Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for yielding the time. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the Bumpers amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bumpers amendment, and I join him in his 8th year of travail on what I think has been an important provision. When I came to Congress in 1993, I came with great alarm about the cost overruns, the delays, the projected increases in spending, and what appeared to be a black hole absorbing precious taxpayer dollars. I also came with a willingness to be convinced that was going to change. I was promised that they were going to tighten their belts, slim it down and trim it down, that it was going to become a responsible kind of program and project. Well, the most recent GAO report--the 1998 GAO report--has convinced me that we need to cut our losses, that it is not going to happen, that it has not happened and, in fact, the projections are that we are going to continue to see exorbitant cost increases if we continue down the road of building the space station. My colleague from Maryland spoke much of the value of microgravity and the need for the space station and microgravity research. I would like to quote Professor Robert Park of the Department of Physics at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland. Doctor Park said: Microgravity is the only unique property of a space station environment, and the station was originally envisioned as a sort of microgravity R&D laboratory. The microgravity research that was envisioned for the international space station has already been largely completed, either on the shuttle or on Mir. So there you have it. The original and primary justification for building the space station has largely been realized by ongoing R&D, either on the shuttle or on Mir. By cutting the international space station's lifeline, today the Senate has the opportunity to save billions of dollars that have been floating away now for over a decade. I want to commend Senator Bumpers for his resolve, for his eloquence, and for his persistence on this issue. My distinguished colleague from Maryland said that in appreciation for Senator Bumpers' efforts, he had turned on the yellow light. I can only say that what we need to do is turn on the red light on this project. It needs to be a stop light. From fiscal year 1985 to fiscal year 1997, it has already cost the American people $19 billion. In its current form, the Senate appropriations bill would pour another $2.3 billion into this project. My distinguished colleague from Arkansas has offered an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill which would end this cycle of waste. The Bumpers amendment would provide $850 million for the termination of the International Space Station, make $450 million available to HUD, and most important, redirect $1 billion of the savings from the space station and make that money available to the Veterans' Health Administration medical care account. Since its inception, the International Space Station has become a looming monstrosity of skyrocketing costs and scientific indefensibility. According to the latest GAO estimate, this will now cost the American taxpayers $96 billion. That is up $2 billion from 1995--only 3 years ago. This enormous figure includes the costs of design, construction, launching, and 10 years of operation, but it does not include future schedule slippage, additional shuttle launches to test the crew return vehicle, deconstruction at the end of the station's life, as well as possible delays by our partners on their obligations to the project. With these additional factors, the space station will undoubtedly take several more years and several billion more taxpayer dollars. It is a record we have seen time after time on the space station. Costs have been increasing steadily. So far, the American people have paid $19 billion into the project. Since the space station was conceived, cost estimates have risen dramatically. Under the original space station concept, space station Freedom, the Reagan administration estimated a cost of $8 billion in 1983. NASA's estimate rose to $16 billion by 1987. By 1993, the cost of developing and building the space station Freedom rose to $30 billion, with an additional $60 billion for 30 years of operation. In the same year, the GAO estimated a grand total of $118 billion for all space station costs, including launches. Now, under the revised concept of the International Space Station, NASA estimated $72 billion in costs, including 10 years of operations and shuttle costs. Those are a lot of figures. What is the American taxpayer to think? What are they to believe? In the past 3 years, the GAO's cost estimate for the station has increased by $1.7 billion. You can believe that. From $93.9 billion in June of 1995 to $95.6 billion in April of 1998. Why have the costs increased? According to Allen Li, Associate Director of Defense Acquisitions at the GAO, during his June 24, 1998, testimony before the House Science Committee, there are a number of factors why that happened. The higher development costs--$21.9 billion [1998] versus $17.4 billion [1995]--are attributable to schedule delays, additional prime contractor effort, not covered by funding reserves, additional crew return vehicle costs, and costs incurred as a result of delays in the Russian-made Service Module. My colleague spoke eloquently about Russia's role in the space station and their delays in the cost overruns, and the fact that they simply are not capable of bearing their share of this burden. In other words, schedule delays and increased shuttle flights have driven costs up dramatically. Unfortunately, these delays are not new to the space station project. Phase II of the project, which involves construction of a U.S.