[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 88 (Tuesday, July 7, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7538-S7565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume 
consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2168) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     for sundry independent agencies, commissions, corporations, 
     and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas is ready to proceed with an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 3062

(Purpose: To terminate the Space Station and provide additional funding 
                  for veterans and low-income housing)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Bryan, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl, 
     Mr. Wyden, Mr. Feingold and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3062.

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

       Strike line 21 on page 76 through line 4 on page 77 and 
     insert the following:
       ``For termination of the International Space Station 
     project, $850,000,000. In addition to the other provisions of 
     this Act, $1,000,000,000 shall be available for the Veterans 
     Health Administration Medical Care account and $450,000,000 
     shall be available for the Housing Certificate Fund account 
     within the Department of Housing and Urban Development's 
     budget.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this will be the eighth year that I have 
stood here and debated whether or not America should go forward with a 
space station. I didn't like the idea of the Space Station Freedom, but 
it was probably a bargain compared to what the International Space 
Station is turning out to be.
  First, I would like to pose a question to my colleagues: Why is it 
that we continue to fund a program called the International Space 
Station, when every cellular biologist, every medical researcher, and 
every physicist in America who isn't involved in the program itself is 
vehemently opposed to it? These are some of the most brilliant people 
in America. Before we start off spending $100 billion, we ought to ask 
ourselves, Why are they opposed? Well, for very good reasons, and I 
will come back to those in just a minute.
  It is a mystery that here in Congress we talk seriously about a 
program which in the last 3 years has become almost laughable. If it 
weren't so serious and the amount of money so enormous, it would be 
almost a comedy--a comedy of errors.
  The cost began to spiral in 1996--maybe before that, but that was the 
first time we really knew it. The Russians have had space stations up 
for almost 30 years. The Mir is the seventh space station that the 
Russians have had up since 1971. And what do they have to show for it? 
Absolutely nothing.
  In a little while, I will come back and quote some of the top Nobel 
Prize winners, some of the top physicists in America, cellular 
biologists--you name it. I will come back and quote several of them and 
what they have had to say about the space station as a research 
vehicle.
  Now, you should bear in mind throughout this debate that when you 
talk about research on the space station, there is only one reason--one 
reason--you have to believe that the kind of research we are going to 
do, which NASA says will cure ingrown toenails, warts, cancer, sties--
it will cure everything--you have to believe that research of whatever 
kind--mostly medical, and some of it molecular biology--but you have to 
believe that something happens in a microgravity situation that you 
can't emulate on earth, and not only is something going to happen in a 
microgravity situation, but it is going to be good. Again, I will come 
back to what the top scientists in this country have to say about it. 
But right now I will quote Professor Bloembergen, who is a top 
physicist at Harvard University. When he was President of the American 
Physical Society, which consists of 40,000 physicists, and, he summed 
it up when he said, ``microgravity is of micro importance.''
  John Glenn came to the Senate with me. We developed a warm friendship 
the first day we met and we have remained friends. I consider him one 
of my dearest friends, except when I bring this amendment up. But 
Senator Glenn is not going to deny that about all you get out of this 
is whatever you can get from microgravity research that can be emulated 
on earth; but there is no need to emulate it on earth. You are going to 
hear all this business about gallium arsenide crystals, which is 
``bunk.'' Even if you could build crystals on the space station, nobody 
on earth could afford to use them.
  Well, Mr. President, why are all these people opposed? Why are the 
top people on whom we rely for all of our medical research, cellular 
research--the top scientists in America--why are they outraged by 
spending $100 billion on one orbiting space station with a crew of, at 
first three people, and subsequently six or seven people? Why are they 
outraged? Well, one reason might be that they come up here pleading for 
money for honest-to-God research every year, and we give them a few 
shekels and off they go to do the best they can with it.
  Think about the National Institutes of Health getting about $13 
billion a year, and they do research on everything--honest research. 
They send out money to every university in the country that has a 
medical school to do research. Well, if we ever get this thing in 
space, just the annual operating cost will be enough to fund 6,000 
researchers at NIH and universities across America for a year. We are 
going to have six people on the space station doing what the National 
Research Council estimates to be 24 hours of research each day, at a 
cost at which we could hire 6,000 researchers on earth.
  Do you want to hear another one? Once we get it deployed, we are 
going to leave it in space for 10 years. You multiply the man-hours by 
10 years that we are going to get in research, and if you don't just 
divide the annual operating costs, which, as I said a moment ago, would 
produce 6,000 researchers on earth, but divide it into the entire $100 
billion cost, which is a legitimate thing to do because, after all, we 
are spending $100 billion to put the space station up and do research--
whether you are going to build crystals or cure ingrown toenails, it is 
all research. But when you do that, the cost

[[Page S7539]]

of each man-hour of research on the space station is $11.5 million per 
hour.
  Now, if that doesn't stagger people, what would? Here we starve the 
National Institutes of Health, we starve the Food and Drug 
Administration, we starve the Centers for Disease Control, and we are 
embarking on a program that will cost $100 billion, which translates 
into $11.5 million for every hour of research that will be done on that 
thing over a 10-year period. So can you see why I raise my voice? I 
can't believe it. It is so patently absurd and outrageous. And the 
ordinary layman in America thinks the space station is a pretty good 
idea. The Russians did it, why shouldn't we?
  But let's go to the original promises. Mr. President, not only are 
all of the scientists in America opposed to it, I will give you another 
reason that Congress ought to be opposed to it. It is because we have 
just had one broken promise after another from NASA. My good friend 
from Ohio has heard me say this many times. Let me get this off my 
conscience right now. I believe in NASA and I believe in the space 
program. I thought the Mars Pathfinder Program was wonderful. We sent 
an unmanned rover to Mars, and it took magnificent pictures and sent 
them back to earth. It gave us a much, much better comprehension, for 
whatever it may be worth, of what is on Mars. So I want everybody to 
understand that this is not an anti-NASA speech or amendment; this is 
an antispace station amendment.
  In September 1993, there was a solemn promise that was made to 
Congress and, therefore, to the American people. This is what a 
briefing paper on NASA's Web site says:

       In September 1993, a program implementation program called 
     PIP had been developed in the baseline for the new 
     International Space Station. The plan was coordinated with 
     and agreed to by all existing partners. Based on this PIP, 
     NASA reached agreement with the Clinton administration and 
     with Congress that the International Space Station would be 
     implemented with a flat budget of $2.1 billion a year.

  Let me indelibly ingrain that on your brain. NASA said we will do 
this for $2.1 billion a year.
  And we will build it. Bear in mind, there are three stages: Building 
it, deploying it, and operating it. The NASA briefing paper goes on to 
say:

       NASA promised that the program would remain on schedule and 
     within the annual $2.1 billion and the runout $17.4 billion 
     budget and that no additional funds will be sought. In 
     exchange the program will be required to redesign and rescope 
     the station.

  A solemn promise of $2.1 billion. But, as they say, something 
happened on the way to the forum. We are now up to $98 billion-plus and 
heading north.
  They also promised us that this thing would be finished by June of 
2002. Again, something happened on the way to the forum. I will come 
back to that in just a moment.
  But we should have noticed back in 1996. If we had been paying 
attention in 1996, we would have known that something was happening. 
Precisely what was happening was, NASA transferred $235 billion from 
other programs within NASA to the space station. They did that with the 
approval of the appropriate committees of Congress here. I assume it 
was the Commerce and Appropriations Committees. But what else did they 
do? They then changed their accounting system so they could transfer 
another $100 million over to the space station. That $300 million 
didn't count against the $17.4 billion that the cost of this thing was 
supposed to be. It didn't count against the $2.1 billion they promised 
they would use every year and not ask for more.
  In 1997, guess what. The same song, second verse. In 1997, they 
transferred $200 million from the shuttle program to the space station 
because they had decided that Russia was not going to be able to come 
through with its part of the bargain their very first component--
building the service module. They decided they might have to build it. 
So they transferred $200 million from the shuttle program to build what 
they call an interim control module. Then they again transferred $100 
million from other accounts--mostly scientific accounts.
  So we are not going to get as much science as we planned, because 
they have already taken $100 million of that out, and this $300 million 
did not count against the annual $2.1 billion appropriations.
  Then in a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee last year--I 
think it was in May--Boeing, the prime contractor, and NASA both 
appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee. Boeing said, in a rare 
admission, that it their part of the program was going to cost $600 
million more than we anticipated. That didn't include the $600 million 
that had already been transferred by NASA from other accounts. NASA 
said that is true. But in that same hearing, they said the figure was 
not going to be $600 million in cost overrun, it would be $817 million. 
They also said in 1998 that they are going to need still another $430 
million extra.
  I mean we are getting bombarded by transfers from other accounts, 
transfers with and without the permission of Congress, admitted cost 
overruns of $817 million on top of that. And we are going to need 
another $430 million in 1998.
  So, Mr. President, the thing is beginning to sort of roll out of 
control. And Dan Goldin, Administrator of NASA, takes the extra 
precaution, with, I think, a little prodding by Congress, to appoint a 
task force to look into this whole thing. He made Jay Chabrow, one of 
the premier space technology analysts in America, chairman of what is 
called the Chabrow Commission. They were formulated, I think, and 
appointed in September and went to work in November. And on April 15, 
1998, they came back to the Congress and to NASA and said that the 
$21.3 billion that NASA admitted the station would cost in its FY 1999 
budget was not enough. I should have mentioned that before. In their 
budget for 1999 NASA admitted that the space station was not going to 
cost $17.4 but, rather, $21.3 billion. They wish.
  Jay Chabrow, in whom Dan Goldin obviously put a great deal of 
confidence, comes back and says, ``Would you believe $24.7 billion?'' 
That is a $7.3 billion overrun--43 percent--just to build it on the 
ground before we have put the first piece of hardware in space. Chabrow 
went ahead to say you are not going to finish it in the year 2002. It 
is going to take 10 to 38 months longer to deploy the space station 
than you have been admitted, more likely 2 years. So, instead of the 
year 2003, it is going to be finished in late 2005, or early 2006 at 
best.
  Do you know what those kinds of delays mean in a program like this? 
Billions. If this had been anybody other than somebody like Jay 
Chabrow, with the credibility and reputation he has, everybody could 
have swatted it like a fly. But you cannot ignore this prestigious 
commission.
  Do you know what else? The Chabrow Commission went ahead to say this 
$7.3 billion overrun assumes that the Russians, our big partner in the 
space station, will perform on time.
  Mr. President, let's go to the next stage, deploying the space 
station. It is going to take, according to the latest figures from 
NASA, about 83 launches to deploy it. That means taking all of these 
parts into space over the period of the next 63 months, putting them 
together in space, and becoming what we call the International Space 
Station. When Jay Chabrow's commission said the cost overrun is going 
to be $7.3 billion, he went ahead to say ``if the Russians fulfill 
their part of this bargain.'' The Russians were scheduled to deploy the 
service module--a very important element in the space station--April 
1998. Then it was going to be December 1998. Now we are up to April 
1999.
  Do you know what those delays do? They cost billions.
  Do you know something else? Colleagues, let me ask you. Do you think 
the Russians can fulfill their part of this program? The Russians, who 
just barely have enough money to get a rescue team up to the Mir and 
rescue them, and whose electricity has been cut off at their primary 
cosmodrome at Baikonur. The electricity has been cut off because they 
won't pay their bills, and the reason they don't pay their bills is 
that they do not have the money. The reason they don't have the money 
is that the central government doesn't have the money to send to the 
Russian Space Agency.
  The Russians are our partners. I feel sorry for them. This statement 
is not intended to condemn the Russians. But to think that we are 
gambling $100 billion on assuming that the Russians will provide 49 of 
the 83 launches it is going to take to put this thing in orbit.

[[Page S7540]]

 We are depending on the Russians to do that? Do you remember when the 
Vice President went over to talk to Chernomyrdin and Chernomyrdin told 
the Vice President not to worry, that the money is going to be coming?
  The money did not come. The money has not come.
  Now, Mr. President, there is one admission I want to make right now. 
I would tell Daniel Goldin and the administration at NASA, forget 
Russia. I don't know what it is going to cost for the United States to 
assume its share of this burden, but whatever it is will be less than 
waiting for them to perform. They cannot perform. It is sad, and I am 
sorry, but the Russians are not going to be able to hold up their share 
of the bargain.
  The European Space Agency--I think there are 14 countries in the 
European Space Agency--is in this, and you are going to hear all these 
loud laments: We can't quit now; it is an international project.
  It is an international project with the United States putting up $100 
billion and everybody else putting up $15 billion. The French are 
members of the European Space Agency. They have a very clever Space 
Minister, Claude Allegre. Do you know what he said? ``It is time to get 
out. This was a mistake.'' He went ahead to say, ``People often do 
stupid things. There is no rule that says we have to applaud them.''
  They are in for 27 percent of the European Space Agency's share, 
which is around $9 billion to $10 billion, and they want out. They do 
not want to hear all these patriotic songs on the Senate floor about 
how this international cooperation is just wonderful. They want to save 
their 27 percent and get out while the getting is good. And as Claude 
Allegre, the Space Minister, said, ``I have never seen any research 
that would justify this kind of expenditure.''
  Mr. President, some studies have been done which indicate that even 
if Russia could perform right on time, out of those 83 launches, 5 of 
the Russian launches could be failures under the best of 
circumstances--5 of those launches would be failures and 1 United 
States launch would be a failure.
  In addition there will be launch delays. You have a 5-minute window. 
Senator Glenn is familiar with all of this. You have a 5-minute window 
to launch those things. If you don't do it in the 5 minutes, Lord knows 
how long you have to wait. To assume that 83 launches to just get this 
thing into orbit are going to go off without a hitch, without a flaw, 
is naive and simplistic in the extreme.
  Going back to NASA's promises, in 1993, they said that in order to 
assemble this thing in space, it is going to require our astronauts to 
engage in what they called ``extravehicular activity,'' space walks for 
short, and it will take 434 man-hours, 434 man-hours of space walking 
to assemble this thing.
  In 1995, they said, no, it is going to take 888, a little over twice 
as many as we first said. In 1996, they said, no, it is going to take 
1,104 hours of space walking. In 1997, in April, they said, no, it is 
going to take 1,520 hours. And in December of 1997, they said, no, it 
is going to take 1,729 hours. There is a nice, solid 400-percent 
increase or, if you choose, a 400-percent mistake.
  Mr. President, we ought to expect something as a return on our 
investment. We send our children and grandchildren, our most precious 
possessions, off to school every morning. All of us got teary-eyed as 
we sent our children off to school the first time. And incidentally, we 
sent them for 7 or 8 hours that day to be with a teacher who was going 
to have almost as much, and possibly more, influence on that child than 
the parents.
  How many debates have you heard in this Chamber about how the school 
buildings in this country are deteriorating? And how many debates have 
you heard about how we have to lower the size of the classes? 
Incidentally, that is a lot bigger issue. I haven't had any children in 
school in some time. I have grandchildren, and one of my daughters-in-
law told me the other day my grandson was in a class with 34 students, 
and that is not extraordinary; that is fairly common, even though every 
educator will tell you anytime a classroom is bigger than 20 students, 
the chances of that child getting a decent education go down 
dramatically. Twenty is the optimum size for classrooms. So we wail 
endlessly on the floor of the Senate about our commitment to the 
education of these children, to teachers. That teacher to whom we send 
our child off to be with 7, 8 hours a day in my State, his or her entry 
level salary is in the $20- to $25,000 range.
  Just as an aside--this doesn't cost anybody anything-- if I were 
President Clinton, I would tell the American people I hope to raise 
teacher's salaries to $50,000 a year. I married a schoolteacher, and I 
can tell you categorically it is the roughest, toughest job in America. 
I would work for the Washington sanitation department before I would 
teach elementary and secondary education. And we pay tribute to them 
but we don't pay them money.
  Around here you hear all of these things. When we were marking the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill, virtually every Member of the Senate 
came to Senator Cochran or me or both saying, please, help me with this 
little project back home; we just need $400,000 for this; if we could 
just get $1.5 million for that. Do you know what Senator Cochran and I 
were dealing with? A budget that was $1 billion less than last year, a 
little over $13 billion for the whole Agriculture Department of 
America. This cost overrun just to build the space station on Earth 
would fund 50 percent of the agriculture budget. Think what it would do 
to send children to college. Think what it would do to improve 
teacher's salaries. We tried to appropriate $5 billion to upgrade the 
classrooms in this country. And we are talking about a $7.3 billion 
overrun here.
  Well, you trust the teacher with your child because oftentimes it is 
a joy to do it and sometimes because you have to.
  I started off this debate by saying that Congress is arrogating to 
itself a knowledge it does not possess as to what kind of research is 
likely to go on on the space station. If you think it can only happen 
on a space station, or if you think there is something peculiar about 
microgravity that we have to do all of this research in a vacuum, let 
me read to you, at the expense of boring you to tears, a few quotes.
  Here is Dr. Ursula Goodenough, a cell biologist from the University 
of Washington and past president of the American Society for Cell 
Biology. She wrote to Dan Goldin, the administrator of NASA, and said:

       The frontier of microgravity never did interest first-rate 
     scientists, physical or biological. And this is all the more 
     true now that it is clear that nothing of any real interest 
     has emerged from the many in-flight studies on the effects of 
     microgravity on this or that.

  John Pike, of the American Federation of Scientists:

       As soon as the most visible justification for piloted space 
     craft becomes science, you got BS detectors going off all 
     over America.

  Here is Marcia Smith. Marcia Smith is with the Congressional Research 
Service and probably knows as much or more about space than any person 
in America. She has done a report that is very current, issued in the 
month of July, that before any Senator votes to continue spending up to 
$100 billion or $150 billion, that Senator ought to read. Here is what 
she said in a publication in 1995:

       I don't know of any breakthroughs that have come out of 
     Russian space station programs in terms of new or cheaper-to-
     produce materials or scientific discoveries. Mostly, they 
     have learned how to operate a space station for longer 
     periods of time.

  Longer periods of time--nothing in there about cancer, AIDS, myopia--
nothing. They say the Russians have had space stations up for almost 30 
years, Mir being the last one, and what have they learned? They have 
learned how to keep space stations up for longer periods of time.
  Here is a quote from Tim Beardsley, Scientific American. He, in turn, 
is quoting Elliott C. Levinthal, a former program director of the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. And he says:

       Levinthal, who has been a professor of genetics and 
     mechanical engineering at Stanford University, asserts that 
     no neutral committee handing out funds for basic research in 
     biology would support microgravity studies.

  James Ferris, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, June, 1996:

       Nothing has come out of microgravity research to convince 
     me that a material can be fabricated in orbit that is going 
     to be better than what you can make on Earth.


[[Page S7541]]


  Why are we spending $150 billion if you believe that?
  Here is Dr. James Van Allen. Did you ever hear of the Van Allen 
radiation belt? One and the same person.

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

  He goes on to say:

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

  That is pretty powerful stuff from a man like Van Allen, isn't it--
not necessary or useful?
  Here is Dr. Allen Bromley, Presidential Science Adviser, March 11, 
1991, in a letter to the Vice President:

       The space station is needed to find means of maintaining 
     human life during long space flights. This is the only 
     scientific justification, in our view, and all future design 
     efforts should be focused on this one purpose.

  That is George Bush's Vice President, Dan Quayle. That is back before 
Al Gore and Bill Clinton. And Dr. Bromley is writing to the Vice 
President, saying bear in mind that the only scientific justification 
should be focused on one purpose and that is maintaining human life 
during long flights.
  The American College of Physicians--medical doctors. The American 
College of Physicians:

       We agree that much, if not all, of the money slated for the 
     space station, the superconducting super collider, SDI, and 
     for Defense Intelligence could be better spent on improving 
     the health of our citizens, stimulating economic growth, and 
     reducing the deficit.

  That was in 1992 when people thought the deficit was absolutely out 
of control and so was Congress. And sometimes I wonder about Congress 
today, when I see us appropriating money to keep this thing going.
  Here is one from the American Physical Society, all the physicists in 
America:

       The principal scientific mission of the station is to study 
     the effects on humans of prolonged exposure to a space 
     environment.

  Listen to this:

       Medical researchers scoff at claims that these studies 
     might lead to cures for disease on Earth.

  Why, you are going to hear all these things about, ``We don't know 
what is up there; we have to go up there and find out.'' We have been 
going up there for 30 years. We have been in space for 30 years. The 
space station will keep us there longer, but we have been there before.
  On cancer research--that is one of the things you always hear about, 
cancer research. Everybody deplores and is so frightened of cancer and 
AIDS and other terminal diseases like that. All you have to do is throw 
``cancer research'' out and you can have all the money you want. And 
here is what Dr. David Rosenthal at the Harvard Medical School said on 
behalf of the American Cancer Society:

       We cannot find valid scientific justification for these 
     claims and believe it is unrealistic to base a decision on 
     funding the space station on that information. . . . Based on 
     the information we have seen thus far, we do not agree that a 
     strong case has been made for choosing to do cancer research 
     in space over critically needed research [right] here on 
     Earth.

