[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9804-S9820]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SPACE STATION FUNDING

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join with the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas as a cosponsor of his amendment and urge my colleagues to 
support this effort to terminate funding for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration Space Station program, which the General 
Accounting Office estimates will cost American taxpayers $94 billion.
  Every day, the working families of Massachusetts have to make tough 
choices about what they can afford, how to pay the rent, and whether 
they can send their kids to college.
  The Federal budget deficit, while reduced by two-thirds due to 
President Clinton's leadership and the courage of the Democratic-
controlled Congress in 1993, is still too high and must be eliminated. 
It is a drain on our economy and, increasingly, the debt service we pay 
is robbing us of the ability to make badly needed investments in our 
future. I have been working in the U.S. Senate to make the tough 
choices necessary to balance the budget.
  When measured against this imperative, I believe the space station's 
potential benefits--which I recognize--do not stand the test. I believe 
we must terminate funding for this program.
  We cannot spend nearly $100 billion of the taxpayers money to fund 
the space station and then say that we do not have enough money to put 
cops on the beat, clean our environment, and ensure that our children 
get the best education possible.
  The Senator from Arkansas, joined by several others of us, has made a 
valiant effort to halt this project again and again over the past 
several years. I am hopeful that this year the time has come when the 
Senate will exercise fiscal responsibility over our Federal budget, 
like any family in Massachusetts would over its own family budget, by 
terminating the space station immediately in order to reduce the 
deficit.
  In 1984, NASA justified the space station based on eight potential 
uses. Now only one of these assignments remains: the space station will 
be used as a research laboratory. However, the costs of performing 
scientific research in space simply outweigh the potential benefits. It 
will cost over $12,000 to ship 1 pound of payload to the space station.
  Many of my colleagues support the space station because it creates 
jobs. But the project's costs for developing jobs are exorbitant--those 
jobs will cost approximately $161,000 each. If invested here on terra 
firma, that amount of money would fund three or four or even more jobs.
  As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I have fought, along 
with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] and 
other Senators, to secure funding for many important scientific 
programs. Many of these programs have been shortchanged in order to 
help pay for the costs associated with the development of the space 
station. Allowing this extraordinary large science program to receive 
funding at the expense of these other so-called small science 
programs--which I believe will produce more products and more valuable 
products--is unacceptable. These small programs are creating thousands 
of high wage technology jobs at a fraction of the cost associated with 
the space station.

  In the space program itself, the enormous level of funding consumed 
by the space station is crowding out much smaller programs for 
satellites and unmanned space probes, which most experts consider more 
cost-effective than manned missions.
  These activities are aimed at expanding our understanding of the Sun, 
the solar system, and the universe beyond. The specific programs in 
this category include the ``new millennium,'' a program to build 
robotic spacecraft one-tenth the size and cost of satellites; the 
Cassini mission to Saturn, scheduled for launch in 1997; continuation 
of the Discovery missions, each of which costs less than $150 million, 
can be launched within 3 years of the start of its development, and is 
used by NASA to find ways to develop smaller, cheaper, faster, better 
planetary spacecraft; and the Mars surveyor program which funds a 
series of small missions to resume the detailed exploration of Mars 
after the loss of the Mars Observer mission in 1993.
  Funding for projects in this area will be approximately $1.86 billion 
in fiscal year 1997 which represents a 9-percent reduction from last 
year. The academic research establishment is concerned that the space 
station appears to be draining funds from these other space projects.
  Also included among the programs placed at risk by the space station 
is the mission to planet Earth, NASA's satellite program to explore 
global climate change by means of a series of Earth observing 
satellites launched over a 15-year period, beginning in 1998--a program 
endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences.
  Given the structure of congressional appropriations bills, the 
enormous

[[Page S9805]]

funding for the space station has come not just at the expense of other 
space programs but at the expense of environmental research and other 
important activities that promise to improve the lives of our citizens 
and enhance our security more completely.
  Building the space station has become a joint effort between the 
United States and Russia. We all want to see continued progress in 
United States-Russian relations. However, we should be encouraging 
Russia to house and feed its own people, provide jobs, and above all 
care for its deteriorating nuclear powerplants and dismantle its 
nuclear missiles and warheads. Asking Russia to commit its resources to 
pursue an uncertain and risky space station venture instead of 
encouraging it to tend to these important matters is unwise.
  Some may argue that we have lost our vision if we terminate the space 
station. But their concern is misplaced. We still have vision. But the 
vision is to restore the American dream to our citizens, to restore 
their sense of safety on the streets, to invest in technology that will 
increase our competitiveness and the quality of jobs, to invest in 
research that will cure our deadly diseases, and to restore our 
communities to the condition where children can learn and dream.
  It is time to decide. I think the American people are watching 
impatiently to see whether the U.S. Congress can deliver spending 
reductions for programs that are politically popular but fiscally 
unwise.
  I commend my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, 
for his continuing leadership on this important issue. I urge all my 
colleagues to vote to terminate the space station.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Bumpers amendment 
on space station. As the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation, which authorizes and oversees the NASA 
budget, I believe space station will be the foundation of our space 
program for many years to come. In just 1 year, we will finally begin 
the assembly of the largest structure ever constructed in space. Space 
station also is one of the most ambitious international science exports 
ever undertaken. Space station will bring together the United States 
and its foreign partners--Japan, Western Europe, Canada, and its newest 
partner, Russia--in this great challenge to build an orbiting 
laboratory to conduct important microgravity and biomedical research 
requiring the unique environment of outer space. The research of space 
station is expected to eventually lead to new drugs to fight disease, 
improve our health, and permit the invention of new advanced materials. 
These benefits will be enjoyed and experienced by the entire world 
community.
  In addition, we can expect commercial spinoffs and breakthrough 
technologies just as past NASA programs have spawned such great 
advances as communications satellites. Many products we take for 
granted today were the result of work performed on NASA missions. Laser 
faxes, pacemakers, advanced water filters, hearing aid testers, and 
Doppler radar systems all were generated from NASA projects. I am 
confident space station will usher in a new generation of such advances 
to benefit the world.
  Mr. President, after a decade of hard work and planning, NASA is 
finally prepared to embark on its greatest challenge. Americans in 37 
States have contributed their time and talent to brings us to this 
point. More the $15 billion already has been spent, not including the 
$6 billion invested by our foreign partners. Next winter, the first 
element of space station will be launched--a propulsion and navigation 
system--to begin the assembly of the facility which will conclude in 
the year 2002. It is in our national interest to move forward, into the 
future, and begin assembly of the space station.
  Let me say my support for the space station is not without some 
reservations. For instance, I continue to be concerned about the 
program's heavy reliance on Russian contributions of critical hardware 
and launch services. Since joining the program 3 years ago, our former 
cold war rival has gone from being a nonparticipant in the program to 
an indispensable partner. For example, over half of the 73 space 
missions to assemble and supply the station are Russian launches, 
compared with about 27 shuttle launches. Moreover, both the navigation 
and propulsion system as well as its crew rescue vehicles are to be 
built and launched by the Russians. While NASA assures Congress and the 
Nation that the space station could still survive even if the Russians 
were to withdraw, this may be wishful thinking.
  I am also concerned about the cost of the space station project. NASA 
estimates the total cost of the program at $30 billion through the year 
2000. In a report released last month, GAO indicated space station is 
experiencing troubling cost overruns which, if left unchecked, could 
ultimately balloon to $400 million.
  In addition, there have been recent reports of cost increases which 
threaten to exhaust much of the reserves budgeted for the project. If 
this program experiences any significant cost overruns, its huge budget 
could start to crowd out other worthy space programs like Mission to 
Planet Earth--which I consider the most important and relevant of all 
of NASA's activities. Clearly, this result would not be in the public 
interest.
  These concerns were addressed at our July 24 hearing on space station 
and again at a meeting between the subcommittee chairman, Senator 
Burns, and NASA Administrator Dan Goldin. With regard to the Russian 
issue, Vice President Gore and Administrator Goldin recently traveled 
to Russia where they negotiated an agreement in principle regarding the 
respective roles and responsibilities of Russia in the program. The 
agreement will be the basis for a formal memorandum of understanding to 
be finalized later this year. Participants in the United States-Russian 
talks are confident the Russians will make a firm commitment to provide 
the support to which they have agreed. However, in the event the 
Russians do not perform, NASA has viable contingency plans to move 
forward using United States contractors to replace any lost Russian 
contribution.
  As for the space station costs, NASA has assured the Commerce 
Committee the alarming press accounts are overblown and the program 
will exceed neither its $2.1 billion annual cap nor its cost estimate 
of $17.4 billion from October 1993 through assembly completion in the 
year 2002. NASA is mindful of the potential for cost overruns and the 
need for better cost control systems. In that connection, the head of 
the space station program, Wilbur Trafton, testified before our Space 
Subcommittee that NASA has budgeted $2.9 billion over the program's 
life to cover unexpected cost overruns. Administrator Goldin is an 
exceptionally talented administrator so I have great confidence in 
NASA's assurances the program is on track and within budget.
  Accordingly, I support the space station, but as chairman, of the 
Commerce Committee, I continue to monitor its progress closely through 
our oversight function. The program has come a long way from the early 
1980's when the space station was still a dream of President Reagan and 
existed only as the blueprints of NASA engineers. Space station is now 
almost a reality. The plans have been finalized, hardware has been 
built, and the launches have been scheduled. Next year the space 
station adventure will finally begin with the launches have been 
scheduled. Next year, the space station adventure will finally begin 
with the launch of its first piece of hardware. Now is the time to go 
forward, not backward, and move the country and our technology into the 
21st century. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this 
country's future by opposing the Bumpers amendment. Thank you, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment 
offered by Senator Bumpers to terminate the international 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 have many reasons why we should 
desert our international partners just when we are about to launch the 
first sections of this incredible project into orbit. Mr. President, I 
reject these arguments for a number of reasons.
  First, Mr. President, the opposition talks of cost overruns, and yet, 
despite

[[Page S9806]]

the complexity of this task and the various challenges that will be 
encountered as the station moves from the drawing board to reality, 
NASA is committed to remaining within the $17.4 billion projected cost 
for the redesigned space station. Frankly, Mr. President, we have cut 
and trimmed the resources available for the space station to the point 
where NASA has little, if any, flexibility in dealing with the 
inevitable challenges it will face. Today we debate the very existence 
of the space station when we should be talking about maximizing NASA's 
flexibility within the limits that we have already placed upon them.
  Second, the opposition tells us that NASA may divert science funds to 
construction accounts, thereby leaving the station with no scientific 
capability at all. While NASA may rephase funds intended for developing 
scientific experiments, this management initiative in no way reflects a 
reduction in NASA's commitment to research on the space station. Some 
payload facilities are developing ahead of schedule, and NASA is wisely 
coordinating these elements to be complete when the station is ready to 
accept them. This rephasing of funds will allow NASA to augment its 
program reserve accounts to place them at acceptable levels. This is 
the type of planning and initiative that we should support, not attack.
  Third, we are told that the contractors involved in the station's 
construction are encountering significant problems with the first two 
nodes. Mr. President, if all great research and development projects 
were terminated because they encountered significant problems, we would 
be without many, if not all, of the greatest discoveries in human 
history. Yes, the space station is a great challenge, but, the men and 
women working on the station have yet to encounter an obstacle that 
they cannot surmount. In fact, node 1 has recently completed a 
successful pressure test and will now undergo a post-test inspection 
and final preparation for launch. This is an exciting time for the 
space station and we should be focusing our attention on its permanent 
successes and not its temporary set-backs.
  Fourth, termination of the international space station will undermine 
the credibility of the United States with its international partners 
who have already invested more than one-half of their planned $10 
billion contribution. We have taken the lead on this project and given 
our word that we will see it through. Leadership requires resolve and 
character. It is not in the American character to break our promises 
and abandon our friends and partners, especially when the prize we all 
seek is within our grasp.
  Finally, Mr. President, termination of the space station will end any 
promise of meaningful space-based long-duration research in cell and 
developmental biology, human physiology, biotechnology, fluid physics, 
combustion science, materials science, low-temperature physics and the 
large-scale commercial development of space.
  For decades, the space program has driven science and technology 
development, motivated our children, and inspired a nation and the 
world. Mr. President, we stand at the threshold of a new millennium. 
Let it not be said that we squandered one of our first opportunities 
for greatness in the 21st century.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. President, I yield 
the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to propound a unanimous-consent 
request. We have I believe cleared this on both sides of the aisle.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation to 
amendment No. 5178 after 2 hours of debate and that the time be equally 
divided between Senator Bumpers and Senator Bond with 15 minutes of the 
time under my control allocated to Senator Hutchison, 10 minutes 
allocated to Senator Mikulski, 20 minutes allocated to Senator Glenn, 
and that no second-degree amendments or motions to refer be in order 
prior to the vote in relation to the Bumpers amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have great respect for my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Illinois?
  Mr. SIMON. Will the Senator from Maryland yield 5 minutes to me?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I can only yield Senator Bumpers' time. Actually in 
behalf of the opposition to my position, I will graciously yield to one 
of the great Senators 5 minutes.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland for her 
graciousness.
  I have great respect for the Senator from Ohio. No Member of the 
Senate has shown more courage. Any of you who have visited the Air and 
Space Museum and seen that little thing that John Glenn crawled into, I 
do not know very many human beings who would risk what he did.
  So I speak in opposition to his position with great reluctance. But 
my friends, we simply have to get hold of things.
  This morning's New York Times has an op-ed piece by Paul Krugman, a 
professor of economics at MIT. He says, in referring to the two 
candidates for President:
       The sad truth about this year's economic debate is that the 
     biggest issue facing the Federal Government--the issue that 
     should be uppermost in our minds--is not being discussed at 
     all. Most of what happens in our economy is beyond the reach 
     of government policy. In particular, the evidence suggests 
     that it is difficult for the Government to have any visible 
     effect on the economy's long-term growth rate.
       There is one thing, however, that the Government can and 
     must control: its own budget. And it is heading inexorably 
     toward fiscal disaster, as the baby boomers in the tens of 
     millions march steadily toward the age at which they can 
     claim Social Security and Medicare. True, the crisis is still 
     about 15 years away. But we expect responsible adults to 
     start preparing for their retirement decades in advance; why 
     shouldn't we ask the same of our Government?
       Unfortunately, everything that a responsible government 
     should be doing now--raising taxes, raising the retirement 
     age, scaling back benefits for those who can manage without 
     them (that means for the affluent, not the poor)--is 
     political poison.
       It may be too much to ask the candidates to preach 
     responsibility to the public, but we can at least ask them 
     not to make things even worse by offering goodies the nation 
     cannot afford.

