases. 
This Congress must not allow that to happen again. We fulfill our role 
by providing NASA the resources it needs to do the job right, and then 
by demanding the accountability and responsible management that the 
space station program is currently demonstrating. We begin doing our 
part by passing H.R. 1601.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 228 and rule 
XXII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1601.

                              {time}  1921


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
1601) to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration to develop, assemble, and operate the 
international space station, with Mr. Hobson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Space and Aeronautics.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1601, the 
International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995. Many have risen 
to explain the benefits of the space station today in this Chamber and 
on numerous occasions in the past. I will not repeat those reasons 
here. Instead, I will explain why H.R. 1601 is an important part of 
enabling us to realize those benefits.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania and I cosponsored this bill because 
it places NASA and the space station on the path of fiscal 
responsibility. For years, NASA and the White House have been hard-
pressed to settle on a space station design and budget that Congress 
could support. NASA has finally rectified that problem through a series 
of positive steps, that make the international step station an 
excellent foundation on which to build the future of our civilian space 
program.

[[Page H 9561]]

  First, NASA finalized the design into its current form, which 
includes participation from Europe, Japan, and Canada. The Russians are 
full partners in the international space station, giving us access to 
their advanced space hardware, their space industrial base, and their 
years of experience of living and working in space. With the Russians 
and Europeans as partners, NASA has designed a space station that will 
cost the American taxpayers less than its predecessors and have nearly 
double the capacity.
  Second, NASA streamlined management of the space station program by 
placing the program under a single prime contractor. This reduced 
bureaucratic and contractor overhead and improved management, enabling 
NASA to build the station under a budget cap of $2.1 billion a year, 
about 15 percent of its annual debt.
  Third, NASA has begun exploring means of commercializing and 
privatizing space station operations to lower operational costs. NASA 
has gone so far as to begin discussions with companies that design 
business parks to see which concepts they can apply to the station's 
future in space. H.R. 1601 encourages this process by making station 
commercialization a provision of law.
  As a result of these actions, the station is on time and on budget. 
We have built over 48,000 pounds of hardware for delivery to orbit and 
will launch the first station element in 1997.
  Taken in its entirety, H.R. 1601 authorizes $13.1 billion to complete 
and operate the space station through final assembly in fiscal year 
2002. H.R. 1601 also includes an annual cap of $2.1 billion for the 
space station. The multiyear authorization gives NASA the financial and 
programmatic stability it needs to complete the station on time and on 
budget, while the annual cap forces NASA to maintain its fiscal 
discipline. H.R. 1601 and the space station are NASA's highest priority 
and fall well within our own plans to balance the Federal budget within 
the next 7 years.
  The space station is about our future. It is about progress, and 
improving the technological seed corn of future economic growth. We 
need it. H.R. 1601 is about fiscal responsibility; about stepping up to 
our obligation as legislators to enable bureaucracies to do those 
things we ask them to do with greater efficiency and effectiveness. The 
American people have made it clear that they support our future in 
space. And we made it clear that we heard them when this Congress 
rejected 2 attempts to cancel the space station by huge margins of 173 
and 153 votes. Now it is the time to provide the stability needed to 
achieve the efficiencies and savings that Americans demand from their 
Government by passing H.R. 1601.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it comes as no surprise to anyone in this 
Chamber that I am prepared to speak on behalf of the space station 
program. I have supported this program in the past, in good times and 
bad, and I will continue to do so.
  You will hear many speakers today describe the importance of the 
space station, and you may also hear from a few Members who believe 
that the money could better be used elsewhere. I obviously don't agree 
with that latter group of Members, but I respect their right to be 
wrong on this issue. And I assure them that they will receive time to 
speak.
  Why do I continue to support the space station? There are many 
reasons that I could give. First, the station is a fundamental part of 
the Nation's space program and it is the logical next step in human 
spaceflight. I my years on the Space Subcommittee, I have become even 
more certain that the space station is a key element of a balanced 
program of space exploration, scientific research, and practical 
applications.
  Second, the space station program helps the Nation maintain and 
strengthen its pool of skilled scientific and technological talent--
which will be so critical to our economic competitiveness in the 21st 
century.
  Third, the space station represents the most significant cooperative, 
cost-sharing undertaking in science and technology probably in the 
history of the world. The United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and 
Canada are all working together and sharing the cost of this program. 
It is an approach that makes good sense, and one which will strengthen 
the bonds between these nations and certainly has a very good product.
  Finally, and for me, most importantly, research conducted on the 
space station offers the promise of helping us to make significant 
advances in our understanding of terrestrial diseases and medical 
conditions that have afflicted our people--young and old--male and 
female.