  Mr. President, I will save some of the other quotes. I know it gets a 
little tiresome listening to somebody read on the Senate floor. I get a 
little wrought-up in debating this issue. But you show me somebody who 
can't get wrought-up over an issue and he ought not to be on the floor 
of the Senate. If you don't feel strongly enough about it to get 
excited and agitated about it, maybe you should not offer it in the 
first place.
  This is my last year in the Senate. This is my eighth and last effort 
to kill this program. But this year I am doing something a little 
different. Of the $2.3 billion we are talking about putting in the 
program for 1999--I would terminate the space station. It will cost 
roughly $800 million to terminate it. I would take $1 billion that is 
left over and put it in veterans medicine. The veterans have been 
squealing like a pig under a gate about how they have been mistreated 
this year, and they have been mistreated. If anybody in this body wants 
to redeem themselves, here is a chance to ingratiate themselves with 
every veterans organization in this country, who are totally wired to 
the fact that they have been shorted by the tune of about $1 billion.
  So I will put $1 billion of this in veterans programs. And I will put 
$450 million into low-rent housing. We are doing a magnificent job 
during this unprecedented era of prosperity; 67 percent of the people 
in this country own their own homes, or like me, have a fighting 
interest in one. But people who are poor and people who work that are 
poor, 60 percent of them spend over 50 percent of their wages on a 
home, on a house, on rents.
  The poor people always get the shaft, don't they? I have always 
thought they did. If it hadn't been for the Government providing me 
with the GI bill to go to a prestigious law school, I wouldn't be 
standing here right now. It was that mean old Government that everybody 
talks about how terrible it is that gave my brother and me a great 
education and gave us a fighting chance that we might otherwise not 
have had.
  People don't like to admit it, but the truth of the matter is, most 
people who make it in this world make it because they had a little luck 
along the way or because the Government gave them a little hand with an 
education or a small business loan or some kind of Government 
assistance. A lot of them, like me, got all three--luck, Government 
help, and I chose my parents well. Everybody doesn't get that chance. A 
lot of people do a miserable job of choosing their parents, but they 
can't help it.
  We can help it. We can do something for the least among us. I call on 
my colleagues for one time to rise above the politics of this. Eighty-
five percent of the money goes to Alabama, California, and Texas. The 
rest don't have that much money in your State to warrant voting a bad 
vote. Anybody who can't justify a ``no'' vote on the space program 
doesn't have much business being here. Maybe you feel strongly about 
it, and I am not going to quarrel about that, but if you are looking 
for a political justification, anybody who can't justify voting to kill 
that thing has no business being in the debate on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. Glenn addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to the 
statements made by my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Senator 
Bumpers. Some of his statements I agree with, and, obviously, some of 
them I do not agree with. One I agree with very strongly is, when he 
and I arrived here together, we became closest friends. He is one of my 
best friends, if not the best friend, I have in the Senate today. We 
vote in a very similar fashion on most things. But every year it seems 
we lock horns on this particular issue. I am sorry that is the case, 
but I feel as strongly in the other direction with regard to the space 
station as he does on the other side.
  Let me put this in a little larger context perhaps. Let me start out 
with the big picture of this country and what made this country great, 
because I have always believed that there is one thing that does set 
this country apart from other nations around the world.
  By the very nature of people coming to this country in the early days 
and their expansion across the unknown territory that we know today as 
America, they exhibited a questing curiosity, a questing spirit that 
led them not only to explore lands and oceans and skies and geography, 
but also to do not just the macro exploration, but the micro 
exploration in laboratories, classrooms of our Nation, and express our 
curiosity in learning new things. And that is at the heart of science. 
The heart of science is learning the new and putting it to use in ways 
to better our lives and understanding of the world around us--indeed, 
the universe around us.
  This questing spirit is at the heart of our history, from those first 
settlers who landed on our rocky shores, to Lewis and Clark pushing 
into hostile lands west of the Mississippi, to Thomas Edison and the 
electric light, to the Wright brothers struggling to break the bond of 
gravity, to the past and present-day pioneers in our country's space 
program.
  Along the way, there have always been plenty of doubters about our 
efforts to explore, to learn the new. There have always been those who 
said, ``Well, we haven't solved all of our problems yet, so we should 
spend our

[[Page S7542]]

money on the here and now until we get those answers and never look 
into other new areas; don't waste money on what might be.''
  There have been plenty of doubters about our efforts to explore the 
new, and one of the most famous is one I have quoted on this floor 
before, a distinguished orator and Senator, Daniel Webster.
  Daniel Webster used to get very impassioned. All you have to do is 
see the desk on the other side of the aisle which is always reserved 
for the senior Senator from New Hampshire. That is the only desk in the 
U.S. Senate that has a solid top on it. It does not raise. It does not 
have hinges. That is because Daniel Webster became so impassioned on 
the Senate floor, he used to bang so hard on the desks during his 
speeches, that he broke the tops of the desks. They finally got so 
tired of replacing the tops that they put on a solid top of additional 
thickness so he couldn't break it. That is how impassioned he became 
about some of the matters in which he believed.
  He rose in the Senate when our Government was considering buying 
lands west of the Mississippi from Spain and Mexico, lands that now 
make up more than half of the area mass of today's United States. 
Daniel Webster would rise during floor debate to say words to the 
effect of these: ``What use can this area west of the Mississippi be, 
this area of cactus and prairie dogs, of blowing sand, mountains of 
snow, impenetrable snow to their very base? Mr. President, I will not 
vote one cent from the public Treasury to move the Pacific one inch 
closer to Boston than it now is.''
  We can see in the past we have had some of our greatest statesmen who 
have taken a rather myopic view of branching out and looking into the 
new and unknown. The Wright brothers faced their skeptics, too. Some 
people said at that time that if God wanted us to fly, God would have 
made feathers on us so we could fly. Yet, their curiosity and 
persistence led to airplanes and the aviation industry and really have 
changed the nature of the world and commerce and how we do business 
over this Earth.
  I hate to say we face reincarnation of some of those skeptics when 
debating our space program. I think people who take some of these views 
are just as misled as Daniel Webster and critics of the Wright brothers 
were years ago. Each year they ask, ``Why do we invest billions of 
taxpayers' dollars for space exploration and research''--even though it 
does have a great promise, which I will go into in a few moments--
``while we still have other problems right here on Earth we haven't 
solved? It is not just exploring the West. So why do we put new money 
into research and laboratories when we haven't solved the problems on 
which we are already working?''
  You can look at the macro research or micro research area, either 
one. We do research for one reason, and I can give a short answer for 
that: We do it to benefit people right here on Earth and to address 
those very problems they raise, and that has been true ever since I was 
involved in the space program many years ago during Project Mercury, 
and it is true today.
  I cannot think of one area of our society, whether it is 
communications or transportation or medicine, manufacturing, 
agriculture, the environment, education--that has not demonstrably 
benefited from our space program.
  I know my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, 
will say he is not against the space program--and that is true, he is 
not, he votes for it--that he is just against the space station. Yet, 
the space station, to my mind, is one of the most preeminent examples 
of where we stand the potential of benefits for the future beyond 
anything we can foresee at the outset right now. That is the nature of 
basic research. That is the nature of geographical research and 
exploration or research in laboratories.
  This year, as in years past, we will debate what the benefits are of 
the International Space Station. Fortunately, we have continued to fund 
the space station. I think it is one of the greatest cooperative 
scientific enterprises in the history of this world--in fact, the 
greatest. A total of 16 nations have teamed up to launch the most 
ambitious technical undertaking known to man. The first components will 
be launched later this year. As a matter of fact, the scheduled date is 
December 3 when the first U.S. node will be put up. The Russians will 
their first component, the Functioning Cargo Block on November 20.

  The station will be a laboratory in permanent orbit. Much of its 
research will be a continuation of work currently being done on the 
shuttle, which is more limited as a research facility because of 
several things, including space available inside it, and because of 
technical considerations and the length of time it can be in space. 
That is the main one, the length of time that it can actually stay in 
orbit.
  Let me go into a little bit about some of this research that I do 
believe is important. We had a recent set of experiments called 
Neurolab in April of this year. It was started on the shuttle and will 
be continued on the space station to a greater extent. It will deal 
with probably the greatest single frontier, the greatest unknown, the 
greatest area for potential advancement of anything we could think 
about, and that is a study of our human brain and our nervous system 
and how they operate. It can't be much more important than that. That 
is the part of the human body that is most complex and least understood 
by scientists.
  Neurolab flew this past April carrying seven astronauts and a whole 
host of different animals. It is NASA's view that it is the most 
complex and scientifically sophisticated research mission they have 
ever flown. Researchers used state-of-the-art techniques and 
technologies to gather information about how the nervous system's 
control of various body functions changes in the microgravity of space 
and how gravity influences the development of our nervous system right 
here on Earth--trying to get an insight from the lack of gravity as to 
how these whole systems work.
  A Neurolab lab performed research in the area of our vestibular 
system, balance; cardiovascular functions; spatial orientation and 
development biology; and circadian rhythms. The lay person listening to 
me recite those might wonder what all these terms involving research 
with a bunch of astronauts have to do with me right here on Earth. That 
is a good question. But there are some very ready answers to that.
  The vestibular system relates to how the inner ear links to our sense 
of balance which is disrupted when the astronauts are in microgravity 
and space. The research lab will help to better understand how balance 
is disrupted and then restored. Is that of importance here? There are 
12.5 million Americans right now over the age of 65 who suffer from 
balance disorders just as a pure result of the aging process. In fact, 
balance disorders affect most people at some point in their lives, and 
hopefully this may give us a new approach to those problems.
  Cardiovascular Functions: Blood pressure control is upset in space. 
Many astronauts faint or become dizzy when they come back to Earth. 
This ``orthostatic intolerance'' also affects 500,000 Americans. 
Neurolab's research will be helpful in developing treatments for those 
who suffer from inadequate regulation of their blood pressure.
  Spatial Orientation and Development Biology--that s a big title: 
Research in this area examines the development of motor skills like 
walking and manual dexterity. Findings could be helpful in learning how 
the nervous system connects to motor development, which could have 
applications in treating children whose motor development is retarded 
by disease or genetic defect, or for people who are seeking to regain 
motor function after a stroke or an accident.
  Sleep and Circadian Rhythms: Astronauts in space have trouble 
sleeping. So do millions of Americans, especially older Americans, and 
those who work night shifts. But trials on Neurolab examine the hormone 
Melatonin and its efficacy as a sleep aid. For those over 65 in this 
country, it is estimated about one-third of those people have serious 
enough sleep problems that it really interferes with their lives. So 
this may give us a handle on looking into some of those problems.
  All of the Neurolab's research is not something NASA just dreams up 
and says, hey, I think we will put something on this flight that might 
be a good idea; it looks pretty cool. We will

[[Page S7543]]

try that next time out and see what we find out. No, that is not the 
way it is done. All the research has been peer reviewed and the 
Neurolab research involved collaboration between NASA and the National 
Institutes of Health, the Office of Naval Research, and some of the 
world's leading scientific experts in this area. Neurolab will be 
continued on the space station in a longer and more sustained way. I 
think we are only scratching the surface now of what will be learned.
  Neurolab is not the only research being done that has benefits right 
here on Earth. One field of research we have talked about on the floor 
before that I find most intriguing and I know this is denigrated 
somewhat as being sort of esoteric, but it is anything but that. It is 
very important. That is protein crystal growth in space. Most people 
are probably not aware--outside of the medical profession, that is--
most people are probably not aware of the importance of protein 
crystals or proteins in our bodies and the fact that in space there is 
a big difference.
  Contrary to what was said on the floor a few moments ago, there are 
differences in microgravity, there are differences in ``zero-G'' as to 
the kind of research you can do. You can't do all these things on 
Earth. In space, the protein crystals grow to a larger size and a 
greater purity than anything you can do here on Earth because of 
disruption caused by gravity. Research going on now with drug companies 
is fascinating and it brings a whole new input to medicine, to the 
thousands of different proteins and combinations that make up our 
bodies and literally stands to transform the way medicine looks at 
itself and the way we treat disease and what we can do with regard to 
immunities by these things we are learning from changes in protein 
crystal growth in space. Some of our leading drug manufacturers are 
cooperating very, very closely in that particular area.
  Let me give an example dealing with the treatment of flu. The flu 
remedy is being developed with space-grown crystals where you can find 
out how the flu bug itself reacts. As far as flu is concerned, the loss 
of productivity due to flu is staggering--with some estimates as high 
as $20 billion a year that it costs our economy--with the high mutation 
rates of the flu virus. New data from the protein crystals grown in 
space and on Earth appear to unlock some of the secrets of the flu bug 
and reveal its Achilles' heel. This gets rather technical, but the 
secret lies in a small molecule attached to the host cell surface and 
each flu virus, no matter what strain, must remove this small molecule 
to escape the host cell to spread infection. But using data from space 
and space-grown crystals, researchers from the Center for 
Macromolecular Crystallography are designing drugs to bind with this 
protein's site. In other words, they lock on this site, and this lock 
and key reduces the spread of flu in the body by blocking its escape 
route.
  I think that is fascinating. It gets a little technical for 
discussion on the Senate floor, again, but for critics to say there is 
no benefit coming from this research is just not right. These are very, 
very promising medical breakthroughs that are coming from the fact that 
we can grow protein crystals in space of far greater purity and size 
than we can here on Earth in a one-G environment.
  The Center for Macromolecular Crystallography, in collaboration with 
a private sector affiliate, has developed several potent inhibitors of 
viral influenza. It is anticipated that phase I human trials will begin 
this year. This is an excellent example of the kind of research in our 
space program that has direct relevance to us here on Earth. We have 20 
to 40 million people every year that get the flu, causing some 20,000 
deaths a year in the U.S. alone. This new data on space-grown crystals 
has helped unlock a secret to let us treat flu in a different way. That 
is just one example.
  Another benefit from these same kind of space-grown crystals is 
trauma from open-heart surgery that can lead to complications due to 
massive inflammation of heart tissue. Factor D plays a key role in the 
biological steps that activate the immune response. Being able to block 
factor D's effects could enable heart-surgery patients to recover more 
rapidly, and data from space-grown crystals allowed researchers to 
develop inhibitors which specifically block factor D. The industrial 
partner for these activities recently received approval to start human 
clinical trials.
  Another example is space crystals in the fight on AIDS. A new 
combination of drugs, including protease inhibitors, has proven 
immensely successful in treating AIDS. In an ongoing experiment with 
DuPont Merck, NASA has crystallized HIV protease enzymes with an 
inhibitor to support structure-based drug design research. This may be 
a successful second generation approach to treat this disease.
  A final example: the CMC has determined the structure of NAD 
synthetase, a protein found in all bacteria. Several leading drug 
candidates have been developed that have shown positive effects against 
E. coli, salmonella, strep pneumonia and tuberculosis.
  Think how helpful these discoveries might be. On E. coli alone, we 
have all become unfortunately aware in the last couple of years of its 
breakout in tainted meat and the resulting illnesses and deaths in many 
children across the country.
  Protein crystal growth is only one field of research which has 
already benefited from access to space. Another area of research which 
shows great potential is advanced cell culture research. Researchers 
will take advantage of the weightless environment of space to study 
tissues as they grow and develop in three dimensions without settling 
to the bottom of the vessel. The rotating wall bioreactor, developed by 
NASA to mimic this capability on the ground is already finding wide 
application in medical research here on Earth. The bioreactor has the 
potential for changing disease treatment through tissue transplants.
  Forthcoming experiments plan to grow human pancreatic islet cells in 
the bioreactor for possible transplantation into diabetic patients. If 
the upcoming experiments are successful, diabetic patients will not 
need to rely as heavily on insulin injections and will have less 
complications from their disease.
  Another example: Modeling colon cancer with bioreactor. Mr. 
President, 166,000 cases of colon cancer are diagnosed each year in the 
United States, and it is one of the leading causes of death. Colon 
cancer tissue grown in a bioreactor develops remarkably similar to 
tumors extracted from humans. Studying these tissues outside the human 
body may allow researchers to understand how cancer spreads, as well as 
identifying new therapies which may prevent it.
  This bioreactor is a marvelous thing. It lets tissues be cultured in 
the same way they occur in the human body. If you go into a laboratory 
and try to do experiments there, quite often the experiment becomes 
two-dimensional because it wants to settle to the bottom of the petri 
dish. A bioreactor in space, with all the right fluids that simulate 
the body, allows growth in a 3-D situation. They can be studied better 
so possible treatments can be put into a culture that is very similar 
to what occurs in the human body.
  Growing cartilage with the bioreactor is another potential 
application. An application of the bioreactor is culturing cartilage 
tissue for replacement and transplantation. Experiments with the 
bioreactor indicate it can successfully culture cartilage tissue that 
is quite similar to human cartilage.
  I use these few examples today just to illustrate how relevant this 
research is to our future on Earth. The international space station 
will make it possible to continue some of the same experiments for 
longer periods of time. A longer duration of time is absolutely 
critical for the success of many of these experiments.
  In this regard, I quote a friend and one of the most respected 
surgeons in this country--as a matter of fact, in the world--Dr. 
Michael DeBakey, chancellor and chairman of the department of surgery, 
Baylor College of Medicine, who said:

       The space station is not a luxury any more than a medical 
     research center at Baylor College of Medicine is a luxury. 
     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 expect cures for 
     cancer. We need much longer missions in space--in months to 
     years--to obtain research results that may lead to the 
     development of new knowledge and breakthroughs.


[[Page S7544]]


  NASA has already had some 1,000 or more proposals per year for 
ground-based and flight investigations involving precursor research for 
the International Space Station project. Selection of principal 
investigators and commercial developers is beginning this year for 
limited flight opportunities starting in 1999, and this population will 
increase from 650 to 900 principal investigators and from 100 to 200 
industrial affiliates by the time the station assembly is complete.
  About 650 life and microgravity sciences principal investigators are 
now participating at over 100 institutions of higher learning around 
the country, and the number of investigators is expected to grow to 
over 900 before assembly is completed. These researchers, in turn, 
employ about 1,400 graduate students at present, with that number 
expected to grow.
  What are they looking into? Well, a number of different areas, and I 
won't be able to go into all of them today. Biotechnology with an x-ray 
diffraction system, for instance. Microgravity allows researchers to 
produce superior protein crystals, which I mentioned a moment ago, for 
drug development and to grow three-dimensional tissues, including 
cancer tumors, for research and cartilage for possible transplant.
  Another area that can be looked into on the international space 
station also is in the area of materials science. Researchers use low 
gravity to advance our understanding of the relationships among the 
structure, the processing and the properties of physical materials.
  The long-term benefits: We advance the understanding of processes for 
manufacturing semiconductors, metals, ceramics, polymers, and other 
materials. We also determine fundamental physical properties of molten 
metal, semiconductors, and other materials with precision impossible on 
Earth.
  Another area being looked into, and this too is a fascinating one, is 
combustion science. Scientists are using low gravity to simplify the 
study of complex combustion processes, burning processes. Since 
combustion is used to produce 85 percent of Earth's energy, even small 
improvements in efficiency will have large environmental and economic 
benefits.
  Now, that is an interesting one because if you light a candle in 
space, you don't have the flame standing up. There is no convection 
current, no rise of air from heating. It gathers in a mass around that 
burning area. So it enables combustion to be studied in ways that were 
never possible before.
  These are only highlights of some of the prestation research that 
have already occurred. Dr. Robert Cheng and Dr. Larry Kostiuk, 
combustion science researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 
under contract to NASA, were awarded a patent for a ring flame 
stabilizer, which significantly reduces pollution from natural gas 
burners. Fitted into an off-the-shelf home heating surface, the device 
from natural gas burners. Fitted into an off-the-shelf home hearting 
surface, the device reduces nitrogen oxide emissions by a factor of 10 
by increasing efficiency by 2 percent, and the device can be readily 
sized to industrial scales. That kind of experiment will continue on 
the space station.
  Furthermore, the international space station will continue research 
into fundamental physics. Scientists use low gravity to test 
fundamental theories of physics with degrees of accuracy that far 
exceed the capacity of earthbound science. Physics and low gravity 
expand our understanding of changes in the state of matter, including 
those changes responsible for high-temperature superconductivity.
  Scientists will study gravity's influence on the development, the 
growth and the internal processes of plants and animals, and their 
results will expand fundamental knowledge to benefit medical, 
agricultural, and other industries.
  In that regard, on plant studies, I sat in a classroom at Houston 
during some of the training I have been doing there just last week. One 
of the experiments was explained. We will have growth of certain seeds 
and exactly how they differ in growth patterns in microgravity was 
assessed, and the different tissue that makes up these plant cells will 
be a subject of study on the flight that I will be on in October of 
this year. We were learning how to go about getting those samples, 
preserve them and bring them back to earth so they can be studied here.
  Furthermore, the space station will be a unique platform from which 
to observe the Earth and the universe. That is planned with Earth 
Observation and Space Science, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, and 
SAGE to be deployed in 2001. This research will further expand our 
knowledge of the solar system and beyond, as well as of the Earth 
itself.
  I cite these examples to briefly indicate what a wide variety of 
scientific effort will go on with the international space station. 
There will undoubtedly be many unintended or ``spin-off'' benefits as 
well, especially if NASA's past record in this area is of any 
indication. There have been over 30,000 different spin-off benefits 
from our space program since its inception. I'd like to give just one 
of the latest examples that is highlighted in NASA's publication 
Spinoff 97. Several years ago, the agency developed a highly sensitive 
infrared detector, otherwise known as a QWIP, to observe the plume 
created by the shuttle when it is launched. Subsequently, QWIPs have 
been modified for use for other applications. They were used to track 
the Malibu fires in 1996 and served as an early warning system on hot 
spots not visible to the naked eye from the air. Recently, a QWIP was 
tested by surgeons at the Texas Heart Institute to see which arteries 
are carrying blood during heart surgery.
  Now, let me address these next remarks about something that happens 
to all of us. As much as some might wish otherwise, there is no cure 
for the common birthday and as we advance in years our bodies start to 
change as we age. So research of the aging process has a direct 
relevance to all of us.
  For several years now, NASA and the National Institute of Aging, 
which is part of the NIH, were working on a project looking at what 
happens to astronauts in space. I have been personally involved with 
this over the last several years. I will be flying as a test subject on 
board the space shuttle Discovery later this year, due to be launched 
October 29. Let me address how this whole thing came about because I 
think it is of interest and will be of interest to so many Americans 
that are in their senior years. Back about 3 years ago, I was looking 
at some of the results of what happens to the human body in space. NASA 
has been able to chart, through the years, over 50 changes that occur 
in the human body in space. Cardiovascular changes, osteoporosis, 
muscle system changes, coordination, immune system changes--things like 
that--sleep pattern changes, it seemed to me as I read the list as I 
was getting ready for debate on the Senate floor at that time--as we do 
every year--it seemed to me, when I read this list, that there are 
several things that appear to be part of the natural process of aging 
right here on Earth. I talked to some of the doctors over at NASA, and 
they said they noticed some of those things. But we didn't have any 
projects to go ahead research these observations. So I went out and 
talked to the people at the National Institutes of Aging who said yes, 
they noticed some of the same changes and thought that sometime we 
ought to look into it.

