John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I have 10 seconds remaining. I yield back the remainder of my time. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator. The Senator from Arkansas is as accomplished an orator as we have I think in the whole Congress. He would come closer to equaling Daniel Webster, I think, than anyone around here in his ability to give an oration. Back in 1852, when we were thinking of buying some territory out West from Mexico, Daniel Webster rose in the Senate--he was opposed to that--and said as follows: What do we want with this vast worthless area, this region of savages and wild beasts, of deserts of shifting sands and whirlwinds of dust and cactus and prairie dogs? To what use could we ever hope to put these great deserts or the mountains that are covered to their very base with eternal snow? What can we ever hope to do with the western coast, a coast of 3,000 miles rock-bound, cheerless, uninviting, and not a harbor on it? What use have we for this country? Mr. President, I will never vote one cent from the Public Treasury to place the Pacific coast one inch nearer to Boston than it is now. Madam President, I think probably the view that Daniel Webster took of that acquisition of territory west of the Mississippi is a little bit like the Senator from Arkansas proposes now with regard to the station. I wish to see something come out of the station. We already have things coming out of the preparation to even have a station. As the floor manager mentioned just a moment ago, we do not even have the station up yet. So to say that that is not producing is exactly right. It is true. It is in the process of being put up. Over one-fourth of it has already been built, 50,000 pounds by our country, 60,000 pounds by other people. Less than seven-tenths of 1 percent of our budget is the total cost of the space station project right now. From what we can see from the space shuttle with the cultures of crystals and of the experiments that have already been done on growing culture, culturing colon cancer cells, breast cancer cells, ovarian cells, what can be done with regard to AIDS, the experiments with regard to osteoporosis, right now a solution to any one of those would be more than worth all of the money that we are putting into this. This is an investment for the future. To say that every scientist and physicist is against it is just not true. My distinguished colleague read into the Record a few moments ago a partial list of those who are for it--the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, and so on. This is one country that should have learned throughout its whole history that money spent on space research usually has a way of paying off in advance--more than anything we ever see at the outset. And with this being the first time we have ever had the ability to do microgravity research, it has the greatest potential payoff also. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. I thank my distinguished colleague for his great, kind remarks. Madam President, I think this country became what it is, largely because we were a research-oriented Nation. We expressed our curiosity; curiosity became a way of life. We applied it to everything. We applied it to medicine, teaching, agriculture, government. How can we do things better? What new things can we learn and put to use? One thing we have learned, even though every time we set out for research it is [[Page S 14237]] not a 100 percent home run, the money spent on research seems to almost always have a way of coming back and giving us tremendous benefits not seen at the outset. Here, for the first time in all the tens upon tens of thousands of years of human history, we have the chance to do research away from the confines of mother Earth. It is stimulating and interesting. I meet almost daily with young people in school groups, who want to talk about this. It has stimulated their curiosity, our work in space. I think it is much more than a childhood interest in wanting to fly. The space program is stimulating their interest in science, math, and exploration. Along with this interest, we are getting the benefits for future generations. Research in microgravity is in keeping with the long American tradition of research in medicine, teaching, agriculture, government, and continuing this curiosity that has been the hallmark of Americans since our founding days. The space station is the greatest international scientific cooperative effort ever put together. In addition to the very real importance of international cooperation, there are very specific benefits which will accrue to each one of us here. Now these benefits are not in areas like Velcro and Tang and some of the things we were talking about on the floor here last night. All of those things were invented long before the space program. So those were not benefits that came out of this program. But what we are talking about is very basic, fundamental research-- research that may give us benefits in how we cope with osteoporosis, which causes hundreds of thousands of broken bones every year; it is a weakening of the human body. It may give us a new approach on colon cancer, breast cancer and ovarian cancer. This is not theoretical now. We are working with a bioreactor, which was mentioned by Senator Mikulski a few moments ago. We actually have tested a bioreactor in space successfully. Why is that important? Because a bioreactor is capable of more accurately simulating how tissues grow in the body than any other way of tissue culturing. If you experiment in a lab here on Earth using traditional tissue culturing mechanishm, the usual outcome is that the tissue settles to the bottom of the test tube, or Petri dish, or whatever. In space using a bioreactor, tissues grow in three dimensions, much more similar to what you find in the human body. As we have shown on the last Space Shuttle flights that used the bioreactor, cultures can be grown at least twice as large as any in a similar situation here on Earth. This could give us a whole new approach to colon cancer, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer. When you culture things like this in space and they grow to a larger size and you learn how to work with them better there and bring them back to Earth, it could give a whole new approach. AIDS, osteoporosis, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer are the chief focus of attention so far. I ask, what if we have a new breakthrough in just one of those areas? It may be worth everything spent on the whole space station program by itself if just one of these cultures coming back now--and we had pictures of them on the floor yesterday--gives us a clue as to how to take care of the problems of AIDS-HIV, ovarian cancer and breast cancer. Current digital technology gives us a 5 times more accurate diagnosis of breast cancer over previous technologies. This exists right now because of the space program. So when we say there has not been anything coming out of this program, it is just not true. Osteoporosis is another one that is particularly amenable to the research in space because that occurs in the astronauts at an accelerated rate over and above anything that occurs here on Earth. One of the major areas of research in biotechnology is to provide research results that can revolutionize drug development. There are current projects for AIDS and emphysema by major pharmaceutical firms. I add, when the Station opponents say nobody wants these programs and there is no basic support for the research here, that is just not true. Many companies and research laboratories --the National Research Council, Bristol-Myers Pharmaceutical Research Institute, and a policy adopted by the American Medical Association--support the space station. There are also different medical centers, a whole list of them here. I do not have time in my 8 minutes to go into them this morning. In addition to biotechnology, biomedical, and biological research, muscle and bone growth, NASA is aiding in the development of techniques for counteracting the effects of aging, and on down the line--material science, combustion science. At the last international consortium on combustion, over 10 percent of the papers were given on findings out of the space station. If we make a small step forward in combustion research, who knows what energy savings we can make here on Earth. Another area is low temperature microgravity physics. These are things that are of benefit right now, and they are not things that are just going to be looked at in the future. These things are in research and giving results right now. As I said, I think money put into our research program in this country has paid off at the outset more than anything we have seen. Right now, our problem is that many of the companies that did basic research, and were willing to put money into the 5-, 10-, 15-, even the 20-year programs, are cutting back. They are cutting back on the money they are putting into research at the same time we are proposing that we cut back on Government research. This, at a time when we are moving into new international competition, where we need more research, more of the new, more curiosity in how we deal with these matters for the future, so that our children have the good jobs of the future right here. Nothing is as stimulating to our children right now as this interest in the space program and their interest in science and math and exploration. The space station literally has become symbolic of the United States and how we look at our future. I will point out one other thing. There is about one-fourth of the space station already built. We do not talk about that much. We have put together 50,000 pounds of this 400,000-pound station; 60,000 pounds already has been put together by our allies that are working together on this project. So we have about a little over one-fourth of the project--the space station--that has already been built. So it is not just something that it theoretical out there, that if we chop the budget, we save all the money. We do not. That is not the main reason for going ahead with the program. The reason is the potential for research that we have for the future. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. GLENN