  My friends, this debate is an illustration of why we need the 
balanced budget constitutional amendment. There are a lot of good 
things that we would like to do. If we had a $100 billion surplus, I 
probably would vote for a space station, even though the Aviation Week 
& Space Technology of August 26 starts off its story--the heading is 
``Cost Increases Add to Station Woes''--with the first paragraph:

       NASA is considering ways to scale back early scientific 
     work on the international space station to pay for cost 
     increases that threaten to exhaust reserves for the project.

  There are a lot of things that we would like to do that we just 
cannot do. I think the space station is one of them. I happen to 
believe that both political parties are being irresponsible right now 
in asking for a tax cut. Would I like a tax cut? Sure. Would the 
distinguished Presiding Officer, my friend from Idaho, like a tax cut? 
Sure. We ought to restrain ourselves and not have tax cuts until we 
have the surplus. That means that we are going to have to restrain 
ourselves on some spending that would be nice but is it essential for 
our Government. And a space station is one of those things. I think we 
have to use some common sense.
  I say to my friend from Arkansas who is here that I am going to be 
leaving the Senate shortly. You are not going to get an amendment like 
this passed until we have a constitutional amendment requiring a 
balanced budget. Until that time, candidates for office are going to 
continue to promise tax cuts, and we are going to vote for things like 
this that really do not make sense. I hope that one of these days we 
will recognize that Thomas Jefferson was right when he said we need 
fiscal constraint in the Constitution that we do not have.
  In the meantime, let us do what is right on this and say, it would be 
nice, it is not essential, and let us not vote for it. That is what we 
ought to do.
  Let me just add. I want to commend my colleague from Arkansas for 
year

[[Page S9807]]

after year after year pursuing this. I know he feels like he is in the 
bottom of a well of no one listening. But if we do not push for this 
kind of restraint we are going to have fiscal chaos in this country. 
That is the simple reality.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to Senator Glenn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for up to 
20 minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I gave a very lengthy statement yesterday on the space 
program, and the space station in particular, on items that got into 
considerable detail on the various aspects of the scientific reasoning 
for it, the corollary between some of the things that happened to 
astronauts in space and the normal processes of aging here on Earth, 
and how some of these things are being investigated, or planned to be 
investigated more in the future than they have been up to now. But I 
think these are very, very interesting. But for a few minutes, I will 
not use all of my 20 minutes on this, and I do not want to go back and 
address all of those things I did yesterday much as I would like to 
have that time. I know we are under some time constraints. But I want 
to make sure that we get into the Record, or that we put out for our 
colleagues' consideration, some items that express concerns about the 
cost growth and schedule slippage on the space station without getting 
into the scientific background of justification of why we are doing 
this thing at all because those were put out by my friend from 
Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter.

  Let me just respond to his comments of a little while ago. I do not 
have a better friend in the Senate than Senator Bumpers. We came in 
here the same day. I would say that our voting records are nearly 
similar, except once a year we get into opposition on this particular 
item. I always regret that we have to oppose each other on this because 
we both feel strongly about this particular issue. So this is not a 
slam at Senator Bumpers. But I do want to respond to some of the things 
that were put out in his ``Dear Colleague'' letter.
  In that letter it stated, ``Scheduled delays in cost overruns will 
add additional billions to the price of the project.''
  The bottom line is that as of now the station is over 45 percent 
complete. The hardware is being cut. This is not some prospective thing 
off into the future. The hardware is in existence; 45 percent; 122,000 
pounds of the space station have already been built and are currently 
undergoing testing. According to GAO, the $17.4 billion project is 
about $89 million over cost and about $88 million behind schedule. I 
repeat. It is a $17.4 billion project, and only $89 million over cost. 
That is roughly within 1 percent of the planned targets. I think that 
is better than probably 99 percent of Government projects, or maybe 
even industrial projects also.
  I think very clearly NASA and its contractors need to strive to 
complete the project on time and on budget, of course. The facts 
indicate that the program is slightly--I say slightly--over budget; the 
figures I just gave--and behind schedule. However, NASA managers are 
taking steps to reverse that trend. A very important tool in NASA's 
case is its contract with the prime contractor, Boeing, which ties a 
very substantial portion of Boeing's payment to successful performance 
of the contract.
  Here is another very important management tool for dealing with cost 
growth. Administrator Goldin set up a program reserve, so included 
within these planned $17.4 billion program costs are program reserves. 
Nearly $3 billion of the station's budget fall into this category. 
These are funds which are to be used for unplanned or unforeseen costs. 
It is a research program. You cannot define it like buying 22 trucks 
off the line at GM or Ford or some place where you know the exact 
costs, and so on. So you do have to plan for unplanned or unforeseen 
costs. That is a likely occurrence when one is designing and building 
and testing and operating a very unique research facility, the only one 
of its kind.
  Up until recently, NASA had not had much need to tap into these 
program reserves. The program was going along well, being well managed, 
staying within budget. However, the last half of fiscal 1996, 1997, and 
1998 are the peak construction and spending years. It is during this 
time that program managers anticipated they might need to use reserves. 
The bottom line is that there are adequate reserves to fund all 
anticipated cost growths that are foreseen right now.
  Also, my friend from Arkansas said in that ``Dear Colleague,'' ``NASA 
is considering making up the shortfall by diverting funds intended for 
developing scientific experiments on the station. If this happens, NASA 
could end up with a space station with no scientific capability at 
all.''
  That is a very troubling assertion. But my colleagues know, I 
believe, that research to be performed on the station will 
significantly benefit those of us right here on Earth. The research is 
the reason we have the program. It is not just to let a few people go 
up and experience the view from up there in space. It is to do the 
basic, fundamental research in the new laboratory of space, a 
capability that humankind has never had before through our hundreds of 
thousands of years of existence here on Earth. For the first time, we 
can use this new laboratory of space.
  So I have asked NASA about this issue and NASA reports the following:
  Station managers have taken steps to ensure that the scientific 
payloads are being developed on a parallel course with the space 
station vehicle and are synchronized with their planned use aboard the 
space station. NASA has shifted some funds from the space station 
science accounts to the program reserve accounts where they may be 
needed for construction of the vehicle itself during the next year or 
so. Before these schedule changes were made, some of the scientific 
payloads were moving ahead of schedule and would have been completed 
before they would have been used on the station. The rephasing of some 
of these development activities also has the effect of freeing up 
funding planned for the next 2 years but that would simply augment the 
program reserves and place those reserves and figures at a more 
acceptable level as a percentage of the total budget for those 2 years. 
So in the end there is no reduction in the commitment to research on 
the space station. It is a matter of timing, not a reduction in 
scientific capability.
  The overall level of funds for science activity has not been reduced 
one penny.
  Also it has been said, an issue has been made of the problems that 
have been encountered by NASA and Boeing in building the space 
station's nodes, the connecting pieces for the space station modules. 
Earlier this year one of the nodes failed a pressure test. However, 
this problem has been corrected. Last week, just a week ago, the nodes 
passed the pressurization test. There have been some costs in schedule 
penalties when this problem has been addressed. However, the costs can 
be met through the use of the program reserves I mentioned a moment 
ago.

  Let me say this pressure test takes it up to about 1\1/2\ times what 
the normal pressure will be in that structure while it is in space. 
They have approximately a sea level pressure, slightly over sea level 
pressure, which is 14.7 pounds per square inch. I think it is planned 
that the station will operate at 15.2, and they went up to 1\1/2\ times 
that 15.2, and it passed with no problems. So NASA does not believe 
that any delays in launching any space station element will occur as a 
result of this now corrected problem. It was a problem at one time, but 
that has been overcome.
  Finally, the Senator from Arkansas has asserted that the Russians are 
falling behind on their share of the program and that the United States 
is bailing out the Russians by renting time on the Mir spacecraft. The 
Russians play a crucial role in the international space station, but 
their participation will result in the United States ultimately 
spending less on the program rather than more.
  The schedule problems encountered by the Russians have been the 
subject of high level government-to-government negotiations. In July of 
this year, 1996, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and Vice President Gore 
signed a document detailing key milestones for both sides to meet in 
order to keep the program on schedule. This meeting resulted in needed 
funds being freed up

[[Page S9808]]

within the Russian bureaucracy so that work on the Russian components 
could continue. That is just a month and a half ago, a little less than 
that. The Russian officials have assured NASA that their schedule 
slippages can be eliminated as long as necessary funding levels are 
maintained.
  In the meantime, the United States and Russia are continuing to 
cooperate on what I think is an exciting program, a productive joint 
program on the Mir space station. As many of us are certainly aware, 
U.S. astronaut Shannon Lucid is still up there right now completing a 
record-setting stay on the Mir space station. When she comes back down 
in another week or so, I believe she will have about 185 days in space. 
When she comes back down, she will be replaced by another U.S. 
astronaut, John Blaha, thus continuing what will eventually be 2\1/2\ 
years of continuous U.S. presence on the Russian station. This streak 
began with Norm Thagard's mission last year.
  The goals of this first phase of United States-Russian space 
cooperation are being met and include, No. 1, experience in long-
duration space operation. As discussed above, U.S. astronauts are 
getting invaluable experience to better understand the requirements of 
sustained permanent space operations. This experience will enable NASA 
scientists and engineers to more productively plan for the research 
that will be conducted on the international space station.
  No. 2, science research. U.S. astronauts Norm Thagard and Shannon 
Lucid have conducted literally hundreds of experiments during their 
respective stays on Mir and hundreds more are being planned over the 
next 2 years.
  So, Mr. President, those are just a few comments in rebuttal to what 
was put out in the ``Dear Colleague'' letter that was sent around. I 
will reserve the remainder of my time here to reply to some of the 
other areas, so I will yield the floor at this time. I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  How much time do I have remaining, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to have Senator Mikulski 
recognized for her time, and would allocate 10 minutes to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise again this year in support of 
America's space program and in opposition to the Bumpers amendment that 
strikes the funding for the space station. How ironic it is, at this 
time of great space discoveries like the possibility of life on Mars, 
that my colleague wants to eliminate one of NASA's greatest programs. 
Once again, I will come to the defense of the American people who 
depend on the space station in so many ways.
  What do I mean? I am talking about jobs. Killing the space station is 
about jobs, and jobs in the United States of America. It is about 
putting people out of work or keeping people on the job, many thousands 
of men and women who work directly in the program or in factories that 
work on the space station itself. There are many thousands whose jobs 
result from the multiplier effect of the station's construction. Most 
are middle class, blue and white-collar workers who make family level 
wages, with health security, and we want to be sure that they have 
paycheck security, health security and can count on this job.
  They are the same kind of Americans who are already affected by 
military base closings. For my colleagues who insist we need a defense 
conversion strategy to deal with the end of the cold war, the space 
station is an opportunity to retain our high-tech manufacturing skills 
for a civilian economy.
  My opponent claims that commercialization as a result of the space 
station is not materializing. The 1993 National Association of Public 
Administrators committee report stated this:

       Through university-based partnerships with industry and 
     government, and also through traditionally federally 
     sponsored commercial space initiatives conducted at diverse 
     NASA field centers, private investment in commercial space 
     processing ventures has grown.

  So I urge my colleagues not to be lulled into thinking that killing 
the space station will not have a serious negative effect on our 
economy, the economy of the State of Alabama, and more important, on 
the lives of thousands of Americans throughout the entire United 
States, both in Alabama and in Texas.
  Also, let us fight for the space station for scientific value. One of 
the points raised by my opponent is there is little science of any 
value that will be done aboard the space station. Quite the contrary: 
The science proposed for the space station cannot be accomplished on 
Earth. The space station science requires access to very low levels of 
gravitational force, and it must be sustained. It is technologically 
impossible to create a low-gravity environment for this type of 
research without going into space orbit.
  The thinking behind the Bumpers amendment is the same kind of 
thinking that would stifle our understanding of bacteria and germs that 
cause disease. It is that kind of philosophy that would have stopped 
Madam Curie from discovering radium, from which the field of radiology 
developed, or Jonas Salk from finding the cure for polio.
  With technology being developed for the space station, scientists are 
already beginning to understand how cancer cells form in the human 
body, and they can do so because of a zero-gravity environment which 
permits them to grow tissues just like they are growing in the human 
body. What does that mean? We can actually simulate tumors in a way we 
could never do here on Earth. For those who say, ``Do not give it to 
NASA, give it to NIH,'' there is a joint agreement between NASA and the 
National Institutes of Health, just on this exact same kind of life 
science research.