  I looked at these changes. I was able to take the Merck manual on 
geriatrics, the handbook that most doctors have on their desks in their 
offices, and go back through and chart the different things where there 
is a special process that occurs just from aging, and a similar thing 
occurs with the younger astronauts in space in a much shorter time 
period.
  Out of that we came up with a number of them: Osteoporosis; 
cardiovascular changes; orthostatic--the ability of the body to keep 
blood in the upper part of the body and keep it distributed so the 
brain keeps functioning; muscle degradation, or deterioration of the 
muscle systems that change in weightlessness; but also change is part 
of the natural process of aging right here on Earth; coordination; 
immune system changes. The body's immune system becomes less responsive 
for the aged right here on Earth and for younger astronauts in space 
right now.
  Sleep changes: About one-third of our population of those over 65 
have very serious sleep problems right here on Earth, as do astronauts 
in space. The

[[Page S7545]]

ability of the body to even take in nutrients and absorb them, drugs 
and nutrients; changes in space and changes for the elderly here on 
Earth. Those are a number of things that we noted.
  When I talked to people, they thought that we should be establishing 
a project to look into these things, with the ultimate objective of 
trying to find out what turns the body's systems on and off in these 
particular areas, both for astronauts and for the elderly right here on 
Earth. We have some 34 million Americans right now who are beyond the 
age of 65. That is due to double by the year 2030 and due to triple to 
almost 100 million by the year 2050.
  So this is an area of growing concern as we have so many more of our 
people enter some of these areas of frailties of old age. That is what 
we are trying to look into: What if I as an older person go up into 
space, and what if my immune system or my reactions are different than 
those people who are already up there now of a younger age? Will the 
things happening to them be additive to me, or will I be immune from 
them because those things may have occurred to me here on Earth as part 
of the natural process of aging?
  This is the kind of research we are trying to look into. We can't 
look into them all at once. But some of the problems we can look into 
are some of the muscle system changes. Muscle turnover experiments, 
which I will take part in, where I will have isotope injections and 
take blood-urine samples on a regular basis to see what is causing the 
body to break down its own cells in space, which happens right here on 
Earth to the elderly; doing a sleep experiment in which I will have on 
a ``sleep net,'' as it is called, with a net put over the head that has 
leads over it, which picks up EEG--all the brain waves--picks up rapid 
eye movement with sensors here, sensors under the chin, a respiration 
sensor across here, as well as EKG measurements, as well as monitoring 
deep body core temperatures; swallowing of a pill that transmits the 
little signal, with temperature accurate to one-tenth of a degree, as 
recorded on a monitor card around your waist all the time as that pill 
works its way through your body.
  This will be the most comprehensive study of sleep ever made. It will 
continue what was done on the Neurolab flight where several people were 
there provided good baseline data. NASA and NIA will now be able to 
compare data, at least with one person anyway of an older nature, such 
as myself. We will be able to start this kind of research then, which I 
think has the potential of being extremely valuable into the future. 
These are the things that have to be done in zero-G and can't be done 
right here on Earth.
  The ultimate objective is to get a handle on what turns these body 
systems on and off, which will benefit not only the astronauts up there 
in space by allowing them to take preventive medicine, before these 
effects occur but also be used here on Earth to hopefully treat some of 
the frailties of old age that afflict too many people right here on 
Earth. We are all familiar with the syndrome of broken bones in the 
elderly through falling and breaking a hip. If we can learn how to 
strengthen bones with this kind of study, it would be of tremendous 
value.
  That is what we will be starting some of the research on this fall, 
in October of this year. I will be a data point of one when we come 
back from the mission. Some people say we don't learn anything from a 
data point of one. My response to that is, well, you start to build a 
data bank with a data point of one.
  I hope that through the years NASA will continue this kind of 
research. I hope we can bring back enough good information that they 
will continue this research through the years and see the value of this 
kind of research so it builds the storage of knowledge that we have and 
I think can be extremely valuable into the future. It can open up a 
whole new area of NASA and NIA research that will be so important into 
the future. I am looking forward very, very much to participating in 
that kind of research, as well as the other things that are going on on 
board the flight that I will be on.
  I think the current number of research projects on STS-95, which will 
be the flight going up in October, is 83 separate research projects. It 
is going to keep everybody busy on a very tight timeline all during 
that flight to even keep up with that amount of research. There will be 
a tremendous amount of research going on on that particular flight.
  I could talk for hours on that subject. I have all sorts of material 
that I brought to the floor today that I thought I might get to--we 
don't have time to do it today, but I learned in some of the briefings 
that NASA had in Houston. I think it would be a tragedy if we didn't 
continue to fund the space station where this research can be carried 
out in the future to a far better degree than they have ever been able 
to be done just on the orbiter itself.
  Let me say a few words about the importance of international 
cooperation in space research.
  If you had told me some 36 years ago when I made my flight in 1962--
that in 1997 United States astronauts would take up residence on a 
Russian space station and work together with a Russian crew, I would 
not have believed it possible. I am a veteran of the cold war and the 
space race. I guess I could not be more pleased to see this kind of 
progress. Obviously, there is tremendous symbolic value also when 
former enemies work together cooperatively. But symbolism isn't the 
most important reason we cooperate. Again, it gets back to the basic 
research when we can do it better together working together in 
laboratories all around the world. Yes, we can.
  The quality of research is going to improve if we have the best and 
brightest from 16 nations working on these various projects. The 
shuttle-Mir program also was called Phase I of the International Space 
Station. It is a perfect example of the benefits of such cooperation. 
The program consisted of nine shuttle-Mir docking missions. The program 
has helped both the United States and Russia learn countless valuable 
lessons which will be put to use on the International Space Station.
  Just a few of those accomplishments, and I will just read them off: 
American astronauts had a presence on Mir for 812 days; conducted nine 
shuttle-Mir docking missions; Russian and American engineers, 
astronauts and cosmonauts, in performing joint operations, have 
developed a mutual understanding in these areas, even though we come 
from different cultures, and that is important for the future. We have 
learned how to plan and execute typical shuttle missions to station 
rendezvous and docking, joint ground and mission control, 
extravehicular activity, exchange of supplies, and on and on.
  Most importantly, we are working together on joint research projects. 
Over 45 different research papers are expected to be published by the 
end of this year just on the experiments off of Mir. They encompass 
work on bone loss, bone marrow growth, growth of cancer cells and 
cartilage, protein to crystal growth research, and measurement of the 
Earth's magnetic field--a wide range of scientific matters.
  They put us in an excellent position for assembly and subsequent 
operation of the International Space Station with reduced risk, greater 
confidence, and a reduced learning curve which will save us time and 
money.
  Now, we had a number of charts here on the station. I think in the 
interest of time I will not put those up right now and take more time 
for discussion.
  To summarize this particular part, we will have for the first time in 
history 16 nations involved in an International Space Station, 
cooperating instead of fighting each other. Working together, using the 
best and brightest of each of these countries to do research is a 
benefit to people right here on Earth. This is a new model for how 
people can reach across borders to work together to solve problems 
common to all mankind. It is truly a monumental and historic effort, 
and I am proud and honored to be able to support it.
  I think there is one other important factor here too that I run into 
all the time going around the country, and that is--and this is, 
rather, an intangible benefit. I think our efforts in scientific 
research in these areas is something that the kids look up to; our 
young people in school are encouraged to study math and science and to 
work harder in school. We run into that all the time. We meet with 
teachers, and we will be doing some discussion from the flight that I 
will be on this fall. We

[[Page S7546]]

will be doing some talking back and forth to Earth in this educational 
area to hopefully inspire some of our young people in their academic 
efforts.
  Now, the Senate will be debating an amendment that would, if passed, 
terminate the space station. I hope that the Bumpers amendment will be 
defeated. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, or any other amendments to 
cut back or restrict space station funding because I believe the 
difficult task of building and launching the station is being done in a 
most cost-effective manner while keeping safety paramount.
  I think it is very, very difficult task. This is not like going to 
Detroit and saying, General Motors, we want to buy 5,000 trucks. What 
is your cost? And we will know within a dollar what we are going to get 
them for, and we will probably get them on time without any change in 
capability. We are dealing in an area that is out on the cutting edge 
of science, setting up a vehicle that will be used to initiate projects 
and do research on the cutting edge of science and is less amenable to 
accurate cost accounting.
  I think it is difficult when we say we are expecting NASA to be able 
to foresee some of the things that have happened such as, for instance, 
congressional cutbacks in funding from time to time, cutbacks of 
programs and building up later on, cutbacks again. One estimate by one 
of the studies was that 80 percent of the overruns of the last few 
years, where there has been a budget increase, has been caused by that 
very factor alone. So perhaps we have to look at ourselves here in 
Congress a little bit as to what caused some of these increases.
  This year's cost for the station, $2.3 billion in this particular 
bill, that is just $30 million above the President's 1999 budget that 
we are talking about here today. Back years ago, we were talking about 
a continuing basis of $2.1 billion per year. That is when we thought 
the total cost was going to be $17.4 billion. So for a scientific 
project like this, I don't see that that is too far out of line. This 
is not like going out and buying something that is a commonplace 
product, off the shelf in this country, or wherever.
  It is not true that all scientists are opposed to the station as my 
colleague stated earlier, and it is not true, I don't think, that NASA 
has broken their promises. I think they have basically made the best 
estimates they could, and they have tried to live with them.
  So I hope my colleagues will join me in defeating this amendment to 
terminate the space station because I think it is very valuable for the 
future. The voting patterns in the past in the Senate have shown that 
most in the Senate believe that, and I hope it continues today. Most of 
the hardware is either under construction or actually completed now, 
and the first nodes will be launched later this year. And we will get 
it onstream over the next couple of years so that we can start this 
research that is going to benefit all mankind.
  I think one of the best decisions ever made by this country way back 
in the earliest days of the space program when NASA was just being 
formed was--the decision was made by Dwight Eisenhower--that our 
program would be open for the whole world to participate in. And here 
we are at the end of the cold war participating now with 16 nations in 
the greatest engineering effort ever made in the history of the world. 
It is inspiring to our young people. It has the tremendous benefit of a 
research laboratory we have never been able to have. In all the tens of 
thousands of years as people looked up and wondered what was up there, 
and the Wright brothers made the first flight off the surface of the 
Earth, and ever higher, and now we have the chance to use this for the 
benefit of all people on the Earth, I think it should continue and I 
hope my colleagues will vote to defeat this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are in the process of seeking to reach a 
time agreement and have the measure set aside for a vote about 6:30. We 
have not yet cleared the time agreement. I intend to make some remarks 
now and would want those remarks charged against the time agreement if 
and when we do reach that time agreement. It is our hope that we will 
have this vote and be able to take another matter that is very 
important that Senator McCain is going to offer after this and vote on 
them at 6:30 and thereafter this evening. So for the information of all 
Senators, that is what we are working on, and we hope to have word from 
the Cloakrooms shortly.
  There are many points that can be made. I certainly appreciate the 
very knowledgeable comments of our distinguished colleague from Ohio, a 
man who speaks about space from personal knowledge that none of the 
rest of us have, and I know that we are all very, very enlightened by 
his description of the work that could go on, the scientific inquiry 
that can go on. But I want to address a point that was made earlier, 
just one of them that I think is very important.
  There was a statement made about 1\1/2\ hours ago that all scientists 
in America are opposed to it. Clearly, there are many scientists whose 
disciplines have not yet identified enhancements that might come from 
the microgravity environment of space. It is not surprising that many 
of these scientists would rather see money for science go into one of 
their disciplines. But taking money away from NASA does not 
automatically make that money available for other research programs for 
other Federal agencies.
  Let me just indicate some of the scientific groups that have 
expressed support for the space station. The Federation of American 
Societies for Experimental Biology has called for a 58-percent increase 
in funding for NASA's live science research in its annual consensus 
report.
  In a 1997 report, the National Research Council said in something 
called ``Future Materials Science Research on the International Space 
Station'':

       The microgravity environment . . . of space provides a 
     unique opportunity to further our understanding of various 
     materials phenomena involving the molten, fluidic, and 
     gaseous states by reducing or eliminating buoyancy-driven 
     convection effects. . . . the anticipated scientific results 
     of microgravity materials-science research range from 
     establishing baselines for fundamental materials processes to 
     generating results of more direct commercial significance.''

  I am not sure all of our colleagues understand exactly what they 
mean, but I get the drift of it, and that is that scientific 
investigation in space is good and they are going to make breakthroughs 
in areas that are very important.
  The National Research Council further stated, in Microgravity 
Opportunities for the 1990's:

       Increasingly, fundamental processes that were thought to be 
     well understood under terrestrial (1-g) conditions have, in 
     fact, proved to behave in altered and even startlingly 
     unfamiliar ways when observed and measured in reduced gravity 
     environments. Space experiments in areas such as combustion, 
     fluid flow and transport, phase separation fundamental 
     physics, and biology, have revealed new phenomena and have 
     demonstrated new and occasionally unpredicted behavior.

  NASA and the National Institutes of Health have executed over 20 
cooperative agreements in life sciences. The American Medical 
Association has passed a resolution in support of the International 
Space Station. In addition, we have quotes from people like Dr. Samuel 
C.C. Ting from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory 
for Nuclear Science. Dr. Ting is a Nobel laureate. He said:

       From my experience conducting experiments in particle 
     accelerators for over thirty years, I conclude that the space 
     station is an ideal place to address fundamental issues in 
     physics. In the final analysis, the construction of the Space 
     Station this year will provide scientists from many 
     disciplines with the unprecedented opportunity to carry out 
     large scale, precision, and long-duration experiments 
     unimpeded by the effects of the Earth's atmosphere and 
     gravity.

  I might cite Professor of Engineering Physics and Combustion, 
Director of the Center for Energy and Combustion Research at the 
University of California, San Diego, Professor Forman A. Williams, who 
said:

       The practical objective of learning how to burn our 
     precious fossil fuels more cleanly, efficiently and safely 
     certainly would benefit from the fundamental studies that the 
     Space Station would allow us to pursue. Considering the 
     astronomical costs of petroleum, the investment in Space 
     Station thus seems to me very well conceived.

  Obviously, we have statements from other scientists who indicate the 
importance of this scientific research.

[[Page S7547]]

 But when you look at it, realize that the space station is not just 
justified in terms of science alone. The international space station is 
not and never has been simply a science platform. It serves many other 
functions, not the least of which is the greatest peaceful, 
international, scientific endeavor in history.
  It will offer practical applications beyond the realm of research, as 
a test-bed for manufacturing, for technology. It has a potential for 
great commercial involvement in manufacturing, in materials processing. 
If we choose, as a matter of policy, the station also can play a key 
role in civilization, taking another step beyond Earth's orbit. It is 
not just science. It is a laboratory with the capability that many of 
our top scientists are eager to begin using, and many who would hope to 
commercialize and provide benefits through the private sector, not only 
through investigations, scientific explorations, but actual production 
in space, may be able to realize.
  For these reasons, I hope, when the time comes for a tabling motion, 
an overwhelming majority of my colleagues will join us in so tabling 
the amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to the 
Bumpers amendment to strike the funding for the space station.
  We have heard, prior to Senator Bond's speech, from a distinguished 
American. Senator Bond is also a distinguished American, but Senator 
Bumpers, the Senator from Arkansas, has really raised very important 
and significant flashing yellow lights regarding the space station. He 
has raised questions related to the funding of the space station; also, 
as to whether we are getting our money's worth in terms of research, 
wouldn't it be better deployed in other areas? And he has consistently 
raised many of those questions over the years.
  The result of that has been that, while he has not always won his 
amendment, he has certainly won our attention, that of those on the 
Appropriations Committee, and the attention also of the space agency 
itself that has resulted, I believe, in greater management efficiencies 
and a greater focus on specific research outcomes than would have been 
the case had those important issues not been raised.
  Senator Bumpers has been a champion particularly in the area of 
health care and medical research. I remember when I first arrived in 
the Senate, he was the leading advocate to make sure we had adequate 
immunization for the children of the United States of America, and what 
is now a standard public policy he raised and he supported, and we 
thank him for that.
  He also speaks eloquently of the funding for the National Institutes 
of Health, and I, too, join him on that. I hope by the year 2000 or 
thereabouts, in the new century, we double the funding for the National 
Institutes of Health, an agency that resides in my own State but really 
belongs to all of America and really benefits the entire world.
  I feel so strongly about the benefits that could be derived from the 
collaboration between NIH and NASA that I encouraged then Administrator 
Goldin and the Director of NIH then, Dr. Bernadine Healy, to really 
develop joint research projects. And they actually entered into a 
memorandum of agreement that stands today to ensure collaborative 
research in that area, a great deal of which is being manifested in the 
space station research arena.
  So, we thank Senator Bumpers for the yellow flashing lights that he 
continues to signal to the committee. We thank him for his steadfast 
advocacy for biomedical research. And we want to thank him for his 
important contribution.
  However, having then said those accolades, we do not want his 
amendment supported. I think another wonderful American, Senator John 
Glenn, has outlined very clearly and extensively why we should continue 
to support Space Station Freedom. I would not duplicate, but hope to 
amplify, Senator Glenn's remarks. I recall I was a young social worker 
when Senator Glenn himself had just finished orbiting the Earth looking 
for these important scientific breakthroughs, and I think of the year 
1968 when we also orbited the Moon and our astronauts read from Genesis 
in space to remind us all of our link between here, the planet Earth, 
and outer space.
  I also remember that many Democrats, members of my own party, 
ridiculed the whole effort to go to the Moon and to take that ``one 
giant step for mankind.'' In fact, one Senator from Minnesota at that 
time called it ``moondoggle.'' No one looks back on the success of that 
endeavor, what it meant to our country both in terms of national 
prestige and scientific breakthroughs in that era of the cold war, and 
no one would call that program, now, ``moondoggle.'' I hope we will not 
also just dismiss, in the same way, Space Station Freedom.
  This endeavor was begun under Ronald Reagan, sustained under 
President George Bush, and continues to be supported by President Bill 
Clinton. But it is not only the Presidential support that gives this 
program validity, it is also the support of the scientific community. I 
would like to bring to the committee's attention the Nobel laureate, 
Dr. Samuel Ting, who has played a major role in developing much of the 
research on the space station.
  Another Nobel laureate, Dr. Herbert Hauptman, has addressed the 
Biomedical Research Caucus of Congress on the value of orbital research 
for biomedicine.
  Dr. Michael DeBakey of Baylor Medicine said:

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

  Since 1992, NASA has signed 20 different cooperative agreements with 
NIH. The National Academy of Sciences has repeatedly expressed its 
support for research on the space station. The Planetary Society 
supports it. The American Medical Association has adopted a resolution 
in support of it. The Society for In Vitro Biology hosts an annual 
workshop on what culturing cells in microgravity will mean.
  Who knows what breakthroughs we will find?
  I have five pages of quotes from different deans and professors of 
medical schools from all over the United States of America in support 
of this. They range from MIT, to Harvard Medical School, to the Harvard 
Institutes of Medicine; Brigham and Women's Hospital. I could go on 
about it.
  Let me quote Dr. Jessup who heads up the Deaconess Hospital, Harvard 
Medical School:

       The space program offers a chance to improve out models of 
     cancer and to develop new drugs and treatments as well as to 
     gain knowledge about how cancer spreads . . .

  The space station is the place to do it.
  Mr. President, my family was affected by two major diseases: 
Alzheimer's and diabetes. My very dear father died of Alzheimer's, and 
I am deeply committed to continuing the research to find either the 
cure or the ability to stretch out the intellectual ability for anyone 
who has it. My dear mother was stricken with diabetes and overcame her 
in her final years and resulted in her death.
  What I think about now, as I listen to scientists brief us on what 
this means, is it is outstanding, in those two areas, and what it will 
mean. Let me tell you about what Dr. Ken Kosik of the Harvard Institute 
says:

       By raising rats in an environment that lacks gravity, we 
     have the opportunity to zero in specifically on the brain 
     system that controls orientation. This brain system is 
     exactly the part of the brain attacked by Alzheimer's 
     disease. We will use the rats to search for the specific 
     molecules which fail to appear in the brain circuits 
     controlling orientation.

