[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12445-S12451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUED SPACE EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH

 Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, at the beginning of my first term, 
my appointment to the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and 
Space was beneficial, primarily because my home State of Alabama 
contains the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. Alabama is 
historically an economically disadvantaged State, and by creating a 
high-technology corridor through northern Alabama, we have been able to 
provide jobs at NASA and the defense and space-related activities in 
the area. Alabama is now near the top of the list in terms of the 
number of high-technology industries.
  But in fairness, it should be understood that a Senator learns to 
have a dual purpose in what he does. It may sound cynical to say that I 
was working for my own State and my own electorate, but that was my 
job. I didn't have any particular expertise in the Space Program before 
arriving here, but learned about it because it was important to 
Alabama. My predecessor in the Senate, John Sparkman, had also taken an 
interest in space policy. He was a native of Huntsville. While serving 
on this subcommittee, an appreciation of the national, and in fact 
global, need to pursue the study and exploration of space and also an 
appreciation of the need to travel in space in order to expand the 
scope of humanity became more clear to me. Joe Moquin and Charles 
Grainger, who represented the Federal Affairs Division of the 
Huntsville Chamber of Commerce, as well as others, were helpful as I 
studied these exciting issues.
  Recent advances at NASA highlight these needs powerfully. Our voyages 
to Mars, combined with a recent discovery on Earth, have allowed us to 
deduce that life may have existed on another planet. The Hubble space 
telescope has given us a better understanding of the universe. The 
space station, which is now called Alpha, will allow Americans to stay 
in space permanently and conduct manned scientific experiments.
  Many have complained that the space program is too expensive and it 
yields little for the investment. But the space program provides a far 
greater return than its cost. Satellites have redefined the way we 
communicate, and they have reshaped our economy. However, even this 
immediately practical benefit is outweighed by other, more intangible 
gains. The knowledge we can gain in physics and technology has proved 
itself nearly unlimited. And there are unexpected benefits of the 
program, including what we can learn about our own planet, the advances 
we can make in the field of medical research, and the international 
diplomacy we will develop with the space station.
  I want to take some time here to summarize my activities relative to 
the space program, particularly regarding the space station and 
Marshall Space Flight Center. On a personal level, I am proudest of 
being the first Senator to call for and push for the development of a 
space station and also to have been a strong supporter of the shuttle 
program. Marshall has been central in both of these projects, and 
members of the Alabama congressional delegation have done our best to 
see that this remains the case.
  Maintaining the independence and viability of NASA has been one of my 
top priorities. The agency has suffered a number of public relations 
problems in recent years, beginning with the Challenger explosion, 
followed by the failure of the Mars orbiter, and highlighted by the 
initial embarrassment of the Hubble telescope. But even before these 
setbacks, the military space budget had grown larger than NASA's. Of 
course, I have advocated ABM defenses, including some space-based 
projects for the future, longer than any other Senator. But NASA's 
civilian, independent status is necessary for the space program. For 
this reason, it was necessary to oppose intrusions such as military 
control of the heavy lift launch vehicle, which was proposed after the 
shuttle disaster, and each year, to work as hard as possible to see 
that NASA received the money it needed to continue to serve as a viable 
agency and to accomplish its specific aims.

  Of course, it is NASA, the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the 
universities and businesses in Alabama who deserve the real credit. 
They are the minds who develop this astounding technology and reshaped 
the State. As a Senator, my aim was to do everything possible to 
support them consistently.
  In 1979, we worked to ensure that the Commerce Committee approved a 
$185 million supplemental authorization for Marshall to develop the 
space shuttle. In fact, the overall funding for the center had 
increased by $100 million since the previous year. We also worked to 
persuade the members of the Appropriations Committee to fund the 
shuttle, and they provided nearly our full request.
  My subcommittee also approved $5 million for the gamma ray 
observatory project, to be developed at Marshall and launched by the 
space shuttle, and it authorized a fifth shuttle and a national oceanic 
satellite system. However, the full committee cut these three programs, 
so we set out to be certain that they would pass in later years.
  In 1980, the Commerce Committee approved an authorization to build a 
fifth shuttle, but the conference committee dropped it in the final 
bill. However, the Congress did pass increases for

[[Page S12446]]

