Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago the United States fought a war in the Persian Gulf to safeguard our access to a plentiful supply of crude oil in the Middle East. In 1991, the United States had a lot at stake in the Persian Gulf, and since then not much has changed. This country must make it a top priority to protect its access to a plentiful supply of crude oil--which is why we went to war in the first place. This Nation will fight for energy. The gulf crisis prompted a need for dramatic changes in U.S. energy policy. Since that time, we have made some movement forward by allowing the export of crude oil in Alaska, and providing drilling and exploration incentives for offshore drilling. I applaud my colleagues and the leaders of this country in the advancements we have made to this precious industry, but we must not stop there. We must continue to strive toward more U.S. oil and gas production and guard against the interruption of foreign supplies in the future. If we fail to recognize the dangers of an increased reliance on imported oil, this country could once again find itself in the same predicament we were in with the Middle East in 1991. At a time when Washington is trying to balance the budget and promising ways to stimulate the economy, Congress and the leaders of this Nation must take a hard look at the domestic oil and gas industry for answers. In the end, this Nation's economy will reap the benefits of a strong domestic industry instead of suffering the consequences of our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution not to adjourn until a debt limit extension has been approved--and yet I believe the resolution does not go far enough. I regret that we are even having to consider a debt limit extension--rather than a balanced budget proposal or, at the very least, the remaining appropriations bills that should have been approved 4 months ago. I regret that this Congress plans to adjourn for a 3-week break when we have so much work left to do. Mr. Speaker, we should not go home until all the appropriations bills have been passed and approved by the President. We should not go home until this Congress produces a balanced budget proposal that can be supported by both parties and by the President. A majority of Americans want a balanced budget--a budget that makes the most use of their tax dollars and a budget that also is kind and fair to our seniors, our children, and our less fortunate citizens. Throughout the past year, Congress has had a golden opportunity to streamline Government, enact some needed reforms, and produce a balanced budget. But the shifting sands of time and politics have eroded that opportunity, and we are losing ground fast. Let us not let another opportunity pass to discharge our responsibility to our fellow citizens. Let's stay and work until we've accomplished our Nation's important business.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before this body to pay tribute to a distinguished public servant and outstanding American, Peyton McKnight of Tyler, TX. Peyton's recent death leaves behind a powerful legacy of achievement and a void that will not be easy to fill. Peyton was widely known and admired throughout the State of Texas for his record of public service. He served as both a State representative and as a senator. The energy and enthusiasm that he brought to public service is legendary--and the results of his efforts are significant. His legislative career began at the age of 23, when he was elected to the Texas House while attending the University of Texas at Austin Law School. As a representative, he authored the bill that established what is now the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. He supported prison reform and helped enact the highway safety code, and he supported a proposal that resulted in the East Texas Chest Hospital--now the UT Health Center at Tyler. As a State senator, Peyton introduced the bill which moved the University of Texas at Tyler into the University of Texas system. At the age of 28, Peyton was appointed U.S. Marshal for the eastern district of Texas, making him the youngest marshal in history at the age of 28. He became a lifetime member of the East Texas Peace Officers Association. He was an independent oil producer and businessman and was a member of the All-American Wildcatters Association and the Southern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments Committee on Energy. Peyton was active in his community and was involved in numerous worthwhile organizations. He served on the board of directors of Scott and White Memorial Hospital, the Sherwood and Brindley Foundation, and the East Texas Hospital Foundation. He was a Shriner and a member of the Sons of the American Revolution, the American Legion, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Peyton also devoted his considerable talents to the field of education. He served on the board of regents of Texas A&M University for 6 years, served on the UT Tyler Development Board, and held a similar position with the University of Texas Health Center in Tyler. Peyton was a native of Alto and a graduate of Quitman High School. He flew with the U.S. Army Air Corps on combat missions in Europe during World War II and graduated from Texas A&M with a degree in history and government. During his lifetime he was honored on numerous occasions, including a ``Peyton McKnight Day'' in Tyler and in Kilgore. He was respected and admired by the State's top political leaders and loved by his many friends throughout Texas. Peyton was one of those rare individuals who made a difference in everything he tackled. He was a true American patriot and a true friend--and he leaves behind a remarkable legacy of accomplishment. He will be truly missed by all those who knew him and loved him.