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

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, probably about 90 or maybe even 95 percent of the time around here the Senator from Arkansas and I agree and agree wholeheartedly. He stated that correctly. We are friends. We are close friends. I do not know anyone here I consider more a friend than the Senator from Arkansas. If the Senate of the United States has anyone who deserves the title of being an accomplished orator, it certainly is the Senator from Arkansas. So we do normally agree on things and we are close friends, but every year we seem to lock horns on this particular issue and we go at it on this because I am profoundly in disagreement with him on the amendment that he has put forward today. I rose in the Senate in early August, and I made a statement that covered [[Page S 14186]] some of the benefits of NASA-funded research including the space station. I talked about the need for curiosity. All advancement in humankind, wherever it is, comes because someone is curious, someone is curious about how you can do things differently, how you can do things better. Can I invent something? Can I make an improvement in medical science? Can I do something in engineering? Can I do something in agriculture? That curiosity is at the heart of all progress and at the heart of what makes this country great, because we throughout our history have invested more in basic research and technology than any nation. Out of that has come the technological leadership of the whole world. In my August 1, 1995, statement I talked about advances in agriculture. When I was a kid back in Ohio, 48 to 50 bushels was a good corn crop. We had the record corn crop in Ohio, 239 bushels, last year in part because our country invested in basic research. I talked then about metals and about aerodynamics. The Federal Government funded basic research in these areas which permitted the growth of the aviation industry in this country and our leadership in the world. And I spoke about research in medicine as well as research in space and telecommunications. Mr. President, we have a very basic question, it seems to me, and that is, who is going to be responsible for the class of 2015 or 2025 or 2050? Any great nation invests in the future for its children. One organization we have in Government that is setting out to do the 10-, the 15-, the 25-year research more than any other agency really is NASA. Twenty years ago, we invested in a number of different things-- digital technology, a number of things that some people thought were foolish to put money into, but we went ahead with it. And now we have a number of advances relating directly from that investment, including better imaging for medicine. Let me explain. We were able to apply some of that digital technology to the Hubble telescope. Some digital technology was developed especially for the Hubble, to enable astronomers to distinguish very minute points of light. We applied this technology, and some associated computer enhancements to medical imaging. And it turns out that we are now able to detect breast cancer tumors five times better than we used to be able to do. This was an unexpected benefit from the much-maligned Hubble telescope. This shows the potential payoff from long-term research--from preliminary Federal investment in basic research on digital technology to application on the Hubble to application in breast cancer detection. In this country, we have been fortunate to have a balance in research up until recent years. And that balance was between Government and private investment, where major American corporations put forward, sponsored their own research laboratories, and did fundamental basic research, the 8-, the 10-, the 12-, the 15-year projects that they did not expect to get immediate market-oriented payoffs from. Now we find that going down. Businesses are not making as much investment in basic research. And the Federal Government too, if some have their way, will reduce its investment in basic research. The balance we had with private and Government basic research, where the Government would take on the more risky projects, those that were less guaranteed of immediate success that would benefit the marketplace, is now going down. In the past, the Government took on such things as the Manhattan project, things that moved us ahead in nuclear weaponry and our nuclear knowledge in general in this country. But there was that kind of balance back and forth between private and Government research projects. And now that has gone down. I would like to quote liberally from a Wall Street Journal article written by Gautam Naik, a staff reporter to the Wall Street Journal, an article that was published in May of this year. He talks about: In the late 1980's, Bob Lucky had what he calls ``a great fantasy.'' As a researcher at AT&T Corp.'s celebrated Bell Labs, he was designing a silicone robot the size of a grain of sand. Injected into the human body, it would act as a microsurgeon, traveling to specific locations to fix problems. He goes on to say he was proud of that. ``The benefits to society could be tremendous,'' but they scrapped that project ``because it had no bearing on its main business.'' Mr. Lucky, who was a 31-year veteran, is now at a different company. ``Chasing far-out notions,'' the Journal goes on to say, ``has been a hallmark of industrial research in America. But some of the biggest U.S. corporations have cut back sharply on research into `basic science'--the exploration of how nature works at a fundamental level.'' And now they are pursuing ``short-term goals to commercialize products more quickly.'' The following quote from the article startled me: ``Corporate labs, home to 75 percent of the Nation's scientists and researchers, are replacing a cherished culture of independence with a results-oriented approach.'' ``In past decades, the devotion of basic research without regard to boosting the bottom line spawned a steady stream of breakthroughs, including the transistor, the solar cell and the forerunner to today's laser--all at Bell Labs.'' Now they are cutting back. Cutbacks have taken a toll. ``Some disillusioned scientists have fled to academia,'' and so on. And ``already, U.S. companies are falling behind in advanced data-storage devices and technology for oil exploration,'' as one example. The short-term response, he says, has to keep the stockholders happy. ``The National Science Foundation,'' the article continues, ``calculates that U.S. spending on basic research declined slightly to $9.7 billion in 1993 and didn't rise last year. ``In a survey by R&D Magazine, half of all companies with `research and development' budgets of $50 million or more plan to cut spending this year, for a 3.5 percent decline overall. (About 10 percent of the R&D budget is typically devoted to basic research.)'' These are startling figures because the United States, instead of going ahead with the goose that has laid the golden egg in this country, basic research, that has given us the new handle on the future, is cutting back, cutting back in a tremendous way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN. As I said, my good friend from Arkansas--Senator Bumpers and I are good friends. We disagree annually on this particular subject. Every year we see new and wonderful benefits derived from NASA research. The space station for the first time in the history of all mankind opens up our ability to truly make use of microgravity. For all these tens upon tens of thousands of years people have looked up and wondered what was up there and what we could do if we were up there. In our day, in our time, we finally can go up there and use this new research facility for the benefit of people all over this Earth. That is a very not-so-brief rundown on some of these things. When you get into the outcome of NASA research, I could go on literally for several hours here this evening and just touch the surface on all of this.

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

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will not go on to read all of this, but it goes on and gives examples of different companies, but it also indicates how foreign countries, foreign nations are putting more into research. And it indicates that NEC, a Japanese concern, has an institute now, an NEC Corp. research institute, in Princeton, NJ, about 30 miles from where Bell Labs' campus is located, and there the scientists are delving into condensed matter physics, quantum mechanics, and biology. And some of these scientists from some of the other laboratories that used to be our standard bearers in this country are now over there working for a Japanese corporation to continue basic fundamental research. Well, I will not belabor the point any further except to say that I think it is a tragedy when we cut back in private investment also at the same time we hear proposals to cut back in what we spend on research at the Federal level. We have seen attacks in those areas all the way through the budget process this particular year. There is another article. I would ask unanimous consent that the article by Brenda Forman called ``High-Risk, Basic Research Is Critical'' be printed in the Record, Mr. President.