NASA over the administration's request.
  In the committee, my amendment to add $12 million to the NASA budget 
to begin development of the solar electric propulsion system--called 
SEPS--at the Marshall Center was attached. The program was a $300 
million program, spread over 5 years. Although it was originally in the 
fiscal 1981 budget, OMB had eliminated it over NASA's objections. This 
reusable system offered the high energy to fly demanding and complex 
missions that would otherwise require several expensive and expendable 
stages. That year, both Houses passed authorizations for this program. 
Both Houses also passed authorizations for the gamma ray observatory 
and the national oceanic satellite system. That same year, at a 
subcommittee hearing in Huntsville, I urged NASA to increase laser 
research and development at the Marshall Center. My argument for the 
increase was that the Soviets were spending at least three to five 
times America's $5 million annual budget on laser development. The 
continued research and development of laser technology was only one of 
the goals for the United States in the 1980's, but the potential 
benefits of laser power in both military and civilian applications 
mandate an accelerated interest by the scientific and industrial 
communities.
  This hearing was part of a series conducted largely to investigate 
the potential of lasers in defense. However, the applications of lasers 
seemed worthy of investigation for civilian purposes. Testimony 
revealed the possibility that lasers might be used to generate vast 
amounts of power. This power might be used in space propulsion systems. 
In fact, at these hearings, witnesses speculated that lasers might even 
ultimately be used to facilitate nuclear fusion.
  That year, we also highlighted international pressures to increase 
overall funding for NASA. In the years since the Moon missions, America 
had seemed preeminent in space, but the reality was that we had begun 
to fall behind the Russians. Senators John Glenn and Jack Schmitt, both 
former astronauts, appeared on my television show, the ``Heflin 
Report,'' to discuss the U.S. space program as compared to the Soviets. 
The United States had launched only 16 times in 1979 contrasted by the 
Russians' 87. In fact, the Russians had launched many more times over 
the previous 15 years.

  In 1981, Columbia flew its first mission, showcasing the Marshall 
Space Center's work. This next giant step in America's ongoing 
adventure in space would not have been possible without the men and 
women in Huntsville who developed the shuttle's engines. Due to their 
successes, we were able to authorize increases to the shuttle program, 
although the Congress did not fully fund the program at the 
administration's request.
  Despite this massive advance, however, critics continued to maintain 
that the space program was too costly, and supporters worked as best we 
could to clear up this misconception, such as citing studies conducted 
in the early 1970's which indicated that the program has brought $7 to 
$15 for each dollar spent. Commercial satellite launches had 
contributed to this return. NASA had also developed technology for the 
aircraft industry and the Landsat system, used to explore natural 
resources.
  Notably, through our work in the committee that year, we also secured 
authorizations for NASA's missions to Jupiter and to Halley's Comet. 
Both of these NASA missions ultimately proved to be tremendously 
successful.
  In 1982, we were finally able to include funds for a fifth space 
shuttle in the NASA authorization. This authorization represented an 
overall increase, and it included money for the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration Landsat satellite scanning, something we had 
been fighting to get for a long time.
  But that year, for the first time, the military's space budget grew 
beyond NASA's. While I have long supported military initiatives in 
space, this was seen by some of us as a threat to NASA's independent, 
civilian status. Although there is a purpose to certain military 
missions in space, to usurp NASA's role is contrary to the U.S. mission 
in space as it was conceived. In the years to come, especially after 
the Challenger disaster, this threat would continue.
  In 1983, the construction and deployment of a permanent, manned space 
station was again urged. A permanent presence in space is the next 
logical step in human advancement, and research in space has certain 
advantages not to be found on Earth. The microgravity atmosphere of 
space allows numerous scientific activities to occur. The growth of 
crystals and the electrophoresis process can take place far better in 
space than in the gravity atmosphere of Earth. Several kinds of metals 
will combine only under the conditions found in space. Medical research 
has also had many successes in space.
  Dr. Charles Bugg, Dr. Larry DeLucas, and other scientists at the 
University of Alabama at Birmingham were conducting significant 
experiments in crystallography, but knew nothing about the 
crystallography activities at Marshall Space Flight Center until I got 
them together. Since then, they have developed a renowned partnership 
that will likely lead to treatments and cures for many diseases.
  My strength on the subcommittee increased that year when I became its 
ranking member, and we crafted an authorization bill which provided 
money for space station design at Marshall. It also increased the 
funding to NASA generally. The bill provided more money than the 
President requested for Marshall's space telescope, its materials 
processing, teleoperator maneuvering system, and its space plasma lab 
programs. Finally, the bill also authorized the construction of a fifth 
space shuttle, which Reagan had not requested. Of course, this 
authorization bill was a particularly good one for the future of 
Marshall Center, but it also helped to bring about a more balanced NASA 
program.

  Earlier in the year, I contacted the President to oppose the sale of 
the Nation's weather and land satellite system and to oppose 
commercialization of the National Weather Service because of my concern 
that such a transfer might hinder the system's efficiency. People in 
many parts of the country relied on the system for early warning in the 
case of tornados and other severe storms; farmers relied on the 
information to determine their crops, and the scientific community 
depended largely on the information. Under the proposal, the transfer 
seemed likely to be a single company. Since that company would require, 
as a condition of the sale, a noncompetitive, guaranteed Government 
contract for many years for the information derived from the 
satellites, the Government would be establishing a monopoly and 
creating disincentives for commercialization. The committee was able to 
secure provisions in the authorization bill to prevent the sale of NASA 
land and weather satellites, unless the sale were specifically approved 
by another law.
  Some of us also opposed the cuts to the National Weather Service 
recommended by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 
Specifically, the NOAA had suggested reducing the number of weather 
stations to one-tenth their existing number. Specialized forecasts 
would also be eliminated. But the projected savings were minimal; the 
cost to create a centralized station would outweigh the savings over 
many years.
  There was another project undertaken that year, which applied 
peripherally to the space program. This was the University Research 
Capacity Restoration Act which Senator Danforth and I introduced to 
bring universities and industries together in the creation of research 
parks. We introduced the bill after holding two hearings in Birmingham 
on the measure.
  University research is among the most valuable in the country, yet 
lack of funding has limited it to obsolete equipment. With this bill, 
we hoped to use the Government as a catalyst to create research parks 
that combine industry and university resources. We hoped that we might 
thereby increase the quality of research at such institutions as the 
University of Alabama at Birmingham [UAB], the University of South 
Alabama in Mobile, Auburn, Tuskegee, and Alabama A&M. Metallurgy and 
space-based materials processing were among the chief projects we had 
in mind.
  In 1984, the President supported the development of a permanent space 
station in his State of the Union Address.