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that a lot of statements that have been made here have very little to do actually with H.R. 558. These statements I think go toward and should go toward the proposed low level site and will be the subject of a lengthy and detailed permit review process that the Texas Natural Resources and Conservation Commission is to conduct in Texas this coming year. It is there I think that the statements that have been made here regarding the site should be expressed and probably not on the floor of this House. H.R. 558 is a compact between Texas, Maine and Vermont. That has been said over and over again. It was the subject of many legislative hearings, how many I really do not know, floor debate, negotiations by the Governors of these States, including the State-wide referendum. All of these actions were taken because we here in Congress directed the States to do this by legislation action passed in 1980 and 1985. The States have complied with their directive, and I think we ought to honor there good-faith efforts by vote to go ratify this compact. I urge Members to vote for H.R. 558.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, during this holiday season our thoughts naturally turn to children--our own children and grandchildren, children of our friends, children in our community, children in need. I would like to tell my colleagues about a special child, Andrew Michael ``Toby'' Farmer, a child who died of cancer on December 2. Words are inadequate to convey our sense of grief and compassion in the loss of a child. Andrew was 10 years old, the son of David and Janet Farmer of Stafford County and brother to Allison Marie Farmer. He was a fifth-grade student at Garrisonville Elementary School. And he was a fighter. His mother wrote to me, ``Andrew had a tough time, but he never, ever complained. He was and is the strongest person I have ever known. Such courage in the face of death--particularly such courage in a young boy--humbles and saddens us, Mr. Speaker, but also should inspire us to work harder to find the elusive cure for a disease that prematurely ends too many lives each year. We must be sure that programs vital to biomedical research are protected and strengthened where needed. One of those programs, Mr. Speaker, is the international space station, and I commend this body for supporting funding of the space station earlier this year. The weightless environment of the space station has enormous potential for medical research--research that could lead to cures or better treatments for cancer and other diseases--and I urge my colleagues to continue support for such programs in the years to come. Our hearts go out to Andrew's parents, sister, grandparents, and his many friends, and I ask my colleagues also to join me today in paying our last respects to this brave young man. Andrew ``Toby'' Farmer lived the remaining days of what should have been the normal life of a 10- year-old boy by displaying extraordinary strength and courage. Mr. Speaker, he is an inspiration to all those who knew him and loved him-- and he will be missed.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join my colleagues today in paying tribute to Rep. John Dingell as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of this election to Congress. It has been an honor for me to serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee under his effective leadership. Throughout his years of distinguished service, John always has been a fierce advocate and tough negotiator, and his legislative accomplishments are impressive. John's efforts led to passage of milestone legislation to protect the environment. He was instrumental in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act and passed strong Federal nursing home care standards. He helped write legislation that protected the consumer from unsafe products and unfair practices. He led efforts to expose and end corruption and waste in the public and private sectors and wrote legislation that promoted competition in the telecommunications industry. Although John and I sometimes disagreed philosophically about the nature and scope of specific legislation, we developed a good working relationship and a special friendship over the years. Mr. Speaker, John Dingell continues with great distinction his family's legacy of public service, following in the footsteps of his father, John Dingell, Sr., who preceded him in the House of Representatives. His son, Christopher, carries on the family tradition through his service as a Michigan State Senator--and perhaps he also will join this body one day. Such dedication to public service, Mr. Speaker, is part of our rich American heritage. Such commitment to public service, Mr. Speaker, deserves our respect and our gratitude. My friend and colleague, John Dingell, has served our country well and no doubt will continue to fight the good fight as long as he is a Member of the House of Representatives. I join my colleagues today in paying tribute to this great warrior.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. Filner.