  This type of research has produced important microgravity research 
findings. This is particularly so in the area of protein crystal 
growing. No other lab on Earth can simulate that kind of tissue growth. 
Other labs must contend with the distorting factor of gravity.
  What does the absence of gravity mean? It will allow the kind of 
research that produces new insights into human health and disease 
treatment, like heart and lung functions, cardiovascular disease, 
osteoporosis, immune system functionings, and so on.
  The other reason we support the space station is because of 
technological innovation. The space station is not only about science, 
it is about technology development. By the mere fact of building the 
station and by the mere fact of doing medical and life science and 
crystal development, in order to do the research we have to develop new 
technology. That can be medical equipment technology, mineralization 
techniques, and a whole series of other things. That has been the 
history of NASA.
  Also, let us be clear, the space station is about the entrepreneurial 
spirit that has been at the heart of our country's aerospace industry. 
In the history and development of ideas, there are always the naysayers 
who say let us stick with the status quo. But we can do better. Through 
history it has been bold people with entrepreneurial ideas, backed up 
with resources, that invented new technology that led to new products 
that led to new jobs that has made the United States of America an 
economic superpower. We are an economic superpower because of our 
scientific and technological development. In high-technology 
innovation, the United States has always led the way. U.S. 
competitiveness can only be maintained by long-term, cutting-edge, 
high-risk research and development.
  So I will continue to fight for the space station, both for what it 
represents now and what it represents in the future. I will vote no on 
Bumpers and yes for America's space program for the 21st century.
  I yield back such time as I might yet have.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the time allocated to the Senator 
from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri and 
the Senator from Maryland for the leadership that they are providing in

[[Page S9809]]

making sure that we have NASA and the space program, because they know 
how much this has done for our country. They have been there with me, 
looking at what the space station will be able to do. We have walked 
through the modules. We have looked at the experiments and how they are 
done in space and at the unique attributes they have in that space 
station which will allow them to do things they cannot do on Earth. 
They cannot duplicate the microgravity conditions on Earth.
  I just wish the Senator from Arkansas would go with me one day and 
see what a difference it makes for our country that we have this 
commitment to space and the future, the essence of what we are debating 
today, when we take up funding for the space station yet again. This is 
the 14th time that there have been attempts to terminate the funding, 
but fortunately Congress has been farsighted, and the administration 
has as well, to make sure we do not walk away from the future.
  What we are talking about today is whether we are going to summon the 
vision to continue this quest in cooperation with other nations. Or 
would we clip the wings of our civilization and just hunker down here 
on Earth?
  The benefits of NASA research are long proven. Every dollar spent on 
space results in $2 in direct and indirect economic benefit. 
Breakthroughs in medical technology that we now take for granted are 
rooted in NASA technology. For example, NASA has developed a cool suit 
for Apollo missions which now helps improve the quality of life of 
multiple sclerosis victims.
  NASA technology has provided pacemakers that can be programmed from 
outside the body. NASA has developed instruments to measure bone mass 
and bone density without penetrating the skin. These are now widely 
used to give a test for osteoporosis so that a woman can get a 
benchmark and then know if she is losing bone loss and needs to add 
extra calcium to her diet.
  NASA research has led to an implant for delivering insulin to 
diabetics that is only 3 inches across. It provides more precise 
control of blood sugar levels and frees diabetics from the need for 
daily insulin injections.
  The space shuttle has begun to lift the curtain on the enormous 
opportunities that lie ahead in a manned microgravity laboratory. The 
station will allow scientists to modify their experiments in orbit and 
take advantage of the unanticipated results. This is the kind of 
flexibility that has historically led to the greatest scientific 
breakthroughs and will do so again to fight cancer, osteoporosis and 
diabetes.
  Despite these benefits, some critics have said that the scientific 
returns for more than a decade of experiments in weightless conditions 
are not really cost-benefit approved. Dr. Michael DeBakey, the 
chancellor and chairman of the Department of Surgery at Baylor College 
of Medicine said:

       Present technology on the shuttle allows for stays in space 
     of only about 2 weeks. We do not limit medical researchers to 
     only a few hours in the laboratory and then expect them to 
     find cures for cancer. We need much longer missions in space 
     in months and years to obtain research results that may lead 
     to the development of new knowledge and breakthroughs.

  So, Dr. DeBakey is saying we don't need less time, we don't need less 
emphasis on the space station, we need more. Dr. DeBakey knows what can 
be done, because he is one of the innovators in this field.
  Life and work on the station also generates breakthroughs that 
improve life on the ground. We expect to develop lighter, stronger, 
superalloy metals, lower cost heating and cooling systems, longer life 
power converters, safer chemical storage, air and water purification, 
waste management, and recycling systems.
  As with the Apollo program before, the space station will be the 
proving ground for advances in communications, computers, and 
electronics. Research equipment developed for the space station is 
already paying dividends. Scientists are growing ovarian tumor samples 
in NASA's new cell culturing device so that tumors can be studied 
outside the body without harm to the patient. A similar trial is 
underway for brain tumors.
  The question we are asking today is, will we pursue this knowledge? 
Science alone is not the reason that we are reaching into space. As the 
world redefines itself in the wake of the cold war, the space station 
is a catalyst for international cooperation and a symbol of U.S. 
leadership in a changing world.
  We now are drawing on the expertise of 13 nations--the United States, 
Canada, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, France, 
Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Russia. Failure to fund 
the space station would undermine our partnerships with Europe, Japan, 
and Canada which have expended over half of their $9 billion commitment 
to the $17 billion space station program. It would cause them to 
conclude that they can no longer count on the United States as an ally; 
that our commitment would not be good. Mr. President, we do not want to 
be bad partners. That is not the legacy that this Congress would want 
to leave.
  I also remind my colleagues that the space station and NASA has not 
just been out there in a vacuum as we have been trying to cut the rate 
of growth of spending. They have stepped right up to the line. They 
have taken their fair share. Dan Goldin has a zero-based review in 
place that has shaved the cost off NASA and has made it more efficient 
for the taxpayers of this country.
  A 1993 redesign of the program resulted in a space station that is $6 
billion more cost efficient. I watched this process closely, and I 
commend Dan Goldin for this approach. If every agency would do this, we 
would have a 35-percent budget reduction, saving taxpayers $40 billion 
more and be able to continue with the mission.

  So I do not want us to be the Congress in the last half of the last 
decade of the 20th century that is remembered for displaying the 
failure of will. No, Mr. President, we have goodwill in the space 
agency, in the space station and abandoning it would signify, I think, 
a myopic view of our country and of the world.
  America has been the leader in space, and now we have a chance to 
cooperate with our friends around the world and continue to do better 
for mankind. This is not the time to walk away from the gigantic 
investment we have made. Any scientist will tell you that you cannot 
predict what the results are going to be when you go into research, but 
you can make sure that we have the underpinnings that will keep America 
vibrant and growing so that we can absorb the new people that come into 
our system, so that we will create the new industries that create the 
new jobs that will keep our country economically strong.
  Our young people must have a place that they know they can go for 
scientific research and breakthroughs for the future. As we are going 
into the 21st century, we cannot go back into the 18th century and say, 
``Space is out there, but we're not going to explore it.'' Mr. 
President, that is not the American way.
  So I hope my colleagues will join us for the 15th time and make sure 
that we send the clear signal that we are committed to this research, 
that it is right for America and that we will do better things for the 
world because of it.
  Mr. President, I yield the rest of my time to my colleague from 
Texas, Senator Gramm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me commend my colleague from Texas for 
an excellent statement. We have debated this issue with our dear friend 
from Arkansas on many occasions. I feel confident that the outcome of 
the vote today will be the same as it has been on the many previous 
occasions that we have voted on this matter. And since my colleague 
from Texas has done such a great job of focusing in on the space 
station, let me take a little bit bigger picture and try to develop 
that.
  In 1965, we spent 5.7 percent of the Federal budget on nondefense 
research and development. In 1965, we invested 5.7 percent of the 
Federal budget in new science, new technology, new know-how to plant 
the seeds to generate jobs in the future.
  Today, under the budget submitted by the President, including the 
funding level that we have for the space station, we are spending 1.9 
percent of the

[[Page S9810]]

Federal budget on nondefense research and development. From 1965 until 
today, our investment in science and technology in the future has 
declined from 5.7 cents out of every dollar we spend in the Federal 
budget down to 1.9 cents out of every dollar we spend in the Federal 
budget.
  From 1965 to 1997, we have had an explosion in Federal spending, and 
yet in the midst of this explosion in Federal spending, we have 
increased spending not as an investment in the future, not as an 
investment in the next generation, not as an investment in science and 
technology, but, by and large, we have spent our money on social 
programs. And in the process, our Government has become the largest 
consuming institution in our society and one of the smallest investing 
institutions in our society as a percentage of the budget.
  In 1965 we were plowing back 5.7 cents out of every budget dollar 
into investments in science, technology, the future, investing in the 
next generation of Americans. We have seen that fall progressively down 
to the point in this budget where we are investing only 1.9 percent of 
our Federal budget in science, technology and the future. We are 
investing increasingly in the next election by spending money on social 
programs, and we are not investing in the next generation by investing 
in science and technology and the future.
  If you look at the Bumpers amendment, what it says is: Prohibit 
funding for the space station except for program termination costs. It 
in no way lowers the annual spending caps. It in no way says these 
savings have to be applied to deficit reduction. So as we all know, 
since we are operating under spending caps, every penny that would 
supposedly be saved, if we kill the space station, would end up being 
spent in other areas of the Federal budget.
  If we did this, if we kill the space station, we would be going 
further in taking money away from investments in the future, in the 
science and technology on which jobs in the future will be based and we 
would basically be converting that money into consumption programs 
where we would be investing in social programs and investing in the 
next election and not the next generation. This would be a tragic 
mistake.
  I am confident we are not going to do it today. Our investment in 
science and technology is already too low. I would like to have a 5-
year program to double investment in science and technology instead of 
cutting it as the Senator from Arkansas proposes.
  No nation in history has benefited so much from science and 
technology as the United States of America. In this century we have 
been the principal contributor of all nations in the world to science 
and technology. And we have built a technological base that we have 
used better than any other country in the world. Our global leadership 
is threatened because we are not making the investments that we once 
made in pure science and technology.
  No other institution in our society is capable of building the space 
station. If we do not make this investment, we are again saying we are 
going to take money out of investment in the future and we are going to 
invest it in social programs today. That would be a mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Bumpers amendment as we have on 14 
previous occasions. We have already cut the space station. We have 
refocused it. We have broadened the participation. We have taken on the 
Russians as partners. We have spread the cost of the program. We have 
made international commitments. We have saved money by paring back on 
the program. Now is the time to move ahead and build the space station. 
This is not the time to cut spending for the space station to free up 
funds to go into social programs. Let us invest in the next generation 
and not the next election by defeating the Bumpers amendment. I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I wish we had a lot more time because there 
are many things to be said. I used a lot of time yesterday and will not 
be able to repeat all that today. Let me talk for a moment about this 
protein crystal thing because I think there have been some 
misconceptions put forth on the floor here. This is not something we 
are just talking about that may be out there some time in the future. 
It is here now.
  Private industry is working with the NASA Center for Macromolecular 
Crystallography to produce high-quality protein crystals for new 
development. Let me tell you the companies that are involved with this: 
Schering-Plough, Eli-Lilly, Upjohn, Bristol-Myers, Squibb, Smith Kline 
Beecham, Biocryst, DuPont Merck, Eastman Kodak, and Vertex. This is not 
some time in the future they may do this. They are using them now to 
research cancer, diabetes, emphysema, and immune system disorders, and 
including the HIV virus.
  There has been such rapid advancements in these particular areas. And 
this protein structure that can be developed in space promises to 
revolutionize the pharmaceutical industry. You would not have all these 
companies directly involved with NASA if that was not true. Researchers 
seek to define the structure of proteins and design drugs that interact 
with them.
  Penicillin is a well known example of a drug that works by blocking a 
protein's function. Orbital experiments provide researchers with 
superior protein crystals for analysis and they also help scientists 
understand the fundamental concepts about the crystallization process. 
You cannot do that on Earth. The information could be used to improve 
crystallization techniques here on earth however.
  Rationally designed drugs promise to revolutionize health care. 
Orbital research will feed this revolution with the crucial protein 
structure data it needs. NASA researchers have already used--not in the 
future--but already have used space shuttle missions to produce protein 
crystals for a variety of clinical conditions, including cancer, 
diabetes, emphysema, and immune system disorders.
  What if we broke through with something on HIV or found out from 
something from these protein crystal studies that space-grown crystals 
were in such a way different that we came up with a new approach to HIV 
or something like that? We would think that was well worth anything 
that we were looking into on the whole space program.
  Mr. President, one other area--without getting into a lot more of 
those details--there is one other area I wanted to mention here today. 
You know, we have a lot of things that occur to astronauts when they 
are up there in space flight. After a few days their bodies start 
changing. They have a lot of physiologic changes. On the floor here 
yesterday I had the book that NASA has put out on space medicine, space 
physiology. If you look at that and then you look over into the Merck 
Manual on Geriatrics you find some very similar things, you find out 
that some of the things that occur to astronauts in space in a very 
short period of time also occur to the elderly in the normal processes 
of aging.
  I wish we could have those 44 million Americans today that are over 
60, those 44 million Americans listening to this. I am sure we would 
have every single one of them supporting the space program when they 
realize that such things as bone density changes that affect the aging 
here on Earth also affect astronauts. Orthostatic intolerance, the 
difference in blood pressure when standing, sitting, and so on, 
decreases during flight and returns to normal, but it is a symptom 
associated with aging.