  Over the past 3 years, the Space Subcommittee has held a series of 
hearings on the potential benefits of biomedical research conducted in 
space. I chaired those hearings, and I am here to report that the 
results achieved to date from the limited research that can be done on 
the shuttle are truly impressive, but much more remains to be done.
  All of the witness, or most of the witnesses, that have testified at 
those hearings are convinced that the opportunity to conduct long-
duration research on a permanently-manned space station is 
indispensable if we are to continue to make advances. As the noted 
surgeon and researcher, Dr. Michael DeBakey put it,

       The Space Station is not a luxury any more than a medical 
     research center at Baylor College of Medicine is a luxury.

  He knows that in the weightless environment of space, that just might 
spawn the answers to those who are wasting away in cancer wards, young 
girls and young boys who have to hit themselves with the vaccination 
for the dreaded disease of diabetes and on and on.
  I could quote many other eminent researchers that echo his view, but 
I know that other Members are waiting to speak.
  I would just like to conclude by saying even in these tough budgetary 
times, the space station is an investment that will pay back enormous 
benefits, enormous dividends.
  I urge Members to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our committee for 
yielding time to me.
  I want to say that every time we reach this point of the debate on 
the space station, I cannot help but think back 500 years and a little 
bit more, and I am very grateful that nobody was able to persuade Queen 
Isabella of Spain, please do not finance this exploration across the 
ocean to the unknown when we have unmet needs here in Spain.
  I am sure that Spain at that time, just as all countries at this 
time, did have unmet needs. I am sure that money that financed 
Christopher Columbus' voyage could have been spent very usefully inside 
Spain at that time. But instead, the Spanish Government decided to 
invest in exploration. They did not know what they would get back for 
it. They did know if they would get anything back for it. I am sure 
they must have had serious doubts whether they would ever see those 
ships again. The result is that the United States of America exists 
today as a country in part as a direct result of that exploration more 
than 500 years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel the same way about the space station. There are 
many other reasonable and important needs which can readily be 
identified by any Member of this body as to where else we could put the 
money, and they would all be legitimate points, I am sure. Further, 
those of us who support the space station cannot tell Members today 
exactly what we will have as a result of it in the future. But we can 
say this. We can say first that exploration and scientific research has 
always produced advances for mankind, has always increased our 
knowledge.
  Second, exploration and scientific research have always come back to 
help the economy and to help consumers. We already know that many of 
the everyday items we use were developed in research originally 
intended for the space program.
  So for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I support the passage of H.R. 
1601.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from 

[[Page H 9562]]
California [Mr. Brown], longtime chairman of the Committee on Science 
and ranking member.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this 
opportunity and I will try and be brief.
  First of all, I admire the statements made by both the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] 
in support of the space station. I have made many similar speeches over 
the years.
  I have come to an unfortunate conclusion which was reflected in my 
vote on the appropriations bill, that we are heading down a path which 
endangers the future success of the space station; namely, a continued 
decrease in the NASA budget with a provision that protects the space 
station against any cuts and, therefore, these cuts must be taken out 
of other NASA programs such as aeronautical research or mission to 
planet Earth, other very important programs.
  My fear has been, and I hope that I am wrong, that as we unravel 
these other programs, we will unravel the political support for the 
space station and for the whole of NASA. I have used this opportunity 
for a debate on the space station to reveal my concerns about what may 
happen in the future.
  I hope that I am wrong. I firmly believe that we need a space station 
in the future of this country and in the future of our space program. 
While I do not want to be a Cassandra, I am deeply concerned. I have 
expressed my concern to everybody who would listen. We cannot continue 
to support and protect this particular part of our great adventure in 
space without wondering about being concerned about what is happening 
overall to the totality. And it is the totality of the interests which 
support the space program that will allow it to continue into the 
future.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief in my remarks, because the debate on 
H.R. 1601 has little to do with the reality of what is happening to 
NASA this year. H.R. 1601 is a feel good--but fundamentally 
irrelevant--bill that gives Members the illusion that they are 
providing long term funding stability to the space station program. Of 
course, this legislation will do no such thing, but it is a comforting 
fiction to embrace in the current chaotic budgetary environment.
  Like many issues that have come to the floor this year, there is 
little in the public record or in the hearing process to justify this 
legislation. If station is truly the only priority for the space 
program, what will be the implications if we decimate all other areas 
of NASA? Will a space station still make sense as a national policy? In 
addition, can the space station actually remain on track within the 
budget climate that has been promised by the Republicans? For better or 
worse, H.R. 1601 has now reached the floor of the House, and I am sure 
that its supporters have diligently counted votes. In all likelihood it 
will pass by a comfortable margin. What then will be the impact of its 
passage?
