John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, may we have order, please?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield the balance of my time for this evening.

Mr. GLENN. Correct.

Mr. GLENN. Yes.

Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if we can have 15 minutes on my side. We have a couple of people who want to make short remarks.

Mr. GLENN. That is right, instead of 20.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send this to the desk, along with my cosponsors, Senators Jeffords, Kohl, Levin, Feingold, and Dodd. I offer this amendment to increase the budgeted funds a small amount for enforcement efforts by the Federal Election Commission. This agency bears the very difficult and thankless task of policing all of our campaigns in the whole Congress. Mr. President, I would like to point out, first, that this amendment was offered in the House, was debated there, and was approved. And the amendment I offer today adds exactly the same amount. It is just an additional $2.8 million to the FEC budget. The money would help the agency to investigate and prove wrongdoing. These additional funds are just a small step toward giving the Commission the resources that it really needs. In past years, we have seen attempts by Congress to stop vigorous enforcement of the law by failing to provide an adequate budget for this agency. Just last year, following an election in which unprecedented abuse of the campaign finance laws occurred, Congress refused to give money to the FEC to hire more staff to investigate these abuses. I thought that was a tragedy. Just last week in the House, we saw an extraordinary display of bipartisanship because the House defeated provisions intended to politicize the agency, and instead approved additional funds, as I mentioned a moment ago, for the Federal Election Commission. The extra money was set aside very specifically to help the FEC pay for investigations, many stemming from the events of the 1996 campaign. Those of us who support campaign finance reform--which is a clear majority in this body--agree that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Until we can pass new laws, we must at least allow the agency we created to do its best to actively and vigorously enforce the existing law. This amendment takes an important step toward assuring that the FEC can do just that. This amendment is a renewed commitment by the Members of Congress to make a real effort to ensure that people who violate our existing campaign finance laws are found and are held accountable. This is the only way we can assure the continued integrity of our election process. Last year, we saw a lot of effort on campaign finance reform, and with Chairman Thompson, I had the privilege of serving as the ranking member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs' investigation into the 1996 campaign finance fiasco. During the course of those hearings, Chairman Thompson called on several campaign finance experts to testify. One of those witnesses was Norm Ornstein of the Brookings Institution who told us in testimony that he believed that the FEC would probably need at least $50 million--that is about twice what they are receiving--in order to become an effective enforcement agency. These funds I am proposing are a very small step. They just match the House funds that have already passed over there. It is a small step, but still leaves the agency woefully short of what experts think it needs. Let me give a little bit of perspective of the job facing the FEC. Right now, the FEC has 200 cases pending; 93 of those cases are under investigation and 107 cases, over half, are sitting in a file cabinet. Why? Why are these cases just sitting there in the cabinets with no action? They are waiting for staff to become available for these 200 cases. The FEC can only afford 25 staff attorneys. How about the investigators who could help the attorneys? The FEC has two, which they consider a great improvement from 1994 when they had exactly zero. They had none. By way of contrast, on last year's investigative staff of the Governmental Affairs Committee, we had 44 lawyers and a dozen investigators, and we weren't dealing with the whole aspect of everything the FEC has to deal with. We were dealing with only one limited aspect of what occurred during the 1996 campaign. We faced nowhere near the caseload that confronts the agency that is trying to do the best job it can on a real shoestring. I think we can all agree it doesn't matter how good the law that you have, if it isn't actively and vigorously enforced, it means nothing. It becomes a scofflaw. The Federal Election Commission already enforces a law readily exploited and bent in ways never intended. We, in Congress, fail to give the FEC the resources to find and hold accountable those who willfully violate these laws, who misuse soft money, who attempt to disguise political ads as issue advertising, and on and on. With all of the things we know that can happen, how can we hope to ensure the public has confidence in its elections and in its elected officials? This amendment is a very, very small and reasonable step towards allowing the FEC to accomplish its mission and enforce the law. I hope my colleague will support it. I repeat, it is one that has already passed in the House. We just matched the figure of $2.8 million that they have already passed in the House. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GLENN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GLENN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GLENN. OK. Fine. Whatever.

Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object, and I do not plan to object, but my understanding is the majority leader proposed that and it was already entered. Is that correct?

Mr. GLENN. Thirty total.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, today, we mourn the loss in our Capitol family of two brave men who gave their lives in service to our nation. Last Friday, in a running gun battle, United States Capitol Police Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson were killed in the line of duty. Mr. President, each of us who works in the Capitol feels a kinship to and a deep appreciation of the officers of the U.S. Capitol Police. We know that our lives are protected each and every day by the work that they do. In the twenty-four years that I have served Ohio as Senator, I have come to know many of the fine officers on the force. A former member of my staff is currently a member of the force and other staff members have officers among their immediate family members. This highly trained and professional force polices our nation's Capitol and performs numerous law enforcement duties as they monitor the entrances of our buildings, ensure the safety of the millions of tourists who visit the Capitol each year, and provide a kind word and a watchful eye as we come and go. These officers go about their duties with dedication and great skill. In a senseless, momentary act of violence, these fine officers gave their all. They gave their lives in the defense of all who visit and work here. Mr. President, we may never understand why such a tragedy occurred in our halls last Friday afternoon. Despite this lack of comprehension, we will always be certain that J. J. Chestnut and John Gibson fulfilled their responsibilities to our nation and will be remembered as heroes. I think that it is a fitting tribute that these officers will lay in state in the Capitol tomorrow, an appropriate commendation for the selfless sacrifice that they gave in the performance of their duties. My wife, Annie, joins me in extending my deepest sympathy to the families of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I want to commend Senator Mikulski and the other Members of the Subcommittee for incorporating elements of the Mikulski- Glenn Bill (S. 2064) to prohibit export of ships to be scrapped in countries with substandard environmental laws and practices. Senator Mikulski, with me as the prime cosponsor; introduced the original bill in May upon learning that the Federal ship-owning agencies, principally MARAD and the Navy, were retaining the option to export ships to countries with weak environmental and labor protection laws. They were retaining this option even after public reports and a GAO analysis that criticized Federal agencies for allowing the export of ships laden with PCBs, asbestos and hazardous materials. In the past, these ships were sent to developing countries to be scrapped. They would lie listing just offshore, giant metal hulks waiting to be cut up and disassembled--often by children in barefeet-- with the hazardous waste from the ships' interiors unceremoniously dumped overboard. While I can respect the sovereignty of these countries in making their own environmental and labor laws--however inadequate they may be, I don't think that as a government the Feds should be contributing to that inadequacy by sending its own ships there to be scrapped in that fashion. The VA-HUD Appropriations Bill contains language that contains a 1 year restriction of Federal ship exports for scrapping. No exports can be made unless the EPA certifies that the destination country has environmental standards and enforcement ``comparable'' to the U.S. So it is not an outright ban on exports. The language supplements the other part of the Mikulski-Glenn Bill, which strengthens environmental and labor protection criteria in Federal contracts for domestic ship scrapping. Those provisions were unanimously adopted as part of the DOD Authorization Bill and $7.8 million has been provided for this effort in the DOD Appropriations Bill. We can protect our oceans, treat harmful hazardous waste safely, and scrap ships responsibly if we're willing to make the commitment to do the right thing. The language incorporated into the VA-HUD Bill takes that approach and resides there largely because of the effort and persistence of the good Senator from Maryland. I urge my colleagues to support that language, and to oppose any efforts to weaken it or strike it.