  Balance and vestibular problems, dizziness, the inability to maintain 
their balance upon returning from a flight, sleep disturbances, muscle 
strength, immunology. The body in space reduces its immunology. Why the 
immune system? Why, we do not really know. The elderly have the same 
thing happen. Normally, as people get older, their body's immune system 
goes down hill. If we could just make some experiments to find out why 
this occurs and trigger off the body's response, its own immune system 
against cancer and AIDS and all the other diseases and all the other 
infections we have here on Earth, that one area alone would be worth 
everything that we are spending in this area.
  Reduced absorption of medicine and nutrients in the stomach and gut 
evidenced during space flight and also suspected with many elderly. 
Perhaps

[[Page S9811]]

some of the elderly do not get the nutrients, and their drugs are not 
as effective as they otherwise would be.
  Cardiac electrical activity changes, serum glucose tolerance changes, 
reflexes change, all these things that occur to astronauts in space and 
also occur to the elderly normally here on Earth.
  I know I am rapidly going through these things. I wish I had time to 
go into these things in more detail. But these are areas of research 
for the future that I think are extremely, extremely valuable.
  Mr. President, one thing we have not mentioned either is the 
international aspects of this. Isn't it nice that we are cooperating in 
space rather than fighting each other here on Earth? I think that is an 
important item. And 13 nations, the United States, Canada, Italy, 
Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, France, Spain, Germany, the 
United Kingdom, Japan, and Russia are joining together in the largest 
scientific cooperative program ever, the biggest single scientific 
cooperative program ever in the history of this country.
  We are drawing on the history of the world. We are drawing on Russian 
expertise and long duration space flight and existing Russian 
technology and equipment. And the international space station will help 
redirect the focus of Russian technology programs to nonmilitary 
pursuits.
  This service is a symbol of the opportunities available through a 
peaceful international initiative. We will have several laboratories 
aboard the space station: the United States lab, one other United 
States facility, the European space agency Columbus Orbital Facility, a 
Japanese experiment module, and three Russian research modules. Partner 
nations will contribute $9 billion to the U.S. cooperative effort. And 
international contributions mean international cooperation bringing 
together the best scientific minds worldwide to answer fundamental 
scientific questions in this new laboratory of space.
  Mr. President, I have used on the floor before the statement by 
Daniel Webster when they were contemplating in the Senate of the United 
States whether to provide money to buy land beyond the Mississippi. And 
he 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 those 
     endless mountain ranges, impenetrable and covered to their 
     very base with eternal snow? What can we ever hope to do with 
     the western coast, a coast of 3,000 miles, rock-bound, 
     cheerless, uninviting, and not a harbor on it? What use have 
     we for this country? Mr. President, I will never vote 1 cent 
     from the Public Treasury to place the Pacific coast 1 inch 
     nearer to Boston than it is now.

  Mr. President, I use that statement again to show how myopic Daniel 
Webster's vision was, learned though he might have been. Certainly, 
that Western half of the United States, which we were better able to 
explore than we are going into space, took more than any 25 or 30 years 
to develop to where it was useful and bring back all the benefit of all 
of the money we had spent on it.
  People have stood here on Earth and looked up for a hundred years, or 
several hundred thousand years. We have wanted to travel up there. We 
wanted to go see what it was like. Now we can use that area of space.
  One other area. It is not only international cooperation but it is 
inspiration for our own youth in this country. I think that is an 
important byproduct, or important add-on to the space program that we 
sometimes ignore. It is exciting for our young people to know that we 
are leading the world in science, technology, and research. It is 
exciting enough that a lot more are going into science and math because 
of this. How do we measure those benefits? I don't know. In the future, 
if we can inspire our young people through the space program and the 
continuing space station, I think that pays off in benefits for the 
future beyond anything we can see at the outset. Just like the history 
of this country has shown, that money spent on basic research, even 
though we can't quite see the benefits at the outset--if there is one 
thing we have learned, money spent on basic research seems to have a 
way of paying off in the future beyond anything we see at the outset. 
This is one of the biggest research programs that the whole world has 
ever undertaken, and I think it has the biggest potential payoff.
  I ask unanimous consent to have some additional information printed 
in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Why a Space Station?

       To create a permanent orbiting science institute in space 
     capable of performing long-duration research in the materials 
     and life sciences in a nearly gravity-free environment.
       To conduct medical research in space.
       To develop new materials and processes in industry.
       To accelerate breakthroughs in technology and engineering 
     that will have immediate, practical applications for life on 
     Earth-- and will create jobs and economic opportunities today 
     and in the decades to come.
       To maintain U.S. leadership in space and in global 
     competitiveness, and to serve as a driving force for emerging 
     technologies. To forge new partnerships with the nations of 
     the world.
       To inspire our children, foster the next generation of 
     scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, and satisfy 
     humanity's ancient need to explore and achieve.
       To invest for today and tomorrow. (Every dollar spent on 
     space programs returns at least $2 in direct and indirect 
     benefits.)
       To sustain and strengthen the United States' strongest 
     export sector-aerospace technology--which in 1995 exceeded 
     $33 billion.


                 medical research and the life sciences

       The early space program and experiments conducted on the 
     Space Shuttle have made remarkable contributions to medical 
     research and the study of life on Earth.
       The Space Station is the next step: a permanent orbiting 
     laboratory.
       The Space Station will provide a unique environment for 
     research on the growth of protein crystals, which aid in 
     determining the structure and function of proteins. Such 
     information will greatly enhance drug design and research in 
     the treatment of diseases. Crystals already grown on the 
     Space Shuttle for research into cancer, diabetes, emphysema, 
     parasitic infections, and immune system disorders are far 
     superior to crystals grown on Earth.
       The almost complete absence of gravity on the Space Station 
     will allow new insights into human health and disease 
     prevention and treatment, including heart, lung, and kidney 
     function, cardiovascular disease, osteoporois (bone calcium 
     loss), hormonal disorders, and immune system function.
       Space Station research will build on the proven medical 
     research already conducted on the Space Shuttle. The Space 
     Station will enable long-term research with multiple subjects 
     among the six-member crews.
       Research equipment developed for the Space Station is 
     already paying dividends on the ground. Scientists are 
     growing ovarian tumor samples in NASA's new cell-culturing 
     device so that tumors can be studied outside the body, 
     without harm to the patient. A similar trial is under way for 
     brain tumors.
       Medical equipment technology and miniaturization techniques 
     developed for the early astronauts are still paying off 
     today, 30 years later. For example:
       NASA has developed a ``cool suit'' for the Apollo missions, 
     which is now helping to improve the quality of life of 
     multiple sclerosis patients.
       NASA technology has produced a pacemaker that can be 
     programmed from outside the body.
       NASA has developed instruments to measure bone loss and 
     bone density, without penetrating the skin, that are now 
     being used by hospitals.
       NASA research has led to an implant for delivering insulin 
     to diabetics that is only 3 inches across; it provides more 
     precise control of blood sugar levels and frees diabetics 
     from the burden of daily insulin injections.


               Technology and Engineering for the Future

       The race to the Moon required great advances in engineering 
     and technology that still fuel our economy today. The Space 
     Station will be a testbed for the technologies of the future, 
     as well as a laboratory for research on new, high-technology 
     industrial materials.
       Experimental research in the near absence of gravity 
     produces new insights into industrial processes in materials 
     that cannot be replicated on Earth, including an increased 
     understanding of fluid physics and combustion. Space Shuttle 
     experiments that study metal alloy solidification in space 
     could lead to making lighter, stronger superalloys. A better 
     understanding of the combustion process can lead to energy 
     conservation on Earth. A 2-percent increase in burner 
     efficiency for heaters would save the United States $8 
     billion per year.
       The Space Station will be an industrial research and 
     development laboratory to test lower-cost heating and cooling 
     systems, long-life power converters, safer chemical storage 
     and transfer processes, air and water purification, waste 
     management, and recycling systems.
       Telerobotic and robotic systems validated on the Space 
     Station will increase human efficiency in space and result in 
     reliable, low-maintenance robots for industry and commercial 
     purposes on Earth.

[[Page S9812]]

       Research on large space vehicles will lead to improved 
     computer software for developing new, lightweight structures, 
     such as antennae and solar collectors with precision-pointing 
     accuracy. Such developments will greatly benefit the 
     communications, utility, and transportation industries.
       As with the Apollo program before it, the Space Station 
     will be a proving ground for advances in communications, 
     computers, and systems integration. The International Space 
     Station program will use telepresence, telescience, expert 
     systems, and the integration of communications and data on an 
     unparalleled scale.
       Space Station facilities with the near absence of gravity 
     will permit researchers to study materials that could not 
     exist and processes that could not take place in full Earth 
     gravity. These materials include polymers for everything from 
     paint to contact lenses, semiconductors for high-speed 
     computers and electronics, and high-temperature 
     superconductors for efficiency in electrical devices.


                   A New Era of Peaceful Cooperation

       As the world redefines itself in the wake of the Cold War, 
     the Space Station is a catalyst for international cooperation 
     and a powerful symbol of U.S. leadership in a changing world. 
     The Space Station:
       Continues the largest scientific cooperative program in 
     history, drawing on the resources and scientific expertise of 
     13 nations: the United States, Canada, Italy, Belgium, 
     Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, France, Spain, Germany, the 
     United Kingdom, Japan, and Russia.
       Will channel the aerospace industry of Russia and other 
     countries into non-military pursuits to reduce the risk of 
     nuclear proliferation and slow the traffic of high-technology 
     weaponry to developing nations.
       Will provide international commercial opportunities for 
     U.S. companies.
       Uses existing Russian space technology, capability, 
     expertise, and hardware to build a better Space Station more 
     quickly and cost-effectively.
       Taps into the Russians' vast experience in long-duration 
     spaceflight to benefit the international partnership.
       Serves as a symbol of the power of nations to work together 
     on peaceful initiatives and serves as a test case for 
     building mutual trust and shared goals.
       Demonstrates that former adversaries can join forces in a 
     peaceful pursuit at a fraction of the cost of the arms 
     buildup during the Cold War era.
       Provides a means to influence policies beyond space 
     cooperation, such as giving Russia and the other countries of 
     the former Soviet Union a greater interest in broader U.S. 
     policy initiatives.
       Draws significant financial support from the partner 
     nations, which will collectively add more than $9 billion to 
     the U.S. contribution. The partners from the European Space 
     Agency, Canada, and Japan have already expended more than $5 
     billion on their development programs.


                inspiration and investment in the future

       The Space Station will inspire a new generation of 
     Americans to explore and achieve, while pioneering new 
     methods of education to teach and motivate the next 
     generation of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and 
     explorers.
       Space science is a catalyst for academic achievement. 
     Enrollment trends of U.S. college students majoring in 
     science and engineering track closely with the funding trends 
     of the U.S. space program.
       NASA is a leader in the development of virtual reality and 
     telepresence technologies, giving students the same benefits 
     they would get from actual presence on the Space Station and 
     interaction with real astronauts.
       Astronauts and cosmonauts serve as role models, capturing 
     the imagination of future leaders and encouraging more 
     students to study science and engineering.
       In addition to lessons from space, students of the future 
     will have experiments on the Space Station and will conduct 
     them from their classrooms on the ground. Students will 
     transmit and receive data, manipulate equipment remotely, and 
     evaluate the experiments through data interpretation.
       With the new international focus, students will absorb 
     broad lessons in the value of cooperation as we work with 
     partners in Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada.
       Teachers and communities across the nation are already 
     using Space Station concepts in the classroom. NASA receives 
     unsolicited drawings and models of the Space Station by 
     students of all ages. Communities and states conduct ``Space 
     Week,'' during which students live in a bus outfitted as a 
     Space Station.


                      design, management, and cost

       Independent external review teams have confirmed that the 
     management structure of the International Space Station 
     program has been greatly improved. Now the Space Station will 
     have more laboratory space, more electric power, and a larger 
     crew. It will cost $5 billion less than the cost projected 
     for Space Station Freedom. Greater international 
     participation will be present.
       Dr. Charles M. Vest, chair of an independent review 
     committee and President of MIT, stated: ``NASA has performed 
     a remarkable management turnaround.''
       Instead of four NASA offices overseeing four prime 
     contractors, the Space Station program is now managed by a 
     single NASA office through a single prime contractor, the 
     Boeing Company, which is known for its innovative management.
       This program is affordable. The Space Station constitutes 
     only \1/7\ of 1 percent of the federal budget and less than 
     15 percent of the total NASA budget. It will cost each 
     American $9 a year--about the same as a night at the movies.
       NASA has met all of its external and internal deadlines in 
     redesigning the Space Station.
       Fully 75 percent of Space Station Freedom's elements will 
     be used on the International Space Station.
       The Space Station program has successfully managed its $2.1 
     billion average annual expenditure since redesign. The 
     program's budget is $11 billion from the present through 
     completion in 2002, for a total of $17.4 billion.
       Our international partners have endorsed the design of the 
     International Space Station and the new management structure. 
     Their commitments will total more than $9 billion on the 
     Space Station, of which more than $5 billion has already been 
     expended or placed on contract.