-Russian space station that can be permanently occupied by three astronauts, was originally scheduled to occur from 1997 to 1998. NASA pushed phase II to occur from 1998 to 2000. Phase III, which involves additional construction, including the addition of European, Japanese and Canadian components, has been postponed from 1998 through 2002 to the years 2000 through 2004. The first launch for phase II was originally scheduled for November of 1997, later postponed to June of 1998, and is now scheduled for November of 1998. The completion date for the station, originally scheduled for June of 2002, then 2003, is now scheduled for January of 2004. On and on we could go with these delays. Clearly, delays and launches are likely to increase, driving costs even to newer heights. There is much that I would like to say. When I came up here, NASA lobbied me hard, telling me that though there had been mistakes and there had been cost overruns, they were going to tighten their belt, that it was going to be a new kind of project with a new kind of fiscal austerity. I believe that the GAO report, in addition to the cost assessment and validation task force that gave a similar report, provides compelling evidence that NASA is not capable or is unwilling to make those kinds of tough decisions. This is a project it is time to end. I remember all of the eloquent arguments that my colleague from the House side from the State of Texas made in defense of the Super Collider. ``We have to have the Super Collider.'' Almost every argument I heard today was made in defense of the Super Collider and the benefits, the spinoff benefits, we were going to receive in society. Congress made a tough decision that it could be better used in other forms of scientific research, and we cut our losses. I cite the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force established by NASA in September 1997 to independently review and assess the cost schedules and performance schedules on the International Space Station. That was led by Mr. Jay Chabrow. They issued a report this past April. This is what they said. The most optimistic estimate of the cost growth for the space station was over $2.195 billion. The most pessimistic estimate was $7.5 billion. It estimated that it will take 2 years longer to assemble the space station, pushing the completion date to 2006. Personnel requirements spiral from 1,285 originally predicted, to over 2,000. I would say to my conservative friends on the Republican side of the aisle that we were not sent up here to build up more government. We were not sent up here to support projects that are good sounding, that have noble objectives, but have a track record of wasting taxpayer dollars. That is not why we were sent up here. That is the record of this project. If we just step back and set aside our conservative Republican prejudices on this issue, and ask if it were any other project, would we defend it; were it any other project with these kind of cost overruns, delays, and wasteful spending record, would we defend it? I would suggest to you we would not. But this is our little baby that we are going to protect at all costs regardless of how much taxpayer dollars it wastes. We were not sent up to float a barrel of pork in outer space. I want to say one other thing before I end my remarks. We go from the extraterrestrial to the terrestrial, because I think it is good that we are taking $1 billion of what is being wasted on this project and putting it toward veterans health care. There are 26 million veterans in this country. We hear from them. We hear of the waiting lines. We have 173 hospitals, and we have not built a new one in a long, long time. We are rightly moving to outpatient care. We cannot open enough clinics for veterans. We cannot make health care accessible enough. The average age of veterans is increasing, necessitating more frequent care and longer convalescence. These are going to be greater needs as the World War II generation of veterans faces greater and greater health care needs. The increased demand in care strains the resources of VA medical facilities. Many of them have to drive many miles to get health care. High-quality medical personnel shy away from VA hospitals because they find them less appealing and less lucrative. Nurse practitioners rather than doctors have become the norm in many VA facilities. This is an opportunity for us to do a service to this country by stopping a program that needs to be stopped. This is not--and I emphasize this is not--an antiscience, an antitechnology vote. NASA will continue to have over $11 billion in fiscal year 1999. This is a protechnology Congress. We consistently voted for increased funding for NIH and NAS, the National Academy of Sciences. This is not an antiscience and antitechnology vote. It is a vote to say here is one area that has been so egregious in wasteful spending that we draw the line, we cut our losses, we stop the bleeding, and we are going to take those savings and put it in where we know it is going to be an investment in human beings in VA health care. Michael Daly, a seventh grader from Sherwood, AR, wrote me a letter asking me the value of a future in the military. Do you know what that young seventh grader is thinking about? He is thinking not only about our commitment to our Armed Forces, but how well we are going to meet our commitment to our men and women who have served as they leave the armed services and as they become the veterans of this country. Are we going to remember them? This is an opportunity for us to do a twin service to our veterans and to the taxpayers of this country in stopping an indefensible wasteful spending program. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Bumpers, who has been sometimes a lonely voice in pointing to the catastrophic waste in the space station, and join us in ending that program this year and support our veterans at the same time. I thank my colleague from Arkansas for yielding me this time. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the pending business is the division, the first amendment dealing with forced abortions. I would be glad to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California to make some remarks, but I would really like----