[[Page S12447]]

I was absolutely delighted that he gave the station such strong 
support; without his help, this project might have died early on.
  Energized by the President's support, I visited the Marshall Center 
in Huntsville, which would handle most of the materials processing for 
NASA's station numerous times, and each time was greatly encouraged. My 
committee was able to endure that the NASA authorization included funds 
for research and development of the manned space station. This 
authorization also created a National Commission on Space, a Mars 
mission, and a satellite to study the Earth's upper atmosphere. 
However, many of us were disappointed that the Congress approved the 
sale of Landsat satellites.

  Other provisions of the authorization included language to create a 
National Commission on Space to establish a plan for the civilian space 
program. There was some concern over the Defense Department's intrusion 
on the space program, so we limited its membership on the board to a 
single nonvoting seat. The purpose of the commission was to study long-
range goals and schedules for the program.
  The commercialization of space also became a major initiative in 
these years. In 1984, Congress passed a law to encourage commercial 
space launches. It required licensing, to be provided by the Department 
of Transportation, and we set about to consider further ways of 
expanding private launches.
  My bill to improve university research, the University Research 
Capacity Restoration Act, became law in 1984. The new law was designed 
to increase support for the NIH, the NSF, NASA, and the Defense, 
Energy, and Agriculture Departments by combining university and private 
industrial research efforts.
  In 1985, when the Commerce Committee passed its NASA authorization, 
NASA's budget suffered cuts, but under this bill, Marshall Space Flight 
Center was not affected. It included strong support for four major 
Marshall programs: the space station, the materials processing program, 
the orbital maneuvering vehicle [OMV], and the aeronautical research 
and technology program.
  Specifically, the bill funded the space station with a specific 
requirement that it embrace only peaceful ends. The committee had 
originally considered a lower level for the space station than the $200 
million included in the bill, but we were able to bring that figure up. 
I worked especially hard to see that Marshall got a sizable portion of 
the space station work. Marshall was then designated to do 40 percent 
of the work, the most of any center. Robert Hager, project manager of 
Boeing, and I developed a close working relationship that proved very 
effective over the years.
  This bill also fully funded the materials processing program at 
Marshall, a program with which several universities in my State were 
intimately involved. As a result of experiments conducted on the 
shuttle by McDonnell Douglas and Johnson and Johnson, we were hopeful 
that some major medical breakthroughs would materialize as a result of 
NASA-private sector materials processing research.
  At one point, the OMV was deleted from the bill, but we were 
successful in persuading the committee to go forward with the 
development of this vehicle. Marshall's other chief project, the 
aeronautical research and technology program, also came out well. 
Again, this type of initiative was among NASA's chief money-making 
sources.
  Further, the authorization bill provided for the delivery of the 
fourth shuttle--Atlantis--but Congress did not fund the fifth. We also 
authorized the Galileo mission to Jupiter, the Ulysses mission to the 
Sun, and the Hubble telescope, which has proved itself a tremendous 
success despite setbacks here and there.
  My bill to remove tax code barriers to the commercialization of space 
was introduced that year along with the sponsorship of the 
subcommittee's chairman, Senator Gorton. The bill would have extended 
incentives for investment and research and development, and accelerated 
depreciation schedules. Many U.S. laws were written before the 
commercial uses of space were ever envisioned, but commercialization of 
space could be improved with the impetus of Government cooperation. To 
this end, we have maintained contact with officials from the Auburn 
University School of Engineering concerning corporations who might be 
interested in space-based materials processing. We have an opportunity 
to combine the expertise of Marshall Space Flight Center with 
university experts and transfer this potential to the private sector. 
This idea is one way to help make this possible and hopefully it will 
some day be enacted.

