Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I believe the Conference language likely on this issue, given the close similarity between House and Senate positions, would allow for CIESIN to compete and win a NASA contract to provide this socioeconomic data, or to participate in any other federal program. As my distinguished counterpart in the House of Representatives stated on the House floor July 27th, ``* * * there is nothing in the [House NASA] appropriations bill that prejudices competitive success by CIESIN for NASA funding in future requests or for bids of proposal.'' I will pursue such an interpretation in Committee and oppose any measures to preclude CIESIN from competitively bidding for federal contracts.

Mr. BOND. Absolutely not. Nothing in the Committee report would prevent NASA from participating in any funded activities with CIESIN, whether within the Mission to Planet Earth program, or some other federal program.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe that we have discussed previously the possibility of a time agreement on this amendment. I understand the proponent of the amendment is willing to accept a 30-minute time agreement, equally divided in the usual form, provided there is no second-degree amendment. Is that the understanding?

Mr. BOND. I believe there is no objection on the other side. I think we are therefore ready to go to a vote. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. With that, Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Iowa 30 minutes, and ask the Senator to reserve such time as he does not use.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield myself 10 minutes. Madam President, I regret having to rise to oppose the efforts of my good friends from Maryland and Massachusetts to restore funding for the Corporation for National Service. I know that the Senator from Maryland has been a champion of this and every other measure that contributes to community service, that motivates people of all ages to take an active part in their community, to be contributing members of the community, to do something with their lives that is more than just getting a paycheck, and I know how important this program is to her. But as I weigh the priorities, Madam President, I cannot see how we would allocate the scarce resources to pay for a program which the Government Accounting Office has concluded costs, per participant, over $26,000 per year. That is a level of expenditure that I just do not believe can be sustained in our current budget. As I indicated when we began consideration of this measure, we are trying to move from the present condition of deficit spending, where we are going $200 billion in the tank every year, to balancing our books and stopping or ending the deficit, stopping the addition of debt, almost $5 trillion worth, that is now on the backs and on the credit cards of our children and grandchildren. Good intentions alone, unfortunately, are not enough. We must establish some priorities, and it is very difficult. But to me, I cannot see AmeriCorps ranking high enough on that priority level. I do not dispute that the program has provided some benefits to communities. I know that individuals have benefited from it. Yet, we have had to make tough choices. I had leaders of the Nation's mayors and county officials come into my office to ask about what I was proposing in this VA-HUD bill for the communities. I discussed with them the choices that I had to make at the subcommittee level, and that the full committee had to make between the community development block grant and AmeriCorps. The local officials who judge what really makes a difference for their communities said, ``Well, we like both of them, but there is no question that the community development block grant is more important in our community.'' That is a decision made at the local level by people elected by and responsible to the people in that community. And I cannot argue with that. I wanted to accommodate my colleague from Maryland. I do know that there are some benefits to the AmeriCorps Program. But when the choice came to funding community development block grants or AmeriCorps, as a supporter of block grants, one who has worked with county and city officials throughout my years of service, I felt we must go with those elected by the people at the local level, who said this is their priority. I note also that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts said that this is a very worthwhile program and that the private sector matches it. Yet, I understand that only about 8 percent of the funds come from the private sector. This basically is a Federal Government program. We used to have a program called CETA, Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, way back many years ago when I was Governor. That program funded all kinds of jobs. After evaluation of Government-funded jobs, on a bipartisan basis, the leaders of this country, both at the State and [[Page S 14254]] national level, decided that Comprehensive Employment and Training Act funds were not the way to go. We have seen in the Federal Government's use of the AmeriCorps jobs how expensive they can be. It will surprise some of my colleagues that $14 million out of AmeriCorps funds went to fund Federal agencies. I bet you thought that we were cutting employment in the Federal Government, because that is what we have heard. Guess what? We cut employment in the Federal Government on the one hand, and we come in through the other door, through AmeriCorps, and use AmeriCorps funds to hire people paid for by the Federal Government. In some of those programs, the cost per participant was more expensive. For instance, one HHS program costs more than $45,000 per participant. The Navy has a wonderful Seaborne Conservation Corps. It costs $66,715 per participant. That, to me, is a pretty expensive volunteer program. AmeriCorps, across the board, costs $20 per hour. HHS projects cost $33 an hour. The Navy project costs $49 an hour. That, Madam President, is for a volunteer. When the program