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Heidelberg College in Tiffin, Ohio, as it celebrates the 40th Anniversary of its educational exchange program with Heidelberg University of Heidelberg, Germany. The program between the two schools is the longest standing exchange program between an American and a German university in the post-World War II period. When Heidelberg College was founded in 1850 by members of the German Reformed Church, it was named after the Heidelberg Catechism which was written at Heidelberg University in 1563. In 1958, cooperative relations were established between Heidelberg College and Heidelberg University and a student exchange program, the American Junior Year at Heidelberg University, was initiated. In 1973, the exchange became reciprocal with German students also studying at Heidelberg College. Over the course of the 40 years of cooperation, more than 1,400 German and American students have been able to participate in an academic exchange under the auspices of the Junior Year program. Heidelberg College has a rich tradition of global education dating from the second half of the 19th century when missionaries were trained for service in Japan. Over the past two years, the College has revitalized its commitment to global education through the establishment of the Heidelberg College Center for Global Education. The Center for Global Education is the cornerstone of Heidelberg's effort to place an international focus on its curriculum, its majors, and its programs. Through its Advisory Council for Global Education, composed of local, regional, national, and international leaders, a number of priorities and future directions for global education at Heidelberg College have been identified in order to make it a worthwhile initiative that will influence the lives of thousands of young people for years to come. I have been a long-standing advocate of increased exposure to global education for American students of all ages. I believe that it is fundamental for American students to have the opportunities to experience different cultures, languages, and individuals in order to compete in a world which is increasingly interdependent. I extend my best wishes to Heidelberg College for continued success in providing students from Ohio, and around the world, access to quality global education.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, before I make the rest of my remarks, I want to say I support this legislation and will vote for it. I do want to bring up some points, though, that have not been brought up here today. I support this. It is good legislation that extends the exemption for food assistance already contained in the Glenn Amendment sanctions. This has been worked out with the leadership. And it is basically the language that Senator Murray brought out of committee, I believe. I think it is identical language--or close to it. So I want to congratulate her also on this. But let me put a different perspective on sanctions than some of those that have been expressed here today. The United States currently has in effect some 61 sanctions against different nations around the world. They are not all involved in nuclear nonproliferation. We have sanctions involved with such things as drugs, as terrorism, human rights, sanctions against Cuba. This legislation today does not address those. I do not think in some of these areas--for instance, on drugs, even if food was involved--we would be lifting these sanctions. But the United States has wanted to prevent nuclear war. Ever since the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most responsible nations in the world have realized we need to control the threat of nuclear holocaust by sometime, somehow, some way reducing nuclear weapons. While that remained a long-term objective, it would become even more difficult if more and more nations developed a nuclear weapons capability. It was with that longtime hope that legislation has been passed for more than 20 years--much of it my legislation; that is the reason I feel a special relationship or a special responsibility here today--for more than 20 years trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons while at the same time holding out hope for eventual weapons control and reduction. For many years I felt this was a rather futile gesture. I did not feel good about what we had done at all because we were not making much progress. But finally the cold war demise brought new hope for really gaining control of nuclear weaponry, and in a comparatively short period of time there was real optimism that control over these weapons could be gained. With the end of the cold war and agreement with the Soviet Union, we saw missiles suddenly being taken out of silos, weapons being taken down, cores of fissile material being removed, and real progress was being made. The Lugar-Nunn--Nunn-Lugar--whichever way you want to say it--legislation gave some help in that direction. That has been a big mammoth help. And with U.S. leadership, we have achieved something we would not have even thought possible a few years ago, 185 nations signed the NPT, and progress is being made on the CTBT, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which now has 149 signatories. So it was against that backdrop of really making some progress that the Glenn amendment was passed in 1994--which we are altering here today--with the belief that if we were even a little tougher than we had been, that this would really discourage other nations from moving toward nuclear weapons. That hope, of course, went down the drain when India's extreme Hindu nationalism took precedent over what most people around the world thought should have been more rational behavior. It was against that backdrop we passed the legislation. The sanctions passed in the 1994 legislation were meant to be tough and provided no Presidential waiver largely because of the very spotty performance in nuclear nonproliferation in past administrations. I would remind my colleagues today who are here decrying what has gone on here that this bill passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate. Everyone critical today--most of the people here were here in 1994. And so it passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate. Some feel that sanctions are just no good in any respect. But sanctions or the threat of sanctions as one of our diplomatic tools, I believe, has been effective in the past in helping to turn off either actual or incipient nuclear and missile programs. And we can give as examples Argentina and Brazil. Taiwan--I made a trip out there some years ago when we knew what Taiwan was doing in heading toward possible nuclear capability. South Korea was also on that list, and South Africa. And we may even have delayed some of Pakistan's access to the bomb which resulted in nuclear explosions. What we do today here in the name of our own U.S. economy--I want everyone to realize what we are doing--what we are approving are U.S. loans, taxpayer dollars, to replace the money the Pakistanis spent on developing nuclear weapons instead of on food for their own people. I also say, does this bring them any closer--with what we are about to do today, will this result in or do we have any under-the-table or tacit agreement that they will go ahead and sign the NPT, that they will sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? We can say this is a carrot hanging out there, but our carrots to Pakistan in the past have been rebuffed by one falsehood after another for the last 17 or 18 years that I have been experiencing personally, including visits to Pakistan to talk to their top people when they denied having any weapons or any weapons program, clear up until the time they set off the bombs that they claimed they did not have all these years. So my reaction to this is, yes, for humanitarian reasons, I certainly do not want the Pakistani people themselves and little babies going hungry, and so on. So I am willing to go along with these humanitarian concerns. But we do need definitely to rethink sanctions across the