  I submit that very little will have changed. We need only look as far 
as the House and Senate VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriation 
bills for proof. In both cases, the Appropriations Committees had to 
fence $390 million in space station spending until almost the end of 
fiscal year 1996 because they needed to fix an outlay problem in the 
overall bills. That is not a particularly auspicious start to providing 
funding stability to the space station program. Indeed, it seems eerily 
reminiscent of the bad old days of budgetary smoke and mirrors. And it 
can only get worse as the ill-considered assumptions behind the 
Republican budgetary proposals require ever greater contortions in the 
years ahead.
  Consider the assumptions behind the House Republican proposals for 
the NASA budget over the next 5 years. They assumed that Mission to 
Planet Earth could be restructured to save almost $3 billion. When the 
National Academy of Sciences reported on its recent review of the 
program, it could find no credible justification for such cuts and 
indeed recommended that no further cuts be made to the program.
  Next, consider the House Republican budgetary assumptions regarding 
the space shuttle. They assumed that the shuttle budget could be 
reduced an additional $1.5 billion below the President's planned 
reductions by privatizing the shuttle. While it sounds good, the Space 
Subcommittee held a hearing today in which witnesses expressed concern 
over the potential safety impacts of funding cuts already made to the 
shuttle program, let alone the impact of additional massive reductions.
  As you can tell, I think these budgetary proposals are wrongheaded 
and if sustained will do significant damage to our Nation's space 
program and to our R&D infrastructure. I will continue to speak out 
against them. Until we address the fundamental question of whether or 
not we are prepared to fund a vital and robust space program, bills 
such as H.R. 1601 will be no more than meaningless diversions.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Just 2 months ago, in July, the House voted twice on 
amendments to terminate NASA's International Space Station Program. 
Both of these amendments were defeated by record margins, the first by 
a vote of 126 yeas to 299 nays and the second by 132 yeas to 287 nays.
  So, Mr. Chairman, to most of my colleagues, the question of building 
the space station is behind us and America's future in space has been 
secured. We can all be proud of the votes that we cast in July and be 
assured that the international space station is on schedule and on 
budget; that is, until next year.
  The reason why I bring H.R. 1601 before the House today is to give 
the international space station a full program, multiyear commitment to 
finish the job on time and on budget.
  H.R. 1601 will set in law NASA's timetable and their budget for 
completing what we have started. H.R. 1601 sends a powerful signal to 
our international partners that Congress is up to the job of finishing 
this project on time. But it also sends a powerful signal here to 
ourselves about the way that we want NASA to do the people's business. 
How many times has this House debated whether to proceed with the 
station? How many times has Congress caused NASA to redesign the 
program by cutting the annual appropriation to pay for some other need 
some year? How many years have been lost by redesigning and rephasing 
the project? How much money has been wasted through trial and error as 
Congress has ordered one change after another? Too many times, too many 
years, too much waste, too many changes, Mr. Chairman.
  How often in the past 5 years has this House devoted its precious 
time and conducted purposeful debates on the fate of the space station, 
only to conclude each time to continue building it?
  Mr. Chairman, the House has consistently voted to support space 
station's development every time since it was proposed in 1984 under 
Republican and Democratic Presidents, through four significant redesign 
efforts and under equally distressing fiscal circumstances.
  In November, the American people voted for change in the way Congress 
does business. Surely the American people want Congress to stop wasting 
money on programs and the subsidies that they can neither see nor 
understand. But I believe the succession of votes the House has taken 
over 10 years to build the space station demonstrates that 
consternation over building it lays only with some Members of the House 
and not with the American people.
  This legislation to commit the Nation to finish what it has started 
is a new way of doing business. It represents a change in the way 
Congress does business because it says, here is our highest space 
priority and we are going to finish it. Passage of a full program 
authorization for the space station will be a breath of fresh air to 
those who have watched in amazement while successive Congresses have 
revisited, revised, and reinvented space station year after year.
  America would have a space station orbiting the earth today had it 
not been for the on again off again commitment by previous Congresses 
to finish the project. H.R. 1601 says that the space station belongs to 
the American people. Congress has not canceled the program but has done 
something worse. Each year we have allowed the program to be bled to 
near death only to watch its schedule slip, its design change, and its 
future be jeopardized.
  Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming vote in the House this year to 
continue funding of space station is owed to one essential fact: Since 
being redesigned in 1993, the space station program has produce on its 
commitment for the Congress. The space station program has produce 
54,000 pounds of flight hardware in less than 2 years. Our 
international partners have built some 60,000 pounds for flight. This 
program 

[[Page H 9563]]
now keeps its schedule and has stayed below its annual funding cap.
  The reason for H.R. 1601 is to capture the success of the new design. 
We have had 2 years without a redesign, 2 years of stable funding and 2 
years of remarkable progress. I believe that NASA Administrator Dan 
Goldin is to be commended for providing the leadership and for turning 
the project around. This is the new NASA at work, and I am very proud 
to recognize this turnaround with this bill.