was authorized 2 years ago, it was authorized as an expansion upon the concept of voluntarism. Certainly, I believe and support voluntarism in this country. It has made our country great. Most of us would not be elected to this body, or any other body, if we did not have voluntary support in our campaigns. Most good works in the community would not go forward without voluntarism. But it would be cheaper for the Federal Government to simply pay salaries for additional staff members for not-for-profit agencies than to continue this program. We do have good programs that assist in voluntarism. The VISTA program in the Labor-HHS Subcommittee is one that I have seen work. You have to have some paid people to organize volunteers. Yes, that is one of the things you do have to have--somebody to help organize people to make sure the volunteer efforts are effective. I agree with that program. But this is different. This is paying people to be volunteers. To me, they are no longer volunteers. The point was made very eloquently by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts that voluntarism is only for the wealthy, unless you are paid. I do not agree with that. The figures are that over 80 million Americans are engaged in volunteer work. I know people from all parts of the economic scale, all up and down the spectrum of wealth, who volunteer. They volunteer in churches and schools and community organizations, community betterment projects, in programs that they think are important. And these people volunteer regardless of how much they have in the way of economic resources, or even paychecks. Voluntarism is the spirit of America. But it is not paid voluntarism. Let me emphasize that under the proposal in this bill, no members of the National Service Corps that are currently serving will be cut off. The Corporation just announced the fiscal year 1995 awards in the last few weeks. These programs will run until September 1996. It gives us an opportunity to see one more year of the experiment and to allow the not-for-profit agencies one more year to prepare for a possible change in their Federal subsidies. From my perspective, we have not seen the administration provide any kind of support or real push to get this program in a position where it can be saved. We have asked them for their input. We have told them of the problems. We have asked how they are going to reform it. And in our hearing, the ranking member asked Mr. Segal, the chief executive officer of the Corporation, to provide the subcommittee with workable options to save the Corporation because she suggested that perhaps the request for 1996 was unrealistic. I do not know if Mr. Segal has responded but in the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Maryland, I commend her because she has demanded they come up with a plan, they come up with a program, to show how they can be effective in a new, reconfigured, smaller, leaner process. I can assure you that if the administration wants to save this program, it is going to have to be reconfigured. It will have to be slimmer. It will have to get rid of the abuses. The champion of this effort to reform the program and make it more efficient and less abusive of the process has been the Senator from Iowa, who is prepared to speak. He has invited the Corporation, administration officials, to work with him and with me on restructuring the program to ensure its survival. The latest I have heard, they simply responded that it was OK that Federal volunteers were paid $66,000 a year----

Mr. BOND. The amendment is acceptable on this side.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in discussions with the distinguished ranking member, I think we have an order for the amendments that are coming up. I want to thank our colleagues for getting the amendments in order and getting time agreements. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stevens, followed by Senator Chafee, be recognized for up to 10 minutes to present an amendment which I believe is acceptable on both sides. After action on that amendment is completed, we ask that Senator Mikulski and Senator Kennedy be recognized to present an amendment on national service with a 2-hour time limit, with a vote on or in relation to that amendment to occur at that time; following disposition of that amendment, that Senator Sarbanes be recognized to present an amendment on the homeless, that there be 1 hour divided in the usual form which would apply to both of those amendments; and upon the expiration or yielding back of the time, that a vote on or in relation to the Sarbanes amendment occur.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the argument made very compellingly by our good friend from Arkansas just shows that physicists do not know anything more about biomedical research [[Page S 14246]] in space than we do. I will take the word of the people who are at NIH and who are involved in biomedical research to say that it is important. This country has an opportunity to invest in the future. A research laboratory in space can provide the benefits we need. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute just to thank the distinguished Senator from Utah for his very, very compelling arguments with respect to the space station. I think his historical perspective adds a great deal to this debate. I find it a very compelling argument. I also want to say I appreciate his comments with respect to the problems faced with housing where housing is in short supply, as in his State. He has been a very forceful advocate for assuring that those people who depend upon assisted housing in Salt Lake City and other Utah communities not be thrown out. We are working with him and other Members to give HUD the opportunity to make sure that people do not lose very scarce public housing. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield 8 minutes to the very distinguished Senator from Ohio who comes to this body with a great knowledge of space and speaks on the basis of his personal knowledge, as well as his legislative experience.