                facts on life and microgravity research

     Statistics
       There were 627 total lead investigators in 1995.
       Investigators represent more than 100 institutions of 
     higher learning and more than 40 laboratories and other 
     institutions in 40 states and the District of Columbia.
       More than 900 graduate students were supported through NASA 
     research in 1995.
       Life and microgravity researchers published more than 1,000 
     journal articles in 1995.
       There were more than 1,000 new research proposals received 
     in 1995.
     Background
       Life and microgravity science research is solicited through 
     an open, highly competitive, peer-review process to ensure 
     that the most meritorious science gains access to orbit.
       Historically, NASA's resources have allowed the agency to 
     accept only about the top fifth of the proposals it receives 
     for life and microgravity research. This level of selectivity 
     is comparable to that of other major U.S. science funding 
     sources, such as the National Institutes of Health and the 
     National Science Foundation. Only 10 to 20 percent of these 
     accepted proposals lead to flight experiments, so selection 
     for flight is even more competitive.
       Because of the great demand for limited orbital research 
     opportunities, NASA selects research for flight opportunities 
     only if it cannot be conducted on Earth. Flight research is 
     selected from and supported by a larger research effort on 
     the ground.
       NASA is fully committed to its close working relationship 
     with the scientific community and to full access to NASA 
     facilities for the most meritorious scientific research. NASA 
     works with the scientific community through its advisory 
     committees and subcommittees, the National Research Council, 
     and working groups of distinguished scientists.


           facts on insperation and investment in the future

     Astronauts
       Astronauts make thousands of appearances each year all over 
     the world.
       Eighteen percent of the active members of the astronaut 
     corps are women.
       Col. Guion S. Bluford, USAF, was the first African-American 
     in space (1983).
       Dr. Sally K. Ride was the first American woman in space 
     (1983).
       Lt. Col. Ellison S. Onizuka, USAF, was the first Asian-
     American in space (1985).
       Dr. Franklin R. Change-Diaz was the first Hispanic-American 
     in space (1986).
       Maj. Eileen Collins, USAF, was the first female Space 
     Shuttle pilot (1995).
     Education
       Traveling aerospace education units
       These units visit hundreds of thousands of students each 
     year.
       Space science student involvement program
       This program provides challenges in science, writing, and 
     art.
       This includes elementary, middle, and secondary school 
     students.
       The program provides an aerospace internship competition 
     for students in grades 9-12.
       Thousands of students participate every year.
       Urban Community enrichment program
       This program is designed to serve middle school students in 
     urban areas.
       It raises an awareness of multicultural contributions to 
     NASA.
       The program fosters career awareness in science and 
     mathematics.
       Thousands of students and hundreds of teachers participate 
     each year.
       NASA educational workshops for teachers
       These workshops recognize outstanding teachers.
       They provide educational advancement opportunities in 
     science, mathematics, and technology.
       Hundreds of elementary and secondary teachers participate 
     each year.
       Americans and the Space Program
       The National Air and Space Museum has averaged more than 9 
     million visitors per year.
       NASA operates hundreds of traveling exhibits each year, 
     which are attended by millions of people.

[[Page S9813]]

       Millions of people visit NASA Visitor Centers every year.


           facts on international space station configuration

     Statistics
     End-to-End Width (Wingspan)--356 feet
     Length--290 feet
     Weight--470 tons (940,000 pounds)
     Operating Altitude--220 miles (average)
     Inclination--51.6 degrees to the Equator
     Atmosphere--14.7 pounds per square inch (same as Earth)
     Crew Size--6
     Hardware
       Canadian Mobile Servicing System--includes a 55-foot robot 
     arm with a 125-ton payload capability. It also includes a 
     mobile transporter, which can be positioned along the truss 
     for robotic assembly and maintenance operations.
       Functional Cargo Block (FGB--acronym from the Russian 
     term)--includes the energy block contingency fuel storage, 
     propulsion, and multiple docking points. The 42,600-pound 
     element, built in Russia, but purchased by the United States, 
     will be launched on a Proton vehicle.
       Russian Service Module--provides life support and 
     utilities, thrusters, and habitation functions (toilet and 
     hygiene facilities). The 46,300-pound element will also be 
     launched on a Proton vehicle.
       Science Power Platform (SPP)--provides power (approximately 
     25 kilowatts) and heat rejection for the Space Station's 
     science and operations.
       Crew Transfer Vehicles (CTVs)--include a modified Russian 
     Soyuz TM capsule and another vehicle yet to be determined. 
     The Soyuz CTV can normally accommodate a crew of three, or a 
     crew of two when considering return of an ill or injured 
     crewmember with room for medical equipment.
       Progress Cargo Vehicles--carry reboost propellant (up to 
     6,600 pounds) to the Space Station about four times per year.


           facts on international space station configuration

     Seven laboratories
       Two U.S.--a laboratory and a Centrifuge Accommodation 
     Module (CAM).
       One European Space Agency (ESA) Columbus Orbital Facility 
     (COF).
       One Japanese Experiment Module (JEM).
       Three Russian Research Modules.
       The U.S., European, and Japanese laboratories together 
     provide 33 International Standard Payload Racks; additional 
     science space is available in the three Russian laboratory 
     modules.
       The JEM has an exposed platform, or ``back porch,'' 
     attached to it, with 10 mounting spaces for experiments, 
     which require direct contact with the space environment. The 
     JEM also has a small robotic arm for payload operations on 
     the exposed platform.
       U.S. Habitation Module--contains the galley, toilet, 
     shower, sleep stations, and medical facilities.
       Italian Mini Pressurized Laboratory Module (MPLM)--carries 
     all the pressurized cargo and payloads launched on the Space 
     Shuttle. It is capable of delivering 16 International 
     Standard Payload Racks.
       Two U.S. Nodes--Node 1 is for storage space only; Node 2 
     contains racks of equipment used to convert electrical power 
     for use by the international partners. The nodes are also the 
     structural building blocks that link the pressurized modules 
     together.
       Total Pressurized Volume--46,200 cubic feet.
       External Sites--four locations on the truss for mounting 
     experiments intended for looking down at Earth and up into 
     space or for direct exposure to space.
       Power--110-kilowatt average (46-kilowatt average for 
     research, with the Russian segment producing an additional 14 
     kilowatts for research). There are four large U.S. 
     photovoltaic modules; each module has two arrays, each 112 
     feet long by 39 feet wide. Each module generates 
     approximately 23 kilowatts. The arrays rotate to face the 
     Sun, providing maximum power to the Space Station.


           Facts on International Space Station Configuration

     Station schedule

                      Schedule, Date, and Payload

     First U.S. Element Launch, November 1997, FGB
     First Russian Element Launch, April 1998, Service Module
     Continuous Human Presence, May 1998, Soyuz
     U.S. Laboratory Launch, November 1998, U.S. Pressurized 
         Laboratory
     Japanese Laboratory Launch, March 2000, JEM Pressurized 
         Laboratory
     ESA Laboratory Launch, September 2001, Attached Pressurized 
         Module
     Centrifuge Launch, August 2001, Centrifuge Accommodation 
         Module
     Habitation Module Launch, February 2002, U.S. Habitation 
         Module
     Assembly Complete/Continuous Full Crew, June 2002, CTV, Hab 
         Outfitting

                             Transportation                             
Total Space Shuttle flights (1997-2002).............................  27
    Assembly........................................................  21
    Utilization/Outfitting..........................................   6
Total Russian flights...............................................  44
    Assembly........................................................  13
    Crew Transport..................................................  10
    Reboost (propulsion)............................................  21
ESA Assembly Flights (Ariane 5).....................................   1
Launch Vehicle for CTV..............................................   1
                                                                        


                                  Cost                                  
                                                                        
                                                                 Billion
                                                                        
Preliminary Design (1985-1987)................................     $0.6 
Station-Related Design/Development............................      0.7 
Development...................................................      8.9 
NASA Estimate for Assembly Complete...........................     17.4 
FY 94-96 Development, Utilization, Payloads and Mir Support...      6.4 
Cost to Go (1997--Assembly Complete in June 2002).............     11.0 
    Development...............................................     (4.4)
    Operations................................................     (4.1)
    Utilization Support.......................................     (0.3)
    Payloads and Mir Support..................................     (2.2)
Operations (2003-2012)........................................     13.0 
                                                                        

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I wish we had several more hours to discuss 
this. I hope my colleagues will take time to look at the more complete 
statement I had in the Record yesterday because it went into a lot of 
these areas in greater detail.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GLENN. Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 55 minutes. The 
Senator from Missouri has 15 minutes. The Senator from Maryland has 4 
minutes.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I invite my colleague from Arkansas, since 
we are about out of time, to utilize what time he wishes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have listened to the speakers who 
oppose this amendment. I have listened very carefully. I have not heard 
anybody make any claims of any beneficial research, mechanical, 
medical, physical, or any other successful research being accomplished 
by the Russians and the former Soviet Union after 25 years in space. 
That is right. The Russians have had a space station orbiting the Earth 
for 25 years. The only reason in God's world we are putting one up 
there is because they have one. If you don't like that explanation, 
there is another one that is probably about as good, which is to figure 
out how we are going to get to Mars, because it is going to take at 
least 24 months to get there and back, and we want to know, can man 
survive that long in space. If you want that to be the justification 
for the space station, for Pete's sake, be honest about it and let us 
debate that. Carl Sagan is not rhapsodic about all these arguments 
about curing cancer, but he is about the exploration of space. Even 
Daniel Goldin said that we not only need to go to Mars, we need to have 
an outpost there on a permanent basis. He as much as said that is the 
reason for the space station. If you want to buy that as a rationale 
for building a space station, I won't vote for it because we don't have 
the money. Bear in mind that every dime you put into this space station 
is borrowed money.
  Now, just as soon as we get through with this debate and I lose and 
we continue inexorably, irreversibly toward spending $94 billion we 
don't have, the same people will come over and you hear all these 
pompous speeches about balancing the budget. Senator Hutchison, a 
moment ago, talked about all the magnificent accomplishments so far of 
the space program. One was a remotely programmable heart pacemaker. And 
she mentioned other products and inventions. But I say to Senator 
Hutchison, those things could have been accomplished for peanuts right 
here on Earth. You don't have to go into space to develop a remotely 
programmable heart pacemaker. I also say that those things were 
discovered and developed by NASA, not the space station. The space 
station had absolutely zilch to do with those accomplishments.
  If you want to do research in the space program on the shuttle, 
that's fine. I talked earlier about how many times I had gotten teary-
eyed watching the shuttle take off. I want you to know that once I got 
involved in the space program--and I went on the space committee when I 
first came here and, believe you me, it was a spacey committee--I quit 
shedding tears when I found out it cost $400 million to send one of 
those things up. Think of that--$400 million. My good friend, Senator 
Glenn, said that I misspoke when I said we had only built

[[Page S9814]]

17 percent of the hardware of the space station. He suggested we had 
done 45 percent. Let me clarify that. We have built 165,000 pounds of 
the station's total 950,000 pounds of hardware. That is about 17 
percent. However, NASA says Boeing has accomplished 45 percent of the 
prime contract. But of the $17 billion the space station is going to 
cost in the bill, the prime contract is now only $6 billion of it. It 
is true, we have done 45 percent of the prime contract, but we have 
actually only built 17 percent space station's hardware. And we are, 
according to the General Accounting Office, using up those reserves he 
talked about at a much faster pace than the program can sustain. I 
might also point out that Boeing is indeed at least 4 months behind, 
and the Russians are 6 to 8 months behind, and the press is reporting 
that the space station is already $500 million over its construction 
budget--$500 million.
  If you ask any Senator how he would like to have $500 million for 
some of his favorite programs, he will start salivating.
  I have not heard one single claim that one single case of influenza 
has been cured by anything we found in space. I have not heard one 
single claim anyone plans to commercially grow gallium arsenide 
crystals in space. They can be made there but nobody argues that you 
can do it economically. On the contrary, everybody says it is totally 
uneconomical. It is always what we are going to do. We have been at 
this business 35 years headed for a $94 billion project, and we are 
saying look what we are going to do.
  Look at this chart. The cost is all broken down for you neat as a 
pin; $94 billion. I can hardly wait for us to get through with this so 
we can listen to all of the speeches about balancing the budget again.
  Where is the cost going? We have already spent $18 billion since 
Ronald Reagan made that famous speech about how we are going to build 
this whole thing for $8 billion. We have spent $18 billion since then--
$10 billion more than President Reagan suggested. That is just for 
building the station. That does not include the $51 billion we are 
going to spend on shuttle launches to keep the space station supplied 
with water, food, and whatever else they may need for 10 years, which 
is supposed to be the life of the space station. So it is all right 
there--shuttle launches, construction, operations, and $1 billion in 
additional costs. You still have $76 billion to spend. You can vote 
``aye'' on this amendment and save the taxpayers of this country $76 
billion. Give it to the National Institutes of Health and you might 
cure cancer. You might make a greater impact on AIDS, arthritis, and a 
host of other diseases which make life miserable for so many millions 
of people. You are not going to accomplish anything by putting it into 
the space station except maybe a good, warm, fuzzy glow occasionally.
  This whole thing, $94 billion, works out to a total cost of $25 
million for each day the space station will be in operation. You think 
of that. This thing is going to cost $25 million a day every 24 hours. 
What is it worth in gold? Twenty-five times its weight in gold. Isn't 
that something? You think about something costing 25 times its weight 
in gold for no tangible benefit.
  Jobs--each job on this thing of the 15,000 jobs costs $140,000. I can 
tell you one thing. If I were from Texas, Alabama, or California, I 
would probably be on the other side of this issue. If I had 15,000 
jobs, or any portion of those 15,000 jobs at $140,000 apiece, I would 
probably think the space station was the greatest thing since sliced 
bread.
  It is going to cost us $12,880 to transport one pound of water or 
bread or anything else to the space station. Each astronaut is going to 
use how many pounds of water a day? They are allocated for all purposes 
I believe 9.5 liters per day. It all comes to $319,000 a day I believe 
for each astronaut, just for bottled water. That is $1.9 million in 
water per day for a crew of six astronauts.
  Mr. President, I want to read a portion of a letter which I consider 
to be extremely important in this debate. The testimony by Prof. Robert 
L. Park before the Commerce Committee, the Subcommittee on Science, 
Technology, and Space, which he delivered on July 1, 1993. I am not 
going to attempt to read the whole letter. But I am going to read the 
salient parts of it. I hope my colleagues will pay close attention to 
this.
  Dr. Park represents the American Physical Society with 40,000 
physicists including astrophysicists. About the only physicists who 
support the space station are the ones that are on NASA's payroll. Here 
is what Dr. Park said:

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

  You have two groups of experts on the space station. You have 
physicists and you have medical science. Here is what the physicists 
say. He goes on to say:

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

  He goes on:

       A possible exception was thought to be the growth of 
     molecular crystals, specifically protein crystals. In 
     November, however, a team of the Americans that collaborated 
     in protein crystal growth experiments on Mir and on the U.S. 
     space shuttle reporting in Nature magazine that 10 years of 
     work at stupendous cost has produced no significant 
     breakthrough in protein crystal growth. Microgravity has no 
     effect on crystallization of most proteins, they report, and, 
     if it does, crystals are as likely to be worse as better. No 
     protein has been observed to crystallize in microgravity that 
     does not crystallize on Earth.

  In short, you can do it on Earth. You do not have to spend $100 
billion to go into space.
  He goes on to say, in quoting Dr. Blumberg at Harvard, a Nobel 
laureate and physicist, and he summed it up bluntly in testimony before 
a Senate committee. Microgravity, he says, is of ``microimportance.''
  Then he goes on to the spinoff, what you are going to get out of the 
spinoff. ``It is both false and demeaning for NASA to claim''--listen 
to this. He says:

       It is both false and demeaning for NASA to claim that 
     products, from magnetic resonance imaging to synthetic pig 
     teats, are spinoffs of the space program. Any program that 
     spends $15 billion per year is bound to produce something 
     that society can use, but few of NASA's claims stand up. 
     Indeed, an internal NASA study of technology transfer 
     which became public in January acknowledged that NASA's 
     spinoff claims were exaggerated, including such famous 
     examples as Velcro, Tang and Teflon. Contrary to popular 
     belief, the study found NASA created none of these.

  I have heard that old Teflon, Velcro, Tang argument for 5 years. NASA 
had nothing to do with it except publicize it.
  Let me just close this segment by saying the opportunities for saving 
money are very limited around here. This year, the deficit is going to 
be $116 billion. If Bill Clinton had not acted when he did in 1993, it 
would be $290 billion this year. I do not care whether you like Bill 
Clinton or not. A lot of people here do not. But he did something that 
was very unpopular in 1993--he raised taxes. But he raised taxes on the 
wealthiest 1.2 percent of the people of this country; 28 million people 
actually got their taxes lowered. But we are today looking at the most 
dramatic reduction in the deficit any of us ever dreamed would happen. 
It is a gratifying thing to see that deficit reduced so dramatically 
over a 4-year period. But I can tell you, while that was not easy, it 
is easy compared to how you are going to find that other $116 billion 
toward a balanced budget. You are not going to balance the budget by 
spending this $76 billion. You keep spending money like this and all 
you can do is make those great speeches about balancing the budget but 
you will never balance it. You may convince the chamber of commerce 
back home that your heart is in a balanced budget, but you just cannot 
find it in your heart to vote for the things that bring about a 
balanced budget.
  So I plead with my colleagues to show the kind of spine and spunk 
that

[[Page S9815]]

your constituents have a right to expect of you. Oh, it is an easy 
vote; 99 percent of the people in this country really do not care 
whether you vote ``aye'' or ``nay'' on this. That is the reason you 
cannot win it. That is the reason I have not won it in 5 years; it is 
too easy to vote ``aye.''
  So, as I said, I have no illusions about what the vote is going to 
be, but I am just like the turtle. A man was riding the turtle across 
the creek. The turtle got out in the middle of the creek and he went 
under after he promised he would not. And the man who was on the 
turtle's back said, ``You promised me you wouldn't do that. Why on 
Earth did you do it?'' And the old turtle said, ``I guess it is just my 
nature.'' That is the way it is around here. It is just our nature to 
vote for big spending projects like this and make speeches about 
balancing the budget.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas. I 
understand that there may not be additional speakers on his side. Is 
that correct? We have, I believe, under my control only about 15 
minutes left. There are five people who have asked for that 15 minutes, 
including myself, Senator Bennett, Senator Shelby, Senator Heflin, and 
Senator Burns. I urge those who want to share in that largess to come 
join us very quickly because we may--and I want to put all Senators on 
notice--be able to go to a vote earlier than 10 minutes of 6.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if I may say to the Senator from 
Missouri, I recognize I have been in that position too many times when 
Senators want to speak but do not come to the floor. But in the 
interest of accommodating him, if the Senator would like to put in a 
quorum call without the time being charged to either side, that would 
be satisfactory until the speakers get here.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, unfortunately, as much as we wish to 
accommodate speakers, we also have to accommodate the leadership, which 
wants us to move forward on the bill. We do have a Senator who is ready 
to go, and I am pleased to allocate 3 minutes to the Senator from Utah, 
Mr. Bennett.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator.
  I will not give all the arguments for the space station. I have given 
them in times past and Congresses past in debate with my friend from 
Arkansas. He says it is his nature to bring it up. It is my nature to 
be for it. I will, however, return to a previous quote that I have used 
in past debates that I think summarizes why it is we go ahead with it. 
Samuel Eliot Morison, the great historian, wrote this about this 
country. 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 name of getting through or around it. America was 
     named after a man who discovered no part of it. History is 
     like that, very chancy.

  Mr. President, that is why we are going into space. No, we do not 
know with exactness what we are going to find. We cannot predict it any 
more than the people who discovered this continent from the European 
side could predict what would happen, and indeed what we find there may 
not be wanted just as this country was not wanted for a long period of 
time. But I will share with the Senate this experience.
  Every year, I sponsor in the State of Utah an activity called Space 
Talk, where we get together and talk about space and what can be done 
in space and what the prospects of space are. Last year, as part of 
Space Talk, NASA agreed to allow the shuttle on its way from Cape 
Canaveral to Edwards Air Force Base to stop in Salt Lake City to refuel 
and stay overnight. As it turned out, the 747 carrying the shuttle 
banked in over the Salt Lake Valley just about at the end of the day, 
just about at sunset it came over. There were approximately 100,000 
people who stopped in their cars on the freeway, who came out of their 
houses and stood in their front yards and who waved and acknowledged 
that as it made a pass down the valley, then turned, came back in low 
over the valley and finally landing at the Salt Lake airport. I still 
have people who will come up to me on the street corner literally with 
tears in their eyes and say, ``Senator, that was one of the most 
emotional experiences of my life. How proud I am to be an American,'' 
demonstrating their support for the space program. America has not lost 
the sense of exploration that it had all the way back to Columbus' 
time, and we should not lose it again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes and ask that I be 
notified when that 3 minutes has expired.
  I do wish to urge my colleagues who had wanted time to come over, 
those in support. The time is running out.
  I did want to answer the legitimate question asked by the Senator 
from Arkansas: What do you expect to get out of this? What good is 
going to come from it?
  Just a small sample, Mr. President. The National Depressive and 
Manic-Depressive Association in a letter of July 27, 1995, to 
Administrator Goldin, the executive director, expresses ``our support 
for the human brain and neurological research that is part of NASA's 
international space station program.''
  We have a similar letter from the Multiple Sclerosis Association of 
America, saying:

       We are especially optimistic about a project on the station 
     called Neurolab, dedicated to neurological research. This 
     research could be essential to MS patients. Because MS is a 
     neurological disease, the more we know about the brain, the 
     closer we are to understanding and overcoming this illness.

  The American Medical Women's Association has written that:

       The space station will provide important research 
     opportunities in the following areas:
       Diseases predominantly affecting women, including breast, 
     ovarian and cervical cancers and endometriosis;
       Diseases more prevalent in women, such as osteoporosis, 
     diabetes and other autoimmune diseases;
       Areas in which women are particularly vulnerable, such as 
     biological rhythms, cyclic hormonal changes and balance 
     disorders . . ..

  I ask unanimous consent all these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        The Planetary Society,

                                                    July 24, 1995.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Gingrich: In the past few weeks you have received 
     mail and calls from some of your constituents who are among 
     the over 100,000 members of The Planetary Society. We are 
     urging you to support the President's proposed budget for 
     NASA. Although that budget calls for significant cuts--about 
     four percent per year for the rest of the decade--it 
     preserves important NASA missions and programs to explore 
     other worlds and to understand our own.
       This week, the House will vote on the NASA Appropriation as 
     part of the HUD-VA-Independent Agencies bill. There will an 
     amendment offered to cancel the space station. We oppose that 
     amendment.
       The Appropriations bill gives NASA $600 million less in FY 
     1996 than in the President's proposed budget. We believe that 
     cut, on top of the Administration reductions, is too deep and 
     threatens the vitality of the American enterprise in space.
       The recent shuttle-Mir success; the stirring results from 
     the Hubble Space Telescope; and the new cheaper, faster, 
     better missions of Mars Surveyor, Discovery and New 
     Millennium bode well for the future. The great interest in 
     the movie Apollo 13 is a reminder of how much these successes 
     mean to the American public, and how important the NASA 
     ``can-do'' philosophy is to our nation.
       The building of the space station is an important global 
     effort. It is the largest and greatest international 
     engineering project in history. Many European nations, Japan, 
     Russia, and Ukraine have investments commensurate with that 
     of the United States. The international space station, like 
     Project Apollo, is serving a greater national interest 
     besides that of space development. Like Apollo, it is playing 
     on a world stage.
       Several years ago, Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray, and Louis 
     Freidman--the officers of The Planetary Society--testified to 
     Congress with a statement called ``A Space Station Worth the 
     Cost.'' We opposed the then-space station plan as serving no 
     national purpose, as being unrealistic and counter-productive 
     in its budgeting, and as not contributing to the goals of 
     human exploration beyond Earth orbit.
       Those defects have now been remedied. The present plan is 
     working on a fixed budget with meaningful cost-savings from 
     Russia's participation. It is serving national and 
     international interests. And, in perhaps the

[[Page S9816]]

     biggest difference from the previous plan, it has put 
     Americans back in space, making progress toward understanding 
     the physiological effects of long-duration spaceflight. Norm 
     Thagard just broke the American endurance record in space--
     five years earlier than anyone would have under the previous 
     space station plan.
       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.
       We ask your support now for the entire NASA program; Manned 
     Spaceflight, Science, Mission to Planet Earth, Technology and 
     Aeronautics. All have been cut this year as well as in the 
     past several years. There is a delicate balance among them 
     now, important to preserving each enterprise, and important 
     to preserving the whole.
       Thank you very much for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Carl Sagan.
     Louis Friedman.
                                                                    ____

                                                Multiple Sclerosis


                                       Association of America,

                                                    June 20, 1995.
     Hon. Robert S. Walker,
     Chairman, House Subcommittee on Science, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Walker: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Multiple Sclerosis Association of America (MSAA) to express 
     our support for the International Space Station and the 
     medical research that is an integral part of the project. 
     MSAA is a national organization in its 25th year of service 
     in improving the lives of the 300,000 people diagnosed with 
     multiple sclerosis (MS) in the United States and an 
     additional 200,000 as yet not diagnosed.
       The MSAA is hopeful, as new findings continue to emerge 
     from space-based research and the possibilities that the 
     International Space Station holds. We are especially 
     optimistic about a project on the station called Neurolab, 
     dedicated to neurological research. This research could be 
     essential to MS patients. Because MS is a neurological 
     disease, the more we know about the brain, the closer we are 
     to understanding and overcoming this illness.
       The MS community has benefited from NASA technology to date 
     by utilizing microclimate cooling systems to control MS 
     patients' exacerbations, which are brought on or worsened by 
     heat. Controlling body temperature is crucial to MS patients' 
     health since overheating can cause painful and debilitating 
     symptoms. The MSAA has signed a Memorandum of Understanding 
     (MOU) with NASA to provide information on liquid cooled 
     garments (``cool suits'') as well as helping to make the 
     present technology widely available to patients and utilizing 
     other spinoff technology.
       The MSAA urges Congress to appropriate funding for this 
     important research project. NASA's ``cool suit'' literally 
     has changed the lives of some of those suffering from MS. If 
     space-based research continues, perhaps MS patients will have 
     more options and more information in understanding this 
     elusive and incurable disease.
           Sincerely,
                                              John G. Hodson, Sr.,
     President and Chairman of the Board.
                                                                    ____