  How does H.R. 1601 work? First, it sets an annual cap of $2.1 billion 
for any 1 fiscal year of the program between the years 1996 and 2002. 
Second, it sets a total cost to complete and provide initial 
operational funds at $13.1 billion. The practical effect of those two 
numbers, Mr. Chairman, is that it forces NASA to ramp down spending on 
the project in fiscal years 1998 through completion in the year 2002. 
In other words, H.R. 1601 assures us that annual appropriations 
requested to finish the project diminish over time.
  It is important to note that while H.R. 1601 provides a full program 
authorization, annual appropriations are still necessary. Under the 
bill, when the President submits the annual budget request for space 
station, NASA must certify to Congress that the program can be 
completed on time and on budget. It must also certify that no delays 
are foreseen at the time of the certification and that the program 
reserves cover all potential unbudgeted cost threats.
  Our strategy is to continue to oversee the program's execution 
through the parameters set by H.R. 1601, which are based on NASA's own 
projections of cost. For a change, we take Congress out of the design 
loop and let NASA build what it promised us we could have. Having said 
that, I believe NASA is being put under the gun by H.R. 1601. These 
promises will be hard to live by, but they are exactly what we need to 
keep the program on schedule.
  There are two reasons why schedule is important, Mr. Chairman. First, 
finishing the program on time saves money. Second, keeping on schedule 
means keeping our partners in Europe, Japan, Canada, and Russia on time 
and keeping their costs as partners under control.

  Back in July, when this House defeated the naysayers and voted to 
continue building America's future in space, many of us recognized the 
impact that terminating space station would have on our international 
partnerships. Had the program been canceled, clearly there would have 
been no chance to attempt other far-reaching science projects too 
expensive for America to pay for by itself. We recognized the long-
range impact such a failure would have on any cooperation in science.
  Back in July, I spoke about the need to explore and to expand the 
human spirit. I talked about being bold and being free.
  Mr. Chairman, now that we have said that the space station deserves 
its one-tenth of 1 percent of the Federal budget, can we also say that 
we have the vision to complete this project on time? I am tempted to 
say more, much more about the creation of knowledge about diseases and 
materials that can only be found in the vacuum of space or in the 
absence of gravity. I am tempted to point out to my colleagues that we 
have a vision of space development that merely begins with this NASA-
sponsored outpost but which flourishes into an Earth-space economy 
based upon inventions and materials that we have not thought of here on 
Earth because our vision is too weighted down by the power of gravity.
  But today is not about the survival of the space station. It is 
really a debate about how we choose to do business and how we choose to 
manage the public tax dollars. We are going to build the international 
space station. The real questions are how, when, and for how much. H.R. 
1601 says, here it is, finish it by the year 2002, and do not ask for 
more money.
  Mr. Chairman, to conclude, H.R. 1601 is an insurance policy on the 
votes we cast in July to continue this vital international space 
venture. It underwrites our investment this year by setting a schedule 
and a budget for completion.
  We believe this legislation is good for NASA and good for the 
American people. The space station is theirs, They deserve it. Let us 
once and for all commit ourselves to finishing what we have struggled 
over the years to start. Before us is an opportunity to draw a big, 
bold circle around one of humankind's most astonishing new frontiers. 
So join me in closing the loop. Join me in voting for H.R. 1601, our 
commitment to finish the job on the space station.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], a very affable and very valuable member of 
the Committee on Science.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to salute the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas, who I have the utmost respect for and enjoy his 
sense of humor in our Committee on Science. He usually whups me out 
here on the floor on the space station battle, but I can only say that 
the fighting Irish of Notre Dame took it to them in the football game 
this past Saturday. That is where I have to go for my wins these days, 
not on the House floor, but I have a great deal of respect for Mr. 
Hall.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not about whether we are for or against 
the space station. That is absolutely not what we are talking about in 
H.R. 1601. As the chairman of the committee said, we had that fight. I 
lost. We lost. But the last thing that one does when one is fighting in 
these kinds of times when we are trying to make tough decisions to 
balance the budget, when we are trying to cut back on some Government 
programs that have been around forever, which I support cutting back on 
a number of these programs, when some Members are talking about kicking 
children out of Head Start programs, cutting back on Medicare, is to 
give a free ride to the space station, to give $13.1 billion over the 
next 7 years to the space station. That is not an insurance policy, it 
is an insulation policy.
  We are saying for 7 years we are going to give them $13 billion, and 
we are not going to have the kind of oversight, we are not going to 
have the kind of jurisdiction, we are not going to have the kind of 
tough hearings that every Government program should have, whether it is 
Head Start. We can do Head Start better.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. Chairman, I fully support Head Start programs, but we can do it 
better. We should have hearings on Head Start. But here we go on a 
$13.1 billion, 7-year authorization bill. Let us have this battle every 
year. Let us make sure that they are on budget if Congress decides to 
fund this program. Let us make sure they are not slipping behind 2, and 
3, and 4 years. Let us make sure it is an international space station.