  I also cosponsored a concurrent resolution to express the sense of 
the Congress that the Nation must improve university research, 
restating the ideas behind the University Research Capacity Restoration 
Act which had my cosponsorship in 1983. The 1983 bill increased support 
for the NIH, the NSF, NASA, and the Defense, Energy, and Agriculture 
Departments. This resolution did not fund these entities, but it 
restated the congressional commitment to do so. We depend on our 
preeminence in science to enable us to advance technology and maintain 
our economic and national security.
  On January 28, 1986, the Challenger disaster brought a whole host of 
problems to the space program and to those of us who supported it. The 
public was horrified, and the military began to increase its 
intervention in space. Spacelab, a program to add modules to the space 
shuttle for experiments in orbit, died, and the space station suffered 
cuts; the Hubble telescope was also delayed until 1988. The Defense 
Department began building its own launch vehicles for satellites, and 
the military's space budget grew to two-thirds the total U.S. space 
budget. Further, President Reagan pocket-vetoed the NASA authorization 
which included money for the replacement of the Challenger shuttle, 
chiefly because of provisions creating a National Aeronautics and Space 
Council to advise the President on space and military issues. However, 
the Congress did appropriate money for the new shuttle in the omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  Morale was at a terribly low level at Marshall Space Flight Center. 
Their spirit had been devastated by the Challenger explosion. I came 
out publicly at critical times praising the excellent work that had 
occurred at Marshall over the years and pointed out that while the 
explosion was horrible, the fault could be placed at many doors. 
Hopefully, my remarks boosted morale at Marshall. We worked behind the 
scenes to get Senator Robert Dole to visit Marshall and speak words of 
encouragement and support for the Huntsville-based space flight center. 
His words helped restore the morale and reputation of Marshall.
  At the end of 1986, then-NASA Administrator Fletcher announced that 
work assignments on the space station had been finalized, and Marshall 
Space Flight Center was to maintain roughly 40 percent of the space 
station design and construction. It would also have responsibility for 
the living and working quarters of the spacecraft. The Marshall Center 
would provide technical direction for the propulsion system, conduct 
the adaptation of the planned international module, and develop and 
construct the environmental and pressure systems of the station, among 
other things.
  That year, I contacted President Reagan and Energy Secretary 
Herrington to urge construction of the superconducting supercollider in 
Alabama. Researchers at UAH had developed a compound that loses all 
resistance to electricity at a higher temperature than had been 
previously possible. With the expertise demonstrated by this and other 
breakthroughs in this scientific area and the outstanding support 
provided by the University of Alabama at Huntsville and similar 
outstanding research at Auburn University, the State of Alabama has 
shown that it is a logical location for projects like the 
supercollider. Unfortunately, Alabama was not chosen, and the project 
ultimately was discontinued.

  In 1987, I had to relinquish my seat on the science subcommittee in 
order to stay on the Agriculture Committee. Given the importance of the 
space program to my constituents, it was a great sacrifice, but farming 
was also so important to Alabama and therefore felt it wise to remain 
on that committee. In any case, I did my best to stay as involved with 
space issues as possible.

[[Page S12448]]