                                    National Depressive and Manic-


                                       Depressive Association,

                                                    July 27, 1995.
     Hon. Daniel S. Goldin,
     Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator Goldin: On behalf of the 275 chapters of 
     the National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association 
     (National DMDA), I want to express to you our support for the 
     human brain and neurological research that is part of NASA's 
     International Space Station program. As an organization 
     representing patients affected with depressive disorders, we 
     are strong advocates for improving treatments for diseases of 
     the brain.
       Founded in 1986, by and for patients and their families, 
     National DMDA's mission is to educate patients, families, 
     professionals, and the public about the nature of depressive 
     (unipolar) and manic-depressive (bi-polar) illness as medical 
     disease. As the only illness-specific, patient-run 
     organization in the nation, National DMDA seeks to foster 
     self-help for patients and families, eliminate discrimination 
     and stigma, improve access to care and advocate for research 
     toward the elimination of these illnesses.
       We believe the International Space Station will augment and 
     complement ground-based brain research and add to the 
     nation's arsenal of research facilities. NASA's cooperative 
     agreements with the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) 
     National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and National 
     Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stoke (NINDS) ensure 
     that human brain research efforts are carefully coordinated 
     and contribute to significant progress in the understanding 
     and treatments of brain and neurological disorders. We are 
     also encouraged by the potential for medical breakthroughs 
     offered by NASA's Neurolab, which involves six Institutes of 
     the NIH and several nations in joint spaceflight research 
     ventures dedicated to research in neurological and behavioral 
     sciences.
       The Space Station program and related cooperative 
     agreements with NIH are providing needed medical research 
     into brain disorders that will improve the quality of life 
     for millions of Americans. Therefore, we support full and 
     continued funding of the human brain research programs of 
     NASA's International Space Station.
           Sincerely,
                                                Susan Dime-Meenan,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                  American Medical


                                          Women's Association,

                                                    June 12, 1995.
     Hon. Linda Smith,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Smith: The American Medical Women's 
     Association (AMWA), a professional organization of 13,000 
     women physicians, has been committed to improving the state 
     of women's health for 80 years. Of primary concern to AMWA is 
     the need for increased research in women's health. As such, 
     AMWA supports the continuation of funding for NASA's 
     International Space Station because it provides one of the 
     most promising new visions for medical research on diseases 
     that strike women and have unknown causes or cures.
       Traditional research approaches have not been sufficient to 
     unravel the complex mechanisms underlying diseases that 
     afflict millions of women. The microgravity environment of 
     space allows researchers to carry out experiments that cannot 
     be performed on earth, potentially loading to medical 
     breakthroughs. The Space Station will provide important 
     research opportunities in the following areas: diseases 
     predominantly affecting women, including breast, ovarian and 
     cervical cancers and endometriosis; diseases more prevalent 
     in women, such as osteoporosis, diabetes and other autoimmune 
     diseases; area in which women are particularly vulnerable, 
     such as biological rhythms, cyclic hormonal changes and 
     balance disorders; diseases with different risk factors or 
     interventions for women, such as cardiovascular disease, 
     blood pressure control, lung cancer and AIDS.
       NASA research has already benefitted women's health 
     research. Since 1992, NASA entered into 18 different 
     cooperative agreements with the National Institutes of Health 
     to ensure that NASA biomedical research activities contribute 
     to significant progress in the understanding and treatment of 
     diseases and other medical conditions that affect women.
       NASA is also a model for the inclusion of women in medical 
     research, having performed and supported research related to 
     the physiological function of healthy women (25 percent of 
     NASA astronauts are women). This has included research in 
     cardiovascular, neurological, endocrinological and 
     musculoskeletal function; in biological rhythms, in behavior 
     and performance; and in the effects of exercise and 
     inactivities. These studies together represent a valuable and 
     perhaps unique data base on the physiology of healthy women.
       AMWA strongly urges Congress to consider the important 
     biological research benefits of longer duration space-based 
     research and maintain full funding of the International Space 
     Station.
           Sincerely,
                                             Dianna L. Dell, M.D.,
                                                        President.

  Mr. BOND. I just conclude these brief remarks by saying that Carl 
Sagan who, in the past, along with the Planetary Society, raised great 
questions about the space station serving no national purpose has, now, 
written saying that the defects in the space program ``have been 
remedied'' and it is meaningful. ``We ask your support now for the 
entire NASA program.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes has expired. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Alabama, Senator Heflin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bumpers 
amendment. I have supported the space station from the very beginning. 
In fact, I made a speech and have been told by people at NASA that I 
was the first Senator to call for the building of the space station, 
more than 15 years ago.
  I think the space station is coming along in an excellent manner. I 
happen to have had the opportunity to visit Boeing during the recess 
and saw the progress that is being made on the space station. It is up 
to schedule and is moving in a manner that will mean it will be 
launched on time and it will move forward in a proper manner.
  The space station has many benefits for mankind. People sometimes 
question the byproducts that have occurred as a result of the space 
program. There are many, many byproducts that have

[[Page S9817]]

come about as a result of the space program. Many of them were not 
anticipated, but they developed as you develop the program for the 
space station. For example, digital watches came out of the space 
program.
  I happen to be sort of a walking example of the various benefits that 
the space program has provided in the field of medical services. I have 
a pacemaker. The pacemaker idea came as a result of activities involved 
in the space station.
  I also have what is known as a stent. A stent is sort of a metal pipe 
that is placed in my coronary artery, that holds open an area that 
became occluded. Therefore, this program with the idea of having a 
stent originated out of the space program, in regard to the use of 
metal and how metal could tie into tissue. So I am sort of a walking 
example of what the space program has done. There are many other 
benefits that have occurred as a result of the space program. There are 
volumes, actually, that have been developed, outlining the various 
programs.
  So, I am fully supportive of the space program and of the space 
station. I think there are several things that are very important. 
Senator Glenn has gone into this in detail. But the crystallography, by 
which you grow crystals in microgravity, has been exceptionally 
beneficial to working toward finding a cure for disease. There is 
another program known as the electrophoresis program, which is the 
ability to separate a cell down to the smallest integral parts. To be 
able to someday use the ability to grow crystals and to grow cells to a 
much higher degree than they exist on Earth in microgravity, and then 
use the process of electrophoresis to separate those cells, into the 
smallest integral parts, has a great potential relative to finding 
cures for diseases.
  So I am fully supportive of this.
  Mr. President, to reiterate, I rise today in firm opposition to the 
amendment before us which seeks to terminate funding for the 
international space station. I have been, and will continue to be, a 
strong and vocal supporter of the international space station. I first 
rose on this floor over 15 years ago as one of the first proponents of 
a manned laboratory in space. I share with many in this Nation and this 
Congress a vision of maintaining and expanding the human experience in 
space. The space station is an investment in the future, an investment 
fully consistent with NASA's mission. The first words appearing in the 
1958 act which created NASA state that the ``Congress declares it is 
the policy of the United States that activities in space should be 
devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'' This 
project, more so than many others, is true to that charter.
  The space station is the largest international peacetime cooperative 
effort ever undertaken. It will provide a platform for scientific 
research which could never be duplicated in any laboratory on the 
ground. The rhetoric surrounding this celebrated program seems to have 
taken on a life of its own. Old complaints, long since recognized and 
addressed, resurfaced with every budget debate. From the moment 
President Reagan proposed the space station in 1984, however, the 
project has been engulfed in controversy. Skeptics are not shy about 
decrying the space station as a flagrant misuse of tax dollars in a 
time of fiscal restraint. Social critics have argued that the money 
would be better spent at home, shoring up fractured urban areas and 
investing in better schools.
  Congress has repeatedly voted by substantial bipartisan margins to 
continue our space exploration projects. But in a time of tight 
budgets, more attempts to kill sound investments in our future are 
expected. It seems to me, however, that we cannot back away from a 
strong investment in public interest and research, any more so than 
parents can decide not to fund their children's college education just 
because they might still have a mortgage on their home or a large 
balance on their credit card accounts. At the same time, we cannot 
ignore our fiscal dilemma. I have long been in the forefront of efforts 
to inject responsibility and discipline into the Federal budget 
process. Any public investment must be cost effective. I believe it is 
time to review the results of efforts to date and recognize the 
benefits of the project.
  The vision of the Congress was to construct in orbit a permanently-
manned space station. The purpose of the project was to exploit and 
enhance the technological superiority of our scientific, engineering, 
and aerospace industries. While much of the hard science and technology 
necessary to construct such a facility did exist, the scope of the 
project extended into hundreds of areas where the existing technology 
and knowledge base were not fully developed.
  The need to create an environment in space which would support a 
permanent manned presence led us through years of life sciences 
experiments which have added to our understanding of the human body and 
produced countless biomedical breakthroughs which are saving or 
improving the quality of life for people everywhere. I have personally 
benefited from one such technology breakthrough when I have experienced 
heart problems in the recent past. The technique used to treat my 
condition came from the space station's life sciences developments. Our 
defense systems have also benefited from space exploration. Composite 
materials needed to endure the harsh environment of space have enhanced 
our competitive advantage in the engineering and aerospace industries.

  Our international relations were enhanced and our construction and 
operations costs were reduced when we extended participation in this 
project to our international partners in Europe, Canada, and Japan. 
Each makes a contribution to the overall design in return for access to 
the completed station. And an unprecedented cooperative effort was 
forged when we extended our hand in friendship to the Russian people to 
join in this truly international space station.
  Over the last few years, an enormous number of technological, 
organizational, and managerial difficulties have been resolved. A 
diffused and decentralized program structure suitable to the early 
design stages has been replaced by a lean, integrated, and responsive 
management structure where communication and accountability are clear. 
A single host center and a single prime contractor now coordinate and 
integrate the hardware which support the program.
  Just a few days ago, the first U.S. space station module, node 1, 
passed a critical pressure test. This module features six docking ports 
and will serve as a gate-way connecting other station modules. The 
space station is expected to begin assembly in November 1997 with the 
launch of the Russian-built core vehicle, the functional cargo block. 
Node 1 is expected to be launched into space 1 month after this core-
vehicle.
  Now is not the time to pull the collective rug out from under this 
effort. We have made commitments to our international partners which we 
must not breach. We have sought the intellectual and capital investment 
of countless scientists, engineers, and program managers who have 
labored long and hard to support our ever elusive vision of this 
project. We gave these groups the vision of an international space 
station. We gave them the mission of constructing an orbiting 
laboratory in space. We have held the reins tight and offered 
considerable course correction at every turn in the development and 
design stages. Just as we are about to realize the results of this long 
labor, there are calls to squander our investment, terminate the work, 
and redirect the funding.
  Such calls are short-sighted and ill-conceived, and should not be 
supported. This Nation enjoys a technological competitive advantage in 
aeronautics and space issues because of its tradition in investing in 
the future. Continued construction and operation of the space station 
will further our advantage. It will provide a laboratory in 
microgravity which will enhance our understanding of crystallography. 
It will give us advancements in biomedical research which will improve 
our health and welfare. It will provide a platform for environmental 
study of our fragile planet by allowing us to monitor and measure 
global changes both above and below the atmosphere.

  When I hear some of my colleagues rail against the space station and 
other projects designed to propel us into the future, I cannot help but 
wonder what they would have said had they been around in 1492. 
Certainly had these political pundits been in Spain, the news

[[Page S9818]]

headlines would have read: ``Columbus voyage disaster, ship lost, India 
not found.''
  We never know what benefits research and development will ultimately 
yield. Some of the most important discoveries in medicine and other 
field have been accidental in nature, just as Columbus' arrival in the 
New World was 500 years ago. Could any of us argue, with a straight 
face, that the cost of that long-ago voyage, which at that time was 
astronomical, has not been outweighed many, many times over by the 
benefits that were bestowed upon mankind?
  As we reflect upon that journey during 1996, it would serve us well 
to think of and focus on the miraculous technological advances and 
discoveries--many of which have benefitted the human race 
immeasurably--that would never have been possible had the naysayers 
carried the day.
  In his inaugural address to the Nation over 30 years ago, President 
Kennedy told Americans that they stood ``on the edge of a New 
Frontier.'' In describing the phrase that has become synonymous with 
his short administration, he inspired an entire generation by saying, 
``Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its 
terrors. Together let us explore the starts, conquer the deserts, 
eradicate disease, tape the ocean-depths  * * *''.
  Those words are no less profound today that they were in Kennedy's 
time, for as long as man is on this Earth, and as long as we are able 
to move forward with scientific and technological advances, we will 
always be on the brink of a new frontier.
  As this will probably be my last opportunity to champion the 
international manned space laboratory, I remain fully committed to our 
vision. I ask my fellow colleagues to join with me today in defeating 
this unreasonable amendment and signaling our collective resolve to 
support the continued construction and operation of the international 
space station.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 3 minutes and 25 
seconds.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, does Senator Mikulski 
have additional time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. She has 4 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. There is 4 minutes for Senator Mikulski and 3 minutes on 
this side. I believe other speakers have now indicated they will submit 
their statements and will not give them directly. At this point I will 
just wrap up. If Senator Mikulski wishes to make any further comments, 
I will be happy to have her comments. Otherwise, I propose to offer a 
tabling motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Does the Senator from Arkansas wish further time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I was just going to yield myself 2 or 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to clarify the record on one 
thing, before Senator Heflin leaves the floor. As he knows, he and I 
talked about it, I also have a stent in my heart. We are getting 
conflicting information. My doctor told me he was part of the team that 
developed stents out at the National Institutes of Health. He never did 
mention the space station or any part of space. So we will have to 
reconcile that little difference about who developed stents.
  In any event, I am grateful to whoever did it.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Amen.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to add one point about the cost of 
keeping the astronauts supplied with in water in space. As I said 
before, it will cost $12,880 per pound to ship water to the space 
station. With each astronaut allocated 9.5 liters of water per day, 
that comes to $1.9 million per day just to keep a crew of six supplied 
with water. I've done some more calculations and that comes out to 
about $700 million per year.

