Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 944

Ms. MIKULSKI. Reserving the right to object, I have just been advised that the full Committee on Appropriations is running late, and Senator Bumpers is running a bit late. While we are checking when he thinks he will come to the floor, I ask the chairman to withdraw the UC. I have been waiting to speak on the space station. By the time I conclude my remarks, we should know when Senator Bumpers will be here. The delay is only because of the full committee markup. Is that OK?

Ms. MIKULSKI. The answer is no, not for the 5:30 vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, actually, I believe we do, which is the Bumpers amendment. So I ask unanimous consent that the Bumpers amendment be laid aside until the conclusion of the debate on the Wellstone amendments, and at such time as we take up the ongoing debate on the Bumpers amendment on the space station.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I, too, appreciate the Senator's support for the ambulatory care addition at the Lyons VA Medical Center, and I will join Senator Bond in doing all I can to support this funding during the conference. plant genome initiative

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know that the VA often has very special circumstances where doctors, perhaps from other countries, or graduates from international medical schools, are present in our VA hospitals to help with either special assignments or special chores. From what I can understand, there was an error in last year's immigration bill that really shackled VA from the flexibility it had in this area. From what I understand, the Bumpers amendment is a benign amendment. It does not create a new classification. It does not create a new entitlement to either come to this country or stay in this country. It just reaffirms kind of what was once a usual and customary practice by the VA. So I don't anticipate an objection.