  Mr. Chairman, the Italians dropped out of this program. Who else is 
going to drop out of this program in the next few years? The Russians 
are negotiating with the Americans in Houston. They want control over 
the propulsion and navigation systems. Does that make it possible that 
the Russians would have total control over the space station in the 
year 2002 or 2008, whenever it is finished, and the United States would 
not even be the first ones into the space station?
  What about our role as representatives to oversee how tax dollars are 
spent in Washington, DC? Let us be accountable to the taxpayers of this 
country and not give a $13.1 billion, 7-year authorization to a space 
station that has moved from $8 billion in 1984 to $94 billion total 
cost projected by the year 2015 when maintenance and everything else is 
done on this space station.
  Now I am not too worried, Mr. Chairman, because I do not think the 
Senate is going to take this up. I think this bill is going to die in 
the rotunda and not get any further over to the Senate floor, and I 
hope that is where it dies. But I certainly think that we have a 
responsibility when we are in this tough budgetary environment, when we 
are going to fight for a balanced budget by the year 2002, when we are 
going to make tough decisions to cut programs.
  I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that this reminds me of when I used to 
play Monopoly when I was a kid and there was a card that they used to 
give us that we could just go around ``Go,'' did not have to stop, did 
not have to take any risks, did not have to risk jail, or 

[[Page H 9564]]
go across Boardwalk, or buy any homes, take any responsibility. One got 
a free ride, the free-ride card. That is what this is. This is the 
free-ride bill.
  H.R. 1601 is not about whether my colleagues support the space 
station. It is about whether or not they want to do their job as a 
Representative of the taxpaying citizens of this country and make the 
space station accountable, just as the Hubble is accountable, just as 
Head Start is accountable, and just as every government program should 
be accountable.
  Again I thank the distinguished gentleman from the State of Texas 
[Mr. Hall] for having yielded this time to me.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
before yielding to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. Chairman, I just think it is important to correct a couple of 
points made by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  First of all, this is not a giveaway of any money. This is a cap; 
this is a spending cap. The very problems that the gentleman outlines 
are what this bill addresses by assuring that we are operating within 
spending caps in a year and we are operating with an overall spending 
cap. The $13.1 billion that he suggests is an overall spending cap in 
the bill. It is, in fact, a definition of fiscal responsibility, of 
what we are doing here.
  Second, the gentleman mentioned in his remarks that the Italians have 
dropped out of the program. That has not happen. There are, in fact, 
some allocation questions that are now occurring in the European space 
community, but the Italians have distinctly not dropped out of the 
program at the present time.
  In addition the gentleman is also wrong with regard to the prospects 
of this bill in the United States Senate. This is a bill which I have 
talked to the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee in the Senate, 
and he is very interested in proceeding with this bill. So we do have 
an opportunity with this bill to attain the kind of fiscal 
responsibility that I think all programs should have, and the fact is, 
as the gentleman mentions some educational programs, a number of those 
programs in the educational area are forward-funded. They do have 
multiyear approaches, and we in fact did go back and review them on a 
regular basis, and every year we still have appropriations bills coming 
here so that we can review these issues. Every year this committee is 
going to hold hearings on the overall NASA programs, and we are going 
to look at how the space station program is proceeding. All this does 
is assures that we are doing it within the constraints that NASA itself 
says are appropriate for doing this station, and I just beg to differ 
with the gentleman with regard to what we are doing here.
  Mr. Chairman, we are doing the fiscally responsible thing for once. 
We very seldom have done that in a lot of these science programs.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just respectfully disagree with a 
number of things the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has said.
  First of all, it is called an international space station when in 
fact we send about $400 million to the Russians to get their 
participation in the space station.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, we are buying goods from them. The 
gentleman understands that what we are doing is we are buying products 
and services from the Russians as a part of the overall effort. It is 
not a giveaway to them. We actually get hardware and services in return 
for the money that we are paying.
  Mr. ROEMER. If that is the gentleman's idea of a partnership in 
international space, I wish somebody was doing that with me with my 
investments in mutual funds, or whatever I decided to, that they would 
put up the money, and take the risk, and just give me the money to do 
it.
  An international space station; I think the connotations are that 
people put up their money, and it is not the U.S. taxpayer sending 
money off to the Russians.
  Mr. WALKER. But in fact, I would say to the gentleman, is that 
several of our allies have devoted several billion dollars of spending 
of their own in this partnership. The Europeans and the Japanese have 
both put up hundreds of millions of dollars, into the billions of 
dollars railroad already in the program, and will put up substantially 
more in the future.