Mr. GLENN. U.S. research facilities on the international space station--the United States and our international space station partners will equip the space station with state-of-the-art laboratory facilities. The space station will allow for continuous operation of multiple experiments. It will have highly advanced data down-link and up-link capabilities that will permit researchers to monitor and operate many aspects of space station experiments from terminals in laboratories on the ground. With the exception of the centrifuge, all laboratory facilities will be designed to fit into standard payload racks. This modular approach will allow facilities to be upgraded and modified as needed and will allow facilities developed by one partner to fit into rack space supplied by another. The United States is developing six major facilities. The six major U.S. facilities Biotechnology facility: will fill one experiment rack and support investigations in protein crystal growth and cell culture research. Fluids and combustion facility: consists of multiple modules: Combustion module: includes a combustion chamber to support hardware designed for specific investigations and several viewing ports for a variety of imaging systems to record flame characteristics. Fluids module: includes several experiment-specific test chambers supplied with equipment such as laser optics, heaters, and etc. Space station furnace facility: multiple module facility for materials science research comprising controls, diagnostics, and experiment hardware designed for specific research areas. Gravitational biology facility: two-rack facility composed of modular specimen habitats for plants and animals, support systems, and equipment needed to conduct research in cell, and development biology. Centrifuge facility: includes centrifuge rotor, gloveboxs, Habitat Holding Units (two racks--for plants and/or rodents), and a service rack; the centrifuge rotor will employ force from zero to twice the force of gravity on Earth to support research in all life science disciplines. Human research facility: four-rack facility with equipment to assess crew health, conduct research on how the human body responds and adapts to weightlessness, develop countermeasures, and conduct basic human research aimed at advancing knowledge in areas relevant to human health. This facility supports the following disciplines: cardiopulmonary physiology, neuroscience, musculoskeletal research, regulatory physiology, environmental health, and human factors. Facts on Life and Microgravity Researchers--Statistics. There were 654 total lead investigators in 1994. Investigators represent over 85 institutions of higher learning and 35 laboratories and other institutions in 40 States and the District of Columbia. More than 780 graduate students were supported through NASA research (1994). There were more than 820 journal articles (1994). There were more than 1,400 new research proposals in 1993 and 1994. Background--Life and microgravity science research is solicited through an open, highly competitive, peer-review process to ensure that the most meritorious science gains access to orbit. Historically, NASA's resources have allowed the agency to accept only about the top fifth of proposals it receives for life and microgravity research. This level of selectivity is comparable to that of other major U.S. science funders, such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Only 10-20 percent of these accepted proposals lead to flight experiments, so selection for flight is even more competitive. Because of the great demand for limited orbital research opportunities, NASA selects research for flight opportunities only if it cannot be conducted on Earth. Flight research is selected from and supported by a larger research effort on the ground. NASA is fully committed to its close working relationship with the scientific community and to full access to NASA facilities for the most meritorious scientific research. NASA works with the scientific community through its advisory committees and subcommittees, the National Research Council, and working groups of distinguished scientists. Mr. President, that is only some of the advantages. I just hit the highlights of some of these things today. The experiments that can be run in the space station are a whole new window on the human body. New work on the human body in some of the space research and the physiology of it applies to the body's balance system. New discoveries of the sensory pathways; nervous system capacity to adapt would have direct relationships here on Earth. We have new windows on the human body muscular skeletal research. Osteoporosis affects 25 million Americans, and the disease leads to 1.3 million bone fractures annually. There is no place better to look into this type of thing because on the space station the astronauts' bodies immediately start adapting and throwing off calcium in the bones, which is basically what happens in osteoporosis. In cooperation with investigators at Genentech, NASA research demonstrated new investigative techniques along that line as well as working with the National Institute of Arthritis and the musculoskeletal and skin diseases groups. All of these are things coming out of the space shuttle today and can be done better on the long-term space station. I have page after page of different experiments being done by Rensselear Polytechnic Institute, MIT, and others in particular fields. I will not delay these into the evening here. Another area being looked into that has an area of great interest is fundamental research on the world's predominant source of energy, combustion science. Combustion science is a very special one, and, for example, just a 2 percent increase in burner efficiency would save the United States some $8 billion a year. Very basic research has already taken place on some of the shuttle flights, and we would be able to do a lot more lengthy research on the space station. I wanted to close with a remark about the future for the young people of our country. Traveling around this country as I do, I believe that there is no program that has given more to the young people of our country in the way of excitement about the future and encouragement to stay in math and science technology courses than have our activities in space. Space represents an exciting future for our young people. [[Page S 14194]] Mr. President, a number of these things were said awhile ago here on the floor about what some of the researchers and scientists are saying about the international space station. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a listing of what other scientists and researchers are saying in support of the station. People are supporting some of these activities and are very major supporters of the space station. It is a long list of people and scientific groups that do support the space station.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what she points out in this article is much the same as what was pointed out in the Wall Street Journal article. It is a recounting of what is happening in American industry. And she says in that, and starts off--I was rather taken by the analogy she makes. She says: If Congress applied the same logic to families as it is applying to the federally funded university research, it would decree that nobody have children. Who knows what the outcome of a child being born is? You do not really know for sure. But without children, there is no future. And without high- risk, basic research unrelated to specific products or bottom lines, the reservoir of technological advances on which the current country's prosperity and power is based will run dry in an alarmingly short time . . . As little as human conceit might wish to admit it, the truly fundamental discoveries seldom occur where we decided to look. Instead, they have a curious habit of turning up on accidental bypaths when researchers were looking for something else entirely . . . [Things like] penicillin, X-rays, the enabling advances that made transistors and DNA fingerprinting possible. Those things occurred when people were looking for something else when they were doing basic research. Mr. President, at a time when both the private and Federal investment in science, research and development is declining, we truly do have to ask ourselves, Who is going to be responsible to the students graduating in the class of 2015? Quite simply, the international space station is the next logical step along with other efforts in our journey into space and our investment in the future, our investment in research for the future. Along with that, the station is also the largest international scientific cooperative effort ever undertaken. The space station is being built right now. We have over 25 tons, 50,000 pounds of flight hardware has already been fabricated here in the United States. It is already built. The first launch is on schedule, still on schedule for late 1997, with the station permanently manned in 2002. I would add that in addition to those 50,000 pounds of American equipment already fabricated, already built, we have over 60,000 pounds by our international partners. So, with the space station weighing over 400,000--just about 400,000 pounds--we have over one-fourth of the station already built, already prepared, more coming out every day. Contrary to what was said earlier, the space station will provide a world-class, permanently occupied laboratory in Earth orbit. Research will be conducted on the station in a whole range of scientific disciplines, including biotechnology and biomedicine, material science, combustion science, and other areas. This will truly be a science and technology institute in space. It is the promise of research on this international space station. The science and technology institute in space will have specialty areas of biotechnology, physiology, material science, combustion science, physics, and biology on the space station. And to carry that out there have been cooperative efforts between NASA and NIH. We have U.S. space station research facilities that will be used by other nations as well as ourselves. You know, control over gravity is something we have not been able to have throughout the whole history of the world. I remember when I was a boy back in New Concord, OH. It was great to get up in a big oak tree down on a little cliff. I thought it was great. You were sort of almost going out of this world at that point, it seemed to me, you were so high up. Little did I know I would be able to fly later on, get farther off the ground and farther up in space. It has been a whole progression ever since the Wright brothers of how high we can go and use our new capabilities to do basic research. But now, all at once, control over gravity will allow scientists to explore the natural world in unprecedented ways. All life on Earth, including human life, has evolved under the direct influence of gravity. The space station provides scientists the laboratory they need to explore the role that gravity plays in the cycle of life from conception through old age. On the space station scientists will explore the systems of the body ranging from muscle and bone to the immune system under low-gravity conditions that are unique, not only in