Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Missouri's finest legislators, State Representative Laurie Donovan. She has served Missouri's 74th District since 1982, and done so with a combination of conviction, compassion, and just plain good humor. There is no question that Laurie has been a maverick. She has marched to her own drummer, voting only in accordance with her conscience. Laurie has stood second to no one in her support for early childhood education--a topic upon which I share her intense interest. Her efforts on behalf of the mentally ill likewise are the stuff of Missouri legislative legend. It is clear that State Representative Laurie Donovan's retirement is a loss for every Missouri citizen. I join all Missourians in wishing her well, and thanking her for her many years of dedicated service.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill.

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.

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. BOND. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from Arkansas is ready to proceed with an amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in response to that, I had offered to offer a separate amendment naming the space station after Senator Bumpers.

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. 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.

Mr. BOND. It is in the process.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. BOND. Yes. We included in the amendment that there would be no second-degree amendments.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from Texas.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Alaska has a unanimous-consent request to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. BOND. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Arkansas.

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. 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. 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. BOND. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time on this side to the distinguished Senator from Ohio.

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.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, is the Senator prepared to yield back time?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the resolution.