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California be granted 5 minutes.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate deals with forced abortions, forced abortions in China. Some of the comments earlier regarding this amendment questioned my motivation in offering-- --

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank you, Mr. President. Questions were raised as to my intention and motivation in offering an amendment on forced abortions in China. I would like to point out to my colleagues who question my motivation of the timing of the amendments, these are amendments, word for word, that passed the House of Representatives last year. They passed the House of Representatives last year.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will not yield for a question at this time.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The question was raised as to the timing of these amendments being offered. The accusation was made this is strictly to score political points. I have no desire to score political points. I would have greatly desired to have the amendments voted on 1 month ago, 2 months ago, or 6 months ago. Those who have followed the China policy debate will be well aware that these amendments passed the U.S. House of Representatives last year, have been pending in the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate for months, and have languished in that committee without having a hearing. Therefore, I think it was perfectly appropriate to file these amendments. The forced abortion amendment was filed more than a month ago on the Department of Defense authorization bill. The provision in the overall amendment dealing with religious persecution in China was filed May 18, well over a month ago. I remind my colleague there was never any intent that somehow this debate, on the eve of the President's trip to China--if we had not had a 4-week hiatus in debating tobacco in this Chamber, perhaps we would have had DOD up a month ago and would have had an opportunity to have these amendments voted on a month ago. But that wasn't the case. To question my motivation and the motivation of many of my colleagues who feel very deeply about the human rights abuses that are ongoing in China today, I think, is to do us a disservice; and to question our patriotism is wrong. In fact, to question our support for the President as he makes this trip is wrong, because I do support him. To the extent that he will raise human rights issues, to the extent that he will engage Chinese leadership on nuclear proliferation and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and to the extent that the President will engage the Chinese leadership on trade issues, I support him for that. I am glad for that. I believe the amendments I have offered will strengthen the President's ability to deal with the Chinese Government on these sensitive human rights issues. We have talked somewhat about the forced abortion provision. I think it is an important part of this. The very powerful subcommittee hearing that Congressman Chris Smith had only a couple of weeks ago, which received wide publicity, perhaps brought to a new level the awareness of the American people regarding the terrible practice of coerced abortions and coerced sterilizations in China today. That is the amendment that is before us at this time. People have questioned why we should deal with China and not deal with the broader context of a host of human rights abuses that exist around the world. During the course of the debate on China, I have heard repeatedly that we should not try to isolate China and that one out of every four people in the world lives in China. That is why it is worthwhile for us to deal with the human rights abuses in this nation singularly and specifically. And, truly, the kinds of practices that have been all too commonplace in China deserve our attention. I also point out to my colleagues that the issue before us in this amendment is not one of being pro-life or being pro-choice, because people on both sides of the life issue condemn the kinds of practices that are going on in China today in which coerced abortions are used in too many cases, where the one-child family planning policy has not been adhered to. So I believe that not only is this a timely amendment, in the sense that it passed the House last year and has been languishing--we have not had an opportunity. Amendments were filed over a year ago. It is quite appropriate that we deal specifically with the case of China and the abuses that are going on there. Once again, had the President delayed the trip, if he were going in November, I would still be pushing for these amendments to be voted on now. I am not a Johnny- come-lately to the China debate. We were involved in this during the MFN debates during my 4 years in the House. This is an issue I feel strongly about. It is an issue I am simply not going to be quiet about. I think if we are to highlight the kinds of freedoms that we as Americans cherish on the eve of our President's trip to a country that is repressed--and today we found out that even three reporters with Radio Free Asia are being denied visas--this is an opportunity for us to do it. We can do it in this country by even disagreeing, at times, with the foreign policy of our country. (Mr. GRAMS assumed the chair.)