the history of biomedical research, but also in the history of all life on Earth. On Earth, gravity limits our ability to explore and understand the fundamental principles that govern basic physical processes. Even such things as burning of fuel, the solidification of metals, the growth of crystals, space station research promises to expand our understanding and control over these processes that are vital to the economic health of our country. Using just the 7- to 14-day low-gravity opportunities that have been afforded by space shuttle flights, orbital researchers have already begun to deliver a steady stream of scientific and technological insights that are strengthening the U.S. economy and improving the quality of life on Earth for generations yet to come. The space station will allow researchers from the universities, industry, and Government to expand the promising research begun on the space shuttle by conducting high-quality science and technology experiments year round. Space station will support global environmental observation, high- energy astrophysics research. The international space station represents only one-seventh of 1 percent of the Federal budget, about 15 percent of the NASA budget, but one-seventh of 1 percent of our national budget. I think that is a good investment. Now, a little more detail. I mentioned biotechnology. By studying protein crystals and protein crystal growth, orbital research enhances our ability to accurately describe proteins and enzymes and viruses at the molecular level. This ability, coupled with research on these fundamental building blocks of life, will enable scientists to develop new drugs and vaccines more quickly and effectively. Space station researchers will study the processes that control the growth of human tissues outside the body called tissue culture. Future research may lead to an improved understanding of normal and abnormal tissue, cancerous tissue, with important implications for the development of new drug therapies and applications for transplant research in the physiology. Space research provides unique insights into how the heart and lungs function, the growth and maintenance of muscles and bone, perception, cognition, and balance in the neurosciences, and the regulation of the body's many systems in regulatory physiology. In combustion science, scientists use low gravity to simplify the study of complex combustion processes. Because combustion is used to produce 85 percent of Earth's energy, even small improvements in efficiency will have large environmental and economic benefits. In material science, researchers use low gravity to advance our understanding of the relationships among the structure, the processing, and properties of materials. Findings in material science have very broad applicability to industrial processes, including the production of semiconductors, glass, metals, alloys, polymers, and ceramics. Fluid physics: Researchers use low gravity to study the properties and behavior of fluids, liquids, gases and mixtures. Fundamental knowledge of fluid behavior is essential to industrial activities, ranging from energy production to materials engineering. Microgravity physics: Scientists use low gravity to test fundamental theories of physics with degrees of accuracy that far exceed the capacity of Earthbound science. Physics in low gravity expands our understanding of changes in the state [[Page S 14189]] of matter, including those changes responsible for high-temperature superconductivity. If we make major breakthroughs in that area alone, it will likely be worth the expenditure on the space station in my opinion. Gravitational biology: Scientists study gravity's influence on the development, growth and internal processes of plants and animals. Their results expand fundamental knowledge that would benefit medical, agricultural, and other industries. I mentioned first in that list of things we are looking at biotechnology. Let me give more detail on that. Protein crystal growth data from space that can revolutionize pharmaceuticals in the 21st century. Rapid advances in biotechnology, combined with enhanced data from protein structures, promise to revolutionize the pharmaceutical industry. Researchers seek to design the structure of proteins and ultimately to design drugs that interact with them. Penicillin is a well-known example of a drug that works by blocking a protein's function. In order to define protein structure with precision, researchers analyze protein crystals. Unfortunately, many Earth-grown crystals have flaws that limit their usefulness as data sources, or they are just plain too small to provide adequate data. Orbital experiments provide researchers with superior protein crystals for analysis and also help scientists understand the fundamental concepts about the crystallization process. These are things that they cannot do the same on Earth. This information can be used to improve crystallization techniques on Earth, in fact. Researchers will soon use enhanced data on protein structure derived from space station research to design a new generation of drugs to target a long list of specific diseases. These drugs promise to revolutionize health care, and orbital research will feed this revolution with the protein structure data that it needs. NASA researchers have already used space shuttle missions to produce protein crystals for a variety of clinical conditions, including cancer, diabetes, emphysema, and immune system disorders. These space- grown crystals were far superior to any crystals grown on Earth for revealing the structures of protein and supporting the development of drugs. Examples: Recombinant DNA human insulin. The Hauptman Institute in Buffalo, in collaboration with Eli Lilly & Co., has obtained an improved description of human drug concept based on space-grown crystals. To those who say nothing has come out of the program, that is just not true. They are currently working on a design of a nontoxic drug that will bind insulin, thereby improving the treatment of diabetic patients. Porcin elastase. Elastase is a protein which is involved in emphysema. The refined structure of this protein was obtained using space-grown crystals. Vertex Pharmaceuticals is designing drugs based on this data to improve treatment for emphysema. HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. NASA is supporting the microgravity crystallization of HIV reverse transcriptase, a critical enzyme for viral replication, and it is believed that this research will better define the enzyme structure so that effective pharmaceuticals can be developed to inhibit the HIV virus. The structural biology research group at Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA's center of excellence in biotechnology, was the first to publish the structure of a major human antibody that recognizes the AIDS virus. Human serum albumin, HSA, is a primary binding protein in the blood and is responsible for distributing drugs throughout the body. Eli Lilly & Co., again, is using this structural information from space- grown crystals to design drugs that exhibit improved interactions with HSA, the human serum albumin. The potential impact of this HSA structure on drug design and delivery is enormous. Protein crystal growth promises a pharmaceutical revolution. Biotechnology is broadly defined as a set of techniques for rearranging and manufacturing biological molecules, tissues and living organisms. This field is one of the most dynamic segments of our high-technology economy. Armed with the advanced techniques of biotechnology and detailed data on the structure of key proteins, researchers are already creating new generations of drugs. Researchers use data on the structure of proteins to design drugs at the molecular level that will interact with specific proteins and treat specific diseases. This approach promises to produce superior drugs for a wide range of conditions and may replace the trial-and-error approach to drug development that has been the rule for centuries. The international space station will become one of the world's premier sources for critical data on protein structures needed for this new method of drug development. In addition, the space station will be used to study and understand the physics involved in protein crystals in order to overcome the difficulties which currently limit much of this research on Earth. Let me list the companies that are involved with this. These are companies that not only interested, they are cooperating, they are putting their own money into this kind of research: Schering-Plough of New Jersey; Eli Lilly in New Jersey; Upjohn in Michigan; Bristol-Myers Squibb in New Jersey; SmithKline Beecham in Pennsylvania; BioCryst in Alabama; Du Pont Merck in Delaware; Eastman Kodak in New York; and Vertex in Massachusetts are working with NASA's center for macromolecular chrystallography to produce high-quality protein crystals for new drug development. Researchers have already used space shuttle missions to produce superior protein crystals for research on clinical conditions including cancer, diabetes, emphysema and immune system disorders. Can I claim we have the answers in all those matters at this point? No, I cannot, but I certainly can claim that we are on the way with a whole new approach in research because of the protein crystal growth that has already occurred. In collaboration with Eli Lilly & Co., the Hauptman Institute of Buffalo, NY, is using data from space on human insulin to design a drug that will bind insulin, thereby improving the treatment of diabetic patients. NASA is supporting space research on an enzyme that the HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, needs to reproduce. This research seeks to better design the enzyme structure so that effective pharmaceuticals can be developed to inhibit the HIV virus. The pictures of some of the protein crystals that have been grown in space show that they come out several times larger than they do in similar growth attempted on Earth. It means they are easier to deal with, easier to define, easier to work with for the researchers on Earth. Another area in which work is going on: I was at Houston not long ago, just before the flight of STS-70, the so-called ``Ohio flight,'' where four out of the five members of the flight crew were from Ohio. One of the pieces of research equipment they were taking up was called a bioreactor. Let me talk about that for just a moment. Growing tissue samples, tissue culturing is one of the fundamental goals of biomedical research. Scientists use laboratory containers called bioreactors to grow or culture samples of body tissues. Scientists could use cancer tumors and other tissues that are successfully grown outside the body to test and study treatments, like chemotherapy, without risking harm to patients. These tissues from bioreactors will also offer important medical insights into how tissues grow and develop in the body. NASA engineers have already created breakthrough technologies for cell culture research on the ground and major breakthroughs can be expected once time on the space station becomes more available, and they have already done some of the first work on flights. NASA-developed bioreactors have already produced the first 80-day lung culture, the