  In the aftermath of the Challenger explosion, I testified before the 
subcommittee to oppose Air Force administration of the proposed heavy 
lift launch vehicle. The Defense Department had requested a 
supplemental appropriation of $250 million for the project. Assigning 
the project to the Air Force with only minimal NASA input would have 
been a backward way to approach the development of this vehicle. All 
the more so since the Air Force planned to start anew, without 
incorporating any of the lessons of the shuttle. NASA would benefit 
greatly from the vehicle's use, and its greater capacity would make up 
for lost time in the shuttle program in the deployment of the space 
station and other projects.
  I successfully urged the inclusion of language in the supplemental 
appropriations bill to ensure that NASA played a more significant part 
in the development of the heavy launch vehicle. Marshall Space Center's 
expertise in propulsion and other aspects of design could serve as an 
excellent resource in the development of a heavy lift rocketship. And 
such a vehicle might one day facilitate a trip to Mars--and beyond.
  Notably, disputes over military use of the space station made its 
passage difficult that year. Congress ultimately allowed some military 
research. And Alabama came out well through the debate. At the end of 
the year, NASA awarded Boeing, with facilities in the State, the 
contract to perform Marshall Space Flight Center's work on the station. 
The project had my full support, since, among other things, it would 
bring over 6,000 jobs to Alabama. It was a significant leap forward for 
the space program, and it only solidified my efforts to ensure that the 
space station received primary consideration.
  Another boon for Alabama came that year when NASA selected Auburn 
University as host to its Center for the Commercial Development of 
Space Power. The new center would research the generation, storage, 
conditioning and distribution of electrical power in space. This was 
the kind of project desperately needed in my State. This center, and 
projects like it, could become the incubator for a new industry on the 
cutting edge of space technology. Until now the power requirements of 
our space ventures have been low, but future space projects will make 
much higher power demands. With these types of initiatives, we will 
begin the development of a cadre of engineers and physicists who will 
provide the crucial talent pool needed for the space power program for 
years to come. Hopefully, much of this work will be done in Alabama.
  Meanwhile, my efforts to bring the supercollider to my State 
continued, especially through an amendment to the supplemental 
appropriations bill to decide location of the supercollider solely on 
technical merit. The Energy Department had just announced that it would 
consider donations of money and land. The Senate approved this 
amendment, but of course, it still did not work out as hoped.
  In 1988, during the Presidential campaign, some of NASA's Democratic 
supporters were disappointed that our party's candidate did not show 
any particular support for the space program, nor the space station. I 
talked several times with Governor Dukakis asking for a revised stand 
on the issue. At a Huntsville campaign stop, he recited his full 
support for the space program and space station. We were able in 
Congress to pass funding at the full level of President Reagan's 
request.
  That same year, I became a strong supporter of the Advanced Solid 
Rocket Motor project, which came about after the failings of the 
shuttle boosters and their O-rings became known, and talked to each of 
the Members of the Alabama Congressional Delegation asking for their 
full support of this ASRM Project for NASA and to support the 
appropriation process in Congress. Although there had been partisanship 
and divisiveness concerning the location of the rocket plant, the 
Alabama Congressional Delegation needed to pull together as a team and 
present a solid and united effort for this project and Alabama jobs.
  In 1989, we protested the budget resolution's funding level for the 
space station. Knowing it would be a very tough budget year for the 
space station, we enlisted the support of Senators Sasser and Domenici 
of the Budget Committee. But when the Senate passed its VA-HUD 
appropriations for fiscal year 1990, the low funding level for NASA was 
criticized by me and others. While the bill provided for a 15-percent 
increase for the space program, that was only the bare minimum and it 
fell short of what was needed to maintain world leadership in space 
research, technology, and exploration. Most notably, the space station 
was funded at $200 million less than NASA's request. While fighting 
hard for full funding for the space station, I was nonetheless hopeful 
that the funding level would provide enough for the program to move 
forward without any serious program modifications, rescoping, or 
schedule delays.
  During a speech I delivered on the Senate floor on the 20th 
anniversary of the Moon landing, my support for the station was again 
emphasized. We cannot just leave our advances at that. We need to 
return to the Moon and travel to Mars. The President agreed that the 
space station was the first step to these ends, and a space summit with 
Members of Congress was suggested.
  After much debate on the advanced solid rocket motor plant, we 
finally secured funding through the conference through use of an 
unusual procedural tactic. The House had not included funding, but we 
made sure the Senate included money so that there could be an increase 
during conference. Congressmen Whitten and Bevill were extremely 
helpful in this effort. Although some questioned this strategy, we 
adhered to the rules completely. This bargaining chip worked, and we 
pushed the funding through successfully.
  In 1989, the benefits of the Space Grant College and Fellowship Act 
were realized in my home State. Under its provisions, NASA selected 
several Alabama Universities to comprise a consortium for the new 
National Space Grant College and Fellowship program; these schools 
included UAH, UAB, Alabama A&M, the University of Alabama, and Auburn.
  As a side note, NASA selected two Alabama women to fly on shuttle 
missions that year. These women were Mae C. Jemison, M.D. and N. Jan 
Davis, Ph.D. Dr. Jemison was the first African American woman selected 
for space flight. Without question, Alabama played an important role in 
the development and implementation of the space shuttle program. I took 
some pride in knowing that two people from my home State could take 
advantage of those efforts and experience the accomplishments of their 
fellow Alabamians first-hand.
  In 1990, NASA suffered cuts after the Hubble telescope debacle, and 
it saw the death of National Space Council's long-term proposals for 
lunar and Mars missions. The problems of the telescope had brought very 
hard times on the agency, and the Congress needed to combat an 
increasing negativity in the press and among the public.
  To work out these problems, the President held the space summit 
suggested the year before at the White House. It brought together the 
President, the Vice President, NASA officials, and other Members of 
Congress, including myself. Elected officials must continue to hold 
these kinds of summits in the future, because talks regarding the space 
station need to be centralized and should focus on the goals of 
acquiring and maintaining full funding and placing the space station in 
orbit.
  During that same year, the Augustine Advisory Committee on the Future 
of the U.S. Space Program issued its report. I was quite pleased with 
its recommendations, including its advocacy of a heavy lift launch 
vehicle. At the time, the Congress and the committee were still waiting 
for a redesign of the space station, which had been dubbed ``Freedom.'' 
The HLLV seemed like it might be a good device for deployment of the 
station.
  By that time, we had won the battle for the ASRM plant, which was to 
be located at Yellow Creek in Michigan, just across the border from 
Alabama. And that year, the Marshall Center awarded a $550 million 
contract to Lockheed for the design and construction of the Advanced 
Solid Rocket Motor. Lockheed arranged to subcontract the work to RUST 
International of Birmingham. It was going to be a great boon to Alabama 
as well

[[Page S12449]]