board and what we mean by them. As time has gone along, and the nations of the world are no longer being forced to choose between the United States and the Soviet Union, the world really has become more multipolar in every respect, with business, industry, banking, economics, and so on. And so the role of sanctions has changed along with that. It has become increasingly evident through the years that the sanctions only become really effective if they have multilateral support, either from our major allies or preferably at the United Nations. I believe sanctions still have a major role to play in nonproliferation and in our fight against drugs and terrorism and human rights abuses and the situation in Cuba, and so on. I do not think we have to say all sanctions are bad, but they are only effective if they have multilateral support. Today we have economic arguments here because sanctions are going to hurt our own farmers in this country, and we may have some that will affect the manufacturing of jeeps out of Toledo, for instance, in my home State of Ohio, as well as farming interests there. So the world situation has changed, and we need, in each one of these cases, to consider the case on its own individual merits. In that regard, I have submitted legislation that was put in just before the last break. The legislation would alter the way sanctions are administered, and would be not only prospective but would be retrospective, also. And it would be basically this: At the time of an event or a determination that triggers a sanction against a given country, the President could, at his discretion, place a hold on the imposition of the sanction for up to 45 calendar days to decide whether to remove or impose the sanction or to say, ``Here is a part that will work; here is a part that will not work.'' Maybe the President would want to say, ``None of it will work,'' so he wants to recommend that we do away with that whole sanction for that particular country at that time. He would be completely flexible in what he could recommend, but he would have 45 days to either build the multilateral support that I spoke about or come to the Congress and say to the Congress: Here is what I recommend in changing this sanction in this particular situation. And then he would propose that to the Congress, and Congress would have 15 session days to act under expedited procedures--15 days. We would have a limit on what debate could occur, obviously. It would be given preferential treatment here, and we would consider the President's purpose in this and require him to give us his reasons why he wants to change this legislation, alter it, or how he thinks it could be better administered. Congress would have 15 days to approve or disapprove what the President had done. That gives the President ultimate flexibility, it seems to me, and would be a great step forward. For sanctions that are already in place, the President, on the anniversary of that sanction, would have to come back and say once again to us why it is working, why it is not working, what changes he thinks should be made in the sanction. And he would do that at the 2- year anniversary of the imposition of any sanction, and then would have to give us a report every year thereafter on that sanction as to whether it was working or not working and recommend any changes to make it more effective. I do not see any other way to make this whole thing work in the multipolar world in which we live now. Sanctions 15 or 20 years ago may have had more of a chance of an effect even though they were unilateral, but rarely in the situation we find ourselves in in the world community today. So while I am for this legislation today for humanitarian reasons, I do not go along with some people who talk about poor little Pakistan and how they are in the situation that they have brought upon themselves because they have deliberately misled us intentionally--one leader after another for about the last 15 or 16 years that I have been personally dealing with this. But I do not want to see the Pakistani people go hungry or anything like that, and so I go along with this today. It was mentioned a moment ago what a sad situation it was that we did not include the other parts that were originally posed in this legislation. If we had kept those proposals on this legislation, I can guarantee you I would probably have participated in my first filibuster in my 24 years in the U.S. Senate. I feel that strongly about it. I do think we have played a good role in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and sanctions have helped--but if we take these off today as far as food sales go, maybe it will give us a lever; maybe it will give Pakistan an incentive to sign the NPT, sign the comprehensive test ban treaty, and hopefully that would encourage India. There is nothing in here for India, so I don't know whether we are unbalancing this situation or not. I don't know what the administration may have planned to sweeten the pie, sweeten the pot for India in this regard; also, to get them to move toward NPT and CTBT status. Make no mistake, these are not just some international loans we are approving, these are U.S. loans we are approving to Pakistan and will pass in the Senate. It still has to pass the House, obviously, and we hope this can get done in time to take place before the bidding starts on the international sales, as I understand it, by the 15th. I repeat, I think we need to rethink sanctions. The outline of what I have proposed is in legislation now. It has been filed. I hope we can move in that direction, because I think it would give the President the ultimate flexibility he needs without dumping congressional responsibility at the same time. It would mean whatever the President proposes with regard to sanctions we would have to consider on an expedited, privileged basis. To me, this is the way we should be going in the future. I know I am part of the task force that will indeed be looking at these options between now and September 1 when we have to have them submitted for the U.S. Senate. How much time remains?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we have addressed costs here. This $96 billion is a fictitious figure; $40 billion of that, by NASA estimates, includes shuttle costs that are going to go on anyway. Besides all those big figures taken into a 15-year account here, what we are talking about in this bill is for fiscal 1999? We are talking about $2.3 billion versus $2.1 billion for last year, not a huge increase. Now, there are always going to be competing needs for every bit of research. If we ever tried to solve all problems and to do everything we wanted to do before we made research, we would never have moved off the east coast. Basic research is a way of life, fundamental. This is a new laboratory we are working on. It is our experience that dollars spent on research seem to have a way of paying off in the future beyond anything we ever foresee at the outset. That has been the history of this country. We have gotten to the place now where much of the space program is increasingly going commercial. On the flight we will be on, STS-95, we will have three specific projects. We will have basic research, besides what we are talking about, in the physical sciences, in the bio area. We will have the Spartan spacecraft making the measurements of the Sun and solar winds. We will have research on aging, with which I will be involved. We will have ultraviolet measurements that will be probably the most accurate ever made in space. These things cannot be done except in zero-G, not on the ground. We are talking about payoffs in commercial areas with three different projects on STS-95. We are almost there. The figure was quoted a moment ago that 90 percent of our hardware has been built. I think 75 percent of the milestones have already been passed. The first elements are due to be launched later this year. I think the Russians are due to launch the first node, module, on November 20, and we are scheduled to launch the first United States one on December 3. It is a 16-nation commitment that we have. Certainly, it is better to be working peacefully together than to be thinking about war, which we were a few years ago. It is the biggest, most incredible scientific engineering experiment ever tried internationally. I think there can be incredible scientific possibilities and results from this, not only in medicine, but learning about our world and our solar system, inspiring our young people to explore and to learn. The benefits are not out there in space. The benefits are for us right here on Earth. That is the important part of this whole thing. The Chabrow report said this. Although costs in scheduled growth have occurred, the magnitude of such growth has not been unusual, even when compared with other developmental programs of lesser complexity.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. GLENN. So this is almost built. It would be foolish to cut back now and waste the money we put into it right when it is just about to pay off in a great way, I think.