  Let me say that again, because I think that is sliding over 
everybody's head. We are talking about almost three-quarters of a 
billion dollars a year to send water to six people on the space 
station. Now, you talk about balancing the budget, that is a great way 
to do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much of my time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has approximately 31 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is the distinguished manager of the bill short on time? 
I will be glad to yield some time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think we have all the time we need on this 
side. The Senator from Maryland has 4 minutes, if she wants to use it. 
I can conclude in the little time I have. If the Senator from Arkansas 
is ready to yield back, I will offer a tabling motion.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I understand I have yet 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding the Senator 
from Maryland has 4 minutes remaining.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I claim those 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I conclude in my opposition to the 
Bumpers amendment by talking about the impact, what it would mean to 
both taxpayers' jobs and scientific innovation.
  Cost to terminate the station would erode any fiscal 1997 savings 
gained from cancelling the program. Termination costs are estimated at 
$700 million. The U.S. Government has invested $6.4 billion in the 
redesigned station and, for the most part, what the Bumpers amendment 
would do is essentially lose what we have already put in.
  Let's go to mission and employment. Termination of the space station 
would result in the loss of 15,000 highly skilled engineering and 
production jobs currently under contract, Mr. President, 15,000 jobs in 
Texas, in Alabama, and in other parts of our great country. In 
addition, 1,300 civil service positions directly supporting the space 
station would become expendable. A conservative multiplier effect in 
California, Texas, Alabama, and Florida estimates 40,000 jobs.
  We could talk about science impact, international impact, and the 
intangibles. Since its inception, the U.S. space program has driven 
science and technology. It has also motivated our young people to enter 
careers in space research, engineering, and has inspired the Nation.
  We all went to see ``Apollo 13.'' Apollo 13 was more than a movie. It 
was the whole Apollo program, the space station program. The Hubble 
telescope is inspiring young people to move in to study science and 
engineering, and whether they come or go in the space program, they are 
going to be fit for duty in the 21st century and inventing products we 
do not begin to think of.
  The long-term cutting edge, high-risk R&D is exactly what the United 
States of America needs. The investment NASA is making in breakthroughs 
in science and technology will make long-term economic growth possible. 
It is exactly this type of activity that we need in the United States 
of America.
  Right now in Desert Strike, we are using smart new weapons of war to 
bring a dictator under heel. I also want to see in the civilian area 
these new smart technologies that will generate jobs and keep our 
economy a 21st century economy. Therefore, we cannot approach it with a 
19th century attitude or framework.
  Mr. President, that concludes my remarks. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, does my colleague from Arkansas wish any 
further time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I do not think so. Is the Senator from Missouri prepared 
to yield back?
  Mr. BOND. I am going to conclude with my 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute thirty seconds for the Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the vote be held at 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. With the time equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9819]]

  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I claim a minute of that time just to follow 
up on the comments I made earlier. There were questions raised about 
what we can learn from the space station. We have not learned anything 
yet. Well, we have not had the space station up yet.
  Here is a letter that I thought particularly compelling. This letter 
begins:

       On Earth, we are prisoners of gravity. Gravity influences 
     all life on Earth . . .
       In orbit, there is very little gravity--

  Or zero-g.

       The microgravity environment of space allows researchers to 
     unmask gravity and to see, in many cases for the first time, 
     deeply into physical, chemical, and biological processes 
     which were previously obscured by gravity. . . . This 
     promises to lead to radical new scientific discoveries about 
     life on Earth.
       Fundamental insights from international Space Station 
     research will produce broad-ranging benefits for humanity for 
     generations to come.

  The writer says:

       I don't have space here to catalog all of the potential 
     contributions that the international Space Station could make 
     to the world's biomedical research efforts. I hope the 
     examples I have provided will serve to illustrate this basic 
     point: NASA technology and Space Station research will 
     support the broader fight against human disease and make 
     tremendous contributions to the quality of life here on 
     Earth.

  The letter is signed, from the Baylor College of Medicine, Dr. 
Michael E. DeBakey.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Baylor College of Medicine,

                                       Houston, TX, July 26, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Walker,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Walker. On Earth, we are prisoners of 
     gravity. Gravity influences all life on Earth. Gravity 
     influences the behavior of everything--from single-celled 
     organisms to rocks, plants, and ships at sea--on the surface 
     of this small blue planet. When we fall, we fall down. We 
     stay attached to the chairs in our offices because of the 
     constant pull of gravity. In the plant world, roots grow 
     down. Even in our own bodies, our hearts have to work harder 
     when we stand than when we're lying down. Try as hard as I 
     might, I can't even begin to imagine what life would be like 
     on Earth without gravity.
       In orbit, there is very little gravity. This radically 
     different environment is sometimes referred to as ``zero-g,'' 
     or, more accurately, microgravity. The microgravity 
     environment of space allows researchers to unmask gravity and 
     to see, in many cases for the first time, deeply into 
     physical, chemical, and biological processes which were 
     previously obscured by gravity. Thus, thanks to our space 
     program, for the first time in the history of humankind, 
     scientists can manipulate gravity by decreasing its force as 
     well as increasing it. This allow us to manipulate a primary 
     force of nature in a way that promises to lead to radical new 
     scientific discoveries about life on Earth.
       Fundamental insights from international Space Station 
     research will produce broad-ranging benefits for humanity for 
     generations to come. Indeed, we are already seeing 
     significant benefits from the limited research we can conduct 
     on the Space Shuttle. One example is in the field of 
     telemedicine.
       Telemedicine is the practice of medicine through the 
     exchange of information, data, images, and video across 
     distances using telecommunications networks such as telephone 
     lines, satellites, microwaves, and the Internet. Today's 
     telecommunications technology, which provides international 
     accessibility in real-time, greatly enhances the delivery of 
     medical care.
       The available technologies can link remote sites to larger 
     medical centers, which can provide an opportunity for 
     specialty consultations that might not otherwise be possible. 
     The application of telemedicine offers advantages of cost-
     effectiveness as well as improved care to remote areas, 
     disaster sites, and undeserved populations.
       NASA has been a pioneer in telemedicine since the early 
     1960s, when it was faced with the challenge of monitoring the 
     health of astronauts in spacecraft orbiting the Earth. NASA's 
     continued use and development of telemedicine to enhance the 
     delivery of medical care in space for future long-duration 
     platforms, such as a space station, will help to support the 
     rapidly expanding application of this technology to health 
     care here on Earth.
       In addition to its contributions to the study of basic 
     human physiology, the international Space Station will 
     support a vigorous program of research in biotechnology. The 
     potential of biotechnology to change human society is at 
     least as great as that of the microelectronics revolution. 
     Everyone knows that NASA technologies have been instrumental 
     in microelectronics, but few realize that NASA supported 
     research and the resulting technologies are also driving 
     whole new endeavors in biotechnology.
       These new technologies, such as tissue culturing, allow the 
     growth of human tissues for the possible treatment of 
     diseases, such as arthritis and diabetes, and the growth of 
     cancerous tumors, allowing researches to address the 
     development and treatment of colon, breast, and ovarian 
     cancers. This new NASA technology has broad applications in 
     medical research and in the treatment of diseases.
       Millions of Americans suffer tissue or organ loss from 
     diseases and accidents every year; the annual cost of 
     treating these patients exceeds $400 billion. At present, the 
     only treatment for these losses is transplantation of tissues 
     and organs; however, these procedures are severely limited by 
     donor shortages. The shortage of replacement tissue and 
     organs has generated a substantial research effort for the 
     development of alternative sources for transplantations.
       A major advance would be the ability to grow functional 
     human tissues like those found in the human body, thereby 
     providing the necessary tissues for transplantations and 
     biomedical research. However, medical researchers have been 
     frustrated in their inability to grow human tissues outside 
     the body. Most present-day tissue growth systems do not 
     provide the conditions needed to form the complex structure 
     of tissue in the human body. However, NASA tissue-growth 
     technologies hold the promise of someday alleviating the 
     suffering caused by tissue and organ loss, a major 
     breakthrough for biomedical research.
       NASA technology has played an important role in my own work 
     on the development of a mechanical artificial heart using 
     elements of NASA turbopump technology. The use of these new 
     artificial heart pumps is nearing reality.
       I don't have space here to catalog all the potential 
     contributions that the international Space Station could make 
     to the world's biomedical research efforts. I hope the 
     examples I have provided will serve to illustrate this basic 
     point; NASA technology and Space Station research will 
     support the broader fight against human disease and make 
     tremendous contributions to the quality of life here on 
     Earth.
           Sincerely,
                                          Michael E. DeBakey, M.D.

  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder 
of my time and vote now, if it is agreeable with the managers. The 
unanimous-consent agreement a moment ago was to vote at 5:30. We can 
just go ahead and vote now.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, might I suggest we can handle one or two 
other matters while we are waiting for that. They are procedural 
matters. We had set earlier in the day, immediately following the vote 
on the space station amendment, a vote for an amendment offered by 
Senator McCain and Senator Graham. We have on both sides worked with 
them.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I wish to bring to the attention of the Senator from 
Missouri that Senator McCain has changed the original amendment to 
actually improve it, I think substantially, and Senator Harkin of Iowa 
wishes to be sure it has no negative impact in terms of his State. We 
cannot agree to the UC until we get a signoff from Senator Harkin. So 
we cannot get consent to modify it.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, then I will not make the unanimous-consent 
request. We think during the course of this next vote that we can bring 
everybody together and point out that the modification has moved in the 
direction that would be very beneficial to the interest that Senator 
Harkin has raised.
  With that, the time of 5:30 has arrived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not yet, but it is approximately 5:30.
  Mr. BOND. Close enough for Government work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is close enough to 5:30 for the Presiding 
Officer.
  Mr. BOND. Under that scenario, I move to table the Bumpers amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 5178. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], 
the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] are necessarily absent.

[[Page S9820]]

  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 267 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Nickles
     Pell
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--37

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Moynihan
     Nunn
     Pryor
     Simon
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hatfield
     Murkowski
     Santorum
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 5178) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 5177, As Modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 5177), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 104, below line 24, add the following:
       Sec. 421. (a) Plan.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall develop a plan for the allocation of health care 
     resources (including personnel and funds) of the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs among the health care Networks of the 
     Department so as to ensure that veterans who have similar 
     economic status and eligibility priority and who are eligible 
     for medical care have similar access to such care regardless 
     of the region of the United States in which such veterans 
     reside.
       (2) The plan shall--
       (1) reflect, to the maximum extent possible, the Veterans 
     Integrated Service Network developed by the Department to 
     account for forecasts in expected workload and to ensure 
     fairness to facilities that provide cost-efficient health 
     care; and
       (2) include--
       (A) procedures to identify reasons for variations in 
     operating costs among similar facilities where network 
     allocations are based on similar unit costs for similar 
     services and workload; and
       (B) ways to improve the allocation of resources so as to 
     promote efficient use of resources and provision of quality 
     health care.
       (C) adjustments to unit costs in subsection (a) to reflect 
     factors which directly influence the cost of health care 
     delivery within each Network and where such factors are not 
     under the control of Network or Department management, and
       (D) include forecasts in expected workload and 
     consideration of the demand for VA health care that may not 
     be reflected in current workload projections.
       (3) The Secretary shall prepare the plan in consultation 
     with the Under Secretary of Health of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.
       (b) Plan Elements.--The plan under section (a) shall set 
     forth--
       (1) milestones for achieving the goal referred to in 
     paragraph (1) of that subsection; and
       (2) a means of evaluating the success of the Secretary in 
     meeting the goal.
       (c) Submittal to Congress.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress the plan developed under subsection (a) not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall implement the plan 
     developed under subsection (a) not alter than 60 days after 
     submitting the plan to Congress under subsection (c), unless 
     within that time the Secretary notifies Congress that the 
     plan will not be implemented in that time and includes with 
     the notification an explanation why the plan will not be 
     implemented in that time.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida, Senator 
Graham, for all of his efforts on behalf of this amendment. It has been 
modified. We have worked with the administration.
  Mr. President, since this amendment was accepted in the three 
previous years and then dropped in conference, the Senator from Florida 
and I felt that we should have a rollcall vote on this although I think 
that vote will be nearly unanimous since it is basically the same. It 
was accepted 3 years before.
  So, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Arizona, as modified. On this question, the yeas 
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], 
the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Baucus
     Biden
     Bradley
     Byrd
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Rockefeller
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hatfield
     Murkowski
     Santorum
  The amendment (No. 5177), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, a motion to table the 
motion to reconsider is agreed to.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________