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, during the recent dedication of the Korean War Memorial and during last weekend's Veteran's Day memorial ceremonies in east Texas, I was reminded of the oratorical prowess of a legendary Texan and former constituent of mine, the late John Ben Shepperd (1915-90). John Ben was one of the first statewide officials that I met when I first entered politics in the 1950's. He was a kind and considerate man--so capable of friendship--and so strong as a leader. The caption on the Korean War Memorial, ``Freedom Is Not Free,'' is a phrase that was coined by John Ben in the late 1940's and used in hundreds of public appearances during his civic and political career. In 1953 he published an excerpt of his speeches and entitled the booklet, ``Freedom Is Not Free.'' This and his book, ``Freedom's Advocate,'' won him the coveted George Washington Medal from the Freedom Foundation of Valley Forge, PA. John Ben would have been pleased and proud to see his language used to memorialize the sacrifices of American soldiers who defended freedom in distant parts of the globe, and I am sure that this pleases his widow, Mamie Shepperd, who lives in my district in Gladewater, TX. He would have joined in the praise and recognition, which is so long overdue. John Ben was one of America's strongest advocates of democracy. He often reminded us that freedom is not a gift to be enjoyed, but an ideal that must be defended. He continually called on every citizen to uphold and promote our system of government and free enterprise. In 1948, as president of the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce, John Ben organized the ``Freedom Flight.'' According to Jaycee archives, he traveled over 250,000 miles and gave three hundred speeches heard by a quarter of a million people. As Texas Secretary of State and attorney general from 1950 to 1957, he continued to be an eloquent spokesman for democracy. John Ben had a special concern for young Americans. According to our former colleague, the Hon. Jake Pickle, who first knew John Ben at the University of Texas, he passionately cared that future generations should understand their roots in order to appreciate the American legacy of democracy and heroism. John Ben's phrase, ``Freedom is Not Free,'' on the Korean Memorial is a stirring reminder to future generations and a fitting tribute to a dynamic Texan. Mr. Speaker, John Ben Shepperd leaves behind a powerful legacy that serves as an inspiration to us all. I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to this outstanding American. His contributions to freedom's cause cannot be forgotten.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I, of course, rise today in support of the deep-water royalty relief provision. Basically, I am interested in that. This provision is good fiscal policy, it is sensible economic policy, and, most importantly, it is very sound energy policy. By supporting deep- water royalty relief, we are ensuring that this country can maintain a very healthy and robust domestic oil and gas industry. One of our best opportunities for adding new oil reserves can be found in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in the deep water, where only 1 in 16 deep-water leases is even producing. By reducing costs and providing appropriate tax and other fiscal incentives, we can speed the production of sorely needed oil and gas reserves. At the same time royalty relief will also generate revenue for the U.S. Treasury. Opponents who argue that deep-water royalty relief is a Government subsidy should know that which provides an increase in Government revenue cannot possibly be a Government subsidy. In addition, deep-water royalty will also create thousands of good paying jobs that can be sustained well into the 21st century.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the coalition's budget reconciliation plan. It is a fair and responsible proposal that achieves a balanced budget and yet is not unkind in doing so. These are two important points, Mr. Chairman. It is important for our Nation's future that we ensure economic security through a balanced budget, and it is equally important that we protect all of our citizens in the process. It is also vital that we protect the most vulnerable in our Nation--our children, our seniors, our sick, our poor. As chairman of the Coalition's Health Care Task Force, I would like to address the coalition's plan to reform Medicare and Medicaid. We recognize that reforms are needed to protect the future of these programs. We recognize that we need to slow the rate of growth. We believe that our plan achieves these goals less painfully than the majority's proposal. The coalition budget achieves a balanced budget while protecting Medicare. It does this by slowing the rate of growth and by giving seniors more choices of health care plans--but it does not force them to change. The reforms contained in our budget have far less impact on Medicare than those in the leadership's budget--by about $100 billion less. Our Medicare plan increases coverage for preventive care and maintains full home health care coverage. It reduces providers' Medicare reimbursements far less than the leadership budget does. Our plan includes fraud and abuse provisions, medical malpractice reform, and anti-trust relief. It establishes a commission to report every 3 years on the effectiveness of our plan. Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it maintains part B premiums at 25 percent for low and middle-income seniors and avoids cuts to rural and inner city hospitals. The coalition's Medicare provisions are less painful than those in the leadership's plan--and yet will keep us on target to balance the budget. Those who need our help the most--those covered under Medicaid--also are protected under the coalition's plan. Our budget maintains Medicaid payment of part B premimus, deductibles, and co-payments for low-income seniors. It continues nursing home standards and protects spouses from exhausting their resources to pay for nursing home costs. These are safety nets that are critical to the health and economic well-being of our citizens, Mr. Chairman, and they must be preserved. Mr. Chairman, we must honor our contract with the 37 million seniors being served by Medicare. We have an obligation to protect their current quality of care. At the same time, part of our contract with them is to ensure the future solvency of the program. The coalition budget accomplishes both of these. Although I don't agree with all aspects of either the leadership