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to reply to a couple of things which Senator Harkin indicated a little bit earlier. I was a little bit disquieted by the fact that he indicated that NASA is now an arm of the military Air Force. I don't know where on Earth that came from because NASA has never been that. Military payloads have been put up. But it has not spilled over in that direction at all. It is still going along as a civilian agency. It was declared to be by Dwight Eisenhower, and has continued to be that every since. As far as money being sucked out, there is $98 billion. We are talking about $2.3 billion in this bill for the next year for the International Space Station. Most of the hardware has already been constructed, or is in the final stages of being constructed. The fact is that we have doubled the budget for NIH over the last couple of years. It is not that we are not doing things in that area. I repeat what I said earlier. If we are to wait until every problem in our country is solved before we put money into basic fundamental research out there, that is just the wrong way to go. Senator Durbin talks about child diseases. Some of the protein crystal growth advances we are making these days is something that we can look forward to as maybe helping solve some of those childhood diseases. Back to what the Senator from Iowa said again, though, I will point out that on the very flight that I will be on this fall in October, we have three different areas of commercialization of space in which one of the projects is commercial protein crystal growth. I will not go into details. My 2 minutes won't permit. But in that area, we are in the commercialization of protein crystal growth experiments. We are into another one on the commercial generic bioprocessing apparatus that we are taking up in space. We have another one. I have already been briefed on these. We will be taking part in some of the research that is being done at that time. The other one is on what is called the cybex mission, and it is to perform IDA-funded, corporate microgravity biomedical cancer research; second purpose: perform other IDA corporate commercial microgravity research, and provide a turnkey service of commercial access to space. That is the way NASA has been going. That is the direction they want to go.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I thank the floor manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Maryland. I want to make a point on a comment that was made by the other Senator from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson, about the cost overruns and the budget situation, because the Chabrow task force report has been alluded to today, sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly. In this case, it was referred to incorrectly because, contrary to the assertion that the program has a large overrun, the Chabrow task force reported that the program was--and this is a quote: Diligent and resourceful in managing the unique challenges of this complex venture given the significant complexity and uncertainty of international involvement and the difficult task of staying within annual and total funding caps established prior to final program content definition. That indicates that there has been very responsible management. That is in the Chabrow task force report. Further, the task force stated, referring to the ISS, the International Space Station Program specifically, and their quote is out of their report: Although cost and schedule growth have occurred, the magnitude of such growth has not been unusual, even when compared with other developmental programs of lesser complexity. I think that is a compliment. I think we should also note that many defense research and development programs have exceeded development cost estimates by 20 to 40 percent, way out of the ball park of what we are talking about here, which indicates to me that major technical developmental programs have a degree of complexity that makes cost assessment very, very difficult--the point that I made in my original, more lengthy statement. We need to keep in mind what the Chabrow report said in their task force report, which is, to my way of thinking, complimentary to NASA about how they managed this program and kept things under control. NASA personnel numbers are way, way down. The NASA budget has been flat over the last couple of years, and yet we have gone ahead with more efficient management within NASA and I think they should be complimented for given the complex management environment in which they have to work. So the Chabrow report has been quoted here today, but I think the two quotes out of the Chabrow report should be noted. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time?

Mr. GLENN. Just 2 minutes.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have listened very carefully to the statements made by my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers. Some of his statements I agree with, and, obviously, some of them I do not agree with. One I agree with very strongly is, when he and I arrived here together, we became closest friends. He is one of my best friends, if not the best friend, I have in the Senate today. We vote in a very similar fashion on most things. But every year it seems we lock horns on this particular issue. I am sorry that is the case, but I feel as strongly in the other direction with regard to the space station as he does on the other side. Let me put this in a little larger context perhaps. Let me start out with the big picture of this country and what made this country great, because I have always believed that there is one thing that does set this country apart from other nations around the world. By the very nature of people coming to this country in the early days and their expansion across the unknown territory that we know today as America, they exhibited a questing curiosity, a questing spirit that led them not only to explore lands and oceans and skies and geography, but also to do not just the macro exploration, but the micro exploration in laboratories, classrooms of our Nation, and express our curiosity in learning new things. And that is at the heart of science. The heart of science is learning the new and putting it to use in ways to better our lives and understanding of the world around us--indeed, the universe around us. This questing spirit is at the heart of our history, from those first settlers who landed on our rocky shores, to Lewis and Clark pushing into hostile lands west of the Mississippi, to Thomas Edison and the electric light, to the Wright brothers struggling to break the bond of gravity, to the past and present-day pioneers in our country's space program. Along the way, there have always been plenty of doubters about our efforts to explore, to learn the new. There have always been those who said, ``Well, we haven't solved all of our problems yet, so we should spend our money on the here and now until we get those answers and never look into other new areas; don't waste money on what might be.'' There have been plenty of doubters about our efforts to explore the new, and one of the most famous is one I have quoted on this floor before, a distinguished orator and Senator, Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster used to get very impassioned. All you have to do is see the desk on the other side of the aisle which is always reserved for the senior Senator from New Hampshire. That is the only desk in the U.S. Senate that has a solid top on it. It does not raise. It does not have hinges. That is because Daniel Webster became so impassioned on the Senate floor, he used to bang so hard on the desks during his speeches, that he broke the tops of the desks. They finally got so tired of replacing the tops that they put on a solid top of additional thickness so he couldn't break it. That is how impassioned he became about some of the matters in which he believed. He rose in the Senate when our Government was considering buying lands west of the Mississippi from Spain and Mexico, lands that now make up more than half of the area mass of today's United States. Daniel Webster would rise during floor debate to say words to the effect of these: ``What use can this area west of the Mississippi be, this area of cactus and prairie dogs, of blowing sand, mountains of snow, impenetrable snow to their very base? Mr. President, I will not vote one cent from the public Treasury to move the Pacific one inch closer to Boston than it now is.'' We can see in the past we have had some of our greatest statesmen who have taken a rather myopic view of branching out and looking into the new and unknown. The Wright brothers faced their skeptics, too. Some people said at that time that if God wanted us to fly, God would have made feathers on us so we could fly. Yet, their curiosity and persistence led to airplanes and the aviation industry and really have changed the nature of the