Ms. MIKULSKI. If the Senator from Arkansas would just allow a kudos comment. I thank the Senator for withdrawing his amendment, though I know that he is in no way retreating from his position. We acknowledge that position and we look forward to hearing both from him and the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee on his advice in this matter. Thanks again.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to the Bumpers amendment. Though well-intentioned, it is not necessary and could inadvertently, by placing a cap, lead to real concern in the area of safety. First, we do not want to tie the hands of the NASA administrator. Second, since fiscal year 1994, the station has been subject to funding limitations, a $2.1 billion annual funding and a $17.4 billion overall funding through the completion of the assembly. Yes, these limitations are not legislatively mandated; they have been administratively carried out. There are many references to these specific limitations to the space station budget and congressional proceedings. For example, the $17.4 billion total cap through the completion of the assembly. Recent reports indicate that NASA is expected to build the station within these limits. We should not legislate a cap. In good faith, NASA continues to meet these goals. Any additional money sought is for unforeseen problems either associated with the Russian service module or where we might now identify a certain series of safety concerns. We are learning lessons from Mir. I don't want to tie the hands of NASA or threaten the lives of astronauts. I really encourage our colleagues to vote no on Bumpers and await the wise counsel of the authorizing committee on this issue. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to advise the Senator from Missouri that Senator Glenn, because of other responsibilities, will not be speaking. His statement yesterday was so eloquent he would like it to stand there as a rebuttal to the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. We are checking now to see if the Senator from Connecticut wishes to speak and will so advise the chairman. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. President. We laid it aside. I did not know if we had come back to it. Mr. President, I rise again this year in support of America's space program and in opposition to the Bumpers amendment, which would strike funding for the space station. I have said this before, and I will say it again: This amendment is a choice between the future and the past. The question is, what kind of country will the United States of America be in the 21st century? Will we be one that uses technology to help people with their day-to-day lives and keep America employed in the field of manufacturing? Then, if the answer to that is yes, we must embrace science, we must embrace technology, and we must be willing to take bold risks in scientific endeavors. That is what the space station is all about. We need to ask ourselves, will we use American ingenuity and know-how through the unique environment of space to tackle our understanding of disease or develop new technologies that can be used here at home. Yesterday, probably one of the most distinguished Americans and one of the most distinguished U.S. Senators, Senator John Glenn of Ohio, spoke eloquently about America's space program from not only the time he rocketed around the Earth making world history but talking about the kind of scientific breakthroughs that are coming out of our space program. Right this very moment, little Sojourner is moving around Mars, gathering important information. We have done it in a way that is faster, cheaper and quicker than any other space project that we have done with such a big bang in terms of scientific information. Why are we able now to be able to move with such speed? It is because we have made such significant investments in projects like the space shuttle and the space station. Some will argue that science carried out on the space station can really be accomplished more cost-effectively on the planet Earth. This simply is not true. The science proposed for the station cannot be accomplished on Earth at any price or at any time. Space station science requires sustained access to something called low levels of gravitational force. It is technologically impossible to create a low- gravity environment for this type of research without getting out there and being in orbit. What are these types of research? One is microgravity. The benefits of microgravity research may be numerous, including new and more pure pharmaceuticals, medical advancements, the production of new materials to use on Earth, new fire-resistant materials, new fire retardation. Just think, we might come up with a whole new concept for building supplies that can make our homes, schools, hospitals and nursing homes safe for fire. Others will say, why not do this science on the shuttle? Why do you need to go in orbit and stay out there in orbit? I want to bring this point to their attention. The shuttle can stay up in orbit, max, about 2 weeks. We do not limit cancer researchers to 2 weeks in a lab at NIH to find a cure for a devastating disease. Why should we limit the life sciences to only 2 weeks in space? Much of the proposed research will take months, if not years, to complete. Now, even though the astronauts might come back, the space science can continue to stay up in those racks on the space station. Remember what the space station is--it is not a station, it is a laboratory. It is not a station like a gas station, like a subway station. It is, literally, a laboratory in the sky that will have modules run by different countries. Japan, Canada, the European Space Agency, we are now in cooperation with the Russians--they will be planning part of the evacuation vehicle, and primarily the control of the station will be in the hands of an American astronaut. It is truly international and it will be truly profound. While working on this issue, we wanted to be sure that we had adequate, maximum, robust participation from the NIH with the National Space Agency. We encouraged and then literally brought about a joint agreement between the National Institutes of Health and NASA. Just a few years ago, Mr. Dan Goldin, the Administrator at NASA, Dr. Bernadine Healy, who was appointed by President Bush to be head of NIH at the Space Museum, signed a memorandum of understanding making sure that NIH and NASA are collaborating on life science research and also that we get maximum benefits from the space station. One of the arguments that we hear every year is about cost. Sure, the space station does cost money. We have heard that GAO estimated that the station would cost $90 billion. That is what the Senator from Arkansas had in his info chart this morning. However, I want to say to my colleagues and to those who have been following this all day, that number is misleading. When calculating the total cost, the GAO included a large portion of the NASA human space flight budget in its analysis. The fact is that $51 billion of the $94 billion is for shuttle missions that will fly, regardless of whether we have the station or not. Those shuttles have missions to do and they are going to go anyway. So that figure is misleading. The real cost of the station, which includes final development and construction over a 10-year period is about $30 billion. No small change, but it is not $94 billion. The remaining balance of the erroneous $94 billion estimate is life science and microgravity research. This research will continue, in less effective form on the shuttle, with or without the space station. Now, what is the cost to America if we do not do the station? We hear about the cost to maintain it, to build it. Well, the United States of America has already invested $9 billion in the redesign of the space station. What does that mean? The actual work on the space