  And this could lead to incredible breakthroughs in knowing how to 
help those who have Alzheimer's or a propensity to it.
  I have a quote from a letter from Dr. Jim Mulvihill, the president 
and CEO of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International encouraging 
the support of the space station because of what it will mean.
  Dr. Murray Loew, member of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, Lay 
Review Committee, at Georgetown says:

       Although it may not be immediately apparent, persons with 
     diabetes and astronauts share some of the same challenges. 
     Consequently, NASA and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation last 
     May signed a joint Space Act Agreement so that both 
     organizations can together begin fully sharing informa-
     tion . . .


[[Page S7548]]


  And research in juvenile diabetes, there are links here to do this. I 
could elaborate on this, but I turn to my colleague from Missouri, and 
ask him if the time agreement is ready.
  Mr. BOND. It is in the process.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record these statements unsolicited from scientists who do both 
basic research and applied clinical research, not only on diabetes and 
Alzheimer's, but on many others diseases. I want their testimony to 
speak for itself.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       August F. Witt, Ford Professor of Engineering, 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
     . . . your program is now generally recognized as absolutely 
     critical in efforts to maintain for the U.S. a competitive 
     position in the development of new materials. The facilities 
     and scientific infrastructure provided by your Agency [are] a 
     unique national asset which will unquestionably even increase 
     in value, with the establishment of the International Space 
     Station.--Letter to Administrator Goldin, April 22, 1998.
       G. Paul Neitzel, Professor, Virginia Institute of 
     Technology:
       The presence of a ``permanent'' manned platform on orbit 
     will provide unprecedented opportunities for long-term 
     experimentation in a weightless, or ``microgravity'' 
     environment. . . . the results of research done outside the 
     confines of gravity may be able to point the way to the 
     improvement of processes and products produced here on 
     Earth.--Letter to Administrator Goldin, April 22, 1998.
       Forman A. Williams, Professor of Engineering Physics and 
     Combustion, Director, Center for Energy and Combustion 
     Research, University of California, San Diego:
       The practical objective of learning how to burn our 
     precious fossil fuels more cleanly, efficiently and safely 
     certainly would benefit from the fundamental studies that the 
     Space Station would allow us to pursue. Considering the 
     astronomical costs of petroleum, the investment in Space 
     Station thus seems to me to be very well conceived.--Letter 
     to Administrator Goldin, April 20, 1998.
       Charles A. Czeisler, Ph.D., M.D., Associate Professor of 
     Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Chief, Circadian, 
     Neuroendocrine and Sleep Disorders Medicine, Brigham and 
     Women's Hospital:
       [The ISS] provides an ideal platform to explore the long-
     term effects of space flight on human physiology, and will 
     provide critical information for us scientists to assess the 
     feasibility of extended duration space flight such as will be 
     required for a flight to Mars.--Letter to Administrator 
     Goldin, April, 1998.
       Samuel C.C. Ting, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
     Laboratory for Nuclear Science [Dr. Ting is a Nobel 
     laureate]:
       From my experience conducting experiments at particle 
     accelerators for over thirty years, I conclude that the space 
     station is an ideal place to address fundamental issues in 
     physics. In the final analysis, the construction of the Space 
     Station this year will provide scientists from many 
     disciplines with the unprecedented opportunity to carry out 
     large scale, precision, and long duration experiments 
     unimpeded by the effects of the earth's atmosphere and 
     gravity.--Letter to Administrator Goldin, April 17, 1998.
       Dr. Murray Loew, Member, JDF Lay Review Committee, 
     Professor of Engineering, Georgetown University:
       Although it may not be immediately apparent, persons with 
     diabetes and astronauts share some of the same challenges. 
     Consequently, NASA and JDF last May signed a joint Space Act 
     Agreement so that both organizations can together begin fully 
     sharing information and ideas.--Testimony of the Juvenile 
     Diabetes Foundation International before the House 
     Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent 
     Agencies, April 22, 1998.
       James E. Mulvihill, DMD, President and CEO, Juvenile 
     Diabetes Foundation International:
       Again, on behalf of the 16 million Americans with diabetes 
     and their loved ones, I appreciate your partnership in the 
     search for a cure. We look forward to continuing our close 
     working relationship.--Letter to Administrator Goldin, April 
     21, 1998.
       William T. Shearer, M.D., Ph.D., Professor of Pediatrics 
     and of Microbiology and Immunology Baylor College of 
     Medicine; Chief, Allergy and Immunology Service, Texas 
     Children's Hospital:
       All in all, the investment in International Space Station 
     laboratories will yield rich rewards, in terms of the health 
     of human astronauts.--Letter to Administrator Goldin, May 1, 
     1998.
       Harry R. Jacobson, M.D., Vice Chancellor for Health 
     Affairs, Vanderbilt University David Robertson, M.D. Director 
     of the Clinical Research Center, Vanderbilt University:
       The study will give us critical insights into how the brain 
     regulates blood pressure and heart rate in human beings in 
     the unique environment of microgravity, and this information 
     directly relates to the clinical work we are doing regarding 
     the abnormalities in the autonomic nervous system and its 
     control of critical aspects of physiology, such as blood flow 
     to the brain. Using the laboratory of space to examine the 
     underlying regulatory mechanism in the absence of the 
     confounding factor of gravity will allow us to understand 
     these mechanisms at a level not previously possible.--Letter 
     to Administrator Goldin Re Neurolab, April 28, 1998.
       Gail H. Cassell, Ph.D., Vice President Infectious Diseases 
     Drug Discovery Research and Clinical Investigation, Lilly 
     Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company:
       As you know, Eli Lilly is interested in working with the 
     Center for Macromolecular Crystallograph (CMC) in two 
     different areas. First, because of the Center's expertise in 
     macromolecular crystal growth in both 1-g and g 
     environments, we would like to fund the CMC to crystallize a 
     large number of biologically important proteins that Lilly 
     scientists have identified from a variety of sources 
     including our own genomics data base. Second, because of our 
     mutual interest in infectious disease, we would like to work 
     with the CMC on the crystallization and structure 
     determinations for several key proteins associated with a 
     number of bacterial and viral pathogens. . . . In this 
     regard, we hope to support and have access to your NASA-
     funded microgravity flight program.--Letter to Dr. Lawrence 
     J. DeLucas, Director, Center for Macromolecular 
     Crystallography, April 8, 1998.
       Kenneth S. Kosik, M.D., Harvard Institutes of Medicine; 
     Brigham and Women's Hospital:
       By raising rats in an environment that lacks gravity, we 
     have the opportunity to zero in specifically on the brain 
     system that controls orientation. This brain system is 
     exactly the part of the brain attacked by Alzheimer's 
     disease. We will use the rats to search for the specific 
     molecules which fail to appear in the brain circuits 
     controlling orientation.--Letter to Administrator Goldin Re 
     Neurolab, April 20, 1998.
       Dr. V. Reggie Edgerton, Vice Chair and Professor of 
     Physiological Science for the Division of Life Sciences at 
     The University of California, Los Angeles:
       The significant advantage of studying the ability of the 
     nervous system to adapt to a microgravity environment, known 
     as plasticity, is the ability to identify the potential of 
     the normal nervous system. This information is critical 
     because it will allow us to differentiate the potential for 
     plasticity of the nervous system in response to trauma and 
     disease, in comparison to that associated with altered use of 
     the normal nervous system.--Testimony before the U.S. House 
     of Representatives Committee on Science, Subcommittee on 
     Space and Aeronautics, April 10, 1997.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I acknowledge the validity of what 
Senator Bumpers has raised about cost overruns, and I also raise the 
validity about what Senator Bumpers has raised with NASA over the fact 
that the cost overruns in the space station could lead to raids on 
other well-managed NASA programs. To that end, working on a bipartisan 
basis with our colleague from Missouri, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, we established a separate account dedicated solely to the 
space station to create better accountability and financial management 
of this program and transparency in terms of the total cost of what the 
International Space Station is.
  So it is not a million bucks here, 100 million tucked in over here, 
and so on. We are going to have a separate account providing 
accountability and transparency.
  I would like to continue with my arguments, but we have reached a 
time agreement. I temporarily yield the floor to my colleague from 
Missouri so he can propound his unanimous consent request. I ask 
unanimous consent to return to speaking on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think we have reached a time agreement. It 
may be a little convoluted, but if you will stick with me.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour 30 minutes for debate 
prior to a motion to table, and that the vote on the motion to table 
occur at 6:30 p.m. this evening. I further ask unanimous consent that 
the time be divided as follows: 40 minutes under my control, and we 
will charge the 15 minutes used to this point by Senator Mikulski and 
myself against that 40 minutes; 50 minutes under the control of Senator 
Bumpers; that just prior to the vote on the motion to table, there be 
10 minutes equally divided for closing remarks; that following the 
debate, the amendment be laid aside until 6:20 p.m. this evening, and 
at that time, I be recognized to move to table amendment No. 3062.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, and I am most reluctant 
to, I would like, in this eighth year of my

[[Page S7549]]

travail, to get an up-or-down vote on this.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in response to that, I had offered to offer 
a separate amendment naming the space station after Senator Bumpers.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. It will be called the ``Bumper crop.''
  Mr. BOND. In spite of that, I personally will forego the motion to 
table and ask that the vote be an up-or-down vote on the Bumpers 
amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator. I am more than happy to forego 
having the space station named after me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request as amended?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. There is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the further information of all Senators, 
it is my understanding that Senator McCain will be in position next to 
offer an amendment. It is our hope we can have a vote on that matter, 
or relating to that matter, perhaps on a Budget Act point of order, 
following the vote on amendment No. 3062. That is not part of the 
consent agreement. That is for information only. I thank my colleague 
from Maryland, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has used 11 minutes 
9 seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I believe this amendment is a choice between the future and the past. 
We must be willing to embrace science and technology, to take the bold 
risk in scientific endeavors of the future like the space station. 
Investments in science and technology will be determinative of the 21st 
century in what nations will continue to lead the world. I do not want 
the American century to come to a close without a continued commitment 
to science and technology.
  We must use American ingenuity and know-how through this unique 
environment of the space station to tackle understanding of diseases or 
develop new techniques, like I just elaborated on a few minutes ago. 
Some will argue this type of research can be done more cost effectively 
on Earth. Other scientists will disagree because you cannot create a 
low gravity environment on Earth to perform many of these unique 
activities.
  One is microgravity research and providing better research in better 
pharmaceuticals, medical advancement to develop new materials to use on 
Earth, such as new fire resistant materials. My gosh, wouldn't our 
fighters have benefitted from that in Florida?
  Others might ask why this type of research cannot be done on the 
shuttle. The answer is we cannot rush the development of new 
technologies and science. If we did it on the shuttle, it means you 
would have 2 weeks maximum to be able to do it. I know no scientist 
working at my beloved NIH who could do research in 2 weeks, take a 
break, wait for another launch and go back for 2 weeks.
  One of the arguments we hear every year is space station-related 
costs and, sure, the space station does cost money, but the fact is 
that over $51 billion of the $96 billion discussed by Senator Bumpers 
is really related to shuttle missions, and those missions will fly 
whether we do the space station or not.
  One of the real questions, too, is what is the cost to the United 
States of America and its taxpayers if we do not continue or stay the 
course for the space station? We hear about the cost to maintain it and 
to build it. The actual work on the space station means 15,000 highly 
skilled engineering and production contract jobs supporting the space 
station. There are 35,000 contract workers and 5,000 civil servants who 
work on the shuttle, who is our major customer. This is a major 
employer. About 2,000 pounds of hardware have already been built for 
the U.S. station.
  What else do we lose? U.S. credibility with our international 
partners. Japan, Canada, and European Space Agency have all made this a 
truly international program. We have worked closely with the Russians. 
Like many, I am disappointed in the way the Russians have failed to 
deliver their promised technology on time, for which we paid. They have 
improved these actions, and I know President Clinton is moving on this.
  U.S. competitiveness can only be maintained by continuing the long-
term, cutting-edge, high-risk research and development that we have 
done. I am not going to elaborate any further on what Senator John 
Glenn said. For all who are listening, we want to amplify that the 
space station is an important public investment and scientific 
breakthrough, where the very technology of doing the space station will 
lead to new breakthroughs in life science, information technology, and 
new kinds of materials--ceramic and so on--that will be very important 
to maintaining America's cutting edge.
  I reserve further time on my time for when we need to conclude our 
debate.
  I urge the defeat of the Bumpers amendment. Vote for the future and 
defeat the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to ask for your attention to 
an issue of great importance to the future of science and space 
exploration: the International Space Station. We have debated the 
merits of this project on many occasions. It is time to end this debate 
and declare our permanent support. We must press ahead with mankind's 
exploration of the cosmos.
  President Franklin Roosevelt once said:

       The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our 
     doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active 
     faith.

  I ask my colleagues to embrace Franklin Roosevelt's vision and 
support efforts to move the International Space Station forward.
  The International Space Station is one of the most promising space 
projects in history. Over 60 percent of the station hardware, nearly 
half a million pounds, will be assembled by the end of this year. More 
than 75 percent of the developmental activities are completed. The end 
result of this 16-nation effort will be an international university in 
low-earth orbit and a launching pad for further exploration of the 
stars.
  Mr. President, constructing this space station will not be simple or 
cheap. But why would we expect it to be? For the first time in the 
history of manned space exploration, we are assembling a laboratory, 
energy plant, and apartment complex the size of a football field in 
orbit 200 miles above the Earth. This is an ambitious technical feat.
  Our nation's exploration of the galaxy has never been easy. While we 
prefer to remember glorious moments like our distinguished colleague 
John Glenn's first orbit, Neil Armstrong's first moon landing, and the 
majestic first launch of the space shuttle, we should not forget that 
America's four decade adventure in space has also been plagued by 
technical difficulties and political struggles. We've faced tragedies--
namely the three brave astronauts who lost their lives in the Apollo I 
fire, and the seven others who perished on the Challenger. Space 
exploration has been exciting, but it has never been easy.
  But perseverance and patience have powered our space program past 
these difficulties, and they will be necessary ingredients in our 
effort to construct and maintain this International Space Station. 
Without the perseverance and patience of early space pioneers, we might 
not have been the first nation to land on the moon or successfully 
operate a reusable launch vehicle.
  The International Space Station will excite the nation and the world. 
I cannot imagine any other project that will so readily inspire young 
people across our country to focus their attention on math and science. 
The first launch of space station components will cultivate the next 
generation of mechanical engineers, software designers, flight 
controllers, and of course, our astronaut corps. Throughout its 
lifetime, the space station will include student experiments and 
teleconferencing and telescience projects.
  For this investment, we will have a permanent facility in space in 
which we can conduct numerous scientific and medical experiments, the 
end results possibly being cures for diseases known and unknown.
  For instance, space-grown insulin crystals created in a microgravity 
environment are larger and better defined

[[Page S7550]]

than those developed on Earth. Scientists from NASA and the 
pharmaceutical industry hope to develop drugs that will bind insulin 
and attack the third leading cause of death in this country, diabetes.
  Microgravity can also be used to study proteins and three-dimensional 
tissue samples. Previous success in advanced cell-culturing has led to 
partnerships with the National Institutes of Health in the study of 
transmission of the AIDS virus. This application of space technology 
has also led to new studies of cancer tumors.
  Space flight is particularly applicable to studying the aging 
process, since astronauts experience many of the same symptoms seen in 
the elderly, such as anemia, loss of muscle, and imbalance. Women are 
five times more likely to suffer from osteoporosis, the medical term 
for weakening bones. What better way to study it than to simulate it in 
space? The results could be fewer broken bones in the years to come as 
baby boomers advance in age.
  In addition to the tremendous health benefits we will reap from 
medical studies on the space station, our daily lives will be affected 
by numerous spin-offs and product developments. Aerogel is the lightest 
known solid, only three times heavier than air. Space-manufactured 
samples are four times better in quality than any produced on earth, 
allowing for the creation of superinsulators. Fortune magazine predicts 
the aerogel market could result in 800 potential product lines, from 
satellite parts to surfboard material.
  Finally, as demonstrated by the devastating Florida fires, combustion 
represents a threat in many forms. Fires cause 5,000 deaths and $26 
billion in property losses every year, a figure I am certain will be 
higher due to the terrible losses we have suffered in Florida. How can 
a space station help? In space, researchers can study flames without 
the interference of the earth's gravity. Such studies will help us 
better understand how combustion happens and better address problems 
such as air pollution and forest fires.
  The House and Senate share a vision for the future of space and we 
must continue to act together on behalf of this visionary project. The 
future will soon be upon us. We don't want to see it pass us by. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this amendment and endorse the 
International Space Station. We must not let the doubts of today stand 
in the way of the possibilities of tomorrow.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as the Senate considers funding for the 
International Space Station, I want to remind my colleagues about the 
achievements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA).
  Since 1915, American aviators, astronauts, and spacecrafts have 
expanded human knowledge. The advancements made by NASA are found in 
virtually every aircraft in use today. One example, used by Continental 
Airlines, is a NASA-developed device that warns of dangerous wind-shear 
conditions. In addition, NASA made valuable contributions to medicine 
by allowing scientists to utilize microgravity conditions in space to 
grow larger breast cancer cells, allowing different growth stages of 
these cells to be studied.
  NASA technology has produced a pacemaker that can be programmed from 
outside the body and developed instruments to measure bone loss and 
bone density without penetrating the skin. NASA research led to the 
development of a three-inch implant for diabetes that provides more 
precise control of blood sugar levels, thereby freeing diabetics from 
the burden of daily insulin injections. These are just a few of the 
scientific and medical advances developed from NASA technology.
  A panel of experts headed by aerospace consultant Jay Chabrow 
recently concluded that the space station's cost through the assembly 
stage could be $24.7 billion, which is $3 billion more than NASA now 
projects. While the overrun projected in the Chabrow report is a 
concern, the estimate in the report is modest in historic terms. For 
example, the initial contract for the lunar excursion module was $350 
million. By the end of the contract, the cost had escalated to $2.3 
billion, seven times the original cost. For the entire Apollo, Mercury, 
and Gemini programs, NASA spent approximately $100 billion to reach the 
moon. These programs, much like the International Space Station, 
ventured into unknown territory and were considered inherently risky.
  It is also important to note that while the panel indicated that 
there may be cost overruns and schedule delays, the panel also 
recognized that NASA's management of the Space Station has been 
``resourceful and effective'' in addressing the many challenges that 
have resulted from this project. With over 400,000 pounds of flight 
hardware completed, NASA and its international partners believe that by 
the end of this year, over half a million pounds will be completed and 
the first two elements of the station will be in orbit. Although Russia 
has only been able to complete 95 percent of the module, the Russian 
government has reiterated its commitment to the station. However, NASA 
continues to evaluate other contingency plans to address possible 
delays by Russia.
  Once completed, the International Space Station will be the most 
complex structure ever sent into orbit, encompassing a laboratory and 
living quarters the size of two football fields. As demonstrated by 
several experiments conducted on the Russian Mir space station, Skylab, 
and space shuttle flights, advancements in science will be enhanced by 
the International Space Station. These experiments have been used to 
determine or refine existing protein structure models, create new drugs 
to battle viruses, such as AIDS, and develop inhibitors, such as those 
used to alleviate the complication of inflammation associated with 
heart surgery.
  Mr. President, as I have mentioned, the importance of the 
International Space Station is evident. The technological advancements 
that may be achieved by this project are monumental. I urge my 
colleagues to continue funding the International Space Station and 
maintain American's leadership in space research and exploration.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to lend my support 
to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas.
  Senator Bumpers has led a long, and often lonely, battle against the 
International Space Station. Since I joined this body in 1993, I have 
supported his efforts to terminate the program on the basis of its 
extraordinary cost and its crushing burden on the Federal budget 
deficit.
  We now see that the space station is not only far more expensive than 
previous cost estimates, but also significantly behind schedule and 
losing the support of partner nations, including the Russians failing 
to keep its financial commitments. The reasons for terminating the 
space station are now more compelling than ever. Senator Bumpers has 
been prescient in his efforts to save our tax dollars on this wasteful 
program.
  In a May, 1998, report, the General Accounting Office stated that the 
new cost estimate for the space station had risen to almost $96 
billion. And this extraordinary cost doesn't even include the cost of 
decommissioning and deorbiting the space station at the end of its 
useful life. This, in and of itself, will cost billions more.
  Even a NASA-appointed commission found that NASA's own cost estimates 
were vastly underestimated. The blue ribbon Cost Assessment and 
Validation Task Force recently reported that the cost of simply 
developing and building space station hardware will probably cost $24.7 
billion. Just last year, NASA officials promised Congress that 
developing and building space station hardware would cost $17.4 
billion. Mr. President, how in the world did cost estimates rocket up 
by 42 percent in the course of one year?
  The same blue ribbon panel also estimates it will take two years 
longer to assemble the space station than NASA now plans. The report 
pushes the completion of the space station back to early 2006. Let me 
remind my colleagues that in September, 1994, NASA said it would 
complete assembly of the space station by June, 2002. The schedule has 
slipped by four years, let me repeat, four years since 1994. 
Ironically, NASA recently announced a delay in launching the first 
piece of the space station by five months. According to the commission, 
each month of delay will add about $100 million to the final cost of 
the project.
  Finally, Mr. President, NASA enlisted the support of Russia as a 
means