world and commerce and how we do business over this Earth. I hate to say we face reincarnation of some of those skeptics when debating our space program. I think people who take some of these views are just as misled as Daniel Webster and critics of the Wright brothers were years ago. Each year they ask, ``Why do we invest billions of taxpayers' dollars for space exploration and research''--even though it does have a great promise, which I will go into in a few moments-- ``while we still have other problems right here on Earth we haven't solved? It is not just exploring the West. So why do we put new money into research and laboratories when we haven't solved the problems on which we are already working?'' You can look at the macro research or micro research area, either one. We do research for one reason, and I can give a short answer for that: We do it to benefit people right here on Earth and to address those very problems they raise, and that has been true ever since I was involved in the space program many years ago during Project Mercury, and it is true today. I cannot think of one area of our society, whether it is communications or transportation or medicine, manufacturing, agriculture, the environment, education--that has not demonstrably benefited from our space program. I know my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, will say he is not against the space program--and that is true, he is not, he votes for it--that he is just against the space station. Yet, the space station, to my mind, is one of the most preeminent examples of where we stand the potential of benefits for the future beyond anything we can foresee at the outset right now. That is the nature of basic research. That is the nature of geographical research and exploration or research in laboratories. This year, as in years past, we will debate what the benefits are of the International Space Station. Fortunately, we have continued to fund the space station. I think it is one of the greatest cooperative scientific enterprises in the history of this world--in fact, the greatest. A total of 16 nations have teamed up to launch the most ambitious technical undertaking known to man. The first components will be launched later this year. As a matter of fact, the scheduled date is December 3 when the first U.S. node will be put up. The Russians will their first component, the Functioning Cargo Block on November 20. The station will be a laboratory in permanent orbit. Much of its research will be a continuation of work currently being done on the shuttle, which is more limited as a research facility because of several things, including space available inside it, and because of technical considerations and the length of time it can be in space. That is the main one, the length of time that it can actually stay in orbit. Let me go into a little bit about some of this research that I do believe is important. We had a recent set of experiments called Neurolab in April of this year. It was started on the shuttle and will be continued on the space station to a greater extent. It will deal with probably the greatest single frontier, the greatest unknown, the greatest area for potential advancement of anything we could think about, and that is a study of our human brain and our nervous system and how they operate. It can't be much more important than that. That is the part of the human body that is most complex and least understood by scientists. Neurolab flew this past April carrying seven astronauts and a whole host of different animals. It is NASA's view that it is the most complex and scientifically sophisticated research mission they have ever flown. Researchers used state-of-the-art techniques and technologies to gather information about how the nervous system's control of various body functions changes in the microgravity of space and how gravity influences the development of our nervous system right here on Earth--trying to get an insight from the lack of gravity as to how these whole systems work. A Neurolab lab performed research in the area of our vestibular system, balance; cardiovascular functions; spatial orientation and development biology; and circadian rhythms. The lay person listening to me recite those might wonder what all these terms involving research with a bunch of astronauts have to do with me right here on Earth. That is a good question. But there are some very ready answers to that. The vestibular system relates to how the inner ear links to our sense of balance which is disrupted when the astronauts are in microgravity and space. The research lab will help to better understand how balance is disrupted and then restored. Is that of importance here? There are 12.5 million Americans right now over the age of 65 who suffer from balance disorders just as a pure result of the aging process. In fact, balance disorders affect most people at some point in their lives, and hopefully this may give us a new approach to those problems. Cardiovascular Functions: Blood pressure control is upset in space. Many astronauts faint or become dizzy when they come back to Earth. This ``orthostatic intolerance'' also affects 500,000 Americans. Neurolab's research will be helpful in developing treatments for those who suffer from inadequate regulation of their blood pressure. Spatial Orientation and Development Biology--that s a big title: Research in this area examines the development of motor skills like walking and manual dexterity. Findings could be helpful in learning how the nervous system connects to motor development, which could have applications in treating children whose motor development is retarded by disease or genetic defect, or for people who are seeking to regain motor function after a stroke or an accident. Sleep and Circadian Rhythms: Astronauts in space have trouble sleeping. So do millions of Americans, especially older Americans, and those who work night shifts. But trials on Neurolab examine the hormone Melatonin and its efficacy as a sleep aid. For those over 65 in this country, it is estimated about one-third of those people have serious enough sleep problems that it really interferes with their lives. So this may give us a handle on looking into some of those problems. All of the Neurolab's research is not something NASA just dreams up and says, hey, I think we will put something on this flight that might be a good idea; it looks pretty cool. We will try that next time out and see what we find out. No, that is not the way it is done. All the research has been peer reviewed and the Neurolab research involved collaboration between NASA and the National Institutes of Health, the Office of Naval Research, and some of the world's leading scientific experts in this area. Neurolab will be continued on the space station in a longer and more sustained way. I think we are only scratching the surface now of what will be learned. Neurolab is not the only research being done that has benefits right here on Earth. One field of research we have talked about on the floor before that I find most intriguing and I know this is denigrated somewhat as being sort of esoteric, but it is anything but that. It is very important. That is protein crystal growth in space. Most people are probably not aware--outside of the medical profession, that is-- most people are probably not aware of the importance of protein crystals or proteins in our bodies and the fact that in space there is a big difference. Contrary to what was said on the floor a few moments ago, there are differences in microgravity, there are differences in ``zero-G'' as to the kind of research you can do. You can't do all these things on Earth. In space, the protein crystals grow to a larger size and a greater purity than anything you can do here on Earth because of disruption caused by gravity. Research going on now with drug companies is fascinating and it brings a whole new input to medicine, to the thousands of different proteins and combinations that make up our bodies and literally stands to transform the way medicine looks at itself and the way we treat disease and what we can do with regard to immunities by these things we are learning from changes in protein crystal growth in space. Some of our leading drug manufacturers are cooperating very, very closely in that particular area. Let me give an example dealing with the treatment of flu. The flu remedy is being developed with space-grown crystals where you can find out how the flu bug itself reacts. As far as flu is concerned, the loss of productivity due to flu is staggering--with some estimates as high as $20 billion a year that it costs our economy--with the high mutation rates of the flu virus. New data from the protein crystals grown in space and on Earth appear to unlock some of the secrets of the flu bug and reveal its Achilles' heel. This gets rather technical, but the secret lies in a small molecule attached to the host cell surface and each flu virus, no matter