Mr. BOND. That is correct.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, first, let me thank the Senator from Alaska for bringing this to our attention. The areas of which he speaks I am very familiar with. The Senator has been a leader in restoring the habitat on one of the most pristine rivers in America, certainly a national treasure. We are deeply saddened by the damage and by the environmental destruction that is going on there. I will say to the Senator from Alaska that we did not include funding in this bill for the disaster relief fund because there is currently an $8 billion balance, none of which is earmarked. So long as the President declares a disaster in Alaska, those funds are available to meet the needs. I join with the Senator in urging the people of FEMA to respond to provide assistance and assess the damage to make the necessary steps to determine whether a Presidential disaster declaration is appropriate and to lend all appropriate assistance. We have great concern for the residents in that area and also for the tremendous natural resources, as well as the human infrastructure that has been built there. We are very sorry to learn of this problem and assure the Senator from Alaska the funds are available should a Presidential disaster declaration be made, and we urge FEMA to respond to the Senator's concerns as quickly as possible. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I do not believe there are any other Senators seeking to be heard on this amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we are anxiously awaiting colleagues who want to come down and either offer amendments or debate the measures before us. Several of our colleagues have expressed an interest in speaking on the space station. We have a 1\1/2\-hour time agreement, equally divided. At least on our side, that time is almost completely used up. So, if anybody feels the need to speak for the space station--it might also be true for those opposing it--this would be a good time to come. We would like to hear what they have to say. But as we indicated yesterday, the majority leader and the Democratic leader, as well as the rest of us, know we have to get these appropriations bills finished by September 30, and our ability to begin the recess on October 2 depends upon our completing this work. So we are pressed for time. We do invite anybody who has measures or has views on measures that will be on this bill to come down and address them now because this will be the best time to do so. But since we do have some time, I thought it might be helpful for my colleagues who may be getting all kinds of calls from organizations that are opposed to measures that we put forth in the bill to explain a little bit about what we have done in the EPA section. The National Wildlife Federation has a hotline going out saying there are damaging riders; we are doing all kinds of terrible things to the Environmental Protection Agency. The National Audubon Society says we are crippling the Agency and there is a backdoor attempt to strike out provisions in the EPA laws. Frankly, that is just not true. The environmental progress in this country has been significant. We have in the last 25 years come a long way toward cleaning up our environment. I am very proud of the progress we have made. I want to see that progress continue. But I think we have come to the point now where we demand that the progress be on the basis of common sense, of justifiable actions, of using sound science, of not duplicating efforts, and making sure that the dollars we spend on the environment, whether they are appropriated dollars or whether they are dollars that others, State governments, local governments, not-for-profits businesses, and individuals have to pay to comply with the environmental laws are spent properly. Now, let me go through, for the benefit of my colleagues and those who may be watching, the so-called riders or legislative provisions that are included in this bill. The recommendation of the Senate Appropriations Committee has seven legislative provisions within EPA. All but one of the so-called riders in the House bill have not been included in this measure. The committee in the Senate limited the provisions in our bills to ones that have been included in previous VA- HUD bills or other legislation or that eliminate duplication or unnecessary spending. Let me tell you about the provisions. First, we would prohibit the EPA from requiring centralized inspection maintenance facilities in fiscal year 1996. This is the same language that was included in the National Highway System bill, supported by a large number of Senators. It is clear that the provisions for central inspection and maintenance are going to cause tremendous headaches without the benefits that are needed, and we can do it in a less intrusive, bureaucratic way. Second, this measure, as reported out of the committee, would prohibit the EPA from requiring employers to adopt car-pooling plans in fiscal year 1996. This language is one of the House riders. It is the same language included in the fiscal year 1995 rescission bill. If workers