[[Page S7551]]

of fostering collaborative energy and as a means of defraying program 
cost. As we know, Russia is in the midst of economic instability and an 
unreliable space program, witness the problems with the Mir space 
station.
  NASA estimated that the American taxpayers would save $2 billion by 
working with the Russians on this new space station. That savings is 
already gone. On top of that, the Russian Space Agency doesn't even 
have the money to safely deorbit Mir. How, then, can we safely rely on 
Russia to fulfill its obligations for the International Space Station?
  Even our European partners in the European Space Agency are beginning 
to reconsider their commitment to the International Space Station. 
French Space Minister Claude Allegre said of the International Space 
Station project, ``People often do stupid things. There is no reason we 
should applaud them.''
  Fortunately, Congressional leaders are growing skeptical of NASA's 
plans. Last month, the chairman and ranking member of the House Science 
Committee wrote the President asking for a plan for controlling cost 
growth and delays on the space station. Given the Administration's 
reluctance to offer such a plan and NASA's resistance to cutting back 
the program, I don't see how we can support putting good money after 
bad.
  Mr. President, it is time to end this program.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today the Senator from Arkansas takes his 
final shot at terminating funding for the International Space Station. 
For the eighth consecutive year, he argues that America should abandon 
its commitment as the leader of this historic endeavor.
  The Space Station is real and well on its way to orbit. Last year, 
NASA employees and contractors at the Marshall Space Flight Center in 
Huntsville, Alabama finished construction of Node 1, the first 
significant piece of flight hardware. Since then, the Pressurized 
Mating Adapters, Integrated Electrical Assembly, Z1 Truss, Long Spacer, 
FGB Control Module are being prepared for integration tests and launch.
  Those who do not believe that America should maintain its leadership 
in space exploration speak only of the expense of building man's next 
great adventure of the space age. While I also am concerned about cost 
overruns and Russian participation, it is reasonable to expect some 
unforeseen costs given the complexity of the station. The critics also 
fail to mention that past funding for the space station now exceeds 
proposed future investment. More than 50 percent of the costs have been 
paid, and more than 80 percent of the development will be complete by 
the end of the current fiscal year. It does not make sense to abort 
this mission at this time.
  It goes without saying that termination of the International Space 
Station will undermine the credibility of the United States with its 
international partners who have already invested nearly $10 billion. 
The other nations participating in the development of the space station 
reaffirmed their commitment by signing partner agreements in January 
1998. At the same time, the U.S. has taken the lead in developing the 
space station and have made commitments to the international community 
to see it through. Leadership requires resolve and character. It is not 
in the American nature to break our promises and abandon our friends 
and partners, especially when we are on the verge of launching the 
first elements of the space station.
  Continued development of the space station is the right course for 
the United States to take. The history of mankind, and especially of 
Americans, is one of curiosity and exploration. The same pioneer spirit 
that led past generations to explore the frontiers has manifest itself 
in our present journey to space. The United States is the undisputed 
leader in space technology development, and it would be arbitrary and 
reckless for the Senate to reject our destiny of discovery through the 
space station. I ask my colleagues to join me in reaffirming our 
country's commitment to our future by opposing this shortsighted 
attempt to strip funding from the space station.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the majority leader has asked for 
time. We ask unanimous consent he be granted such time, not to be 
charged against the debate on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I do this in order to introduce a resolution. I am 
joining today with Senator Torricelli and a number of others in 
introducing a resolution on Taiwan. I ask now that additional 
cosponsors be added to this resolution until the end of business today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Lott and Mr. Torricelli pertaining to the 
submission of S. Con. Res. 107 are printed in today's Record under 
``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to my colleague from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, is 
recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for 
yielding the time.
  I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the Bumpers 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bumpers 
amendment, and I join him in his 8th year of travail on what I think 
has been an important provision. When I came to Congress in 1993, I 
came with great alarm about the cost overruns, the delays, the 
projected increases in spending, and what appeared to be a black hole 
absorbing precious taxpayer dollars. I also came with a willingness to 
be convinced that was going to change. I was promised that they were 
going to tighten their belts, slim it down and trim it down, that it 
was going to become a responsible kind of program and project. Well, 
the most recent GAO report--the 1998 GAO report--has convinced me that 
we need to cut our losses, that it is not going to happen, that it has 
not happened and, in fact, the projections are that we are going to 
continue to see exorbitant cost increases if we continue down the road 
of building the space station.
  My colleague from Maryland spoke much of the value of microgravity 
and the need for the space station and microgravity research. I would 
like to quote Professor Robert Park of the Department of Physics at the 
University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland. Doctor Park said:

       Microgravity is the only unique property of a space station 
     environment, and the station was originally envisioned as a 
     sort of microgravity R&D laboratory. The microgravity 
     research that was envisioned for the international space 
     station has already been largely completed, either on the 
     shuttle or on Mir.

  So there you have it. The original and primary justification for 
building the space station has largely been realized by ongoing R&D, 
either on the shuttle or on Mir.
  By cutting the international space station's lifeline, today the 
Senate has the opportunity to save billions of dollars that have been 
floating away now for over a decade. I want to commend Senator Bumpers 
for his resolve, for his eloquence, and for his persistence on this 
issue. My distinguished colleague from Maryland said that in 
appreciation for Senator Bumpers' efforts, he had turned on the yellow 
light. I can only say that what we need to do is turn on the red light 
on this project. It needs to be a stop light.
  From fiscal year 1985 to fiscal year 1997, it has already cost the 
American people $19 billion. In its current form, the Senate 
appropriations bill would pour another $2.3 billion into this project. 
My distinguished colleague from Arkansas has offered an amendment to 
the VA-HUD appropriations bill which would end this cycle of waste. The 
Bumpers amendment would provide $850 million for the termination of the 
International Space Station, make $450 million available to HUD, and 
most important, redirect $1 billion of the savings from the 
space station and make that money available to the Veterans' Health 
Administration medical care account.

[[Page S7552]]

  Since its inception, the International Space Station has become a 
looming monstrosity of skyrocketing costs and scientific 
indefensibility. According to the latest GAO estimate, this will now 
cost the American taxpayers $96 billion. That is up $2 billion from 
1995--only 3 years ago. This enormous figure includes the costs of 
design, construction, launching, and 10 years of operation, but it does 
not include future schedule slippage, additional shuttle launches to 
test the crew return vehicle, deconstruction at the end of the 
station's life, as well as possible delays by our partners on their 
obligations to the project. With these additional factors, the space 
station will undoubtedly take several more years and several billion 
more taxpayer dollars. It is a record we have seen time after time on 
the space station.
  Costs have been increasing steadily. So far, the American people have 
paid $19 billion into the project. Since the space station was 
conceived, cost estimates have risen dramatically. Under the original 
space station concept, space station Freedom, the Reagan administration 
estimated a cost of $8 billion in 1983. NASA's estimate rose to $16 
billion by 1987. By 1993, the cost of developing and building the space 
station Freedom rose to $30 billion, with an additional $60 billion for 
30 years of operation. In the same year, the GAO estimated a grand 
total of $118 billion for all space station costs, including launches. 
Now, under the revised concept of the International Space Station, NASA 
estimated $72 billion in costs, including 10 years of operations and 
shuttle costs. Those are a lot of figures. What is the American 
taxpayer to think? What are they to believe?
  In the past 3 years, the GAO's cost estimate for the station has 
increased by $1.7 billion. You can believe that. From $93.9 billion in 
June of 1995 to $95.6 billion in April of 1998. Why have the costs 
increased? According to Allen Li, Associate Director of Defense 
Acquisitions at the GAO, during his June 24, 1998, testimony before the 
House Science Committee, there are a number of factors why that 
happened.

       The higher development costs--$21.9 billion [1998] versus 
     $17.4 billion [1995]--are attributable to schedule delays, 
     additional prime contractor effort, not covered by funding 
     reserves, additional crew return vehicle costs, and costs 
     incurred as a result of delays in the Russian-made Service 
     Module.

  My colleague spoke eloquently about Russia's role in the space 
station and their delays in the cost overruns, and the fact that they 
simply are not capable of bearing their share of this burden.
  In other words, schedule delays and increased shuttle flights have 
driven costs up dramatically. Unfortunately, these delays are not new 
to the space station project. Phase II of the project, which involves 
construction of a U.S.-Russian space station that can be permanently 
occupied by three astronauts, was originally scheduled to occur from 
1997 to 1998. NASA pushed phase II to occur from 1998 to 2000. Phase 
III, which involves additional construction, including the addition of 
European, Japanese and Canadian components, has been postponed from 
1998 through 2002 to the years 2000 through 2004. The first launch for 
phase II was originally scheduled for November of 1997, later postponed 
to June of 1998, and is now scheduled for November of 1998. The 
completion date for the station, originally scheduled for June of 2002, 
then 2003, is now scheduled for January of 2004. On and on we could go 
with these delays.
  Clearly, delays and launches are likely to increase, driving costs 
even to newer heights. There is much that I would like to say. When I 
came up here, NASA lobbied me hard, telling me that though there had 
been mistakes and there had been cost overruns, they were going to 
tighten their belt, that it was going to be a new kind of project with 
a new kind of fiscal austerity. I believe that the GAO report, in 
addition to the cost assessment and validation task force that gave a 
similar report, provides compelling evidence that NASA is not capable 
or is unwilling to make those kinds of tough decisions. This is a 
project it is time to end.
  I remember all of the eloquent arguments that my colleague from the 
House side from the State of Texas made in defense of the Super 
Collider. ``We have to have the Super Collider.'' Almost every argument 
I heard today was made in defense of the Super Collider and the 
benefits, the spinoff benefits, we were going to receive in society. 
Congress made a tough decision that it could be better used in other 
forms of scientific research, and we cut our losses.
  I cite the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force established by 
NASA in September 1997 to independently review and assess the cost 
schedules and performance schedules on the International Space Station. 
That was led by Mr. Jay Chabrow. They issued a report this past April. 
This is what they said. The most optimistic estimate of the cost growth 
for the space station was over $2.195 billion. The most pessimistic 
estimate was $7.5 billion. It estimated that it will take 2 years 
longer to assemble the space station, pushing the completion date to 
2006. Personnel requirements spiral from 1,285 originally predicted, to 
over 2,000.
  I would say to my conservative friends on the Republican side of the 
aisle that we were not sent up here to build up more government. We 
were not sent up here to support projects that are good sounding, that 
have noble objectives, but have a track record of wasting taxpayer 
dollars. That is not why we were sent up here. That is the record of 
this project. If we just step back and set aside our conservative 
Republican prejudices on this issue, and ask if it were any other 
project, would we defend it; were it any other project with these kind 
of cost overruns, delays, and wasteful spending record, would we defend 
it? I would suggest to you we would not. But this is our little baby 
that we are going to protect at all costs regardless of how much 
taxpayer dollars it wastes. We were not sent up to float a barrel of 
pork in outer space.
  I want to say one other thing before I end my remarks. We go from the 
extraterrestrial to the terrestrial, because I think it is good that we 
are taking $1 billion of what is being wasted on this project and 
putting it toward veterans health care.
  There are 26 million veterans in this country. We hear from them. We 
hear of the waiting lines. We have 173 hospitals, and we have not built 
a new one in a long, long time. We are rightly moving to outpatient 
care. We cannot open enough clinics for veterans. We cannot make health 
care accessible enough. The average age of veterans is increasing, 
necessitating more frequent care and longer convalescence. These are 
going to be greater needs as the World War II generation of veterans 
faces greater and greater health care needs. The increased demand in 
care strains the resources of VA medical facilities. Many of them have 
to drive many miles to get health care. High-quality medical personnel 
shy away from VA hospitals because they find them less appealing and 
less lucrative. Nurse practitioners rather than doctors have become the 
norm in many VA facilities.
  This is an opportunity for us to do a service to this country by 
stopping a program that needs to be stopped. This is not--and I 
emphasize this is not--an antiscience, an antitechnology vote. NASA 
will continue to have over $11 billion in fiscal year 1999. This is a 
protechnology Congress. We consistently voted for increased funding for 
NIH and NAS, the National Academy of Sciences. This is not an 
antiscience and antitechnology vote. It is a vote to say here is one 
area that has been so egregious in wasteful spending that we draw the 
line, we cut our losses, we stop the bleeding, and we are going to take 
those savings and put it in where we know it is going to be an 
investment in human beings in VA health care.

  Michael Daly, a seventh grader from Sherwood, AR, wrote me a letter 
asking me the value of a future in the military. Do you know what that 
young seventh grader is thinking about? He is thinking not only about 
our commitment to our Armed Forces, but how well we are going to meet 
our commitment to our men and women who have served as they leave the 
armed services and as they become the veterans of this country. Are we 
going to remember them?
  This is an opportunity for us to do a twin service to our veterans 
and to the taxpayers of this country in stopping an indefensible 
wasteful spending program. I urge my colleagues to support

[[Page S7553]]

Senator Bumpers, who has been sometimes a lonely voice in pointing to 
the catastrophic waste in the space station, and join us in ending that 
program this year and support our veterans at the same time.
  I thank my colleague from Arkansas for yielding me this time.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri submitted a written 
unanimous consent agreement to include material that he did not state 
orally; namely a prohibition against second-degree amendments to 
amendment number 3062. Did he mean that to be a part of this unanimous 
consent agreement?
  Mr. BOND. Yes. Mr. President, we amended that written statement as it 
first appeared to ask that it be a straight up-or-down vote on the 
Bumpers amendment pursuant to the request raised by the Senator from 
Arkansas who said there would not be any other motion.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The material is a prohibition against second-
degree amendments. Does the Senator from Missouri wish to include 
second-degree amendments?
  Mr. BOND. Yes. We included in the amendment that there would be no 
second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
senior Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Missouri for 
yielding.
  Mr. President, it is certainly true that Congress has terminated many 
science programs in the recent past. In fact, in 1965 we were investing 
5.7 cents out of every dollar spent by the Federal Government in non-
defense research in science and technology. But as a result of 
political decisions that have been made for more than 30 years, we are 
now investing only 1.9 cents out of every dollar of government spending 
in science and technology research for the future.
  You have to ask the question when so many of our colleagues are so 
quick to point out that they are not antiscience--and I believe them--
how is it that the science budget in the budget of the U.S. Government, 
a budget which has exploded since 1965--``exploded'' is the only word 
for it--how is it that as the total budget has grown in leaps and 
bounds, our commitment to invest in science and technology and to 
invest in the future has declined from 5.7 percent of the Federal 
budget to 1.9 percent?
  I submit, Mr. President, that our colleagues, Members of the House 
and Senate, are not antiscience. Their problem, however, is that they 
are constantly forced to choose in the process of spending the 
taxpayers' money between spending that money on programs that have big 
constituencies in the next election and investing that money in science 
and technology in the future that really has a constituency in the next 
generation. The problem with maintaining science and technology 
spending is that the value only comes in the future, whereas by 
spending money on programs with big political constituencies, the 
benefits politically come in the next election. The next election now 
is only a few months away.
  It is not that Congress doesn't value investment in science and 
technology that would develop new products and new technologies, new 
know-how, and a scientific base that can create jobs in the 21st 
century and perhaps yield a capacity to heal some dreaded disease. It 
is that the benefits of such spending don't appear between now and 
November 3rd. They come to fruition over long periods of time as a 
result of the accumulation of scientific knowledge. Our problem, then, 
is not that Congress is antiscience, but that Congress invests in the 
next election rather than the next generation.
  The amendment we have before us is an old amendment. We have debated 
this subject on many occasions. This is just the latest version of a 
long debate. But basically what the amendment before us proposes that 
we do is to cut the Nation's premier science project, and to use the 
money to invest in two programs that have very large and vocal 
constituencies. Both of these programs are good programs. They both are 
obviously very desirable. But the point is that we have a very limited 
science budget now. It has been reduced from 5.7 percent of our budget 
in 1965 to 1.9 percent today, and this latest effort to reduce it 
further comes at the very time when we are beginning to get interest in 
the country in an initiative to double our expenditure on science and 
technology and research, because we believe investment in the future is 
critically important if we are going to continue to lead the world in 
science and technology job creation. I think this amendment is simply a 
movement in the wrong direction.
  I do not doubt the sincerity of our colleague from Arkansas. He has 
offered this amendment, it is my understanding, for 8 years. It seems 
we have debated it for a longer period of time than that.
  I remind my colleagues that we have killed science projects. We 
killed the SSC. We have cut science expenditures in real dollar terms 
in virtually every area of the Federal budget. But the question is, 
Have we benefited as a nation from doing that? We killed the premier 
scientific project in the world when we killed the SSC, which was high-
energy physics aimed at understanding the fundamental building blocks 
of nature. And while understanding atomic physics does not sound very 
sexy in Congress, I remind my colleagues that 40 percent of the GNP of 
our country is now based on scientific research that has occurred 
mostly in America since the 1920s and where high-energy physics has 
yielded products from the computer to the television.
  So the point is that when America was investing in those programs, 
they were going to yield benefits 10 or 20 or 30 years in the future. 
They have always been politically disadvantaged. I would simply like to 
conclude by reminding my colleagues, we have an enormous Federal 
budget. We are spending a lot of money on programs that have big, 
powerful, political constituencies, and in a sense, politics is about 
listening and responding to those constituencies.
  But I remind my colleague that there is another constituency, and 
that constituency is called the future. America has invested more money 
in science than any country in the history of the world, and in my 
opinion, there are two principal things that are responsible for the 
unique achievements of America. One is we have had a country with 
broad-based opportunities so ordinary people could do extraordinary 
things, and the other has been an investment in and a commitment to 
science. I think we are moving away from that commitment. I think we 
have already moved too far. I wish we were here today debating cutting 
other programs to invest in science and technology in the future, but 
we are here talking about terminating the premier scientific project in 
America which we have undertaken with many nations around the world.
  I hope and trust this amendment will be defeated, and it should be 
defeated. This amendment will not lower federal spending by a nickel. 
This amendment simply reduces money going to the space station and to 
science and technology and to the future. So for that reason, I oppose 
the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Alaska has a 
unanimous-consent request to speak as if in morning business.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
speak as if in morning business for not more than 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Murkowski pertaining to the submission of S. Con. 
Res. 107 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent 
and Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BOND. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield my distinguished colleague from 
Iowa 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from Iowa.

[[Page S7554]]

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me this 
time. More than that, I thank Senator Bumpers for his relentless 
pursuit, over the years, of shedding more and more light on this issue 
of the space station. I say at the outset that a vote for the Bumpers 
amendment is a vote for space exploration. A vote against Bumpers is a 
vote for the status quo. It is a vote for the myopic approach to space 
exploration and it is a vote for wasteful spending for science that can 
be done better and cheaper.
  I am foursquare with Senator Bumpers on his approach on the space 
station. It is a boondoggle and a waste of money. Maybe Senator Bumpers 
and I are not foursquare on the issue of space exploration itself. That 
may be for another time and another debate. But on this issue, Senator 
Bumpers is absolutely right.
  I have been a longtime supporter of aviation, aviation research, 
aviation technology, pushing the boundaries of aviation technology 
through science and technology and also for space. For 10 years, I 
served in the House on the House Science and Technology Committee. I 
was proud to chair the Aviation and Materials Subcommittee of that 
committee. I was proud to work to try to get more and more funds for 
space exploration. But I watched, during those 10 years in the House on 
the Science and Technology Committee, I watched in dismay as NASA 
shifted, gradually but determinatively, shifted from a civilian space 
agency to an arm of the military. That can be seen through the way that 
the space agency shifted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It became 
more and more an arm of the Air Force. It became more and more an arm 
of our military establishment.
  I can remember the debates we had on that in the Science and 
Technology Committee back in the mid-1970s. I kind of understood that. 
We were in a cold war with the Soviet Union. Space was being used more 
and more for military purposes--spy satellites, that kind of thing. But 
another interesting thing happened. We began to develop a thing called 
the space shuttle, which I believe was driven more by the desire of Air 
Force pilots to fly than anything else. I think it was driven more by 
the desire to be more than just a monkey sitting on a seat.
  I remember when the first shuttle took off. I was there for the 
launch, and I remember we had the first shuttle astronauts back in the 
committee room for a hearing. I remember Neil Armstrong was there. One 
Congressmen stated how proud he was to see them land with dignity as 
they came back, rather than plopping in the ocean as they used to in 
the space capsules. I thought at the time, what a tremendous 
expenditure of money just so that we could land that thing on a runway 
rather than plopping it in the ocean.
  Let's remember, the first man to set foot on the Moon was not a 
military person, it was a civilian, a civilian test pilot by the name 
of Neil Armstrong, and that was not happenstance. It was not an 
accident that happened that way, because we believed and our Government 
believed at that time that space should be a civilian exploration 
enterprise. Then we watched as two things happened; as NASA became more 
and more militarized and as we retreated from Moon exploration to near-
Earth orbits.
  Then we were sold the space shuttle. Oh, it was going to be a great 
flying machine. It was going to reduce the cost of launching material 
into near-Earth orbit by a factor of 10. I remember being told that. I 
was on the Science and Technology Committee. It was going to reduce 
launch cost by a factor of 10. We were going to have these reusable 
rockets and all that kind of stuff. We are still waiting. We are still 
waiting for that factor of 10 reduction. It has never happened.
  I am convinced today, perhaps more than I was at that time, that the 
shuttle should never have been built. I am convinced that, had we not 
gone ahead with the space shuttle but had commenced and continued our 
space exploration with the Saturn, that we could have had a fully 
operational Moon base at this time with all that would mean for the 
world and for our country and, yes, for science and technology.