first normal human intestine culture, and major breakthroughs in the quality of cancer tumor cultures. Those superior tissues may be grown in Earthbound bioreactors when compared with traditional cell culturing techniques. There are still limits on Earth to the size and quality of the tissue. What the scientists are doing on the space program, they believe that far superior tissues can be grown in the [[Page S 14190]] extended microgravity afforded on the space station, and preliminary tests on the space shuttle support this idea. They show that the theories appear to be correct. In the long term, tissues cultured outside the body then may be used directly for replacing damaged tissues or treating diseases or eventually replacing organs. Some of the highlights of recent research: Dr. Jeanne Becker of the University of South Florida has applied NASA technology to create a breakthrough in culturing ovarian cancer tumors for cancer research. Dr. Josh Zimmerberg of the NIH National Institute for Child Health and Development is using NASA developed bioreactors in NASA-funded resident technical staff to pursue the AIDS research goals under a 1994-98 NASA NIH joint venture. Dr. Lisa Freed of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is using a NASA bioreactor to grow cartilage cells on biodegradable scaffolds. Her work shows a clear prospect for using the space station to produce models and transplantable cartilage tissues that could revolutionize treatment for joint diseases and injuries. I mentioned the flight of STS-70. I was there with the crew when they were building up for this flight in July of this year. In July of this year, a NASA bioreactor flew to orbit aboard the space shuttle Discovery. The primary purpose of this experiment was to test the performance of the bioreactor, which worked successfully. Poorly differentiated human colon carcinoma cells were grown in a bioreactor aboard Discovery. Their growth was compared with that of similar cells in a bioreactor in normal gravity, as well as in conventional, two- dimensional tissue cultures. The space-grown clusters of cells were approximately twice as large as the ground-based samples. But the significance of this must be determined by much study on the ground and many more data points from the space experiments. Ground-based analysis by Dr. J. Milburn Jessup of the Harvard Medical School will address the histology of the specimens and the production of specific protein such as CEA. NASA and NIH have signed agreements on biomedical research. NASA and NIH have recently signed an agreement that will combine the unique talents and experience of both agencies in biomedical research and exploit NASA's bioreactor technology to produce three-dimensional tissue cultures for laboratory research. This agreement will increase the capabilities of biomedical researchers throughout NASA by transferring NASA technology to NIH and establishing a center within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The new center will teach this new technology to hundreds of neighboring NIH intramural laboratories that currently employ other tissue culture techniques as part of their ongoing research. The initial goal of the agreement is to engineer a human lymph node model for AIDS research and then to extend the use of this technology to a broad spectrum of tissues available at NIH. This collaborative effort will enable researchers to culture tissues previously deemed too complex for current tissue culturing technology. To accelerate the development of this critical tissue culturing, technology research grants were recently awarded under the NASA research announcement. Included in the selections are support for two research centers located at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at Cambridge, and the Wooster Institute in Philadelphia, that will transfer the NASA bioreactor technology for culturing three-dimensional tissues to university researchers. These centers expand the pace of technology transfer in the biotechnology areas begun when NASA and NIH established a joint cooperative program within the NIH Institute for Child, Health and Human Development to exploit the NASA-developed bioreactor technology. Dr. Jeanne Becker has pointed out that it has a potential particular benefit for cell culture research and breast cancer research. Techniques developed for use in space have advanced the state of the art for growing ovarian and breast cancer samples in the laboratory, leading to progress in women's health. Why is it important to focus on ovarian and breast cancer? Well, as a result of better forms of treatment and improved means of early diagnose, overall survival rates from cancer have doubled since the early 1900's. However, breast cancer and ovarian cancer continue to be responsible for over one-third of all cancer in women. Recent statistics indicate that one in nine women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during her lifetime. Although screening mammography has contributed significantly to the early detection of breast cancer, survival rates for this disease have remained relatively unchanged for over a decade. Equally discouraging is the fact that current survival for ovarian cancer is nearly the same as it was over 30 years ago, with a 5-year survival rate of 39 percent. These statistics underscore the need for more research in these areas and the use of improved technologies to better study these diseases which destroy the lives of so many women. For more than three decades, humankind has benefited from new technologies derived from NASA-sponsored research, including studies focused on several areas pertinent to women's health. Now, through a joint collaboration between NASA and the University of South Florida, research focused on the development of three-dimensional tissue models of breast and ovarian cancer is being undertaken to gain a better understanding of breast and ovarian cancer. Using a specialized tissue culture chamber designed by NASA, the bioreactor, scientists are able to generate three-dimensional cellular growth that forms tissue-like structures that are similar to tissues found in the human body. Using conventional culture techniques, breast and ovarian cancer cells do not grow to form a tumor. In the NASA bioreactor, cancer cells have grown into masses that resemble the original tumor. So when opponents of the space station say what good has come out of it, I would suggest that new leads into ovarian and breast cancer may be worth the price that we pay. For the first time, these cancer cells have grown into masses that resemble the original tumor, and in their same three-dimensional orientation. Through the benefits of NASA-developed technology, medical science now has a means to culture cancer tissue samples in the laboratory so that they closely resemble structures found in the human body. The ability to grow these particular types of tumors is a real advantage because they are extremely difficult to culture outside the body. In particular, cancer researchers continually strive toward the development of improved tissue models of human disease, and the ability to produce reliable tissue models of breast and ovarian cancer is critical for furthering our understanding of the factors important in the growth and spread of these devastating diseases. The breast and ovarian cancer tissue samples cultured in NASA'S bioreactor will be evaluated for usefulness in testing sensitivity, chemotherapeutic, and biological agents, including hormonal therapy, particularly important as a treatment for breast and ovarian cancer. Because tumor cells can be grown in much the way they are arranged in the body, then a more authentic tumor specimen can be obtained to test the responsiveness of these cells to new types of agents. Finally, the models will be instrumental in studying alterations in cancer-associated genes that occurred during tumor progression. Breast and ovarian cancer studies being undertaken at the University of South Florida demonstrate the type of biomedical research that is a direct offshoot of NASA's bioreactor technology. National tissue research has given the medical community a powerful new tool to study how these cancerous tissues form. Mr. President, in particular, another example of this is cartilage development in NASA bioreactor. Cartilage is the material that makes up the joints in the skeleton. The bioreactor reproducibly enables the growth of cartilage from a small type of cell, and this level of maturity is rarely achieved by any other culture method. [[Page S 14191]] Mature cartilage is shown as the red-stained material here. Research conducted with Dr. Lisa Freed at MIT addresses the use of reactor technology and microgravity to engineer cartilage for replacement and transplantation. In simpler terms cartilage grown in the bioreactor--in the middle picture here--resembles normal cartilage--in the top picture--much more closely than cartilage grown by standard methods in the bottom picture. The same with colon cancer. Colon cancer manifests with polyp-like structures in the colon. The tumor-like structures are produced in the bioreactor by culturing normal fibroblast cells with colon cancer cells. Standard culture techniques do not provide 3-D models of cancer. It makes it very difficult. The bioreactor not only grows 3-D tumors, but induces specialized structures called glands, akin to that in native tissue. Dr. J.M. Jessup at Harvard University is molding human colon cancers for research, and therapeutic testing is facilitated by culturing the cancer cells in the NASA bioreactor. The explanation is that the ordinary culture on the far left is not developing a recognizable tumor-like structure. The two pictures on the right show the colon cancer cells in the NASA bioreactor do develop into tumor-like structures. Physiology on the space station: A new window on the human body. Virtually every system in the body--from bones and muscles to the immune system--is tied to and affected by the force of gravity. When human and animal research subjects travel to the low-gravity environment of Earth orbit, each system is affected and can be studied under conditions that are unique not only in the history of biomedical research but also in the history of life on Earth. The unique value of orbital research in physiology and biotechnology has led to a vigorous program of cooperation between NASA and the National Institutes of Health that includes 18 cooperative agreements and a series of flight experiments. Focus: Brain and nervous system research. Because of the profound effects that the lack of gravity has on the sense of balance and orientation, basic neurosensory research conducted in space offers a unique opportunity for insights into the ways in which the brain and body interact. This research has great potential for helping researchers understand the basis of learning and memory. Highlights of recent research: Space shuttle research on the body's balance system has resulted in new discoveries of sensory pathways and the nervous system's capacity to adapt. This fundamental advance in our understanding of the brain may aid in the development of improved treatments for nervous system disorders. NASA research has produced computer techniques for creating