bill or the coalition budget, I believe the coalition budget is the most responsible proposal before the House today. I, for example, favor some tax relief, such as the $500 child tax credit and capital gains relief, that will spawn income and not cause outgo, but the argument is strong that we should not cut taxes until we balance the budget. I believe there will be some tax cuts in the final bill. I believe that we are within a stone's throw of where the Republicans, Democrats, and the President will finally come to. We have an extraordinary opportunity to achieve a balanced budget. This is a goal that I have supported throughout my years in Congress and one that is long overdue. But we must be sure that we are stepping in the right direction, that we are resolute but kind in our efforts to protect Medicare and also balance our budget. Mr. Chairman, I believe the coalition budget is a right step, and I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] for yielding this time to me, and of course I rise in support of the Nation's several space programs, and there are many reasons why I take this position. Basically it is because I have seen the benefit that our spending on space exploration has delivered to our citizens over the past 37 years. Communications satellites, weather satellites that are so important in this year of the hurricanes, advanced materials that have led to improved hip and joint replacements, technologies developed for the space program that have absolutely revolutionized medical diagnostic and monitoring devices and so forth; the list is absolutely endless, and I am convinced that our continued investment in the space program will deliver equally impressive returns in the future. As we debate H.R. 2045, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995, I would like to urge my fellow Members to make sure that we do nothing today to hurt the Nation's civil space program. We have tough decisions to make in the midst of difficult budgetary times. However, we should resist the temptation to be penny-wise and pound- foolish when it comes to one of America's most important investments in the future: Our investment in the space program. As the former chairman of the Space Subcommittee, I have long pushed NASA to streamline its activities and be the best steward it can be of the taxpayers' money. I believe that NASA has responded to the challenge. Many Members may be unaware that NASA--with help from both Congress and the administration--has cut its funding plans by some 35 percent since 1993. In many ways, NASA has led the way in delivering a quality product at the lowest possible cost. [[Page H 9809]] However, I believe that we have cut NASA just about as much as we can. To make any more cuts to NASA's budget runs the risk of unraveling all of the progress we have made and jeopardizing the projects that are so important to America's future: projects in aeronautics, in science, in space technology, and so forth. I do not believe we want to make that mistake. Why do I feel so strongly about the space program? It is because I have seen the benefit that our spending on space exploration has delivered to our citizens over the last 37 years. Communications satellites, weather satellites--so important in this ``year of the hurricanes'', advanced materials that have led to improved hip and joint replacements, technologies developed for the space program that have revolutionized medical diagnostic and monitoring devices, and so forth. The list is endless, and I am convinced that our continued investment in the space program will deliver equally impressive returns in the future. One need only look at the space station program and the research that is planned for that orbiting facility to realize that we are on the verge of an exciting era in research and development. As many of you may know, I am personally very interested in the potential for important advances in medical research that may come from experiments conducted on the space station. When I was chairman of the Space Subcommittee, I held a series of hearings over the last 3 years on the potential benefits of space-based biomedical research. The testimony we received from some of the premier medical experts in the country--people like Dr. Michael DeBakey and Dr. Charles LeMaistre, as well as some of the most promising, up-and-coming researchers, was truly impressive, and I invite Members to review the hearing record. We have worked hard to ensure that NASA and the National Institutes of Health develop good collaborative research activities, and that effort is bearing fruit. At a time when every family in America, on average, has someone that has been touched by the dreaded disease of cancer, we should not turn our back on any possible avenue of progress. I think that the space program has much to offer in our fight against the diseases that afflict our citizens--young and old, men and women-- and we should not turn away in a misguided attempt to save a few dollars. Space is an investment in our future and that of our children. I urge my fellow Members to support the space program.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], who represents the Marshall Space Center in Huntsville.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as they are doing out in the western part of this country, they are saving their best lawyer for the closing arguments in Los Angeles tonight. We have probably one of our very best to make the last argument for the space center. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, TX, the Honorable Sheila Jackson-Lee, who represents Johnson Space Center very ably.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], a very affable and very valuable member of the Committee on Science.