  Now, that brings me to the present time. If we build this space 
station for $98 billion and counting, it will effectively suck all of 
the dollars out of space exploration. That is why I said, in an oddly 
curious way, a vote for the Bumpers amendment is a vote for space 
exploration. A vote against him--forget about it. You are not going to 
do anything in space, because this is going to suck all the money out 
of it. Suck money out for what, scientific experiments?
  I listened to the speech given on the floor by my good friend, 
Senator Glenn from Ohio, on all of the wonderful science that is going 
to be done and the experimentation. We estimate the cost per man-hour 
for those scientific experiments to be about $155,000 per man-hour. NIH 
can do it for less than $300 an hour. The Senator from Ohio says, 
``Just think how much this is going to energize young people to go into 
science and into medical research.'' If you want to encourage young 
people to go into medical research in this country, take that kind of 
money and put it into NIH. You will hire thousands of times more 
researchers doing that than you will spending $155,000 per man-hour for 
scientific research on this space station. Put the money into NIH.
  I think it is time to cut our losses. Do you know what this reminds 
me of, I say to Senator Bumpers, this debate we are having on the space 
station and listening to Senator Gramm from Texas? It reminds me of the 
debates we had on something called the Clinch River breeder reactor. 
How many years we debated that; how much good it was going to do for 
our country and the science and the research. Billions of dollars we 
poured down the rat hole on that one. We finally terminated it. We came 
to our senses and terminated it. How many billions of dollars, though, 
did we waste?
  And then, most recently, something called the Superconducting Super 
Collider that was going to be built in Texas. Oh, my gosh, to listen to 
the debates that went on around this floor about that--why, if we ended 
that one, all science was going to come to a halt. Why, building the 
Superconducting Super Collider was going to unlock and unravel the 
mysteries of the universe for us. Nonsense. Stuff and nonsense, that is 
what it was.
  We came to our senses and we killed it--rightfully so, because the 
Superconducting Super Collider would have had the same effect on 
physical sciences as the space station is going to have on medical 
science. It is going to suck all the money right out of it, because 
once you build the space station, then you have to justify it. How do 
you justify it? Through medical research at $155,000 per man-hour. 
Where is the money going to come from for NIH? Where is the money going 
to come from for the research that has to be done here? It will not be 
left around. This will do to medical research just what the 
Superconducting Super Collider would have done to physical science 
research. And that is why so many physicists and scientists were 
opposed to the Superconducting Super Collider. They were right. That is 
why so many scientists are opposed to the space station. They are 
right. It is time to cut our losses.
  I remember--I was not here then, but I know my history--back in the 
1950s, the Atomic Energy Commission, the head of it, Lewis Strauss, 
testified before a Senate committee and said that atomic energy would 
be so cheap in making electricity we wouldn't even have to meter it. We 
are still waiting. But look at the billions of dollars that we have 
spent on nuclear power. I am not saying it hasn't done some good, that 
we don't get power from it. My gosh, we are still fighting the battles 
of what we are going to do with the waste. Of course, we know now it is 
more expensive than anything else. If we build this space station, 
forget about it, there will be no money left.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. If I can have an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield an additional 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. The microgravity kind of research that has been talked 
about can be done on the shuttle. We don't need a space station to do 
that. Or it can be done other ways.
  In 1994, Mr. President, I read an article that was in Discover 
magazine and became entranced with it. Just today, I had a long talk on 
the phone with Ed Belbruno, a former NASA mathematician. He has devised 
a new way of space

[[Page S7555]]

exploration. I won't go into it. I don't have the time. I think it is 
fascinating, however.
  Because of his theories, we could use 40 percent less energy to go to 
the Moon and beyond--40 percent less--and it has already been proven. 
He did it once already in the early nineties. The Japanese space agency 
is looking at it more, and so are the Europeans. I am sure my friend 
from Ohio will recognize it by using what we call the ``weak stability 
boundary theory.''
  I won't go into all the theories of it, but physically it is 
fascinating about how we can use the gravity of the Sun, the Moon, and 
the Earth to launch vehicles from here to the Moon or to Mars or beyond 
and use 40 percent less energy.
  What that means is today we have the ability to return to the Moon 
and beyond using a lot less than we did before. Think of the excitement 
in that. Think of what we can do with exploration if we actually build 
a Moon base. Think of what that will mean in terms of scientific 
research and technological advancements. Think of what that will mean 
to us if we want to explore the universe, not from the space station, 
that is not going to help it one single bit, but now we have the theory 
and it has been proven; it has already been done once.
  Mr. President, this weekend I was in Iceland. It occurred to me that 
in about the year 900, around the year 1000, Leif Ericson sailed to the 
New World, from Norway to Iceland to Greenland to Newfoundland, almost 
all the way down to what we now consider to be New York City. And they 
did it for years. Almost 500 years later, Christopher Columbus decided 
to go a different route, and it took him forever.
  But you see, the Vikings had it right. They could sail the North Sea 
on the new great circle route, come to the New World, turn around, and 
catch the Gulf Stream and zip back. They had it figured out. You can't 
hardly blame Columbus. They didn't have it figured out. They didn't 
know. They sailed the southern ocean, down through the doldrums, and it 
took them a long time. They never quite figured it out. The Vikings 
did. You can't really blame Christopher Columbus. They didn't have that 
knowledge.
  You can't blame us. We now know that there are cheaper and better 
routes for space exploration than building a space station. We know 
that there are better and cheaper ways of doing microgravity research 
than on a space station. We know there are better and cheaper ways of 
doing medical research than spending $155,000 per man-hour on the space 
station.
  If we rush ahead with this space station, we have no one to blame but 
ourselves. I ask my colleagues to think back to the promises of the 
fifties when we were going to meet our energy needs so cheaply with 
nuclear power. Think about the Clinch River breeder reactor and how 
many votes were cast for that and all the promises it was going to give 
us. Think about the Superconducting Super Collider and what that was 
going to do for us. And then think about the scientists who opposed the 
Clinch River breeder reactor. Think about the scientists who opposed 
the Superconducting Super Collider. And now think about the scientists 
who oppose this space station.
  Senator Bumpers had it right. I saw a quote that he sent around in a 
``Dear Colleague'' letter where the scientists were saying, basically, 
why would you want to spend so much money on something--here it is, 
Discover magazine. Here we are back to my favorite magazine:

       Is it possible to imagine a technological undertaking so 
     enormous that could garner less respect from the scientific 
     community?

  Discover magazine, May 1997.
  They know why. If we build this space station, it is going to suck so 
much money out of here, there won't be anything left. Oh, I suppose, as 
Senator Bumpers said, it will lose. I hope not. I hope it wins. I hope 
we come to our senses.
  I do believe this: The space station is not going to be built. It 
will never be completed. We may put up a module. We will do some 
shuttle flights. The Russians will never come through with their, what, 
50 flights or 60 flights? Forget about it, the Russians are not going 
to do it. They don't have the money. So who is going to pick up that 
slack? Our taxpayers? We can take that $98 billion and start 
multiplying it out.
  That is why I say today, this will be like Clinch River; it will be 
like the Superconducting Super Collider. We built some trenches down 
there. We spent a couple billion dollars on it. We spent a couple 
billion on the Clinch River breeder reactor also, and we finally came 
to our senses and said it was a boondoggle. That is what will happen 
with the space station. It is not going to be built, but what we can do 
is take this money and do something a lot cheaper and a lot better than 
building the space station.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator from Maryland wish the floor?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If we are going to rotate time, I know that the Senator 
from Ohio had a few minutes that he wanted to use. I yield the Senator 
from Ohio no more than 5 minutes for his comments.
  Mr. GLENN. Just 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I thank the floor manager of the bill, the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland.
  I want to make a point on a comment that was made by the other 
Senator from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, about the cost overruns and 
the budget situation, because the Chabrow task force report has been 
alluded to today, sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly.
  In this case, it was referred to incorrectly because, contrary to the 
assertion that the program has a large overrun, the Chabrow task force 
reported that the program was--and this is a quote:

       Diligent and resourceful in managing the unique challenges 
     of this complex venture given the significant complexity and 
     uncertainty of international involvement and the difficult 
     task of staying within annual and total funding caps 
     established prior to final program content definition.

  That indicates that there has been very responsible management. That 
is in the Chabrow task force report.
  Further, the task force stated, referring to the ISS, the 
International Space Station Program specifically, and their quote is 
out of their report:

       Although cost and schedule growth have occurred, the 
     magnitude of such growth has not been unusual, even when 
     compared with other developmental programs of lesser 
     complexity.

  I think that is a compliment. I think we should also note that many 
defense research and development programs have exceeded development 
cost estimates by 20 to 40 percent, way out of the ball park of what we 
are talking about here, which indicates to me that major technical 
developmental programs have a degree of complexity that makes cost 
assessment very, very difficult--the point that I made in my original, 
more lengthy statement.
  We need to keep in mind what the Chabrow report said in their task 
force report, which is, to my way of thinking, complimentary to NASA 
about how they managed this program and kept things under control. NASA 
personnel numbers are way, way down. The NASA budget has been flat over 
the last couple of years, and yet we have gone ahead with more 
efficient management within NASA and I think they should be 
complimented for given the complex management environment in which they 
have to work. So the Chabrow report has been quoted here today, but I 
think the two quotes out of the Chabrow report should be noted.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. President, first of all, let me remind my colleagues of how this 
all started. This is a classic case of a space station looking for 
justification. This chart shows where we started years ago, with a crew 
size of eight and a cost of $8 billion. Here are the capabilities we 
were told that the space station would have.
  First of all, it would be a staging base to go on to Mars with. Carl 
Sagan said that was a justification for it. He didn't think much of its 
research potential. But as a staging base to Mars, he thought it was a 
great idea.
  A manufacturing facility--make gallium arsenide crystals, I suppose; 
space-based observatory; a transportation node; a servicing facility, 
to

[[Page S7556]]

service shuttles or whoever might come up to visit the space station; 
assembly facility--I don't know what they were going to assemble; a 
storage facility.
  One by one, every single one of those missions was eliminated as a 
justification for the space station. We have one remaining, and that is 
a research laboratory. So that is the reason you hear about how we are 
going to cure AIDS, cancer, and all these magnificent things that will 
happen in medical research in the space station--because that is the 
last only justification anybody can dream up.
  If you are having difficulty with that, write NASA and ask 
Administrator Goldin to send you a copy of his Chamber of Commerce 
glossy. It has it all in here. It has it all. If you are a 
conservative--and most people in this body profess to be 
conservatives--and you have any pang of conscience about spending $100 
billion for a boondoggle, for utterly no redeemable purpose, if you are 
having problems with that, write to NASA and get their glossy brochure. 
It will just make you sleep so much better.
  Mr. President, I can remember, as the Senator from Iowa has pointed 
out, it took me 4 years to kill the Clinch River breeder. Howard Baker 
was majority leader, and no matter how close we got, he always had two 
more votes he could pull out of his pocket. I remember that fateful 
date when we had too many votes for him to pull out of his hip pocket, 
and he turned everybody loose, and we got 75 or 80 votes to torpedo the 
Clinch River breeder. Who has lost any sleep about the Clinch River 
breeder? And we saved billions. Everybody said, ``They have broken 
ground; it is too late. We can't quit now; we have our nose under the 
tent.'' We quit, and it has been God's blessing ever since we did.
  The Superconducting Super Collider, the gigantic hole in the ground 
in Texas--all I can think about is the Senator from Texas, the senior 
Senator from Texas, who defended the hole in the ground until the last 
dog died. I was arguing all along that there was a superconducting 
super collider in Switzerland, at the European consortium called CERN. 
No, the SSC's supporters said, our's got to be bigger than that one; 
got to be more expensive than that; got to have a 50-mile racetrack; 
none of that 20 mile racetrack business. We finally killed it after we 
spent $2 billion. And who here has lost any sleep over the 
Superconducting Super Collider? Everybody ought to rejoice every night 
that we saved $10 billion.
  So now here we go. How can a good conservative justify the kind of 
cost overruns we are looking at? How can you justify $100 billion when 
you think of the unmet needs in health care and education in this 
country? This program as a research vehicle is precisely 1,000 times 
less effective than doing the same research on Earth. So you ask, why 
are we doing it?
  The Senator from Texas has a very legitimate reason for standing on 
the floor and defending the space station. Texas gets $661 million a 
year out of it. In all candor, I might be standing here up here arguing 
on the other side if Arkansas got $661 million a year. For my 
colleagues who think you have a few jobs in your State, 85 percent of 
this money goes to Alabama, Texas, and California. The rest of you are 
just barely a layer; you are nothing.

  If you consider yourselves a conservative but only when it fits your 
convenience, you go ahead and vote against my amendment. But if you say 
you are a conservative and you don't believe in squandering billions 
and billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, ask yourself a very 
simple question: What is your threshold? How high would this thing have 
to go before you would have to rethink your position? Forty-three 
percent cost overrun, just to build it on the ground? Is that not 
troubling to you? Is the $7.3 billion overrun just announced in the 
past 8 months, is that not troubling to you? Is the fact that we are 
already acknowledging a $7.3 billion cost overrun and headed in for the 
launching of this thing into space, and depending on the Russians for 
49 launches, does that bother you? Who here believes that the Russians 
will be a player in this 1 year from now? They are not going to meet 
their deadline right now for launching the service module or what they 
call the functional cargo.
  If we are going to keep the Russians in the program, buy them out 
right now. They are not going to participate. They can't. Let me 
reiterate. The Russian Cosmodrome at Baikonur, the principal launching 
place, which is in Kazakhstan, has the electricity cut off because they 
don't pay their bills. How can you launch a space station from a 
cosmodrome that has had its utilities cut off?
  My junior colleague from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, invited you to 
read the GAO report. Let me add the Congressional Research Service 
report to that. You don't have to believe what I say or what Senator 
Harkin said or Senator Hutchinson. Read the reports that you always 
rely on, and see what they say.
  Take a look at this chart. This summarizes the so-called Chabrow 
report. The Chabrow Commission was appointed by Dan Goldin to analyze 
the space station. They were appointed by Goldin, and Jay Chabrow is 
considered one of the best space technology analysts in America. He 
says it will not cost $17.4 billion as NASA promised as recently as 
last year; it will cost $24.7 billion--a little over $7.3 billion cost 
overrun. How many children in America could you educate with that? How 
many teachers' salaries could you educate with that? How many 
classrooms could you build with that? How many students could you cut 
out of classrooms with $7 billion? We act like it is nothing around 
here. Nobody even gasps; nobody drew a deep breath when I started 
throwing these figures out.
  I commend my distinguished colleague from Maryland, and I thank her 
most heartily and profoundly for her kind words about my efforts on 
this. She mentioned the yellow lights that I had thrown up. I attended 
a meeting that she and the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 
allowed me to attend, and in that hearing--incidentally, Daniel Goldin 
was testifying--I asked this question: ``Mr. Goldin, is there a 
threshold for you? Is there a figure beyond which you are not willing 
to go? Is there a cost figure on the space station you are not willing 
to go beyond?'' He must have paused at least 15 seconds. Finally, he 
said, ``I really hadn't thought about it.''
  I have thought a lot about it. I have thought almost of nothing else 
since I started working on this.
  So I ask my colleagues, what is your threshold? In 1984, when Ronald 
Reagan first started talking about a space station at $8 billion, and 
now we are talking about $100 billion.
  Let me show you something. You see this $98 billion figure here? That 
is not all of it. No. 1, the cost overruns are going to skyrocket from 
here on. But even if they didn't, this does not include getting the 
space station down. Add $3 billion for that. So you are already well 
over $100 billion. When Ronald Reagan said it would be $8 billion to 
build this thing, I can only shutter to think what Ronald Reagan might 
think today if his $8 million was up to $100 billion. The conservatives 
who were in the Senate when Ronald Reagan was President would be 
gasping for breath. Nobody ever believed we were headed for such a 
pickle.
  If you believe that all the premier scientists in America don't know 
what they are talking about when they say microgravity research is of 
micro importance, vote no, vote against my amendment. If you think we 
are already spending enough at NIH on cancer, Alzheimer's, 
cardiovascular illnesses, vote no. If you think $11.5 million per man-
hour for every hour of research that goes on in the space station is 
reasonable, vote against my amendment. That is right, $11.5 million an 
hour--as the Senator from Iowa has already said, at NIH you can get 
researchers who are the best in the country for $300 an hour. Divide 
the man-hours for research that you are going to get for this program 
for 10 years into $100 billion, it comes out to a cool $11.5 million 
per man-hour.
  Is nobody disturbed by this?
  Mr. President, I am reluctant to start reading it to you again. But I 
do want to quote Dr. Robert Park, a professor of physics at the 
University of Maryland and who has long been the spokesman for the 
American Physical Society, which is all the physicists in America. Here 
is what he said while testifying before a committee in the House on 
July 1, 1993. He was speaking

[[Page S7557]]

for the American Physical Society, which is 40,000 physicists. I 
promise you that virtually every one of them--except those who are 
employed by NASA--are opposed to this. Dr. Park, in testimony, speaking 
for all those physicists, said:

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

  It goes on and on. He has a magnificent statement. He says:

       The only unique property for the space station environment 
     is microgravity. In 23 years of research, it has found little 
     to no advantage from such an environment.

  Mr. President, what are we afraid of? Here we have a chance to save 
$80 billion. That ``ain't'' beanbags. We are going to spend an 
additional $80 billion minimum on this program, plus the 20-something 
billion we have already spent. If we continue to rely on the Russians, 
you can depend on the space station costing $120 billion to $150 
billion, easily--the most monumentally expensive scientific undertaking 
in the history of the world, all at the expense of the taxpayers.
  I plead with you--plead with you--to use your common sense. You don't 
have to abandon common sense when you come on to the floor of the 
Senate. I promise you that you can justify this to your constituents. I 
said earlier, and I will say again, if you can't justify a vote against 
this program, you have no business being in the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, I know there are legitimate concerns by people who 
have honest differences with me. I would certainly never denigrate my 
friend, John Glenn. I know he believes fervently in this. We all wish 
him well in the endeavor he is about to take in another trip to space, 
and we applaud him. As far as I am concerned, I hope they get some 
beneficial research out of him. But I can tell you that he didn't have 
to go into a research project. If he just wanted to go up there and 
look out the window, it would be fine with me, and it would be fine 
with everybody else in America, too. Before I ever met him, he was a 
hero of mine. I had tears in my eyes, like every American did, when we 
saw John Glenn get out of that capsule. We all shared in his joy. We 
have shared the joy of John and Annie ever since he came to the Senate. 
We love him and we wish him well on everything--except the vote on this 
space station.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the offer still stands. I would be delighted 
to offer an amendment to name it after the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas.
  I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the continued funding 
of the International Space Station. Mr. President, there is no denying 
that the International Space Station has problems. It has had real 
problems with the prime contractor, the performance of foreign partners 
and program management, all of which are acknowledged, but all of 
which, I repeat, are being addressed by NASA and the U.S. Congress.
  In the Commerce Committee, a price cap was approved for the 
International Space Station. This price cap, in my opinion, begins to 
address many of the guiding principles that I have discussed here on 
the Senate floor--guiding principles which direct our investment in 
research and development, and that is good science, fiscal 
accountability, and program effectiveness. This program, indeed, 
represents a long-term investment, and it is very hard for us on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate and in this Congress to understand the 
importance of long-term investments. But this provides a long-term 
investment in a one-of-a-kind research facility.
  Although the price tag of this facility is approaching $100 billion 
over the life of the station, the potential of the research to be 
conducted in this space station is enormous. As a scientist, as one who 
has conducted research, I understand that there are no guarantees in 
research. However, if we are to continue to dream, to continue to want 
to improve the quality of our lives, continue to promote the economic 
stability of this country, vis-a-vis our neighbors, we must continue to 
conduct such research, investing long-term.
  The space station will provide a unique environment for research with 
a complete absence of gravity, allowing new insights into human health 
that we simply cannot explore today in any environment: research on 
cardiovascular disease, disease of the heart and the vessels of the 
body, understanding cancer, understanding hormonal disorders and 
osteoporosis and how the immune system functions. Yes, we have heard a 
lot about it in the last several hours--the whole issue of cost. We 
spent over $20 billion on this effort since its inception in 1985. 
Since the major redesign and the inclusion of the Russians in 1994, the 
program has spent an additional $11 billion. These amounts are for 
development only and don't include the costs associated with the 
shuttle to visit the Mir station.
  The real question is, Should we sacrifice this $20 billion investment 
and terminate this project by some action today? By ending this 
project, we not only forego the importance of research to be conducted 
aboard the station, but also the technology development that will be 
necessary to build and operate the space station. Research and 
development simply has played too important a role in the economic 
vitality of our Nation to put it at such great risk. There are many 
that expect the next great industry to be space. And, yes; I hope the 
Senate will soon take up consideration of the Commercial Space Act of 
1997 as a new industry. Commercial space accounted for $7 billion in 
1995. By one estimate space could be a $120 billion worldwide business 
by the year 2000. This type of growth will mean substantial changes in 
how things are currently done.