what strain, must remove this small molecule to escape the host cell to spread infection. But using data from space and space-grown crystals, researchers from the Center for Macromolecular Crystallography are designing drugs to bind with this protein's site. In other words, they lock on this site, and this lock and key reduces the spread of flu in the body by blocking its escape route. I think that is fascinating. It gets a little technical for discussion on the Senate floor, again, but for critics to say there is no benefit coming from this research is just not right. These are very, very promising medical breakthroughs that are coming from the fact that we can grow protein crystals in space of far greater purity and size than we can here on Earth in a one-G environment. The Center for Macromolecular Crystallography, in collaboration with a private sector affiliate, has developed several potent inhibitors of viral influenza. It is anticipated that phase I human trials will begin this year. This is an excellent example of the kind of research in our space program that has direct relevance to us here on Earth. We have 20 to 40 million people every year that get the flu, causing some 20,000 deaths a year in the U.S. alone. This new data on space-grown crystals has helped unlock a secret to let us treat flu in a different way. That is just one example. Another benefit from these same kind of space-grown crystals is trauma from open-heart surgery that can lead to complications due to massive inflammation of heart tissue. Factor D plays a key role in the biological steps that activate the immune response. Being able to block factor D's effects could enable heart-surgery patients to recover more rapidly, and data from space-grown crystals allowed researchers to develop inhibitors which specifically block factor D. The industrial partner for these activities recently received approval to start human clinical trials. Another example is space crystals in the fight on AIDS. A new combination of drugs, including protease inhibitors, has proven immensely successful in treating AIDS. In an ongoing experiment with DuPont Merck, NASA has crystallized HIV protease enzymes with an inhibitor to support structure-based drug design research. This may be a successful second generation approach to treat this disease. A final example: the CMC has determined the structure of NAD synthetase, a protein found in all bacteria. Several leading drug candidates have been developed that have shown positive effects against E. coli, salmonella, strep pneumonia and tuberculosis. Think how helpful these discoveries might be. On E. coli alone, we have all become unfortunately aware in the last couple of years of its breakout in tainted meat and the resulting illnesses and deaths in many children across the country. Protein crystal growth is only one field of research which has already benefited from access to space. Another area of research which shows great potential is advanced cell culture research. Researchers will take advantage of the weightless environment of space to study tissues as they grow and develop in three dimensions without settling to the bottom of the vessel. The rotating wall bioreactor, developed by NASA to mimic this capability on the ground is already finding wide application in medical research here on Earth. The bioreactor has the potential for changing disease treatment through tissue transplants. Forthcoming experiments plan to grow human pancreatic islet cells in the bioreactor for possible transplantation into diabetic patients. If the upcoming experiments are successful, diabetic patients will not need to rely as heavily on insulin injections and will have less complications from their disease. Another example: Modeling colon cancer with bioreactor. Mr. President, 166,000 cases of colon cancer are diagnosed each year in the United States, and it is one of the leading causes of death. Colon cancer tissue grown in a bioreactor develops remarkably similar to tumors extracted from humans. Studying these tissues outside the human body may allow researchers to understand how cancer spreads, as well as identifying new therapies which may prevent it. This bioreactor is a marvelous thing. It lets tissues be cultured in the same way they occur in the human body. If you go into a laboratory and try to do experiments there, quite often the experiment becomes two-dimensional because it wants to settle to the bottom of the petri dish. A bioreactor in space, with all the right fluids that simulate the body, allows growth in a 3-D situation. They can be studied better so possible treatments can be put into a culture that is very similar to what occurs in the human body. Growing cartilage with the bioreactor is another potential application. An application of the bioreactor is culturing cartilage tissue for replacement and transplantation. Experiments with the bioreactor indicate it can successfully culture cartilage tissue that is quite similar to human cartilage. I use these few examples today just to illustrate how relevant this research is to our future on Earth. The international space station will make it possible to continue some of the same experiments for longer periods of time. A longer duration of time is absolutely critical for the success of many of these experiments. In this regard, I quote a friend and one of the most respected surgeons in this country--as a matter of fact, in the world--Dr. Michael DeBakey, chancellor and chairman of the department of surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, who said: The space station is not a luxury any more than a medical research center at Baylor College of Medicine is a luxury. Present technology on the shuttle allows for stays in space of only about 2 weeks. We do not limit medical researchers to only a few hours in the laboratory and expect cures for cancer. We need much longer missions in space--in months to years--to obtain research results that may lead to the development of new knowledge and breakthroughs. NASA has already had some 1,000 or more proposals per year for ground-based and flight investigations involving precursor research for the International Space Station project. Selection of principal investigators and commercial developers is beginning this year for limited flight opportunities starting in 1999, and this population will increase from 650 to 900 principal investigators and from 100 to 200 industrial affiliates by the time the station assembly is complete. About 650 life and microgravity sciences principal investigators are now participating at over 100 institutions of higher learning around the country, and the number of investigators is expected to grow to over 900 before assembly is completed. These researchers, in turn, employ about 1,400 graduate students at present, with that number expected to grow. What are they looking into? Well, a number of different areas, and I won't be able to go into all of them today. Biotechnology with an x-ray diffraction system, for instance. Microgravity allows researchers to produce superior protein crystals, which I mentioned a moment ago, for drug development and to grow three-dimensional tissues, including cancer tumors, for research and cartilage for possible transplant. Another area that can be looked into on the international space station also is in the area of materials science. Researchers use low gravity to advance our understanding of the relationships among the structure, the processing and the properties of physical materials. The long-term benefits: We advance the understanding of processes for manufacturing semiconductors, metals, ceramics, polymers, and other materials. We also determine fundamental physical properties of molten metal, semiconductors, and other materials with precision impossible on Earth. Another area being looked into, and this too is a fascinating one, is combustion science. Scientists are using low gravity to simplify the study of complex combustion processes, burning processes. Since combustion is used to produce 85 percent of Earth's energy, even small improvements in efficiency will have large environmental and economic benefits. Now, that is an interesting one because if you light a candle in space, you don't have the flame standing up. There is no convection current, no rise of air from heating. It gathers in a mass around that burning area. So it enables combustion to be studied in ways that were never possible before. These are only highlights of some of the prestation research that have already occurred. Dr. Robert Cheng and Dr. Larry Kostiuk, combustion science researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under contract to NASA, were awarded a patent for a ring flame stabilizer, which significantly reduces pollution from natural gas burners. Fitted into an off-the-shelf home heating surface, the device from natural gas burners. Fitted into an off-the-shelf home hearting surface, the device reduces