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from [[Page H 9562]] California [Mr. Brown], longtime chairman of the Committee on Science and ranking member. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think it comes as no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that I am prepared to speak on behalf of the space station program. I have supported this program in the past, in good times and bad, and I will continue to do so. You will hear many speakers today describe the importance of the space station, and you may also hear from a few Members who believe that the money could better be used elsewhere. I obviously don't agree with that latter group of Members, but I respect their right to be wrong on this issue. And I assure them that they will receive time to speak. Why do I continue to support the space station? There are many reasons that I could give. First, the station is a fundamental part of the Nation's space program and it is the logical next step in human spaceflight. I my years on the Space Subcommittee, I have become even more certain that the space station is a key element of a balanced program of space exploration, scientific research, and practical applications. Second, the space station program helps the Nation maintain and strengthen its pool of skilled scientific and technological talent-- which will be so critical to our economic competitiveness in the 21st century. Third, the space station represents the most significant cooperative, cost-sharing undertaking in science and technology probably in the history of the world. The United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada are all working together and sharing the cost of this program. It is an approach that makes good sense, and one which will strengthen the bonds between these nations and certainly has a very good product. Finally, and for me, most importantly, research conducted on the space station offers the promise of helping us to make significant advances in our understanding of terrestrial diseases and medical conditions that have afflicted our people--young and old--male and female. Over the past 3 years, the Space Subcommittee has held a series of hearings on the potential benefits of biomedical research conducted in space. I chaired those hearings, and I am here to report that the results achieved to date from the limited research that can be done on the shuttle are truly impressive, but much more remains to be done. All of the witness, or most of the witnesses, that have testified at those hearings are convinced that the opportunity to conduct long- duration research on a permanently-manned space station is indispensable if we are to continue to make advances. As the noted surgeon and researcher, Dr. Michael DeBakey put it, The Space Station is not a luxury any more than a medical research center at Baylor College of Medicine is a luxury. He knows that in the weightless environment of space, that just might spawn the answers to those who are wasting away in cancer wards, young girls and young boys who have to hit themselves with the vaccination for the dreaded disease of diabetes and on and on. I could quote many other eminent researchers that echo his view, but I know that other Members are waiting to speak. I would just like to conclude by saying even in these tough budgetary times, the space station is an investment that will pay back enormous benefits, enormous dividends. I urge Members to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 743, Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 743, the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act of 1995. The TEAM Act will clarify the legal ambiguity surrounding the use of worker-management teams in nonunion companies like many in my district. These teams provide the opportunity for development and improvement through an employee/manager relationship. Several of my constituents from the Texas Instruments Sherman plant testified in support of this legislation before the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee. One of those testifying was Mike Mitchell, who stated that ``teaming efforts within our company are merited with improvement strategies and actions resulting in cost savings of literally millions of dollars annually.'' Shane Jackson, another constituent, said, ``Without being able to have our teams, I feel we will cease to be competitive and fade away.'' I personally believe that the teaming concept will result in successful advances and will [[Page H 9528]] enable a company to remain competitive. Teaming does make a difference. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 743 and urge my colleagues to approve this legislation.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in debating this important piece of legislation. The Communications Act of 1995 could easily be the most important legislation considered in this Congress. A lot of hard work and many long hours have been spent providing a delicate balance to all the competing interest in the communication's field. With this legislation, we need to be certain that we create true competition, without which the results could be disastrous not only for new market entrants, but for consumers as well. There are many fine, small long-distance companies in my district. These good people are true entrepreneurs and hard workers. As the manager's amendment stands, I feel that these small businessmen will be threatened, all they want to do is compete. How are they to compete against a company that has the advantage of massive resources and a historical hold on the local market? After much discussion and compromise, not all sides had everything they wanted, but each side seemed pleased with what they had. This is an important step in the modernization of a 60 year old Communications Act. The time is now, but it must be done in a carefully balanced approach. I feel the manager's