  So again I think the gentleman misrepresents the situation. I do have 
to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROEMER. Could I just make one point?
  Mr. WALKER. Yes; I yield to the gentleman briefly.
  Mr. ROEMER. As the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] knows, in our rules of the House it does state that we will in 
the Committee on Science have a continuing review of the different 
programs under our jurisdiction, and I just want the gentleman to give 
us assurances that we will continue to have oversight hearings of the 
space station, both pro and critical hearings.
  Mr. WALKER. Absolutely. This in no way will interfere with our 
ability or willingness to do that. Our committee is going to continue 
to maintain a very firm jurisdictional interest in what goes on in 
space station, but we are also going to make certain that the program 
is stabilized in a way that assures that it remains on budget and on 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation and the priority and direction it gives to the Space 
Station Program. I would like to praise the chairman of the Science 
Committee, Mr. Walker, my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and 
the former chairman, Mr. Hall of Texas, for their hard work in bringing 
this bill to the floor.
  This multiyear authorization of the international space station is a 
bold and timely move which will send an unmistakable message to the 
other body, to the President, to our international partners, to many 
entrepreneurs and scientists who will use the space station, and to the 
American people.
  Why are we authorizing the Space Station through to completion this 
year? Not just because the space station has been restructured and is 
now on a steady course within budgetary limits. Not just because the 
space station will be an invaluable research laboratory in the unique 
environment of space. Not just because with the decline of the defense 
budget, it is vital to engage American and Russian aerospace industries 
in a positive joint effort.
  Mr. Chairman, to me this multiyear authorization of space station is 
possible and desirable because of two significant developments 
championed by the Science Committee. First NASA has finally begun a 
reusable launch vehicle technology program which will lead to radically 
cheaper access to space, enabling much greater and easier use of the 
space station. Second, this legislation directs NASA to begin planning 
for the commercialization of the U.S. portions of the space station, 
including its operation, servicing, growth, and utilization.

  Together, these two steps make possible the real reason I feel we are 
building the space station: to begin the expansion of American 
civilization, powered by free enterprise, into the space frontier. And 
that is why we are passing this multiyear authorization of space 
station separately from the rest of the NASA budget. By passing this 
bill we are sending a message that this is our priority: opening space 
to human enterprise, and propelling all of mankind into a new era of 
technology, freedom, and prosperity.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], who represents the Marshall Space Center in 
Huntsville.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
International Space Station Authorization Act, and I want to 
congratulate the chairman of the full committee. I also want to 
congratulate the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics. As these two fine gentlemen know, every year we dot every 
``i'' and cross every ``t'' with regard to NASA. Unfortunately, my 
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], 

[[Page H 9565]]
who has already left the Chamber, cannot see that. He participates in 
that, but he just cannot let go of that.
  There have been nine votes in the House to terminate the space 
station since I came to Congress in 1991, and the space station has 
survived every vote. Now along the way we have, in fact, held NASA's 
feet to the fire. The space station was redesigned in 1993. The goals 
of NASA have been refocused and reformed, and I think this process has 
allowed us to refocus that and to accomplish many things, but enough 
already. I think this bill is the right thing to do, and this is the 
right time to do it.
  The Congress has spoken definitively in its support for space 
station. I think the margin of votes recently is a reflection of that. 
Now is the time to put this debate to rest, and I think this multiyear 
bill will accomplish that goal.
  My colleague from Indiana as well has made it sound as if, once this 
piece of legislation is passed, that that will be the end of the 
monitoring period. Of course it will not. As the chairman has pointed 
out, we will still have our annual appropriations process that we must 
go through so we have an opportunity to adjust when and if we need to 
do that.
  I think, as well as I must add, that for the benefit of the fine NASA 
employees that are out there that have given their good careers to work 
in this program that this is a bill that makes sense. Let us do it. Let 
us get on with it. I thank the chairman for giving us that opportunity.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as they are doing out in the western 
part of this country, they are saving their best lawyer for the closing 
arguments in Los Angeles tonight. We have probably one of our very best 
to make the last argument for the space center.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, TX, 
the Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee, who represents Johnson Space Center 
very ably.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding time to me, and I would like to pay tribute to him for his 
longstanding effort on this, and for the work he has done in support of 
the space station and also in support of NASA. I thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] for his commitment and willingness in 
many instances to compromise on some very important issues.
  Might I say for just a moment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give 
appreciation to the many employees at our respective centers around the 
Nation, for they have downsized and cutsized and modernized and 
attempted to make this thing called NASA and the space station work 
effectively and efficiently.