three- dimensional maps of neurons within gravity-sensing tissues. This work has enormous potential both for advancing neuroscience and for enhancing rapid access to many other kinds of medical imaging data. Detailed information on the way neurons are organized in the nervous system (neural nets) may someday support the development of new computer architectures. Focus: Musculoskeletal research. Osteoporosis affects some 25 million Americans, and it is estimated that this disease leads to 1.3 million bone fractures annually. Unless new preventive measures and treatments are found, associated costs are expected to rise to $30-$60 billion per year by the year 2020. Exposure to low gravity causes otherwise healthy young astronauts to experience rapid loss of bone mass--bone demineralization--comparable to osteoporosis but progressing at a much faster rate. By studying bone and muscle mass reduction in astronauts, space station research may contribute to our understanding of the causes of osteoporosis and help researchers develop preventative or rehabilitative regimes for bedridden or elderly patients. Highlights of recent research: In cooperation with investigators at Genentech, Inc., NASA researchers have demonstrated that muscle atrophy can be prevented using a combination of exercise and growth hormone. This approach opens new therapeutic avenues for rehabilitation, as well as for preventing some of the changes that accompany aging. Orbital research has demonstrated that changes in hormones do not completely explain the rapid loss of bone calcium that accompanies spaceflight. These findings may lead to new developments in diagnosing and treating skeletal disorders such as osteoporisis. NASA researchers have developed a new theory of remodeling in bone. In addition to stimulating new avenues of basic research, this new model has been applied by others to evaluate artificial joints, to study the influence of exercise on bone density, and to study age- associated bone loss. NASA and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [NIAMS] are cooperating to take full advantage of low gravity as a research tool. The NIAMS Osteoporosis Centers are expanding their participation in research related to spaceflight, and proceedings of a joint workshop were recently published in the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology Journal. The bone loss observed in space crews bears strong similarities to osteoporosis associated with aging. Astronauts lose the same percentage of their bone mass over a period of 8 months in space as the average human loses between the ages of 50 and 60. Spaceflight offers an opportunity to study the process of bone loss (bone demineralization) at an accelerated rate and to evaluate strategies for treatment and prevention of osteoporosis in months instead of years. Materials science on the space station: The scientific foundation for 21st century high-tech materials. The goal of materials science research is to study how materials form and how the forming process controls a material's properties. By carefully studying and controlling the processes by which materials are formed, materials scientists can design new alloys, ceramics, glasses, and polymers to improve the performance of products ranging from contact lenses to car engines. The production process for most materials includes steps that are very heavily influenced by the force of gravity. The chance to observe these processes in low gravity promises to increase our fundamental understanding of production processes and of the materials produced. Scientists will use these insights from space research to improve the properties of materials ranging from glass and steel to semiconductors and plastics. Highlights of recent research: The experiments of Dr. Martin Glicksman of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute flown aboard the space shuttle have produced groundbreaking new insights into how the structure of metal forms. Results of his experiment will aid in the development of stronger or more corrosion-resistant metal alloys. Based on his orbital research, Dr. Julian Szekely of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed new mathematical techniques to model the behavior of molten metals. These techniques have been used by the metals and semiconductor industries to design assignment and to improve predictions of the behavior of metals during processing. Space shuttle experiments have demonstrated that when gravity's effects are substantially reduced, other forces (such as surface tension) can predominate. These experiments have shown that secondary forces are more significant than previously thought, affecting many ground-based materials production techniques in unexpected ways. Results of this research open the door for further study and improved processes and materials for the future. Combustion science on the space station: Fundamental research on the world's predominant source of energy. Combustion (burning) has been a subject of vigorous scientific research for over a century. By conducting research on the space station, scientists can study subtle aspects of combustion normally masked by fluid flows caused by Earth's gravity. Combustion accounts for approximately 85 percent of the world's energy production--as well as a significant fraction of the world's atmospheric pollution. Breakthroughs in combustion science will have far-reaching effects for the economy and the environment. For example, a 2-percent increase in [[Page S 14192]] burner efficiency would save the United States $8 billion per year. Low-gravity research may also produce breakthroughs in combustion synthesis, the process by which valuable materials are created as the products of fire. Examples include carbon fibers for high-strength, lightweight composite materials and fullerenes, a novel form of carbon. Highlights of recent research: Combustion science researchers using NASA Lewis Research Center facilities have applied for a patent on a device that improves air quality by stabilizing fuel-lean flames and reducing NOX (oxides of nitrogen), a major source of air pollution. At the recent 25th International Symposium on Combustion, the most important meeting of combustion scientists in the world, nearly 10 percent of the papers presented involved low-gravity combustion research. NASA investigators have used the space shuttle to obtain and analyze the first data on Burke-Schumann gas jet diffusion flames (a classical flame configuration treated in virtually all combustion textbooks). These data represent the first true verification of this theory available since its original development in 1928. The spherical shape of candle flames in low-gravity illustrates the new perspective scientists will use to pursue research into subtle aspects of combustion impossible to study accurately on Earth. By studying combustion on the space station, scientists can observe certain aspects of burning that are hidden by the effects of gravity on Earth and thus advance our fundamental understanding of this vitally important field. Combustion research could lead to enhanced energy efficiency, reduced pollution, and improved processes for producing high-technology materials such as carbon fibers. Physics and biology on the space station: Fundamental research laying the foundation for future applications. Fluid physics and transport phenomena: One of the most significant forces affecting fluids--liquids, gases and mixtures--on Earth is gravity. In orbiting spacecraft, where gravity's effects are reduced many times, scientists can observe aspects of fluid behavior that are difficult or impossible to see in normal gravity. A deeper understanding of fluid behavior has broad applicability. Fluid flows play important roles in the production processes of our most important industries. For example, the performance of a powerplant depends on the flow characteristics of vapor-liquid mixtures, and oil recovery from partially depleted reservoirs depends on how liquids flow through porous rocks. Low-gravity research has already played a central role in stimulating new understanding of the ways in which heat and materials are transported in semiconductor crystal growth, metals processing, separation of biological molecules, and protein crystal growth. Microgravity physics: Research called microgravity physics uses the unique properties of space to test physics theories at levels of accuracy that are impossible on Earth. This fundamental research will advance our understanding of theories relevant to everything from high- temperature superconductivity to weather prediction. This research has the potential for redefining our most basic assumptions about the universe. In 1992, an orbital research experiment produced observations that tested renormalization group theory with a degree of precision five times greater than any experiment conducted on Earth. Renormalization group theory is a Nobel Prize-winning physics theory with broad applicability to particle physics and high-temperature superconductivity. Gravitational biology: The low-gravity conditions of spaceflight provide biologists with a unique research opportunity to answer fundamental questions about the basic functions of living organisms. Gravitational biologists study gravity's influence on the development, growth, and internal machinery of life, including individual cells as well as complete plants and animals. Expanding fundamental biological knowledge will provide broad long-term benefits in medicine, agriculture, and industry. Under normal Earth gravity, the gas occupies the top of the pipe because it is lighter--less dense--than the liquid. When gravity is reduced, the gas forms a core down the middle of the pipe. Under low- gravity conditions, weight and density become less important and scientists can study other forces that dictate the behavior of the liquid-gas mixture. Gravity exerts a strong influence on the properties and behavior of fluids--liquids and gases. Aboard the space station, researchers will study aspects of fluid behavior that are hidden by gravity on Earth. Increased knowledge of fluid physics is broadly applicable to a variety of industrial processes. Technology development on the space station: Paving the way for humanity's future in space--and on Earth. The international space station will both foster the development of advanced commercial technologies and provide a test bed for engineering research on orbit. Electric power: Power generation and storage systems research will produce long-term data on advanced materials, components, and electrical power systems, including flexible thin-film solar arrays and advanced power converters that will improve electrical systems on Earth. Robotics and remote operations: Space station research will produce advanced, reliable robotic systems and systems for remote operations. These systems have enormous potential for improving productivity and safety in industry and agriculture. Advanced life support technology: Space station research will develop advanced life-support technologies that combine physical, chemical, and biological processes to create highly efficient recycling systems. These technologies will have numerous applications to improving the quality of life on Earth, including: advanced waste