amendment threatens the balance that was achieved in the bill that was overwhelmingly supported by the Commerce Committee and that is why I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the broadcast amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Markey of Massachusetts. A lot of hard work and many long hours have been spend providing a delicate balance to all the competing interests in the communication's field. This has not been an easy task. With legislation as encompassing as this, it would be next to impossible to totally please everyone involved. I commend Chairman Bliley, Chairman Fields, ranking members Dingell and Markey on fashioning a bill that guarantees that the American telecommunications industry remains the most open, competitive, and innovative in the world. Increasing the national ownership cap to 35 percent, which I support, is a 10-percent increase in what is currently allowed under the law. The bill that we are considering would begin with the 35 percent cap, but then would expand this cap to 50 percent in the second year. I fear that this increase would be detrimental to our local stations and the idea of local control. If local stations do not have the freedom to select programs other than those provided by their network owners, this could result in too much concentration on network control of the distribution system, which I fear would result in network bullying of small affiliates. Additionally, it would be difficult for new networks--or new national competitors--to develop. We must preserve the right of our local television stations to choose their programming, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the annual Roemer-Zimmer amendment effort to kill the space station. Mr. Chairman, I admire both of those gentlemen and have worked on the subcommittee with them for many years, I just disagree with their annual effort to knock out the space station, and I really do not understand speakers who say as a youngster they dreamed, but as an oldster they do not want other youngsters to have that same dream. We cannot afford to lose this space station. And Mr. Chairman, we did not lose it by 1 vote. That was 2 years ago when they were going through redesign. The vote was 123-vote difference just a year ago. I think it is obvious that we do need to cut back, and I think Mr. Goldin has cut NASA back in the last 3 years some 35 percent. I know of no other entity that has taken that same cut, and then another $5 billion. We have taken enough hits in the NASA program. I think our Nation has weathered a lot of storms militarily, financially, politically, socially, and culturally, and throughout the rich history it has always been the American people and its leaders who have a deep and abiding belief in our future, a belief that we can and will accomplish great feats and make great discoveries. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] spoke earlier about placing the needs of our senior citizens above the needs of our space station. The gentleman is right to be concerned about our seniors, but what the gentleman did not point out is that our seniors are in favor of the space station. The Seniors Coalition, a group of 2 million members, has given its support to this station. This group, like myself, is supportive of a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, but also recognizes the dividends that such a project will likely realize for older Americans. The Seniors Coalition notes that research on the space station could potentially lead to medical breakthroughs in cancer, arthritis, diabetes, osteoporosis, balance disorders, Alzheimer's, cardiopulmonary disease, and other afflictions that threaten senior citizens. The coalition notes that NASA space research has already resulted in products that improved seniors' quality of life, such as instruments that measure bone density, osteoporosis, cardiac pacemakers, computer readers for the vision impaired, and on and on. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. HALL of Texas

Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that we have to make every effort to ensure that our taxpayers are getting the most for their tax dollars. I certainly agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin that we need to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary programs. I even go so far as to agree we need to cut back wherever we can, and I am willing to have a side-by-side review of [[Page H 7854]] my record of having cutbacks and trying to be frugal with the people's money. But Americans are not going to be getting the most for their tax dollars if they abandon the project that is going to help us have a better future. My basic support is for the biomedical thrust in space. We are still searching for cures for cancer, diabetes and other diseases. Micro-gravity research in space already has had encouraging results and has raised our hopes for future medical breakthroughs. Of course, there are no guarantees. Jonas Salk had no guarantee. Louis Pasteur had no guarantee. Dr. Fleming had no guarantee. There are no guarantees. But we have not found these cures here in this environment, and we might just find them in the weightless environment of space. Those Americans whose lives are threatened by disease would argue that finding a cure for their illness would be well worth this financial investment in the space station. Little children who have lost their hair to chemotherapy, tubes in them, veterans of the wars of the world wasting away, these are people who have hope in research. Who would not be willing to pay 2.2 cents a day in return for this investment? Even if we do not eventually find these cures, the technological and scientific benefits that will result will justify this expenditure. Mr. Chairman, I urge you to vote against the Obey amendment.