in America want the Federal Government telling them how they can get to work and demanding putting restrictions and requirements on how they go to work, then they should not support this rider. I do not believe, talking to the people in my State, that they want the Federal Government telling them how they get to work in the morning and how they get home in the evening. Third, we would in the committee recommendation prohibit EPA from regulating radon and several other drinking water contaminants in fiscal year 1996 unless the drinking water law is reauthorized. It is a very important measure pending before the Environment and Public Works Committee to reauthorize the safe drinking water law. I think the provision that we have in this measure is fully consistent with the attempts by the EPA, which itself has been trying to negotiate extensions to court-ordered deadlines for low-priority contaminants. For each of the contaminants in question, the risk is relatively low or the science is not fully supported by science-based rulemakings. This action has been requested by the National Governors' Association, the League of Cities, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the American Waterworks Association, the National Association of Water Companies, the National Rural Water Association, and the Natural Water Resources Association. Frankly, there has been a lot of concern these days about E. coli and cryptosporidium, and these agencies want local water systems to devote their time and their resources to keeping those known, dangerous contaminants out of the water supply. To the extent that they are required to test for and develop means of dealing with other low- priority contaminants where the science may be uncertain, it will take away from their efforts to keep the water supply system clean from these dangerous, well-recognized, well-defined contaminants. Fourth, we would prohibit EPA from requiring in fiscal year 1996 the use of [[Page S 14225]] MTBE in Alaska because of health concerns raised there associated with the use of MTBE. There have been serious instances where MTBE use has thought to cause very serious health effects. This provision was carried in the fiscal year 1994 VA-HUD bill and does not exempt Alaska from clean air requirements. It is saying, do not require something that appears to be causing very significant health problems in Alaska. The next one would prohibit EPA from adding new sites to the Superfund national priorities list in fiscal year 1996 unless requested by the Governor or tribal leader unless or until the Superfund law is reauthorized. Everyone recognizes that the Superfund law badly needs revision. The Superfund law has generated a tremendous amount of resources going to lawyers and for administrative costs. A report done by the General Accounting Office at our request shows that only about 30 percent of the Superfund sites currently being worked by the EPA involve current risk to human health or even potential risk to human health under current usages. We think the time has come to reauthorize the Superfund law to bring sound science and to target the resources. Therefore, we say do not move forward expanding the reach of Superfund until it is reauthorized and Congress has had an opportunity to act on the substantive requirements in the Superfund legislation. This language was included in the fiscal year 1995 rescission, adopted, and signed into law by the President this summer. It is consistent with the committee's decision to limit Superfund spending to current health risks pending reauthorization. The next measure in the bill authorizes an exemption from water pretreatment standards for industrial discharges to the Kalamazoo water plant if environmental standards are met through a local pretreatment plant. This provision has been narrowly crafted, and it will not result in any environmental degradation. It will prevent duplicative and unnecessary water treatment construction. Kalamazoo has already entered into a plan to be financed by the major industrial concerns in that city to deal with the effluent from their plants. Since Kalamazoo is getting a water treatment plant financed by those who are making the discharges, it does not make any sense to go forward with an overlapping, a duplicating requirement to have another treatment plant to do exactly the same thing when one is already being financed. Next, we would prohibit EPA from enforcing the foreign refiner baseline for reformulated gasoline. This is the same provision as included in the fiscal year 1995 VA-HUD bill, and it would ensure quite simply that foreign refiners are held to the same higher environmental standards as domestic refiners. If we do not do this, foreign refiners will be able to send in products that do not meet the environmental standards that we expect of our domestic refiners. Mr. President, what sense does that make? Why should we give foreign refiners a free pass to send in products that have not met the same standards that we require of our domestic refiners? I think this is another sound environmental measure that is included in this bill. I urge my