processing and recycling techniques to reduce pollution; crop growth research capable of improving the efficiency of Earth-based hydroponics and other controlled crop production systems; vastly improved air and water quality sensors and analyzers and air revitalization systems; and automatic systems for identifying microbes to provide diagnostic support to detect a broad range of infectious diseases. Telemedicine: Telemedicine is the ability to practice medicine through the exchange of data and images between geographically remote locations using telecommunications technologies. NASA is a pioneer in telemedicine techniques for maintaining the health of astronauts on orbit and will continue to develop telemedicine systems through space station development. Telemedicine has the potential to reduce health care costs while improving the quality of care, especially for underserved populations--such as rural America or inner-city areas--and the victims of disaster. NASA-NIH cooperation: Conducting the world's best biomedical research. As the world's premier organization in life and biomedical sciences, the National Institutes of Health [NIH] had access to the world's best biomedical scientists, who need a variety of laboratory resources. NASA's biomedical research program maintains and develops a rich supply of unique and specialized resources, including laboratories and access to the weightless environment of space. Thus, cooperation between the two agencies strengthens the performance of each and helps ensure the highest possible return on America's investment in biomedical research. Cooperation between NASA and NIH has expanded rapidly as the research community's understanding of the value of orbital research has grown. This cooperation expands access to NASA facilities and resources to a broader community of the world's finest research scientists. Cooperation between these two premier Federal science agencies leverages NASA's unique facilities, including orbital facilities, to produce the maximum return on America's investment in biomedical research. NASA and NIH have executed 18 cooperative agreements to date, and joint activities have included scientific workshops; ground-based and flight research; and other specialized activities, such as a ``Spaceline'' reference system developed with the National Library of Medicine. Neurolab, NASA's next dedicated life sciences space shuttle mission, will [[Page S 14193]] carry investigations funded by five different institutes of NIH. NIH's Division of Research Grants will manage the scientific peer review for all Neurolab proposals. Neurolab will be launched on the space shuttle in March 1998. NASA looks forward to an expanding level of cooperation with NIH as orbital research enters the space station era. NIH researchers are expected to use the space station's next generation life sciences facilities--including the Human Research Facility, the Gravitational Biology Facility, and the Centrifuge Facility--in pursuit of national biomedical research goals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a table printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I appreciate that. Mr. President, I will be brief today. Mr. President, I rise today to raise my concerns over the pending fiscal year 1996 military construction conference report. The conference agreement provides a total of $11.2 billion in funding which is [[Page S 14109]] $480 million more than the budget request; $775 million of that amount is for military construction projects for which the Pentagon made no request. I have mixed feelings about this conference report, Mr. President. I strongly disagree with the practice Congress has developed over the years, with the tacit assent of the Pentagon, that results in $770 million in unrequested projects being included in the bill. Members are expected to get military construction projects added to each year's bill in order to demonstrate that he or she can bring home the bacon. This, in part, results from the Pentagon's recurring failure to adequately fund Guard and Reserve construction requirements. The Pentagon does not request these projects but, instead, expects Congress to add these projects to the budget. The result is a skewing of priorities, in my opinion, Mr. President. Rather than informing Congress of what is really needed, projects are funded based on a given member's ability to get the funding included in the authorization and appropriations bills. The Senator from Arizona and I contacted Secretary Perry earlier this year to express our concern over this practice and asked that the Guard and Reserve requirements be included in the budget request. As I mentioned, I have mixed feelings about this year's conference report because, even though we are still engaging in the practice of adding close to a billion dollars in projects, on the Senate side, we have adopted a set of criteria by which to measure add-on requests. I have worked on those criteria over the years with the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, the Senator from Arizona. And, I am pleased that the appropriators followed those criteria this year as well. I do not think it is too much to ask, Mr. President, that a military construction project meet certain minimum standards like being a valid military requirement, being in the service's 5-year program or having the project be sufficiently designed to be able to begin the project in the year in which it is authorized and appropriated. Quite frankly, if a project does not meet these criteria, we should not be including it as a military construction project. Unfortunately, there are projects in this conference report that do not meet the standards we have set. I understand that these projects came over in conference from the House, but there are several that are not included in the 5-year plan and there is one that the Army simply does not want. I hope we can continue our efforts to clean up the add- on process so that we do not end up with these kinds of projects being funded in the future. I will add that I think we are making enormous progress in this area. We used to have sheets and sheets of these things that came over. Almost every member on the committees over there, and also here, wanted something put in to sweeten the pot to show back home that they made a special effort. This year we are down to very few--practically none in the Senate, and about a dozen or so, or 15 or 20 from over in the House. There are several important positive things about the conference report that are worthy of support. The BRAC accounts are fully funded-- these projects are important so that we can get closed back into productive use. Secretary Perry's housing initiative is fully funded-- we are hopeful that this new approach will work to leverage limited funds to get new housing for our troops and their families. And, there is a considerable number of barracks, family housing projects, health care centers, and child care centers that will add to service members' quality of life. All in all, I can support this conference report, Mr. President, but I felt compelled to outline my concerns on the add-on issue. I would hope next year we can see, for the first time, no add-ons that do not meet the criteria. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a table identifying the military items to be transfered to Pakistan pursuant to the amendment.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. President, there appears to be no appreciation in the remarks on the Senate floor by the supporters of the Brown amendment of the history of Pakistan's violation of our laws. I do not condone India's nuclear weapons program, and I do not think there is any Senator in the Senate who has been more outspoken about that matter than I have. I was in opposition to India's program. I led the fight in 1980 that ultimately resulted in the cutoff of nuclear materials to India because of her guarded nuclear program. So I certainly do not come down on India's side on this either. But India has not violated United States nonproliferation law. When we passed the Glenn-Symington amendment in 1970, we did not have Pakistan in mind. The law applied to everyone; it was not aimed at a particular country. But Pakistan violated our law. As a result, the Carter administration--going clear back that far--cut them off from military and economic assistance. Then the Reagan administration got a waiver from the law for a temporary period for Pakistan only. We tilted in favor of Pakistan, for Pakistan only, in order to send aid after the Afghan invasion occurred. Because relief from our nonproliferation law was given to Pakistan, the Congress set up a new line in the sand. We said we really mean it now. And we mean it, Pakistan. We passed the Pressler amendment, and it was Pakistan-specific. So it is incorrect to say that we are not being evenhanded. It is not unevenhanded to say that those who violate our laws should not then be given the benefit of our shipments of economic and military help. They should be punished, those who do not abide by our laws. Those who abide by our laws should not be punished. So I do not and will not defend the Indian program, but they did not violate our nonproliferation laws. And to claim that fairness requires that we ignore a violation of our laws time after time after time and not telling us the truth about what was going on, is to just condone behavior that we do not want to see exist. So I will not support changing our laws just to accommodate violations of our nonproliferation laws. Mr. President, this is not a matter of fairness that we are talking about. It is a matter of nonproliferation. Are we going to have a nonproliferation policy for the United States of America and mean it? Or are we not? And that is the question. I want to give Pakistan's money back even though most of it was paid in after the Pressler amendment was passed, so they knew what they were doing. They are not dummies. They knew exactly what they were doing. Now they want to say--they got caught and want us to make them whole. I want to see them get their money back--if we can sell the airplanes to somebody else. To stand back and make a mockery of our nonproliferation laws when we have 178 other nations signed up under NPT and are trusting us to deal with them fairly--that is the issue. Are we a nation that stands for nonproliferation and backs up the laws we have to that effect, or are we not? That is what this vote is all about. I know Senator Pressler is on the floor. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts 2 minutes. Before of I yield, I yield myself such time as I may require. I would just add that a good part of this package is F-16 parts to keep the [[Page S 14003]] F-16's flying. They are a nuclear delivery system. That is the part of this that is very critical.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California. I would like to make one remark. For those who were not at the briefing yesterday--most of the Senate, by far; we had just a few up in S-407--I urge people to go up and look at the chart, look at the information we retained. It is available in S-407 right now. You could look at it before you come to the floor to vote. I yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon.