nitrogen oxide emissions by a factor of 10 by increasing efficiency by 2 percent, and the device can be readily sized to industrial scales. That kind of experiment will continue on the space station. Furthermore, the international space station will continue research into fundamental physics. Scientists use low gravity to test fundamental theories of physics with degrees of accuracy that far exceed the capacity of earthbound science. Physics and low gravity expand our understanding of changes in the state of matter, including those changes responsible for high-temperature superconductivity. Scientists will study gravity's influence on the development, the growth and the internal processes of plants and animals, and their results will expand fundamental knowledge to benefit medical, agricultural, and other industries. In that regard, on plant studies, I sat in a classroom at Houston during some of the training I have been doing there just last week. One of the experiments was explained. We will have growth of certain seeds and exactly how they differ in growth patterns in microgravity was assessed, and the different tissue that makes up these plant cells will be a subject of study on the flight that I will be on in October of this year. We were learning how to go about getting those samples, preserve them and bring them back to earth so they can be studied here. Furthermore, the space station will be a unique platform from which to observe the Earth and the universe. That is planned with Earth Observation and Space Science, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, and SAGE to be deployed in 2001. This research will further expand our knowledge of the solar system and beyond, as well as of the Earth itself. I cite these examples to briefly indicate what a wide variety of scientific effort will go on with the international space station. There will undoubtedly be many unintended or ``spin-off'' benefits as well, especially if NASA's past record in this area is of any indication. There have been over 30,000 different spin-off benefits from our space program since its inception. I'd like to give just one of the latest examples that is highlighted in NASA's publication Spinoff 97. Several years ago, the agency developed a highly sensitive infrared detector, otherwise known as a QWIP, to observe the plume created by the shuttle when it is launched. Subsequently, QWIPs have been modified for use for other applications. They were used to track the Malibu fires in 1996 and served as an early warning system on hot spots not visible to the naked eye from the air. Recently, a QWIP was tested by surgeons at the Texas Heart Institute to see which arteries are carrying blood during heart surgery. Now, let me address these next remarks about something that happens to all of us. As much as some might wish otherwise, there is no cure for the common birthday and as we advance in years our bodies start to change as we age. So research of the aging process has a direct relevance to all of us. For several years now, NASA and the National Institute of Aging, which is part of the NIH, were working on a project looking at what happens to astronauts in space. I have been personally involved with this over the last several years. I will be flying as a test subject on board the space shuttle Discovery later this year, due to be launched October 29. Let me address how this whole thing came about because I think it is of interest and will be of interest to so many Americans that are in their senior years. Back about 3 years ago, I was looking at some of the results of what happens to the human body in space. NASA has been able to chart, through the years, over 50 changes that occur in the human body in space. Cardiovascular changes, osteoporosis, muscle system changes, coordination, immune system changes--things like that--sleep pattern changes, it seemed to me as I read the list as I was getting ready for debate on the Senate floor at that time--as we do every year--it seemed to me, when I read this list, that there are several things that appear to be part of the natural process of aging right here on Earth. I talked to some of the doctors over at NASA, and they said they noticed some of those things. But we didn't have any projects to go ahead research these observations. So I went out and talked to the people at the National Institutes of Aging who said yes, they noticed some of the same changes and thought that sometime we ought to look into it. I looked at these changes. I was able to take the Merck manual on geriatrics, the handbook that most doctors have on their desks in their offices, and go back through and chart the different things where there is a special process that occurs just from aging, and a similar thing occurs with the younger astronauts in space in a much shorter time period. Out of that we came up with a number of them: Osteoporosis; cardiovascular changes; orthostatic--the ability of the body to keep blood in the upper part of the body and keep it distributed so the brain keeps functioning; muscle degradation, or deterioration of the muscle systems that change in weightlessness; but also change is part of the natural process of aging right here on Earth; coordination; immune system changes. The body's immune system becomes less responsive for the aged right here on Earth and for younger astronauts in space right now. Sleep changes: About one-third of our population of those over 65 have very serious sleep problems right here on Earth, as do astronauts in space. The ability of the body to even take in nutrients and absorb them, drugs and nutrients; changes in space and changes for the elderly here on Earth. Those are a number of things that we noted. When I talked to people, they thought that we should be establishing a project to look into these things, with the ultimate objective of trying to find out what turns the body's systems on and off in these particular areas, both for astronauts and for the elderly right here on Earth. We have some 34 million Americans right now who are beyond the age of 65. That is due to double by the year 2030 and due to triple to almost 100 million by the year 2050. So this is an area of growing concern as we have so many more of our people enter some of these areas of frailties of old age. That is what we are trying to look into: What if I as an older person go up into space, and what if my immune system or my reactions are different than those people who are already up there now of a younger age? Will the things happening to them be additive to me, or will I be immune from them because those things may have occurred to me here on Earth as part of the natural process of aging? This is the kind of research we are trying to look into. We can't look into them all at once. But some of the problems we can look into are some of the muscle system changes. Muscle turnover experiments, which I will take part in, where I will have isotope injections and take blood-urine samples on a regular basis to see what is causing the body to break down its own cells in space, which happens right here on Earth to the elderly; doing a sleep experiment in which I will have on a ``sleep net,'' as it is called, with a net put over the head that has leads over it, which picks up EEG--all the brain waves--picks up rapid eye movement with sensors here, sensors under the chin, a respiration sensor across here, as well as EKG measurements, as well as monitoring deep body core temperatures; swallowing of a pill that transmits the little signal, with temperature accurate to one-tenth of a degree, as recorded on a monitor card around your waist all the time as that pill works its way through your body. This will be the most comprehensive study of sleep ever made. It will continue what was done on the Neurolab flight where several people were there provided good baseline data. NASA and NIA will now be able to compare data, at least with one person anyway of an older nature, such as myself. We will be able to start this kind of research then, which I think has the potential of being extremely valuable into the future. These are the things that have to be done in zero-G and can't be done right here on Earth. The ultimate objective is to get a handle on what turns these body systems on and off, which will benefit not only the astronauts up there in space by allowing them to take preventive medicine, before these effects occur but also be used here on Earth to hopefully treat some of the frailties of old age that afflict too many people right here on Earth. We are all familiar with the syndrome of broken bones in the elderly through falling and breaking a hip. If we can learn how to strengthen bones with this kind of study, it would be of tremendous value. That is what we will be starting some of the research on this fall, in October of this year. I will be a data point of one when we come back from the mission. Some people say we don't learn anything from a