as the space program; in the following years, we did our best to 
continue this project.
  In 1991, President Bush's fiscal 1992 budget request for NASA 
received my support. It was a 13-percent overall increase to fund the 
space station, NASA's share of the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle program, 
and to increase space science research. The budget allowed the 
propulsion element for the space shuttle program at Marshall Space 
Flight Center in Huntsville to continue without interruption. And 
completion of the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor plant in Yellow Creek was 
also included.
  But, of course, the space station met opposition again. To push the 
project, I met with the Vice President, administration officials, and 
other Members of Congress to discuss the future of the space station 
after its redesign, and we all came out of this meeting with a feeling 
that we were going to join forces. Vice President Quayle assured us 
that the President had assigned a high priority to the station.
  There was an attempt to cut the program in the Senate, but it was 
opposed on the floor. The Senate voted to keep the funding in the bill. 
The station's toughest battle that year was in the House of 
Representatives. Congressmen Bud Cramer and Tom Bevill did great work 
in restoring funding after the House appropriations subcommittee had 
cut funding for the program from its bill. Together, we sought to 
return NASA to a reasonable and balanced profile of programs and to 
make sure that America did not abandon the 100,000 scientists, 
engineers, and support staff associated with NASA and its contractors 
who work on the development of the space station programs. We also 
sought to save the more than 3,000 jobs in Huntsville.
  We protected other local jobs as well. The ASRM plant received full 
funding. And other programs which were funded were the Marshall 
Center's Advanced X ray Astrophysics Facility, and the National Launch 
System/Space Transportation Main Engine program. The Earth Observing 
Systems program also faired well.
  In October, the President signed a bill to facilitate the 
construction of Space Station Freedom. Soon afterward, there was a 
meeting with a group of astronauts to discuss the station's future and 
talked with the astronauts about Mission to Planet Earth, a program to 
study the Earth's atmosphere with satellites.
  As the whole debate on funding went on, I spoke about how much 
Alabama's economy had grown since the space program began there in the 
1950's. Its role in the State's future was crucial. The growth began 
with the Army's development of the Redstone and Jupiter missile systems 
in response to Sputnik, and continued when Milton Cummings and Joe 
Moquin established the Cummings Research Park. Last, the Army Missile 
Command, the Redstone Arsenal, the Marshall Space Flight Center, and 
the Strategic Defense Command had great potential to continue the 
expansion.
  In 1992, another amendment to eliminate the space station came before 
the Senate. The Senators who supported this amendment had deliberately 
inflated the cost of the station, and they perpetuated the myths of the 
station's extravagance. Again, the Senate failed to approve the 
amendment.
  That year, the Senate also approved a resolution to place two full-
scale models of the space station at the Capitol from June 2 through 4, 
1992. The fight to fund the space station continued to be impassioned 
each year. If my colleagues had an opportunity to see first-hand the 
incredible potential the space station offers, they would understand 
how important continued funding is to the program. The NASA exhibit 
included two modules, the habitation and laboratory units, each housed 
in a tractor-trailer. I toured the exhibit myself with NASA 
Administrator Goldin and a visiting boy scout troop from Alabama.
  I used a floor speech commemorating the quincentenary of Columbus' 
voyage to the Americas to again illustrate the importance of the Space 
Program. When hearing some of my colleagues rail against the space 
station and other projects designed to propel us into the future, one 
cannot help but wonder what they would have said had they been around 
in 1492. Some of the most important human advances, like Columbus' 
voyage and many breakthroughs in medicine, had been accidental. We may 
not always know exactly what is out there, but we know we must continue 
to explore in order to discover. Because of believing this so strongly, 
I met with the crew of Endeavor to discuss the future of the Space 
Program. Among these astronauts was Kathryn Thornton of Alabama.
  Another proposal which was short-sighted was the President's decision 
to eliminate the advanced solid rocket motor plant from his budget 
request. Its supporters could not understand the rationale behind 
cancellation, since this system would have been much more reliable than 
previous boosters. In a letter to Senator Mikulski, the chair of the 
appropriations subcommittee, I asserted that it would cost more to 
cancel the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor Program than to complete it. 
That fact, combined with its increased safety and efficiency, certainly 
justified the ASRM in my own mind, and, fortunately, she agreed.
  But this was not enough. We had to use the same strategy we used in 
1989. The House had voted to kill the ASRM plant at the request of the 
Director of OMB. So, I spent an entire day convincing the Senate 
Appropriations Committee to include some funding to the program. 
Representative Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, chairman of the House 
committee, used this as a starting point to provide full funding in the 
conference. We also convinced Al Gore to voice support for the ASRM in 
speeches as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate.
  The final appropriations bill, which went to the President, included 
a much higher level of funding than appeared in the first Senate 
appropriations bill for ASRM, $2.1 billion for the space station, and 
$167 million for Marshall's AXAF Program, which was also in danger of 
elimination entirely.
  In 1992, my bill to endorse the U.S. Space Camp, the U.S. Space 
Academy, and Aviation Challenge programs was introduced. Our goal in 
Congress must be to support educational programs and to tear down any 
barriers that would prevent government agencies from working in 
conjunction with private enterprise dedicated to teaching our youth.
  Shortly after taking the oath of office as President, Bill Clinton 
began a program of downsizing the Government. The enemies of NASA went 
to work at OMB, and in the original recommendations from OMB, the space 
station was to be canceled. Many of the enemies of the space station in 
Congress were urging President Clinton to cancel the space station.
  Congress recessed around the holiday celebrations of the birthdays of 
Presidents Washington and Lincoln in February 1993. I had scheduled a 
return to Alabama to visit numerous places in the State with a series 
of town meetings. Upon learning that President Clinton was seriously 
considering canceling the space station, my entire recess schedule was 
put on hold in order to stay in Washington to do everything possible to 
see that the space station survived in the President's budget. We 
worked with representatives of Boeing, McDonell Douglas, and others 
involved to stop the cancellation. For more than a week, we rallied 
forces to support the space station. On several occasions, I personally 
discussed the merits of the program with our President and Vice 
President.
  We got Texas Governor Ann Richards to become actively involved in our 
efforts. There were numerous people working night and day to do 
everything they could to save the space station, and I hesitate to list 
all of them because there were so many that might be left out. But, 
Chris Hansen of Boeing and Amy Bondurant, an attorney representing 
McDonnell Douglas, were extremely helpful in this effort. Jyles Machen, 
our loan from Marshall, served as a congressional fellow in my office 
for 2 years, and his expertise was invaluable to me on the space 
station and to all issues and projects relating to NASA.
  Vice President Albert Gore had always been a supporter of the Space 
Program, and he was convinced to go all out to preserve it. Greg Simon, 
a highly intelligent and knowledgeable member of Vice President Gore's 
staff, was especially helpful in this battle.