Mr. GLENN. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Levin.

Mr. GLENN. How much time is remaining?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I cannot disagree more with my distinguished colleague from Colorado when he says this is just a matter of fairness about giving money back as though we ordered something from Sears, Roebuck and did not get it so we ought to get our money back. That is such a simplistic view that it mocks what we have been trying to do with our nonproliferation policy, our nuclear nonproliferation policy for the last 30 years. We have tried to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons around this world. That is what this issue is all about. It is a nonproliferation issue. The question: Are we serious about a U.S. leadership role in nonproliferation policy or are we not? I share the concern that Pakistan should get its money back, but not at the expense of dumping our nuclear policy and making our efforts around the world to further nuclear nonproliferation be mocked by the 178 nations that signed up under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That is what this is all about. Pakistan has been the most egregious violator. They refused to join the NPT and refused to cooperate and repeatedly told us untruth after untruth after untruth after untruth, lie after lie after lie, about their intentions on nuclear weapons. They deliberately misled us--misled me personally. I was over there a couple times. Once I met with President Zia; with Yaqub Khan, the Foreign Minister; Mir Khan, from their atomic energy commission. They told me they had no program at all. They said that our intelligence was just flat wrong. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto repeatedly has made statements that they have no nuclear weapons objectives. And yet we know that is not true. So what this is about is not just about fairness of giving the money back as though a purchase had been made at Sears; this is a matter of nonproliferation and are we serious about it or not? We all love to get up and make our press conference statements about how much we are against nuclear proliferation and we do not want to see nuclear weapons spread to more nations around the world. We, in fact, right now are getting control of our nuclear weapons stockpiles with the former Soviet Union, now the Russians, and we are scaling those down. At the same time we asked other nations, ``Please do not go ahead with nuclear weapons programs. We will cooperate with you if you do not.'' We cooperated with Pakistan when they were threatened and mutual interest indicated we should send weapons to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. It was in Pakistan's interest we do that, also. It was not just a gratuitous favor to the United States. Through the years over and over we were assured Pakistan had no nuclear weapons program by their officials when we knew they did. During this time period we were successful in turning off a Taiwanese effort to start a nuclear weapons program. We were successful in turning off a South Korean effort to start a nuclear weapons program. South Africa, they finally gave up on their efforts after having a nuclear weapon or being close to it. Argentina and Brazil ceased their efforts. And 178 nations signed up under NPT. This is a great success story. Do we mean it when we say we have a nonproliferation policy or not? I am very critical of this administration. I sent a long letter to the President with my position on this back in April. I included it in the Record last night. I think this is sort of a test case here. Do we mean it or not? If we let Pakistan go ahead and say we reward them then with all sorts of help, with economic aid, with all the things that are going on with the weapons program, with the spare parts, with things like that, with new missiles, and we reward them for these efforts, it makes a mockery--makes a mockery--out of our nonproliferation efforts when other nations say they may want to do the same thing that Pakistan has already done. The international nuclear trade has been going up, I am sorry to say. We should be trying to cut it back. We passed legislation--we passed the Glenn-Symington amendment to deal with this way back. We passed the Pressler amendment later on that was Pakistan-specific, and should have been. It is the way it should be. But the Congress was unwilling to give a complete blank check to Pakistan, and stipulated in our waiver legislation that Pakistan would still be cut off if it received or exploded a nuclear device. ``Received''--in other words, gained that capability. Congress stipulated that an annual report would be provided on Pakistan's nuclear activities so that Congress could confirm that the United States assistance was indeed inhibiting Pakistan's bomb program, as was confidently assumed by Reagan administration officers. Waiver after waiver after waiver, which I went through in detail last night, waiver after waiver after waiver for Pakistan. And every time one was granted, it was granted on the basis that we need to be their friends so they will not continue along this route. And we have that whole trail of broken promises, one after another after another. The result of all of this, all the untruths that were told to us, all this mendacity, plus ongoing information that the program was progressing, resulted in the Pressler amendment. Well, the CIA, to their credit, was skeptical that any of these things would work back at that time. And they were right. So now we have the effort to give the money back. And it is supposedly that they would like to have you think that the proposal from the other side was that they just paid all this money out there, and then we jerked the rug out from under them. The fact is that out of the $858 million, $50 million was paid before Pressler; the rest of it was all paid after the Pressler amendment was adopted, and Pakistan knew full well what they were doing. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they continued and paid the rest of that money after the Pressler amendment was adopted, hoping that we would back down, that we were not serious about our nuclear nonproliferation policy, and they were right. We backed down. The United States of America is still backing down on nuclear nonproliferation. It is not easy for the Pakis, because they are entitled to some sympathy in their national security plight in South Asia. They fought three wars with a much larger adversary, India, who was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program and had exploded a device in 1984, and mainly built their program because of China's nuclear efforts. I do have sympathy for them in that regard, but I do not have much sympathy when they have deliberately misled us, lied to us all through the years. Mr. President, one after the other, officials in Pakistan have not told us the truth. I said before my own personal experience in meeting with President Zia, the foreign minister, Yaqub Khan, and from the atomic energy commission, Mir Khan, was that they all assured us they had no program when we knew that they did. Let me read a few quotes. Back in 1988, opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, shortly before coming Prime Minister: We don't want any controversy [with the U.S.] on the nuclear issue . . . We want it clear beyond doubt that we're interested only in energy, not nuclear weapons. Again, interview with Time magazine, November 1988: We believe in a peaceful [nuclear] program for energy purposes and nothing else. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, interview in Calcutta Telegraph, December 1988: [[Page S 13997]] I can tell you with confidence that there is no bomb programme in Pakistan . . . There is no bomb programme . . . there is no bomb programme. December, 1988: We're committed to a peaceful energy program. We don't have any [nuclear] weapons policy . . . Pakistan doesn't have any intention to get a nuclear device or a nuclear weapon. Another one in June 1989, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, in an address before a joint meeting of Congress, right down the hall, a joint meeting of Congress, and made this statement to all of us. I was in attendance at that meeting: Speaking for Pakistan, I can declare that we do not possess nor do we intend to make a nuclear device. That is our policy. New York Times, 1989 interview with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto: Pakistan has not, nor do we have any intention of putting together or making, a bomb, or taking it to the point where you can put it together. So much for the word of Pakistan. So when we say, Mr. President, that this is an issue of just giving the money back, as though we have made a deal at Sears someplace, that is extremely misleading, and I disagree with that characterization of what this is about. What this is about is whether the United States has a nuclear nonproliferation policy and whether we are truly willing to stick to it or are we not. Do we have the guts to make the tough decisions in the interest of seeing nuclear weapons not spread further around the world, just at the same time we are trying to get our own nuclear weapons stockpiles and those of the former Soviet Union under control and doing a good job in that area. Mr. President, that is what this vote is all about. I know from the vote yesterday what the vote is likely to be today. I think it is a wrong vote because it sends all the wrong signals to the 178 nonproliferation members around the world who are doing what we wanted them to do, what we tried to lead them to do and which they have continued to do, and that is try and stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. That is what this vote is all about. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Would the Chair repeat?

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

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, as I understood it, we cannot carry this time over until tomorrow. The time has to be used this evening. We have 1 hour total equally divided. Is that correct?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would be prepared to yield back the remainder of my time, if the Senator from Colorado is prepared to do the same.