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes, without losing the floor, I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I say to the Senator, it is my understanding that they had already been approved by the administration to travel to China and that it was only at the 11th hour that the Chinese Government denied their visas and their right to go and provide coverage for the President's summit in Beijing.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It indeed was. Let me read one statement that Ms. Gao Xiao Duan made in her testimony. She said, ``In all of those 14 years I was a monster in the daytime injuring others by the Chinese Communist authorities' barbaric, planned birth policy. But, in the evening, I was like all other women and mothers enjoying my life with my children. I could not live such a dual life any more. To all those injured women, to all those children who were killed, I want to repent and say sincerely that I am sorry.'' That was very powerful testimony that she presented that day. She did talk about methods of intimidation and the fines that were enforced, as well as the physical intimidation, and the carrying them off to jail if they refused to have an abortion, and the very severe physical methods that were used, as well as the financial. Yielding for a question.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is correct.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct. They called them-- ``population jail cells'' was the terminology that she used. Women were rounded up, held in population jail cells, forced and coerced to submit to the killing of their children. There was, I think, an eye opener for the American people to hear this very powerful testimony.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. In responding to the question of the Senator from Missouri, she was the former head of China's planned birth control office from 1984 to 1998. For 14 years she held that position. Only recently did she leave.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. It was presented as being a very common practice. I think maybe that was part of what was so shocking. I say to the Senator from Missouri, in response to the question, that the presentation in defense of China has been that these are isolated instances of coerced abortion and forced sterilizations, that they are in remote areas, difficult areas to enforce, that the central Government doesn't approve of this, local forces simply do it on their own. I think the testimony of this person, who was the head of the office, actively involved in it, demonstrates this was a very systematic, planned program of coercion that was used across the nation in villages and cities.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct. I did not use the term ``coercion'' lightly. I think ``coercion'' has to be beyond merely fines, although fines can very be intimidating. Homes were wrecked and destroyed, and the person wasn't able to pay the fine, if they violated the one-child policy. I yield for a further question.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. The Senator is correct. That is why I think the term ``coercion'' is the proper term, because it involved physical force. They would be physically removed. They would be taken to jail cells. They would be forced to have an abortion.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. In response to the Senator's question, what belies the contention that this is a matter of enforcement, what belies the defense that the China apologists make that these are remote areas, it is a vast country, that there is no possible way to prevent some of these abuses, what belies that is, in fact, our own State Department's report which indicates that all political dissidents have been rounded up; that they are--if you hold a protest in some distant province, I assure you the central Government is going to know about it and that you are going to be dealing with the central Government. And so the ability of the central Government to control free speech, free press, freedom of expression really refutes the notion that they are unable to enforce a policy against coerced abortions.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will yield for an additional question.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am happy to yield.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. She was actually the director, it is my understanding, and supervised and implemented the one-child policy. Further yielding for a question.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Your logic is compelling. There should be no objection to the United States utilizing denial of visas as a furtherance of our foreign policy and our belief in human rights, because it is now obvious that it is the practice of the Chinese Government, when they feel it is in their security interests or their national interests, to deny visas. They have no compunction about doing that. In fact, to me, as we look at the buildup to this trip, there has been a lot of give and take, a lot of negotiating that has gone on. It seems to me that we have made many concessions in leading up to this trip. We have been concerned about embarrassing, about causing them to lose faith, about being insensitive to their situation. But for the Chinese Government to deny visas for Radio Free Asia reporters I think is a tremendous kick in the teeth to the American Government and to the American people, who value the freedom of the press so preciously and put such high esteem upon that freedom. So it is unfortunate that this has happened, and it is, I think, all too reflective of the attitude of the Chinese Government toward the freedom of the press and freedom in general to have made this clampdown. They just do not seem to get it--rounding up dissidents in Tiananmen Square in preparation for the President. We would rather have a protester there. How heartening it would be to the American people to see someone holding up a sign saying ``Free Tibet'' there in Tiananmen Square. But no. Their idea is stability at all costs, even if that means repression of the Chinese people.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the Senator from Missouri while controlling the floor.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I further ask unanimous consent that the motion be temporarily laid aside for Senator Feinstein to speak. Following her statement, no later than 12:30, the tabling vote to occur.