[[Page S12450]]

During this time, we kept in constant contact with the officials at 
Marshall Space Flight Center as well. The team that worked to save the 
station at that time all cooperated and performed exceptional work. 
When the President's budget was finally submitted, he called for the 
full funding that NASA requested for the space station.

  In 1993, the ASRM program died after the House had voted it down for 
the fifth time, even though the new Vice President and other officials 
were strong supporters. The House votes during 1993 were so 
overwhelmingly negative that it became clear that the best to be hoped 
for was a reassignment to keep Yellow Creek employed in some other 
activity. My chief concern by this point was saving Alabama jobs. The 
plant was nearly completed, and it had several possible uses, so the 
NASA administrator came to my office to discuss its future.
  Later that year, NASA and the Thiokol Corporation announced that 
company would transfer its rocket nozzle section from Utah to Yellow 
Creek. Eight hundred people would start work there. The transfer made a 
lot of sense, since Marshall would be the chief buyer, and of course we 
wanted to see the jobs there.
  But there were other disappointments that year, including, most 
notably, the fact that Marshall was not chosen to be the lead center 
for the space station program. However, Boeing, also located in 
northern Alabama, would serve as a major contractor. Of course, 
Marshall would have been an excellent choice to host the project, 
especially because of the quality work the management and employees 
there had done on the program. They had done it without any of the 
large cost overruns that plagued other centers working on the space 
station project.
  But in our Yellow Creek meeting with the NASA administrator, he 
assured Congressman Cramer and me that any rumors Marshall would be 
close were ``poppycock,'' and his assurances seemed pretty solid. The 
final appropriations bill included more than $2.1 billion for the space 
station. This funding level included vital elements such as the payload 
utilization operations conducted at Marshall Space Flight Center. And 
NASA had selected the Marshall Center to build the Space Station 
Furnace Facility, a project which would employ 160 people.
  That year's appropriations bill had other advantages for Alabama, 
too. It included millions for the Centers for the Commercial 
Development of Space. These centers were comprised of a consortium of 
universities, including UAB, UAH, and Auburn. NASA had recently 
conducted a peer review of these centers and scored Alabama's three 
centers very well. By the recommendations of this same report, 6 of the 
17 centers were scheduled for closure, but not ours.
  In 1994, the dramatic and successful repair of the Hubble Telescope 
helped NASA to restore some of its own credibility with the public. 
Another tremendous benefit was the report issued by the Advisory 
Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station, an independent group of 
academic, scientific, and business leaders, headed by MIT President 
Charles Vest. This committee had reversed its initial, negative view on 
the space station printed in 1993. This time, Chairman Vest clearly 
stated that the program had progressed well beyond his expectations. It 
was not an endorsement to be taken lightly and it further emphasized 
the need for budgetary stability and a firm national commitment for the 
International Space Station.
  However, NASA still had its vocal opponents. For instance, CBO 
published a report stating that NASA could save half of its money by 
halving its workload. We were able to point out many errors in the 
report. This sort of haphazard approach was reflected in the budget 
allocation handed to the VA-HUD subcommittee, which cut $700 million 
from NASA's budget. I was very concerned by the proposed cuts, and 
began working to ensure that the space station and other programs were 
protected.
  1994 saw yet another Senate amendment to cut the space station. By 
that time, the program had already been assigned a district management 
structure with clear lines of responsibility and authority. One center 
had been designated as a host center to facilitate program 
administration, and one contractor was selected as the prime, with all 
others working as subs. Transition to the previous year's redesign and 
this new management structure was complete. The new management 
structure included a concept widely embraced within the private sector, 
a tenet of total quality management known as the integrated product 
team. These teams are a flexible management tool designed to bring 
together experts from several fields to work individual issues, solve 
problems, improve communications, and speed decision making. Essential 
design and review stages were almost completed.
  Compared to the Freedom design, the International Space Station had 
nearly twice the power, almost double the pressurized volume, and twice 
the number of laboratory modules. The station was designed to orbit at 
a higher inclination, broadening the band of the Earth's surface and 
atmosphere visible to the station. The crew size has been increased 
from 4 to 6 fulltime crew members. The amount of extra-vehicular 
activity, or ``spacewalks'' required to construct the station has been 
drastically reduced, thereby reducing program risk. Furthermore, the 
international partners in the project had completed their essential 
design and review stages.