colleagues, and those who are interested, to look at the environmental impacts of these provisions. The final one I want to talk about would eliminate duplicative and wasteful efforts by the EPA. This would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from vetoing decisions made by the Corps of Engineers regarding wetlands permits in fiscal year 1996. The provision is intended to keep EPA from overfiling or second- guessing the Corps of Engineers. It will streamline the corps' permitting process. EPA still has a wide range of responsibilities dealing with wetlands. We are not changing those. We are only saying to the EPA and to all of the affected landowners that you have a right to get an answer, a final answer from one Federal agency. The Corps of Engineers operates with EPA in the regulation of wetlands. Where does it make any sense to the landowner who goes to the Corps of Engineers and says, ``OK, here is what I propose to do. Grant me a permit,'' and, as it stands now, the Corps of Engineers can say, ``OK, you meet all our standards,'' and then the next day the EPA comes in and says, ``Oh, but we don't like what the Corps of Engineers did''? Frankly, this is a duplicative, wasteful, and, I think, unsatisfactory service to our citizens to say that you are going to have to take two chances to get the Federal Government to tell you they do not like what you are doing. We have standards, and the Corps of Engineers is to follow those standards. Why do we give the power to the EPA to come in and say, ``Oh, well, you may have satisfied the Corps of Engineers, but you don't satisfy us''? As Senators know, the corps has the authority and the expertise to administer the Wetlands Program, and it does not, in my view, make any sense to say that the same law can be administered by two separate agencies, particularly when we are in a time of strained budgets when a second agency should not be duplicating the efforts of the first one. That is why we say, ``EPA, if the corps has already done it, go on and do the other work you are supposed to do; don't second-guess the corps.'' The Senate should know this provision does not affect the multitude of other EPA authorities under the Clean Water Act. It in no way undermines wetlands protection. According to the Corps of Engineers, no other Federal regulatory program gives two agencies different authority over the same permit decisions. I understand there are some who believe this redundancy is defensible. During the committee markup, some Members suggested that they would offer an amendment to strike the provision on the floor. If so, we will be happy to discuss it. As many of my colleagues know, the House did include a provision in the bill preventing funding for the entire 404 wetlands permit law, noting that it was necessary to provide Congress additional time to determine the proper management of the Nation's wetlands. The Corps of Engineers, as we all know, has the responsibility of administering the day-to-day permitting. The States, EPA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, Fish and Wildlife, and Marine Service also have roles. There are pages and pages of regulations and memorandums of agreement governing the complex permitting process. Under section 401 requirements, for a 404 permit to be issued, the corps must first obtain a certification from the applicable State--the State--that water quality standards will not be violated as a result of the discharge of fill material. This essentially gives the States veto authority over permit applications. It guarantees a State role in the process. Of the additional resource agencies, EPA is perhaps the most influential. Besides having authority under section 404 to veto permit decisions, EPA is responsible for developing guidelines, known as 404(B)(1) guidelines, which are the substantive environmental criteria that are binding on the corps in the permitting process. To me, it makes no sense to say that once you have laid out all those standards, once the Corps of Engineers has gone through the process, once they have gotten the approval of the State and they are following the EPA regulations, if they grant a permit, EPA should come in and say, ``Oh, we don't agree with the corps' action.'' If there is one thing that constituents in my State are fed up with, it is being told two different things by two different Federal agencies. They expect the Federal agencies who serve them to give them one answer and to give them the right answer. This measure would say, ``Corps of Engineers, if you grant a permit, then we are not going to have the EPA using its time and resources to come in and change the direction given to the person, the individual or the organization, applying for that permit.'' I hope that those who hear scare stories about the provisions in this bill will take a look at the substantive provisions and realize they are necessary to streamline and to ensure the effective administration of the Environmental Protection Agency, to ensure we continue the progress that we have made and must continue to make toward assuring a clean environment for ourselves and our children. [[Page S 14226]] Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. BOND. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. BOND. I will yield 2 additional minutes to be shared by the three of us. In my comments, I want to express my thanks to the Senator from Texas, who led us on a tour of the Johnson Space Center in Houston and has been a strong proponent of space exploration. I thank her for her comments. I now ask her to respond to the question raised by the ranking member.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Maryland.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield myself 6 minutes. Madam President, we have had some very spirited debate. Let me address some of the points that have been raised by my good friend, the Senator from Arkansas. [[Page S 14239]] He has made very compelling arguments about how we have not learned anything from the space station. Small wonder, when we have not built the space station. It is not up there yet. It has not done anything yet. We have had successes exploring in space but we have not built a space station. The people would have been up there who are doing research said we need to have that permanent presence in space so we can find out over time how these experiments work. That is the whole purpose. If we applied that test to all basic research, that you cannot support basic research until you show what it has done, we would be shutting down federally funded facilities at universities and every other scientific organization because you do not know what you will get from basic research until you get there. Certainly, I will go with the scientists who are planning on the experiments that will take the time that a space station can afford them to determine what the impact of microgravity and the other exigencies of space produce in scientific research. Now, the question is raised about the National Institutes of Health. NASA and NIH have executed 18 cooperative agreements since 1992, and joint activities have included scientific workshops, ground-based and flight investigations, other specialized activities such as the space line reference system developed by the National Library of Medicine. NASA expects an expanding level of cooperation with NIH as research enters the space station era. NIH researchers are expected to use the space station's next generation life-support sciences facilities, including the human research facility, the gravitational biology facility, and the centrifuge facility in pursuit of national biomedical research goals. We have heard the figure bandied about that the space station costs $94 billion. More than half of that, to be quite frank with my colleagues, to set the record straight, comes from the shuttle. That is how we get up there. That is costing $50 billion. I hope the objective of this amendment is not to kill the space shuttle and kill all space research. I think that would be a double tragedy. Recall that the total $94 billion not only funds the shuttle, it funds the building and the operation of the space station. We do not justify other programs this way by saying the total cost of 20 years of operations is such. We talk about the yearly cost. We could have tremendous figures if you took any program and built the continuing costs over years. We judge them on an operational year-by-year cost. This idea that we are going to make great savings overlooks the tremendous potential for great contributions to our scientific and engineering knowledge from the space station. Yesterday, my good friend from Arkansas quoted extensively from Carl Sagan and quoted all the arguments that Carl Sagan had made to support the position of the Senator from Arkansas that we ought to cancel the space station. The Senator from Maryland said it very well. But let me just quote from a letter dated July 24, 1995, from the same Carl Sagan. He said: For Congress to cancel the space station now would cause huge disruptions in many local and regional economies, and, worse yet, it would scar our national psyche. It would end the rationale for America's manned space program, and with it would die some of the spirit of a great nation bold enough to seek great achievements. Madam President, it would be a tragedy, an utter tragedy, to kill the space station. It is the most ambitious and exciting program since the Apollo program of over 25 years ago. I, with my son, enjoyed the smashing success this year of the movie, ``Apollo 13,'' that drew in millions of people--those who recall those glory days, a time when America set ambitious goals and moved to accomplish it; and those who are too young to have lived through those heydays yet are naturally drawn by its spirit of exploration, bravery, and discovery. That is the spirit that made America great. The international space station will mark America's next great step in this endeavor. The station will become a visible symbol of our commitment to the future as our children will watch it move elegantly across the nightly sky. Although the space station has many of the same characteristics as the Apollo program, it is also different in important ways. The