  Historically, the government has taken the lead on many long-term 
research projects. Many are high risk. The outcome we simply don't 
know. The benefits of that research we cannot predict.
  The Federal Government should continue this tradition by continuing 
to build the International Space Station. However, NASA simply cannot 
be given a blank check. We, the Members of this body, must continue to 
hold NASA accountable for good management of the program.
  We must be prepared to deal with the various risks associated with 
the program. There are many challenges; many we can't predict in 
assembling the components of the space station. The men and women who 
will make this happen need and will continue to need the support of the 
American people.
  There has been much discussion of the report on the Cost Assessment 
and Validation Task Force. They don't recommend ending the program. 
They simply say the program plan shall be revised so that it is 
achievable within the financial resources available. I think Congress 
should determine what resources are available for the program and allow 
NASA to complete it accordingly.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the launching of the first element 
of the station this fall, and I hope that we will soon see the 
beginning of another successful NASA project.
  Mr. President, I urge support for continued funding of the 
International Space Station.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, is the Senator prepared to yield back time?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, happily we have a Senator here. I have 4 
minutes 20 seconds remaining. I would like to yield that to Senator 
Durbin.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, a question 
to the Senator from Arkansas: Will he yield back the time, or is he 
going to use it all?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I only have 4 minutes 20 seconds. I fully expect the 
Senator from Illinois to use all of that. My time will be used.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I expect it, too.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Under the unanimous-consent agreement we will still have 
5 minutes each prior to the vote. Is that correct?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. That is correct. If the Senator will withhold a second, 
I

[[Page S7558]]

wish to advise the Chair that I will leave the floor and delegate my 
authority to Senator Glenn until I return.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I start, I believe there is an 
inquiry as to whether there is any time remaining on the other side on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bumpers 
amendment. I thank the Senator from Arkansas. This is a battle he has 
been waging for many years. I joined him as a Member of the House, and 
I am happy to join him as a Member of the Senate.
  Some might ask if I have taken leave of my senses to be on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate debating the elements of the space program with John 
Glenn on the other side. How do I find myself in that predicament? In 
this instance, I have to say I disagree with my friend from Ohio and my 
long-time hero. I believe the Senator from Arkansas is right. In 1984, 
President Reagan said to the American people that he had a dramatic 
announcement to make. A permanent-manned space station, an 
international cooperative effort, is going to be a staging area for 
further space exploration. It is a great opportunity, and we will be 
able, at the cost of $8 billion from the U.S. taxpayers to make this 
happen. Over the years, we have watched the concept diminish and the 
price explode.
  As the Senator from Arkansas explains to us, just last year, after a 
thorough professional study was done, they gave us an estimate that the 
first phase of this project would cost--no, not $17 billion, but in 
fact $24.7 billion, a 40-percent cost overrun. Those who have been 
watching this project since its inception and suggestion in 1984 have 
to wonder whether there is any end in sight.
  For each year the cost of this project continues to mushroom, the 
uncertainty grows and the scope of the project diminishes. Over the 
years, the debate over this space station has been enlarged to go way 
beyond its original intent. It is now going to be a research 
laboratory.
  I have listened to those who have argued for the space station say 
with a straight face, ``If we could just have this space station, then 
we might one day find a cure for AIDS, a cure for cancer. We need to 
get up in a weightless atmosphere with microgravity research, and that 
might be the breakthrough.''
  Competent scientists rebut that conclusion, and common sense does as 
well, because we in the United States of America today fund only 20 
percent of the approved applications for medical research at the 
National Institutes of Health. Here on God's green Earth we are unable 
to come up with the money for sound research to find a cure for 
diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, and heart disease, and instead, we are 
going to take another $80 billion and plow it into this project and 
send it up into space.
  I know that some people are energized with the idea of space 
exploration, and I am one of them. I can remember John Glenn, and I can 
remember the walk on the Moon, and so many other experiences in life, 
and going down to Cape Kennedy for a liftoff, and to feel that Earth 
rumble under your feet when that rocket takes off is something you will 
never forget. That is exciting.
  Let me tell you what else is exciting. It is exciting to pick up the 
morning paper and to read that we have found a cure for a disease. It 
is exciting to be able to tell the parent of a child that their baby 
can live, that we have come through with a new medical breakthrough. It 
is exciting for us to know that the next generation may not have to 
worry as much about Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. I find these 
revelations just as exciting, if not more so, than a space liftoff.

  The Senator from Arkansas presents a challenge to us today. He 
basically is saying to this Chamber, Will you look at the facts as 
presented? Will you acknowledge the dramatic increase in cost of this 
space station? Will you come to the understanding, as we did with the 
Superconducting Super Collider--that big tunnel in Texas, which we 
finally decided was headed for nowhere--come to the conclusion that 
this $80 billion could be better spent right here on Earth for real 
needs of real people, whether it is in the area of medical research or 
education?
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Senator from 
Arkansas and to defeat this funding for the space station.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I want to reply to a couple of things which Senator 
Harkin indicated a little bit earlier. I was a little bit disquieted by 
the fact that he indicated that NASA is now an arm of the military Air 
Force. I don't know where on Earth that came from because NASA has 
never been that. Military payloads have been put up. But it has not 
spilled over in that direction at all. It is still going along as a 
civilian agency. It was declared to be by Dwight Eisenhower, and has 
continued to be that every since.
  As far as money being sucked out, there is $98 billion. We are 
talking about $2.3 billion in this bill for the next year for the 
International Space Station. Most of the hardware has already been 
constructed, or is in the final stages of being constructed.
  The fact is that we have doubled the budget for NIH over the last 
couple of years. It is not that we are not doing things in that area.
  I repeat what I said earlier. If we are to wait until every problem 
in our country is solved before we put money into basic fundamental 
research out there, that is just the wrong way to go.
  Senator Durbin talks about child diseases. Some of the protein 
crystal growth advances we are making these days is something that we 
can look forward to as maybe helping solve some of those childhood 
diseases.
  Back to what the Senator from Iowa said again, though, I will point 
out that on the very flight that I will be on this fall in October, we 
have three different areas of commercialization of space in which one 
of the projects is commercial protein crystal growth. I will not go 
into details. My 2 minutes won't permit. But in that area, we are in 
the commercialization of protein crystal growth experiments. We are 
into another one on the commercial generic bioprocessing apparatus that 
we are taking up in space. We have another one. I have already been 
briefed on these. We will be taking part in some of the research that 
is being done at that time.
  The other one is on what is called the cybex mission, and it is to 
perform IDA-funded, corporate microgravity biomedical cancer research; 
second purpose: perform other IDA corporate commercial microgravity 
research, and provide a turnkey service of commercial access to space.
  That is the way NASA has been going. That is the direction they want 
to go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GLENN. So this is almost built. It would be foolish to cut back 
now and waste the money we put into it right when it is just about to 
pay off in a great way, I think.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 1 minute.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have heard much discussion today about 
the cost of the space station. We have seen from independent analysis 
by leading scientists that there are truly significant scientific 
advances which can come from the International Space Station, and we 
noted it serves many other functions. As the international scientific 
endeavor is furthered, it offers practical applications in research and 
potentially commercial manufacturing and materials processing. This is 
a tremendous step forward. We have heard about the Chabrow report. In 
it the NASA advisory council says that the task force members, with 
considerable experience, found the program to be consistent with the 
level of funding and that they have endorsed it. We think that it is an 
important measure. We would urge when the vote occurs that Members 
oppose the amendment offered by Senator Bumpers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

[[Page S7559]]

  Under the previous order, the amendment is set aside until 6:20.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to 
commend an extraordinarily successful collaboration between NASA and 
the JASON Project, a private foundation which is working to engage 
middle school students in grades 5-8 in science and technology. Each 
year, JASON electronically takes hundreds of thousands of our students 
on real scientific expeditions with world class scientists, researchers 
and explorers to work together with them on projects of discovery. NASA 
participates through three of its research centers and the expertise of 
many of its scientists. This collaboration is bringing real science to 
many students and teachers in the US and abroad, and I wanted to 
commend NASA's work with JASON as a model for public/private 
partnerships and educational leadership.
  Mr. BOND. The committee is aware of NASA's partnership with JASON and 
we encourage NASA to continue and to expand this work during the next 
fiscal year.


                      housing for the mentally ill

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to raise the issue of 
housing for the mentally ill as the Senate discusses this important VA-
HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations bill.
  I have worked for many years to focus attention on the serious 
diseases that are mental illnesses. These are devastating diseases that 
can leave a person significantly disabled and in need of a variety of 
services, including affordable housing.
  Mr. President, I recently met with representatives of a non-profit 
organization, Cornerstone, Inc., that has provided capital funding to 
construct quality housing for the seriously and chronically mentally 
ill who reside in the District of Columbia. This program began in 1994 
when Congress directed that $5 million of funding previously for St. 
Elizabeth's Hospital be allocated for community-based housing. With $3 
million of this funding, Cornerstone has leveraged other resources to a 
total of $15 million that has been used to construct over 300 units of 
housing for those with mental illness.
  Cornerstone is now into its final year of funding under the original 
program. Continuation of this program with another $5 million in 
capital funding would enable over 350 patients currently residing at 
St. Elizabeth's to be housed in affordable housing at significant 
savings over continued residence at the Hospital. Housing supported by 
Cornerstone, Inc., costs less than $40,000 per unit compared to an 
estimated cost of $100,000 per patient at St. Elizabeth's Hospital. 
This is the type of public-private partnership that can do so much to 
help our communities.
  Would the Chairman agree that it would be worthwhile for the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to consider a proposal for 
continued funding of the Cornerstone, Inc. affordable housing program 
for the seriously and chronically mentally ill as the Department 
distributes its 1999 funding?
  Mr. BOND. I understand the concern of the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico in providing sufficient housing for the mentally ill. I know 
that here in the District of Columbia the supply of supportive housing 
is of ongoing concern. I would concur with my colleague with New Mexico 
that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should consider a 
proposal from Cornerstone, Inc., to continue constructing affordable 
housing for the seriously and chronically mentally ill in the District 
of Columbia.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his 
consideration of this important matter. I join him in urging the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to work with Cornerstone, 
Inc., on the continuation of an affordable housing program for the 
mentally ill in the Nation's Capital.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Senator Coats and I have shared with you 
this year our strong support for $2 million through the HUD Economic 
Development Initiative Account for the Midwest Proton Radiation 
Institute (MPRI). The MPRI is an important economic development and 
cancer treatment initiative at Indiana University, Bloomington, 
Indiana. This is an important effort for the University, the City of 
Bloomington, and the State of Indiana. Funding for this project was not 
included as one of the 87 projects listed for this account in S. Rept. 
105-216. The MPRI project--like several science-related projects slated 
to receive funding as listed in S. Rept. 105-216--is beneficial from an 
economic development perspective as well as in the area of health 
sciences research and cancer treatment. This is our only project 
request from the VA-HUD Subcommittee this year. As you move forward 
with consideration of the final VA-HUD Appropriations bill, I hope you 
will give consideration to including funds for this valuable and 
worthwhile economic development project of importance to my State.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's strong interest in the Midwest 
Proton Radiation Institute. I believe this project will create economic 
growth in Indiana and contribute to improving our nation's cancer 
treatment activities. As we move to conference with the House on S. 
2168, we will give this project every consideration for funding.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chairman, for his comments and for his 
interest in this project.
  Mr. COATS. Of the $85 million set aside for the EDI account in S. 
2168--as stated in S. Rept. 105-216--only $67 million earmarked for 
individual projects in 40 states. It appears funding is available for 
additional projects within the appropriated spending provided in the 
bill. I believe the Midwest Proton Radiation Institute is an important 
effort that will be of great benefit to the city of Bloomington and to 
Indiana University. In addition, Senator Lugar  and I believe the MPRI 
is a worthwhile and appropriate project for funding under community 
development programs at the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. I join with Senator Lugar in requesting your assistance 
and consideration for funding for this important project as you move to 
conference with the House on the FY '99 VA-HUD Appropriations bill.
  Mr. BOND. Yes, I share the Senator's view that the MPRI project is a 
meritorious one that should receive serious consideration for funding 
by HUD in FY 1999. I am pleased to know of your support for this MPRI 
initiative, and that you join with Sen. Lugar in seeking funds for this 
effort.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Chairman.


   small system technical assistance and the safe drinking water act

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, page 67 of the committee report 
accompanying the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill of 1999 
includes $8 million for the National Rural Water Association. In 
addition to the appropriation to the National Rural Water Association, 
the Committee notes that ``States are authorized to set aside 2 percent 
of the funds provided under their drinking water State revolving fund 
allotment.''
  I ask my friend from Missouri if he and other members of the 
Appropriations Committee are implying that the 2 percent set aside 
authorized in Section 1452(g)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1996 is to be used for grants made to the National Rural 
Water Association and various regional community action organizations?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am not making such an argument. It was not 
the Committee's intention to imply, encourage or require States to use 
the 2 percent set aside authorized in Section 1452(g)(2) for the so 
called ``circuit rider'' program. The Committee is aware that Section 
1452(g)(2) gives States the discretion to use up to 2 percent of their 
allotted revolving loan funds to provide technical assistance to small 
public water systems. The language was included in recognition of the 
fact that States have the ability to increase funding in this area 
above the $8 million provided directly in this bill at their 
discretion.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies for clarifying the report.


                           enhanced vouchers

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, in the last two appropriations acts, the 
Congress provided enhanced section 8 tenant-based subsidies to low-
income residents of certain multifamily housing properties whose owners 
have elected to prepay their FHA-insured mortgages. These enhanced 
vouchers were provided to protect residents from displacement from 
their homes. I understand, however, that the Department of Housing

[[Page S7560]]

and Urban Development (HUD) has interpreted the appropriations language 
so that previously assisted residents would pay an amount based on the 
same amount of rent on the date of prepayment regardless of a change in 
their adjusted income. In other words, HUD would require previously 
assisted residents to no longer base their rent contribution as a 
percentage of income. This policy interpretation will likely force a 
section 8 assisted resident to pay a higher percentage of their income 
in rent if their income decreased and potentially result in 
displacement.
  Mr. President, HUD's interpretation seems contrary to the intent of 
the appropriations language and the statutory requirements under 
section 8 or other rental assistance programs. I would like to ask the 
Chairman of the VA, HUD Appropriations Subcommittee if HUD has 
correctly interpreted the intent of the appropriations language.
  Mr. BOND. I appreciate the Senator's attention to this issue. HUD has 
incorrectly interpreted the enhanced voucher language. Previously 
assisted residents who receive enhanced vouchers should be paying the 
same percentage of income for rent as they had before they had received 
the enhanced voucher. This means that if a resident's income decreases, 
their rental contribution should also decrease. The purpose of 
providing enhanced vouchers to previously assisted residents was to 
ensure that these residents would be protected from displacement or 
unaffordable rent increases.
  I would also like to state that I expect HUD to administer the 
enhanced voucher program in a manner that will ensure a smooth 
transition for residents in prepayment developments. I have heard of 
some administrative problems with the enhanced voucher program that has 
created undue and unnecessary hardship for the residents. I would like 
to reemphasize that the transition should be administered so that 
residents are able to continue their tenancy with as little disturbance 
as possible.
  Mr. MACK. I appreciate the Senator's response and his leadership in 
protecting low-income families.


                    exception rents for rural areas

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, under last year's VA/HUD appropriations 
act, the Congress created a program called ``mark-to-market'' to reduce 
overmarket section 8 contract rents on FHA-insured multifamily 
properties. Section 514(g)(2)(A) of the mark-to-market program would 
authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to allow 
for exception rents over the 120 percent of fair market rent (FMR) 
limit for up to five percent of the restructured units in a year. There 
is some confusion, however, if this five percent waiver is a national 
limit or a geographical limit. I am concerned that certain areas, such 
as the upper Midwest, the need for waivers may exceed five percent 
because of the proportion of elderly facilities and the way FMRs 
compare to the relative costs of operating those facilities in certain 
areas as well as the random circumstances that may occur in certain 
geographical areas in a given year.
  I would like to ask the Chairmen of the HUD authorizing and 
appropriations subcommittees for their clarification on the 
congressional intent of this issue.
  Mr. MACK. I thank my colleague from Iowa for raising this issue. The 
five percent waiver is a national limit, and the Secretary should 
exercise his authority in waiving this limitation for areas such as the 
upper Midwest.
  Mr. BOND. I also thank my colleague from Iowa for raising this issue. 
I concur with the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee that the five 
percent waiver is a national limit. This provision was included in 
mark-to-market to ensure that properties, especially those that serve 
elderly persons in rural areas, are not adversely affected by the debt 
refinancing and rent reduction process.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the two Senators for their assistance in this 
matter and for their work on housing issues.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the ``mark-to-market'' program that was 
enacted last year in the VA/HUD appropriations act was expected to be 
implemented by late October of this year. While I applaud the efforts 
of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in preparing 
the implementation of the law, I am still concerned about its progress 
and ability to meet the October deadline.
  I am concerned about the President's failure after 9 months to 
nominate a Director of the Office of Multifamily Housing Assisted 
Restructuring and that interim regulations have not yet been published. 
I, however, would like to focus on the fact that HUD has not begun the 
process for selecting participating administrative entities (PAE). 
Without them, the program will not work. In the original mark-to-market 
legislation that passed the Senate as part of the Balanced Budget Act 
of 1997, State and local housing finance agencies (HFA) that had 
qualified under the mark-to-market demonstration and FHA risk-sharing 
programs would automatically qualify as PAEs. The Banking Committee 
felt strongly that HFAs not only were the best entities to administer 
mark-to-market, but it also had concerns about HUD's ability to select 
qualified entities in a timely and objective manner.
  Mr. BOND. I thank Senator Mack for raising these concerns. I 
completely agree that it is critical that the PAEs be in place by 
October if the program is to be able to operate at that time. I also 
add that the consequences of not implementing mark-to-market in a 
timely manner are serious and could create havoc with contract 
expirations and renewals. Even if the program is only delayed, HUD may 
have to extend the contracts at above market levels to provide the PAEs 
adequate time to restructure the properties. This will result in 
additional costs to the government and result in shortfalls in the 
appropriation for renewals. Further, the uncertainty surrounding the 
rules and regulations of the program will make it difficult for project 
owners and residents to prepare for mark-to-market.
  Mr. President, based on the Administration's less-than-adequate 
performance in selecting restructuring agents under the mark-to-market 
demonstration programs, I would say that the concerns expressed by the 
Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee are valid.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chairman of the VA/HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee for his response and shared concerns. I would like to 
stress that the credibility of HUD is directly linked to its successful 
implementation of the mark-to-market program. It is imperative that the 
Department not only ensures that the program is implemented in time and 
in compliance with the letter and spirit of the law, but it also 
ensures a smooth transition. I believe that the legislation provides 
the Secretary with sufficient flexibility in selecting PAEs and would 
highly recommend that the Secretary use its current restructuring 
agents to continue as PAEs under the permanent program, especially if 
the program is to be implemented in time. As I have advocated before, I 
would specifically recommend the use of State and local HFAs as PAEs.