  It made no sense to cut the program, and the Senate knew it. In the 
subsequent vote, 64 members voted for the space station, a remarkable 
victory. We did a not of preparatory work for the vote and all of our 
efforts paid off and everything turned out well. Those of us who were 
proponents of the space station contacted every Senator numerous times 
in advance of the vote. I was pleased to serve as chairman of the vote 
round-up group as on several occasions before and since. We tried to 
get as many votes as possible so we could put this continual fight for 
space station funding behind us. Our position was greatly strengthened 
by the House of Representatives, which also gave a strong show of 
support for the space station that year.
  Senators Milkulski and Gramm of the Appropriations Committee did 
outstanding work on the NASA budget, which reflected remarkable support 
for the Space Station and the space science programs. It increased 
NASA's funding over the President's request, and fully funded the space 
station.
  That year, the Senate also passed an amendment to appropriate $40 
million for the continuation of the commercial mid-deck augmentation 
module for the space shuttle--widely known as ``Space Hab.'' The 
amendment became part of the emergency supplement bill to aid victims 
of the earthquake. The primary contractor for the project was McDonnell 
Douglas, headquartered in Huntsville, which would employ 150 people to 
finish the quasi commercial venture. The Space Hab program has been in 
serious danger due to budget cuts, but the appropriation allow it to 
continue. It was a crucial project in the commercialization of space.
  We also continued our efforts to maintain Yellow Creek that year, 
pursuing the rocket-nozzle factory at the plant and other options. In a 
meeting with Navy Secretary Dalton, I proposed conversion of NASA's 
Yellow Creek facility into a site for Navy demilitarization of surplus 
strategic and tactical rocket motors. NASA's Advanced Rocket Motor 
Director had given me the idea in another meeting. The Navy would 
receive a flexible facility to enable the sound disposal of excess 
rocket motors; the transfer would create a means to investigate energy 
production and reusable chemicals, and jobs would be saved.
  Last year, there were misguided efforts to cut the NASA budget 
significantly. The Republicans advocated huge cuts, and the President 
and NASA Administrator claimed they had to propose cuts, too. The 
Executive Branch told me that some of the funding reductions would 
occur after the construction of the space station was completed. 
Streamlining the shuttle program was another cost-savings plan.
  In a meeting in May, the NASA Administrator announced that both the 
Senate and the House versions of the Republican budget proposals would 
cause severe cuts to the agency's personnel. To pay for the tax cut 
contained in the House of Representatives budget plan, he told me NASA 
would be forced to cut 45,000 civil service and

[[Page S12451]]

contractor jobs at NASA by the year 2000. The House proposal was worse, 
and it required large cuts by this year. Of course, the President 
vetoed this budget, but the agency is still in trouble.
  Most disturbing, however, was the House Republicans' announcement 
that they would close Huntsville's Marshall Space Flight Center by 1998 
along with other NASA facilities in Maryland and Virginia. In a meeting 
with NASA Administrator Goldin, he assured me he would fight to 
maintain all three center the House had targeted: Marshall, Goddard, 
and Langley. We had already done a lot of work in the Senate, and 
Senator Shelby and I had contacted key leaders in the Senate and 
received their commitments to keep Marshall and the other centers open.
  In September 1996, we fought against yet another Senate amendment to 
cut funding for the space station. Tens of thousands of pounds of 
equipment had already been constructed, and the shuttle had flown its 
first station related mission the year before. Although the Senate 
voted the amendment down, it is unfortunate that the biggest challenge 
the station program faces appears to be the Congress of the United 
States, specifically a small handful of members who continue to offer 
legislation aimed at terminating the station program. Since the 
inception of the program, votes have been held over 18 times on the 
station. We must continue to reject these attempts and continue our 
support of the Space Station program. We owe this to the future of the 
citizens of the United States and to all the people of Earth.
  Unfortuantely, the Premiere Nozzle Center at Yellow Creek came to an 
end last year. Mississippi state officials seem to have made a deal 
with NASA to gain title to the property.
  The Yellow Creek saga began when TVA terminated a 30-percent-complete 
nuclear reactor. Then came the rash cancellation of the ASRM plant, 
which was designed to prevent future space shuttle disasters like the 
Challenger incident in 1986. Last, we were faced with the sell-out of 
the nozzle center, a project which first was announced just 18 months 
beforehand.
  In reviewing its history, it is hard to dismiss the theory that the 
use of Yellow Creek as a site for ASRM and as a Nozzle Center was being 
sabotaged from the beginning after the Revised Solid Rocket Motor was 
completed. Given its history, hopefully something productive can occur 
at Yellow Creek; otherwise it will stand as a monument to Government 
ineptitude an incompetence, as well as a destructive conspiracy.
  In my last year as a Senator, NASA and the space station have, 
thankfully, enjoyed a banner year. Congress has approved a NASA budget 
of $14.37 billion, which includes $2.1 billion for the International 
Space Station. Space Lab received $102.3 million, which is 10 million 
over the original request. In April, NASA safely concluded the second 
longest shuttle mission. The space station was reconfigured within 
congressional budget limits and considerable improvements were made in 
management, engineering and budgeting the program. These changes led to 
a resounding endorsement from the Vest Committee.
  It is rewarding to those of use who have worked long and hard in 
support of this important international scientific collaboration that 
the groundswell of public and congressional support is growing 
stronger. Credit for this success belongs to the team of personnel--
scientists, engineers, contractors, universities and government 
agencies--who have worked tirelessly to make this program a viable path 
to the future.

                          ____________________