Apollo program was motivated by the cold-war need to beat the Russians to the moon. Space station, in contrast, will involve the cooperation of 13 nations, making it the largest cooperative science program in history. The international partners have spend billions on the program to date. Instead of beating the Russians, we will be working closely with them to build a better, more robust orbital laboratory. It is time to stop with these incessant attempts to kill the space station. Over the last 4 years, there have been 13 attempts in the House and Senate to kill the program and all have fortunately failed. Last year, a resounding 64 senators voted against this amendment and I among them. The arguments used by station opponents this year are the same old, tired arguments that have been used in years past--the claims were not true then, and they are not true now. Here are some of the facts: First, the space station is no longer a dream but a reality. Thanks to prior year congressional commitments, the program has finally entered a period of stability. After a tumultuous decade, NASA has a design and schedule that work. There is not talk of redesigns or restructuring today, only building hardware. About 50,000 pounds of hardware have been built already. Some 75,000 pounds of hardware will be built by the end of 1995. The final contract has been signed between American and Russian companies for the first piece of the space station--the FGB module--scheduled for launch in November 1997. Construction is underway in Moscow. Second, the space station is perfectly on schedule and on budget. NASA has kept its promise to maintain the first element launch in November 1997, and at a total cost of $17.4 billion through the end of construction in 2002. The space station has successfully gone through its first incremental design review. NASA has identified no technical show-stoppers to building this space station. Third, a streamlined management team is in place. NASA has reduced its in-house work force on the program by 1,000 people--from 2,300 to 1,300--and is managing the program better than ever. NASA and the space station's prime contractor, Boeing, signed a $5.63 billion contract earlier this year to build the space station. This contract reflects NASA's new procurement philosophy of motivating contractors to avoid cost growth, and includes incentives for getting the job done for less than the target cost, and penalties if there are overruns. This is exactly the kind of procurement reform that's needed. Fourth, cooperation with Russia is working as planned. NASA has made two space shuttle flights to Russia's Mir space station already this year. The first shuttle rendezvoused with Mir, and the second docked with it--the first United States-Russian docking in 20 years. These flights proved not only the technical feasibility of our two countries working together in space, but the political feasibility as well. With each of these flights--and another is scheduled in 6 weeks--we learn more about working together and overcoming technical and cultural barriers. The inclusion of Russia will enable space station to be completed 15 months earlier than the previous design and have more crew and more research volume--all at a savings of approximately $2 billion to United States taxpayers. Fifth, this program is not a budget buster. It fits within the budget resolution. The House version of the budget resolution specifically included space station funding all the way to the end of construction in 2002, and the conference agreement with this body provides $2 billion more in function 250 than the House did. We can balance the budget and invest in the future. Sixth, space station will not undermine the balance among NASA programs in human spaceflight, science, technology, and aeronautics. This very bill shows how NASA can afford space station, Mission to Planet Earth, new aircraft technology, a new reusable launch vehicle, and a host of other programs, while maintaining that balance--which is so crucial to NASA's future. With the zero-base review [[Page S 14240]] changes that NASA is now implementing, NASA can afford this program, and so can the Nation. This country must continue to invest in the future. A research laboratory in space can provide unimaginable benefits to the American people. The space station is the only facility where research can be conducted for long durations in microgravity. This unique environment has only begun to be explored scientifically. American taxpayers are certain to benefit, just as they have from other basic research, and probably in ways we least expect. This amendment to terminate the space station threatens the very existence of the U.S. human space flight program and would abdicate U.S. world leadership in the largest international science project in history. With only 2 years left before the first launch, I hope this will be the last of a long line of attempts to end this program and its defeat will send a strong message of commitment to finish the job we've started. I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, what is the time remaining on our side?