  HFAs have proven that they have the capacity and willingness to serve 
as the federal government's partners in affordable housing. Thirty HFAs 
have been qualified by HUD to participate under the mark-to-market 
demonstration program. Twenty-eight HFAs are participating in the FHA 
risk-sharing program. Almost every state HFA has administered the 
successful Low Income Housing Tax Credit program since the Congress 
created it in 1986. HFAs have financed more than 200,000 Section 8 
units and administer Section 8 contracts on behalf of HUD in many 
cases. Thirty-four HFAs administer the HOME program, under which 
multifamily properties are being financed every year.
  It is clear from this evidence that the HFAs are the most qualified 
to act as PAEs under the mark-to-market program and more importantly, 
they are publicly accountable and have missions that are aligned with 
HUD. I expect HUD to approve many HFAs as PAEs and provide them as much 
flexibility as possible within appropriate parameters to administer the 
program.
  Mr. BOND. Based on their demonstrated performance as the Senator from 
Florida has pointed out and my own knowledge of the Missouri Housing 
Finance Agency, I would also expect HUD to approve many HFAs as PAEs. I 
also agree that HUD should not require the HFAs that act as PAEs to go

[[Page S7561]]

through any unnecessary administrative steps in restructuring 
properties. I would especially be concerned if HUD created impediments 
in the HFAs ability to provide financing, such as risk-sharing, for 
restructuring transactions.


                 owners' right to prepay fha mortgages

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand that the Manager's Amendment to 
the VA/HUD Appropriations Bill contains an important provision that 
allows owners to prepay its FHA-insured multifamily housing mortgage. 
This provision would continue current policy.
  I would like to ask Senator Bond, the Chairman of the VA, HUD 
Appropriations Subcommittee, if he could confirm this.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee for 
raising this issue. The Senator is correct that the Manager's Amendment 
contains language regarding the owner's right to prepay its mortgage 
and continues current housing policy that has been in effect for the 
past three years. This policy change was originally made in past 
appropriations legislation.
  Under the appropriations legislation and this year's legislation, the 
Congress restored the owner's right to prepay its mortgage under the 
Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 
(LIHPRHA). However, as a condition of prepayment, some resident 
protections were included in the appropriations law to prevent hardship 
for affected residents. Specifically, upon prepayment, an owner could 
not raise rents for 60 days and eligible residents were provided 
enhanced or ``sticky'' vouchers so that they could choose to remain in 
their homes at an affordable rent. The provision of sticky vouchers 
were provided in lieu of the resident protections under LIHPRHA. In 
other words, the provision of sticky vouchers and the prevention of 
raising rents for 60 days permanently replaces the LIHPRHA resident 
protections that included (1) providing relocation benefits, (2) 
keeping rents at levels existing at the time of prepayment for three 
years, and (3) requiring owners to accept voucher holders.
  Mr. MACK. I thank my colleague for his assistance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased to offer my support for S. 
2168, the FY 1999 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development, and Independent Agencies appropriation bill, and most 
particularly for Title I, the section outlining funding for VA.
  Once again, the chair of the VA-HUD Subcommittee, Senator Bond, the 
ranking member, Senator Mikulski, and the other members of the 
Subcommittee, have taken a reduced allocation and tremendous 
limitations on funding, and have miraculously created a bill which 
adequately addresses the needs of America's veterans. While I would 
always want to increase support for veterans programs further, I am 
enormously pleased with the result of their efforts. I would like to 
highlight several accomplishments in particular.
  On the health care side of the ledger, the Committee on 
Appropriations recommended $17.25 billion for VA medical care, a 
substantial increase of $222 million over the President's request and 
$192 million above the FY 1998 level. When these funds--$17.25 
billion--are coupled with receipts collected under the Medical Care 
Cost Fund, the Veterans Health Administration will have access to 
$17.92 billion in discretionary resources to care for sick and disabled 
veterans.
  I am also particularly gratified by the Committee's report language 
on the need for community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) in the 
Eastern Panhandle of my home state of West Virginia. Indeed, the 
Committee noted that clinics in Petersburg and Franklin will benefit 
approximately 2,000 veterans who have been forced to drive long 
distances and spend the entire day at VA medical center for routine 
health care. I am hopeful that VA will begin providing needed health 
care services by the end of this year, if not sooner.
  I must also mention the extraordinary work done by the Committee to 
appropriate substantial funds for the VA medical and prosthetic 
research account. For the first time in many years, the Administration 
had proposed funding this account at the level of $300 million. 
Although this amount represents an increase compared to last year, 
unfortunately, this level of funding is not sufficient even to keep up 
with inflation, much less provide for any real growth.
  For many years, the VA research program has suffered from flatline 
funding that has hampered its ability to improve the quality of care 
provided to veterans, attract well-trained physicians, and advance 
medical treatments that can benefit the nation as a whole. In light of 
this, the Committee has gone beyond the $300 million mark and allocated 
an additional $10 million. These additional funds will produce research 
discoveries which will benefit veterans and non-veterans alike.
  The bill before us also includes a substantial increase for grants 
for construction of state extended care facilities. The Committee 
recognized the important role State Veterans Homes play in providing 
domiciliary and nursing home care to veterans and chose to recommend 
$90 million for this program. This recommendation is $10 million more 
than the fiscal year 1998 funding.
  The Committee also included report language which emphasizes the need 
for VA to ensure funding for grants and per diem payment assistance to 
community-based providers of services to homeless veterans. In the past 
three years, VA has closed approximately 4,500 acute mental health and 
substance abuse beds. At the same time, the number of unique patients 
receiving outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment has 
increased by 8 percent. There is no question that outpatient based 
treatment for homeless veterans with mental illnesses and substance 
abuse disorders can be effective, but such treatment must be coupled 
with safe, supervised transitional housing programs. VA grant programs 
help to fill the void caused by the closure of inpatient services.
  On the benefits side, I was very pleased to see that the Committee 
included an increase of $5 million for the Veterans Benefits 
Administration and tied the release of these funds to submission of a 
plan implementing the recommendations of the National Academy of Public 
Administration. VA continues to struggle to correctly adjudicate 
veterans' benefits claims in a timely manner, and faces a backlog of 
pending cases and an increase in new claims being filed. Additional 
funding, spent in a targeted manner, should greatly improve VA's 
decisionmaking ability.
  The Committee has also recommended a $2.2 million increase in funds 
allocated for the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), Professional 
Group VII, which represents the Secretary before the U.S. Court of 
Veterans Appeals. There is a growing backlog of cases at the Court 
created by the loss of experienced attorneys and increased productivity 
of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). Our veterans should not have 
to wait additional time for a decision because the OGC does not have 
the staff to litigate their cases.
  Mr. President, in closing, I am pleased with what the Committee on 
Appropriations has been able to do for VA. I applaud the leadership of 
all the members of the Appropriations Committee, and especially those 
members on the VA-HUD Subcommittee.


                           Amendment No. 3057

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Bond and 
Mikulski for including a provision in the manager's amendment that 
makes it explicit that State Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund 
programs may continue the practice of collecting a loan service fee to 
help cover the cost of administering the loans and managing the 
revolving loan fund.
  Mr. President, there are approximately fourteen States that charge a 
loan administration fee to revolving loan fund borrowers to cover some 
of the costs associated with the loan transaction. As a service to the 
borrower, most of the States roll this fee into the loan so that it is 
repaid with interest over the duration of the loan. This is a 
tremendous help to the borrower, who is often unable to pay the fee 
upfront. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently 
objected to this practice despite the fact that it has been used since 
the inception of the revolving loan fund. EPA contends that this 
practice violates the

[[Page S7562]]

four percent limitation on administrative fees in Title VI of the Clean 
Water Act.
  The language included in the manager's amendment will resolve this 
problem by allowing States to charge administrative fees regardless of 
whether they exceed the four percent limitation. To ensure that this 
practice is not abused, the fees cannot exceed an amount the 
Administrator of EPA deems reasonable.
  Mr. President, without this amendment many of the Clean Water State 
Revolving Loan Fund programs would face severe financial hardship that 
would be detrimental to the health of the revolving loan fund program.
  Once again, I would like to thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for 
including this very important amendment in their manager's package.


                                  fema

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a great appreciation for the fine 
work Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond have put into crafting this 
difficult bill. The VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
bill in particular deals with many tough issues and competing demands. 
One of the smaller agencies which I would like to bring attention to 
today is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
  Just a few weeks ago FEMA invited Lamoille County in Vermont to 
become a part of Project Impact, FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation 
program. This is a program that is partnering with communities, and the 
private sector, to make communities more resistant to natural disaster.
  The importance of this kind of pre-disaster planning was driven home 
this past weekend as Lamoille, along with Addison, Chittenden, 
Franklin, Orange, Rutland, Washington, and Windsor Counties in Vermont 
were again devastated by severe storms and flooding. On June 30th, the 
President declared these areas in Vermont a major disaster. I toured 
the area with FEMA officials last week and, thanks to the hard work and 
spirit of the people of Vermont, the local public safety forces and 
FEMA, those communities are beginning to recover. Project Impact could 
help counties like Lamoille take steps to reduce the costs and public 
health risks of these kinds of disasters in the future.
  FEMA Director, James Lee Witt is a friend to just about every member 
of the Senate. He and his staff, both here and in the regional offices, 
have been there for our states through all manner of natural disasters. 
To maintain FEMA's capability to respond so quickly to the needs of our 
states, I believe Congress should support the levels of funding for 
FEMA recommended in the President's budget. Again, I congratulate 
Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski for their fine work and know they 
share my support for FEMA and the work it does.


                     environmental self-evaluations

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President I was prepared to offer an amendment to the 
VA/HUD Appropriations bill that would have taken away EPA's authority 
to withdraw Colorado's delegated environmental programs. EPA has been 
threatening Colorado's authorization to administer delegated programs 
because of an environmental self-evaluation law the State passed in 
1994. As many listening know, self-evaluation laws allow companies, 
individuals, and local governments to go above and beyond what is 
required in seeking out environmental problems under their 
jurisdiction. In return the entity who performed the audit is protected 
from fines. Colorado's law makes good sense, in fact in the short time 
it has been in existence those who have availed themselves of it have 
found and corrected many environmental problems that otherwise would 
have gone undetected.
  However, last February I became aware that EPA may not have been 
taking the State of Colorado seriously with respect to negotiations on 
the self-evaluation law. At that time I stated my intention to object 
to an EPA nominee. Subsequently, I dropped my objection to their 
nominee after speaking with Assistant Administrator Herman about my 
concerns. He agreed to do his best to ensure that negotiations occurred 
in good faith and that they were inclusive of Colorado's elected 
officials who had an interest in the manner. Over the past several 
weeks I became concerned that EPA had not followed through on this 
commitment.
  I was particularly distressed at the prospect that EPA had promised 
me they would take an action and then turned around and ignored their 
promise. Earlier today Assistant Administrator Herman called me and 
assured me that he had been faithful with respect to the previous 
agreement we had made. However, he agreed to redouble his efforts in 
negotiating an agreement to the audit issue in Colorado that has broad 
based support because of broad based involvement among policy makers 
and other local officials.
  While my inclination is still to offer my amendment, I am willing to 
forego it in this instance. However, should I find that EPA is 
attempting to exclude people from negotiations on Colorado's 
environmental audit law I will revisit this issue soon.


           Veterans' Tobacco-related Illnesses and Disability

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I had every intention to offer an 
amendment to the Veterans' Affairs/Housing and Urban Development 
Appropriations bill that would restore the $10.5 billion in funding 
that was so egregiously and eagerly taken from our nation's veterans to 
fund pork-laden highway programs in the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1998 (ISTEA). Unfortunately, there was 
simply no possibility that this amendment would be adopted, simply 
because of the inflexibility of the Appropriations Committee's 
allocation of funds between the Transportation and VA/HUD 
Subcommittees.
  Because of the arcane rules of the Senate, I and my cosponsors are 
precluded from righting this profound wrong that has been perpetrated 
against those who have served and sacrificed for our country.
  This amendment would not have been my first attempt to rectify this 
shameful treatment of our Veterans. On the tobacco bill, I sponsored 
legislation that would provide not less than $600 million per year to 
the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans' health care activities 
for tobacco-related illnesses and disability and directed the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs to assist such veterans as is appropriate. The 
amendment would have provided a minimum of $3 billion over five years 
for those veterans that are afflicted with tobacco-related illnesses 
and disability. Additionally, the amendment would have provided smoking 
cessation care to veterans from various programs established under the 
tobacco bill. Unfortunately, when the tobacco bill was returned to the 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the funding vehicle 
for those afflicted veterans suffering from smoking-related illnesses, 
went with it.
  The failure to address the tobacco-related health care needs of our 
men and women who faithfully served their country in uniform would be 
wrong. Congress cannot continue to rob from veterans, whose programs 
have been seriously underfunded for years, to pay for special interest 
projects.
  Mr. President, I want to assure my colleagues, and more importantly, 
our veterans, that this issue is far from dead. I am even more 
compelled and committed to find a vehicle to restore the critical 
funding that was so selfishly taken by members of this body. Mr. 
President, our veterans--those who served and sacrificed, those who 
trusted, and in this case were betrayed by their government--deserve no 
less.


                           Amendment No. 3063

   (Purpose: To amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to protect consumers in managed 
                 care plans and other health coverage)

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment and I send it to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know there is an understanding that we 
will go to the veterans amendment at some point, and I would be happy 
to lay aside this amendment to accommodate Senator McCain and others 
who may wish to offer their amendment, with the understanding that we 
might have a vote on both amendments at some point in the future. But I 
wanted to lay this amendment down, and I will be brief because I know 
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico also wishes to speak.

[[Page S7563]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the leader will withhold, the clerk needs 
to report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3063.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.''
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the issue of patient protection is among 
the most important health questions facing the American people today. 
In survey after survey, the American people have said without 
equivocation that they want Congress to deal with this issue. More and 
more, from places all over the country, we hear reports about victims 
of our current system and cries for reform. The need to address this 
issue, this year, has become more and more pronounced.
  For many months, we have worked in concert with the White House and 
with our House colleagues to come up with a way to comprehensively 
respond to the growing array of concerns and problems that people from 
all over the country have raised as they talk about the current 
situation we face with regard to health insurance and HMOs.
  After a great deal of attention, study, thoughtful analysis, and 
working with over 100 organizations from all philosophical and 
political persuasions, we have introduced legislation that provides a 
number of very basic patient protections: providing access to needed 
specialists including pediatric specialists for children; ensuring 
access to an independent appeal board when insurance companies deny 
care and requiring timely resolution of those appeals; guaranteeing 
access to the closest emergency room so that people don't have to waste 
precious time as they drive miles to save their insurance company a few 
dollars; allowing patients to see the same doctor through a pregnancy 
or a difficult treatment even if their doctor stops participating in an 
HMO; allowing women direct access to their ob/gyn without asking their 
insurance company for permission; preventing drive-through mastectomies 
and other inappropriate insurance company interference with good 
medical practice; and holding HMOs accountable when their decisions to 
deny or delay health care result in injury or death.
  These provisions, and a number of others that I will not list now, 
were very carefully thought through before we incorporated them in this 
patient protection bill. I do not know of another piece of legislation 
that has higher priority. I do not know of another piece of legislation 
that deserves the attention of the Senate more than this one.
  Every day we fail to act on basic patient protections, the list of 
families who suffer continues to grow. We have fewer than 10 weeks 
remaining before the end of the session. We have yet to spend 1 day 
talking about the Patients' Bill of Rights, debating patient 
protections, and dealing with this issue in a comprehensive way. My 
hope is that we can work through this amendment and come up with a way 
in which to address this issue on this bill.
  I also would like very much to be able to schedule debate and a vote 
on this legislation. To date, we have not been able to do that. So I 
offer this amendment in good faith and hope that we can finally come to 
closure on what I consider to be the single most important piece of 
health legislation facing the Congress and our country today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I regret that the minority leader has chosen 
to add a totally new subject to this debate. I know there have been 
discussions at the leadership level about scheduling debate on it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. BOND. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3062

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Bumpers amendment 
No. 3062.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I assume most everybody in this Senate now understands that we are 
debating an amendment that would terminate the space station, save $80 
billion over the next 15 years, and this year alone put $1 billion in 
veterans medicine, $450 million into low-rent housing.
  I hate to call a program that has been successful in most ways, 
almost comical, but there is no way to describe what is going on with 
the space station right now any other way. We have been told from the 
beginning it would cost $17.4 billion to build the station on Earth. 
There are three stages: No. 1, you have to build it; No. 2, you have to 
put it in space; No. 3, you have to operate it for 10 years.
  What are we looking at? We are looking at a $100 billion cost today. 
Since last October 1, since last October 1, the Chabrow Commission, 
appointed by Daniel Goldin, the administrator of NASA, Jay Chabrow, 
probably the best space policy analyst in America, comes back and says 
the first part is not going to cost $17.4 billion; NASA is going to 
take 10 to 38 months longer than they told you, and it will cost $24.7 
billion. That is $7.3 billion--a 43-percent cost overrun and we haven't 
even finished building it yet.
  If you think that is a cost overrun, wait until the Russians start 
reneging. Jay Chabrow says you will not have this thing finished in 
early 2003. You will be lucky to have it finished early 2006. So when 
the Russians start reneging on their part of it, we have about 80 
launches to deploy this thing, and the Russians are going to be 
responsible for about 40 of them, between 40 and 49. Who here believes 
that a country who can't even pay the electric bill at their principal 
cosmodrome is going to come through on their commitment with that many 
flights? Every time they renege it will cost us close to $1 billion.
  I asked my colleagues this afternoon, and I repeat the challenge, I 
have talked endlessly about the cost overruns we are experiencing and 
the ones we are going to experience, and according to the way we have 
debated this thing this afternoon, those cost overruns are like Ross 
Perot's crazy aunt in the basement; we ignore it. I can tell you that 
crazy aunt in the basement will have a lot of company unless we kill 
this program now.
  You can save $80 billion. We have yet to spend $80 billion. If the 
cost overruns are anything even close to what they are looking at now, 
what Jay Chabrow says is a distinct possibility, you are talking about 
$100 billion to $150 billion, and every research scientist in America 
says it is of highly questionable value. As a matter of fact, virtually 
every one of them are adamantly opposed to it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOND. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I want to thank Senator Bond very much for allowing 
me to be in the summation. Because of a family emergency I just 
arrived.
  Mr. President, I do admire the tenacity of the Senator from Arkansas, 
for he has tried 15 straight times to submarine the space station, in a 
mixed metaphor. But I do think the Senator is wrong.
  I think the Senate will rise above his arguments, which would have 
the world's greatest superpower saying to all of the other nations that 
have put their money into this project, we are going to walk away from 
an experimental project, 90 percent complete. This project is 
succeeding. What we are going to be able to do has already begun to be 
tested in the early stages, and that is use microgravity conditions to 
grow tissue, which you can't do on Earth. You can't simulate this 
procedure on Earth. It means we will be able

[[Page S7564]]

to take defective tissues, without harming the patient, and 
experimenting without harming the patient. It is biomedical research. 
We have partners--the United States, Canada, Italy, Belgium, 
Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Spain, France, Germany, the UK, Japan, 
and Russia--in this project. Yes, the Russians are having trouble. We 
know that. Does that mean we will walk away from all of our other 
international partners? The United States has been the leader in 
technical advances. It is why we have been able to get all of the 
benefits that we have seen from space research, because we have been 
willing to take the risk. Experiments are not precise. You make 
mistakes when you are the first one out there.
  You can't draw the budget for the first time and say you have to stay 
within this budget. Yes, it may take a couple more years. But if we can 
find a cure for ovarian cancer, for breast cancer, for osteoporosis, 
then I think a couple of years or 3 years working this out together, 
perhaps getting new partners, which is what we ought to be doing, 
instead of saying let's walk away, 90 percent into a project, with all 
of the other countries that have depended on us.
  We are the world's greatest superpower. We are not going to walk away 
from our partnership. We are not going to walk away from the 
leadership, at least that is not the country I represent. Most 
certainly, I don't think the Senate would do something so narrow.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Texas just alluded to curing breast 
cancer and curing several other diseases. You could fund the National 
Institutes of Health God knows how many times for what this thing will 
cost. You are not going to cure anything with this. That is the reason 
America's physicists, cell biologists, and medical scientists are all 
opposed to it.
  You know what this space station is going to cost per man-hour of 
research?--$11.5 million per hour. Can you imagine us, with our eyes 
wide open, saying we are going to build a space station for research 
purposes that will cost $11.5 million an hour. It is the height of 
irresponsibility.
  The American people have a right to expect us to be fiscally 
responsible. I want to ask my colleagues in closing, how far are you 
willing to go? What is the threshold beyond which you are not willing 
to go? We have gone from $8 billion to $100 billion for the space 
station and we are headed for $150 to $200 billion. We kill the Super 
Collider, we kill the Clinch River Breeder, and who here misses them? 
We save America billions of dollars. You have a chance to save $80 
billion right now and help veterans, help veterans and help people who 
are desperately needing low-rent housing.
  I plead with my opponents to support this amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time on this side to 
the distinguished Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes 48 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we have addressed costs here. This $96 
billion is a fictitious figure; $40 billion of that, by NASA estimates, 
includes shuttle costs that are going to go on anyway. Besides all 
those big figures taken into a 15-year account here, what we are 
talking about in this bill is for fiscal 1999? We are talking about 
$2.3 billion versus $2.1 billion for last year, not a huge increase.
  Now, there are always going to be competing needs for every bit of 
research. If we ever tried to solve all problems and to do everything 
we wanted to do before we made research, we would never have moved off 
the east coast. Basic research is a way of life, fundamental. This is a 
new laboratory we are working on. It is our experience that dollars 
spent on research seem to have a way of paying off in the future beyond 
anything we ever foresee at the outset. That has been the history of 
this country. We have gotten to the place now where much of the space 
program is increasingly going commercial.
  On the flight we will be on, STS-95, we will have three specific 
projects. We will have basic research, besides what we are talking 
about, in the physical sciences, in the bio area. We will have the 
Spartan spacecraft making the measurements of the Sun and solar winds. 
We will have research on aging, with which I will be involved. We will 
have ultraviolet measurements that will be probably the most accurate 
ever made in space. These things cannot be done except in zero-G, not 
on the ground.
  We are talking about payoffs in commercial areas with three different 
projects on STS-95. We are almost there. The figure was quoted a moment 
ago that 90 percent of our hardware has been built. I think 75 percent 
of the milestones have already been passed. The first elements are due 
to be launched later this year. I think the Russians are due to launch 
the first node, module, on November 20, and we are scheduled to launch 
the first United States one on December 3.
  It is a 16-nation commitment that we have. Certainly, it is better to 
be working peacefully together than to be thinking about war, which we 
were a few years ago. It is the biggest, most incredible scientific 
engineering experiment ever tried internationally. I think there can be 
incredible scientific possibilities and results from this, not only in 
medicine, but learning about our world and our solar system, inspiring 
our young people to explore and to learn. The benefits are not out 
there in space. The benefits are for us right here on Earth. That is 
the important part of this whole thing. The Chabrow report said this. 
Although costs in scheduled growth have occurred, the magnitude of such 
growth has not been unusual, even when compared with other 
developmental programs of lesser complexity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 3062 
offered by the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I 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 amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 66, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lugar
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--66

     Akaka
     Allard
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 3062) was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this 
vote in relation to the space station was the last vote of the evening. 
Wednesday, the Senate will consider the IRS conference report. I expect 
a considerable amount of time for debate to occur with respect to this 
IRS reform and restructure bill. A lot of Senators put a lot of time 
into it. There are some important provisions I know they will want to 
emphasize. Therefore, a late afternoon or early evening vote can be

[[Page S7565]]

expected to occur with respect to the IRS reform legislation.

                          ____________________