data point of one. My response to that is, well, you start to build a data bank with a data point of one. I hope that through the years NASA will continue this kind of research. I hope we can bring back enough good information that they will continue this research through the years and see the value of this kind of research so it builds the storage of knowledge that we have and I think can be extremely valuable into the future. It can open up a whole new area of NASA and NIA research that will be so important into the future. I am looking forward very, very much to participating in that kind of research, as well as the other things that are going on on board the flight that I will be on. I think the current number of research projects on STS-95, which will be the flight going up in October, is 83 separate research projects. It is going to keep everybody busy on a very tight timeline all during that flight to even keep up with that amount of research. There will be a tremendous amount of research going on on that particular flight. I could talk for hours on that subject. I have all sorts of material that I brought to the floor today that I thought I might get to--we don't have time to do it today, but I learned in some of the briefings that NASA had in Houston. I think it would be a tragedy if we didn't continue to fund the space station where this research can be carried out in the future to a far better degree than they have ever been able to be done just on the orbiter itself. Let me say a few words about the importance of international cooperation in space research. If you had told me some 36 years ago when I made my flight in 1962-- that in 1997 United States astronauts would take up residence on a Russian space station and work together with a Russian crew, I would not have believed it possible. I am a veteran of the cold war and the space race. I guess I could not be more pleased to see this kind of progress. Obviously, there is tremendous symbolic value also when former enemies work together cooperatively. But symbolism isn't the most important reason we cooperate. Again, it gets back to the basic research when we can do it better together working together in laboratories all around the world. Yes, we can. The quality of research is going to improve if we have the best and brightest from 16 nations working on these various projects. The shuttle-Mir program also was called Phase I of the International Space Station. It is a perfect example of the benefits of such cooperation. The program consisted of nine shuttle-Mir docking missions. The program has helped both the United States and Russia learn countless valuable lessons which will be put to use on the International Space Station. Just a few of those accomplishments, and I will just read them off: American astronauts had a presence on Mir for 812 days; conducted nine shuttle-Mir docking missions; Russian and American engineers, astronauts and cosmonauts, in performing joint operations, have developed a mutual understanding in these areas, even though we come from different cultures, and that is important for the future. We have learned how to plan and execute typical shuttle missions to station rendezvous and docking, joint ground and mission control, extravehicular activity, exchange of supplies, and on and on. Most importantly, we are working together on joint research projects. Over 45 different research papers are expected to be published by the end of this year just on the experiments off of Mir. They encompass work on bone loss, bone marrow growth, growth of cancer cells and cartilage, protein to crystal growth research, and measurement of the Earth's magnetic field--a wide range of scientific matters. They put us in an excellent position for assembly and subsequent operation of the International Space Station with reduced risk, greater confidence, and a reduced learning curve which will save us time and money. Now, we had a number of charts here on the station. I think in the interest of time I will not put those up right now and take more time for discussion. To summarize this particular part, we will have for the first time in history 16 nations involved in an International Space Station, cooperating instead of fighting each other. Working together, using the best and brightest of each of these countries to do research is a benefit to people right here on Earth. This is a new model for how people can reach across borders to work together to solve problems common to all mankind. It is truly a monumental and historic effort, and I am proud and honored to be able to support it. I think there is one other important factor here too that I run into all the time going around the country, and that is--and this is, rather, an intangible benefit. I think our efforts in scientific research in these areas is something that the kids look up to; our young people in school are encouraged to study math and science and to work harder in school. We run into that all the time. We meet with teachers, and we will be doing some discussion from the flight that I will be on this fall. We will be doing some talking back and forth to Earth in this educational area to hopefully inspire some of our young people in their academic efforts. Now, the Senate will be debating an amendment that would, if passed, terminate the space station. I hope that the Bumpers amendment will be defeated. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, or any other amendments to cut back or restrict space station funding because I believe the difficult task of building and launching the station is being done in a most cost-effective manner while keeping safety paramount. I think it is very, very difficult task. This is not like going to Detroit and saying, General Motors, we want to buy 5,000 trucks. What is your cost? And we will know within a dollar what we are going to get them for, and we will probably get them on time without any change in capability. We are dealing in an area that is out on the cutting edge of science, setting up a vehicle that will be used to initiate projects and do research on the cutting edge of science and is less amenable to accurate cost accounting. I think it is difficult when we say we are expecting NASA to be able to foresee some of the things that have happened such as, for instance, congressional cutbacks in funding from time to time, cutbacks of programs and building up later on, cutbacks again. One estimate by one of the studies was that 80 percent of the overruns of the last few years, where there has been a budget increase, has been caused by that very factor alone. So perhaps we have to look at ourselves here in Congress a little bit as to what caused some of these increases. This year's cost for the station, $2.3 billion in this particular bill, that is just $30 million above the President's 1999 budget that we are talking about here today. Back years ago, we were talking about a continuing basis of $2.1 billion per year. That is when we thought the total cost was going to be $17.4 billion. So for a scientific project like this, I don't see that that is too far out of line. This is not like going out and buying something that is a commonplace product, off the shelf in this country, or wherever. It is not true that all scientists are opposed to the station as my colleague stated earlier, and it is not true, I don't think, that NASA has broken their promises. I think they have basically made the best estimates they could, and they have tried to live with them. So I hope my colleagues will join me in defeating this amendment to terminate the space station because I think it is very valuable for the future. The voting patterns in the past in the Senate have shown that most in the Senate believe that, and I hope it continues today. Most of the hardware is either under construction or actually completed now, and the first nodes will be launched later this year. And we will get it onstream over the next couple of years so that we can start this research that is going to benefit all mankind. I think one of the best decisions ever made by this country way back in the earliest days of the space program when NASA was just being formed was--the decision was made by Dwight Eisenhower--that our program would be open for the whole world to participate in. And here we are at the end of the cold war participating now with 16 nations in the greatest engineering effort ever made in the history of the world. It is inspiring to our young people. It has the tremendous benefit of a research laboratory we have never been able to have. In all the tens of thousands of years as people looked up and wondered what was up there, and the Wright brothers made the first flight off the surface of the Earth, and ever higher, and now we have the chance to use this for the benefit of all people on the Earth, I think it should continue and I hope my colleagues will vote to defeat this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.