[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1469-E1470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              FUNDING FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TIM ROEMER

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 29, 1998

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, this year, to my disappointment, the House 
of Representatives voted to continue funding the International Space 
Station. The amendment I introduced with Representative Camp to cancel 
the space station program would have ended the single largest wasteful 
government program in history.
  Today, I am proud and pleased to have introduced my amendment to the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 that was supported by 
109 Representatives. I strongly believe that my amendment reflects the 
best interests of the United States, the taxpayers and certainly of 
NASA and the American space program.
  Like most of my colleagues, I am a strong supporter of the American 
space program. However, I find it sad to see that productive and more 
worthwhile space programs are being shut down so that larger and larger 
amounts of NASA funding are claimed by a space station program that has 
already cost almost $20 billion with no hardware in space to show for 
it.
  In 1993, upon NASA's final redesign of the space station, we were 
told that the program would cost no more than $17.4 billion and that 
our partnership with the Russian Government would save American 
taxpayers around $2 billion. This was still a huge increase over the 
Reagan Administration's initial plan to build the station for $8 
billion and complete it by 1994. Now NASA has accepted the findings of 
the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force, also known as the 
independent Chabrow committee, which concluded the program will cost 
$24 billion and an additional $130 million to $250 million for each 
month that the station assembly is delayed. And it will be delayed--
probably by at least two years.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, GAO now tells us that the program will cost more 
than $100 billion. This does not include additional costs associated 
with Russia's potential withdrawal from the partnership or the costs of 
upgrading the station's defense system to protect it against meteorites 
and orbital debris. Nor does the $100 billion pricetag include 
disassembly costs, which GAO says could be ``prohibitively expensive'' 
and could exceed $5 billion. These ``unforeseen'' funding contingencies 
are indeed shocking and clearly jeopardize the future and integrity of 
the entire U.S. space program.
  The magnitude of these dramatic cost overruns and assembly delays are 
unacceptable and sure to result in the cannibalization of the so-called 
``smaller, better, faster, cheaper'' space missions. If we do not move 
to cancel the space station now, then these smaller, but important, 
missions will most likely never share the tremendous success of 
projects like the Hubble Space Telescope and the Mars Sojourner 
Pathfinder. This is a shame, and a disappointment to the entire 
scientific community.
  While the Russians remain competent in repeating missions that have 
been flown for three decades, they have been unable to fund development 
of reliable new technologies or to deliver critical component parts 
such as the Service Module. Everything that worked on Mir involves 20-
year-old technologies. A year ago, when a fundamentally new space 
docking procedure was attempted, the result was a collision that 
punched a hole in the space station, crippling it and almost killing 
the crew. Other new Russian space vehicles such as the Mars probe and 
its plutonium batteries have also failed. This does not bode well for 
the space station.
  The Russians have repeatedly promised to develop a series of new and 
improved space vehicles to help assemble the space station.

[[Page E1470]]

However, over the past several years, Russia's work on the components 
has fallen far behind schedule, causing significant delays and cost 
overruns which have spilled over into NASA's share of the work. 
Russia's Finance Ministry has repeatedly misled NASA and the American 
people, and we should not tolerate this continued foot-dragging. As I 
have said over the past six years, NASA's dependence on Russian 
participation in the space station will cripple other, more worthwhile 
U.S. space programs, and this will most likely continue to result in 
more assembly delays and cost overruns.
  When the Administration approved the space station redesign in 1993, 
NASA promised the taxpayers that no more than $2.1 billion would be 
spent each year for the program. At that time, it was estimated that 
Russia's inclusion as a partner would reduce costs by $1.6 billion. 
Nevertheless, NASA has told us that the cap should be broken, despite 
Russia's repeated promises that the money and the critical hardware 
components like the Service Module would be delivered.
  Far too many questions remain unanswered. NASA has yet to determine 
or release any cost figures for the program reflecting the likely 
scenario that Russia will drop out of the partnership, but continues to 
offer robust assurances that it will save money. While I support 
efforts to engage our former adversaries, and sharing our knowledge of 
important scientific issues, I do not believe it is prudent to 
perpetuate a back-door foreign aid project that makes Russia look more 
like an international welfare recipient than the major partner in the 
single largest construction project in the history of mankind.
  While space station cost overruns to date are currently estimated at 
$800 million, NASA has cut mission control, shuttle safety, and more 
deserving programs such as Mission to Planet Earth and space education 
grants. Already $227 million has been diverted from space station 
science and $200 million has been shifted from the space shuttle 
payload and utilization operations. This year, NASA has asked for the 
authority to shift an additional $375 million.
  Like our efforts aboard Mir, NASA has cannibalized the station's 
scientific research missions simply because all the funds are being 
consumed on construction. NASA has transferred a whopping $462 million 
from its science funding to space station development in fiscal years 
1996 through 1998. Case in point: NASA dropped the centrifuge, a 
critical research component, and now depends on negotiations with the 
Japanese Government to provide it.
  Throwing more money at the space station is adding fuel to the fire. 
We should not continue to approve NASA's repeated request for 
supplemental funding. Rather, we should hold NASA and the Russian 
Government's feet to the fire. The American taxpayers deserve 
accountability and demand that the integrity of our space program be 
maintained. We should therefore end this program before it kills NASA 
and its mission.
  Mr. Speaker, for several years, we have known the solution to the 
many problems associated with the space station. In fact, the House 
almost got it right in 1993, when my amendment to terminate space 
station funding lost by a single vote. I suggest that we allow NASA the 
time and resources to improve its management structure, redefine its 
mission first, rather than move ahead with a mammoth, multi-billion 
dollar program whose costs will assuredly go over and beyond all 
reasonable budgetary expectations. All of the station's problems can be 
solved by simply canceling this wasteful, over-budget boondoggle, 
returning $80 billion to the American taxpayers, and saving the life 
and health of the rest of the U.S. space program. I will continue to 
fight this program and strongly encourage my colleagues to closely 
monitor this program as cost overruns and schedule delays will most 
assuredly continue to cheat the scientific community of funding that 
could be better spent on more worthwhile space research endeavors.

                          ____________________