  For as long as man has walked this Earth, he has explored his 
surroundings and expanded his frontiers. History has demonstrated that 
as an inherent part of our genetic makeup as humans we pursue knowledge 
and understanding of ourselves and the universe in which we live. It is 
unassailable that these very tendencies are responsible for everything 
we take for granted today.
  Clearly, I believe H.R. 1601 should be supported, because I happen to 
think that the space station is the work of the 21st century. Along 
with the research in medical technology and biomedical technology and 
the new technologies that will be forged through this research, I can 
see into the future the opportunities for children in inner city 
communities to grow up and be trained and to work in those researches 
that may be garnered through the space station. We must create a new 
work for America, and that work has to be technological work.
  I would say that H.R. 1601 is not a waste of money, but in fact 
contributes to the future of this Nation. These are terrible times, 
with cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Unfortunately, in these days of 
budget reductions and seemingly intractable social problems, there are 
those who protest these very activities. I want to see a fix to 
Medicare and Medicaid, but I would want us not to turn inward, 
abandoning discovery, in a scornful rebuke of our very nature.
  From this country's inception, and specifically after World War II, 
the United States has played a leadership role in science and 
technology. Indeed, it has been one of the hallmarks of our Nation. In 
our budget-cutting and political feuding, it is important that we not 
forget nor forsake this amazing heritage and the prosperity and 
advancement it has brought.
  Space Station Alpha is such an opportunity. In conjunction with our 
international partners we have forged a chance to begin our journey to 
the next frontier. Should we let them dominate us? Of course not. I 
hope the Committee on Science will be in the forthright position to 
oversee those relationships, and assure that this country remains in 
the forefront, in a leadership role on the space station.
  Alpha will allow parallel possibilities in long-term biological 
materials and environmental research. In pursuit of this noble goal, we 
have before us today a bill which will allow the timely and successful 
completion of this project. I would have hoped that we would have 
intertwined it with massive spending. I do hope that NASA and space 
station are strong, and the gentleman and I had offered an amendment in 
committee to assure that.
  I will not do so this time, but I will admonish all of us as members 
of the committee and of the House to ensure that all the sciences will 
be safe, and that space station continues to grow and will be strong, 
along with NASA and its other sciences. We hope H.R. 1601 will provide 
NASA with a 7-year stable funding base which, in terms of time, will 
limit the costly delays and weakened confidence of our international 
partners.
  I am gratified to say, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, has 
indicated, with his leadership, the innovative efforts with biological 
research that are being forthrightly discussed by leaders of the Texas 
Medical Center represent an exciting opportunity for space station.
  This bill, H.R. 1601, allows that to happen if this measure is 
passed, but it also ensures that the station and the program will 
remain on time and on budget, with annual certifications by NASA, that 
additional funds will not be required, that the program funding 
reserves are adequate, and that no production and construction delays 
are anticipated.
  I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], I am 
gratified by the fact that he has made it very clear that the Committee 
on Science will continue its oversight and that we will hold NASA to be 
accountable. It is important that we safeguard this country's 
investment of time, money and effort in this great effort.
  Let me raise, however, two serious points. I would raise the serious 
concern regarding the implementation of safety oversight. I would argue 
vigorously that NASA should be a real partner in space station 
privatization. Further, I reemphasize the importance that Congress 
should continue its oversight in making sure that the space station, 
despite its multiyear funding, is efficient, that it maintains its 
safety record, and that we have real involvement as it proceeds to 
become the work of the 21st century.
  So I do, in spite of these concerns, ask my colleagues to support 
H.R. 1601. I believe it is in the best interests of our Nation, our 
future, and our children, and it assures our continued international 
leadership and world leadership in technology and, as well, biomedical 
research.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, why is it so important that we come 
together and pass this bill today? Since 1969 the United States has 
focused its space program on the construction of a space station to 
serve as a laboratory for scientific experiments and extended 
habitation of humans in space. To this end, Americans will have spent 
billions of dollars, and in the process developed the space shuttle, a 
reusable launch transport system to service it.
  The knowledge we have gained in this process has been invaluable. 
Technology developed for the space shuttle is helping make airline 
flights safer and more efficient. Medical advances and equipment and 
the study of diseases is helping to save lives here on Earth. We can 
expect more progress in these areas from the international 

[[Page H 9566]]
Space Station Alpha, as well as advances across a spectrum of emerging 
technologies.
  The money we spend on space station finds practical applications for 
daily life on Earth, and it is money well spent. Unlike other 
Government programs, every dollar spent on space programs returns at 
least $2 in direct and indirect benefits.
  Why is it important for us to pass a multiyear authorization? In 
order to achieve the best, most cost-effective space station to meet 
the operating goal of 1998, the program requires stability. Yearly 
budget balances just serve to distract NASA from its mission. Space 
Station Alpha is already under construction at Marshall Space Flight 
Center and other centers around the country. In order to meet the 
scheduled launch of the first module in December 1997, NASA is 
committed to delivering the space station on time and on budget. H.R. 
1601 ensures this by requiring the administrator to certify these 
conditions are met.
  In addition, this bill sets up an annual authorizing cap through 
2002, thus steering clear of cost overruns that have plagued the 
program in the past. We are taking responsibility by providing the 
proper level of oversight to avoid budgetary problems down the line. 
Our support is vital for the success of this program. The space shuttle 
will at last fulfill its envisioned mission as a primary vehicle for 
space station assembly, and a link between Earth and Alpha. We can only 
imagine the scientific advances developed on Alpha that will be an 
integral part of human life in the next century.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1601, 
the International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995.
  The American people are tired of Washington wasting their money on 
frivolous projects. Projects that begin with good intentions. Projects 
that grow in size and price and begin to take on a life of their own 
because no one has the courage to stop them.
  Proponents of this bill state that we must authorize the space 
station for the next 7 years to demonstrate a commitment to our 
international partners. Meanwhile, we leave ourselves no way out should 
any of our partners decide to end or decrease their participation. And 
if they do drop out, we will be forced to increase our spending to pick 
up the slack, or publicly admit that we have spent billions on a failed 
program.
  Full program authorization is premature and ill-advised. Boeing has 
still not signed contracts with major subcontractors. International 
agreements have not been reached.
  Space station supporters recognize that the program may not have the 
financial reserves to cover overruns. They acknowledge that our 
international partners are facing budget constraints and may not be 
able to fully participate. What they refuse to admit is that we do not 
need to spend $94 billion to construct and maintain the space station 
until 2012 in order to demonstrate a cooperative international effort 
in space.
  I have too many questions and far too many doubts about the space 
station to support a 1-year, let alone a 7-year, $13 billion 
authorization. We cannot afford the space station and we cannot afford 
to make the space station NASA's top priority at the expense of other 
worthwhile programs.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill which 
authorizes the international space station through completion in 2002. 
This House, during consideration of the VA/HUD appropriations bill, and 
the Senate, just yesterday, made very clear America's commitment to our 
international space station program.
  Efforts to kill this very important program have been soundly 
defeated because the American people understand the significance of our 
manned space program to our nation's future. They share the excitement 
of the exploration of space because it touches the core of our American 
identity as pioneering adventurers.
  And the success of the space station bears directly on how our future 
here on Earth, in the United States, in our schools, and hospitals, 
offices and factories will be shaped.
  The opponents of the space station program have fought their hardest 
and they have lost. It's time for them to accept the will of the 
country.
  This doesn't mean they shouldn't be watchdogs of the program--this 
bill requires certification that the program be on schedule and on 
budget each year in order for the authorization to remain in effect. 
But let me be clear, the debate over the existence of the program 
should end.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few months ago, many around the world shared the 
excitement of the successful Shuttle-Mir docking. It was a nail-biting 
effort that required precision within thousandths-of-an-inch.
  There can be no doubt that this was a significant achievement, but I 
wish it wasn't. At one point, watching the shuttle take off became 
commonplace. At one point, even the act of landing on the Moon became 
just another landing.
  I'm looking forward to the day when the shuttle docking with the 
space station miles above the Earth no longer attracts attention 
because it's routine. This bill is an important step toward that day.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill--it gives stability to the 
station program, certainty to our international partners and it 
represents America's long-term commitment to our manned space program 
and the international space station.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman. This Congress has made budget cutting a 
priority. We have cut housing programs by $4.9 billion, directly 
effecting the poor and elderly. We have cut the EPA by $2.3 billion, 
threatening our water, air, and food safety. We have cut student loan 
programs by $918 million. We have eliminated summer youth programs to 
save $871 million. These budget cuts will affect every American, and 
come out of every pocket. Well, almost every pocket. The Science 
Committee has recommended that NASA should receive $2.1 billion next 
year to build a space station. NASA's space station budget went 
untouched in this appropriations cycle, and received the same amount it 
got last year. However, all of NASA's nonspace station programs were 
cut by 6 percent. We will gouge our seniors, our children, and our 
environment, but not the space station.
  This authorization bill would give NASA $13.1 billion over the next 7 
years, to conduct experiments in a permanent space station. The 
Republican budget requires us to cut $10.1 billion from student loans 
over the same period.
  Budgeting priorities aside, this program is a bad idea. In 1984, the 
space station was originally budgeted at $8 billion over the 40-year 
life of the project. We've already spent $11 billion. According to a 
recent GAO estimate, the figure for completion has risen to $93 
billion. Perhaps we should spend our money improving this planet before 
we start wasting money on outer space.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Members for the debate, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Salmon) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hobson, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 1601) to 
authorize appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration to develop, assemble, and operate the International 
Space Station, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________