station means there are 15,000 highly skilled engineering and production contract jobs directly supporting the space station. There are 35,000 contract workers and 5,000 civil servants who work on the shuttle whose major customer for the foreseeable future is the space station. And 2,000 pounds of hardware have already been built for the U.S. portion of the station. As mentioned earlier, long-duration microgravity research and cell and developmental biology, human physiology, biotech, fluid physics, combustion science, materials science, benchmark physics, as well as an understanding of Earth-based diseases are the core of what is the research. Biotech, combustion science, material science, and then, indeed, one of the most basic of all sciences, increased knowledge of physics. There will be practical applications of what we do. We cannot list every single one of those right this minute but we do know that we will be well on our way for materials research and life science research. Mr. President, what else do we lose? U.S. credibility with our international partners. Russia, Japan, Europe, and Canada have already invested more than half of the $9 billion they have committed to the space station. This is a great symbol of the post-cold war era in which former arch rivals in space are now working together to build a space station for the 21st century. U.S. competitiveness can only be maintained by continuing the long- term, cutting edge, high risk R&D that is an essential part to the space station development. The momentum gained with the June delivery of something called Node 1 to the Kennedy Space Center marking the beginning of a stream of flight elements that will continue for the next 5 years. And finally, we lose all of the hard work that has gone into this project since the 1980's and the opportunity to see it culminate on the first launch, now less than a year away. Mr. President, we could argue these points all night but I will not put my friends through this discussion. The bill is already taking a substantial amount of debate time. We will soon vote on the Bumpers amendment, and I am asking every Senator to think long and hard about what this amendment means. I really urge my colleagues to reject the Bumpers amendment. At the same time, I want to acknowledge the effort made by the Senator from Arkansas. Over the last few years when he has pushed for eliminating the space station from the budget, it has forced us to do several things, including taking a good, long hard look at the cost and making sure we were getting our money's worth, to take a good long hard research look at the research to make sure we could not do it someplace else faster, quicker and cheaper. The answer, though, is no, we must do this research if we are going to do it at all in space. I believe the Senator from Arkansas has made, indeed, a national contribution by forcing us to relook at the space station and to justify why we do need the space station. So we thank him for his national leadership on that. Mr. President, I really do believe that to vote to remove the space station now will really be a terrible blow to America's space station. Mr. President, I am going to urge the defeat of the Bumpers amendment and to once again be able to stay the course, complete the space station and move this country and the space station into the 21st century. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in a few minutes we will vote on the VA- HUD appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman, Senator Bond, and his staff for working with those of us on this side of the aisle in such a collegial way. I think the fact that we were able to finish this bill tonight says a lot about the bipartisan cooperation that we have received, or has occurred between both Senator Bond, myself, and the other Members of the U.S. Senate. Today, I note that we had robust discussions on important policy matters. But if one would note, the whole tone was one of civility, consideration, and collegiality. I am very proud of the way this bill has moved. I am also very proud of the substance in this bill. We have met compelling human need with veterans and the poor. We have stood sentry over the important issues related to the environment, protected consumers, and ensured that Arlington Cemetery would be as fit for duty as the brave people were who lie therein. And we have, at the same time, had a very serious issue addressed in the area of science and technology funding. So veterans' health research that will be looking at issues related to both women's health and prostate cancer, to our important space program that shows it is the best in the world, to the National Science Foundation which is looking at how we can ensure that brilliant young investigators are going to be able to have the new ideas for the 21st century that are going to lead to new products says a lot about what this bill does. I enjoy very much serving as the ranking member and my job is made easier, more delightful, and gives me pride because of the cooperation of the majority, both its chairman and staff. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my own staff because it takes a lot of reviewing of a lot of line items when you have seven Cabinet-level agencies and 25 other independent agencies. I would like to thank Andy Givens, my chief clerk; David Bowers for his hard work, and our excellent detailee, Stacy Closson. So as we move on to the rollcall vote, I again look forward to working with my very able chair in the conference and bringing a great conference report back to the Senate where we can continue the pride we feel as we vote on this bill tonight. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this side of the aisle has no additional amendments to add to the managers' amendment.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator is correct. The intent of the report language is simply to ensure that NASA include all appropriate common support functions at all NASA centers under CSOC, as defined in the request for proposals. don't underfund critical toxic cleanup

Ms. MIKULSKI. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy concerning CSOC.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I would also echo the comments to Julie and her husband. I hope that she can go home, rest easy, put her feet up and we are looking forward to being the proud Godparents of Bond-Mikulski. Maybe we will name something after her in conference.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is, once again, a bipartisan agreement that we should continue to fund the space station Freedom. This dazzling scientific endeavor was created under the Reagan administration, sustained under the Bush administration, and maintained under the Clinton administration. Now, why have three Presidents of the United States all supported space station Freedom? They have done it for several reasons. One, because it accomplished significant science in space. Second, it is a model for what the new world order will look like in which no one nation dominates space, but each nation is best at what it best can do. The United States of America, Canada, Japan, Europe, and now the Russian involvement does show what the space program of the future will be. It will be multilateral, multinational cooperation for multiple gains. Mr. President, I would like to speak more on why I support the space station Freedom, but I note that on the floor is the Senator from Arizona. It had been our agreement to let him speak before the conference. I want to say, before we break for the party conferences, that there is no break in bipartisan support for the space station. We are going to ensure that the space station does produce sound science, have maximum international cooperation and, once again, make both our Nation and the world proud of what we do. I will have more to say about the space station and why I am an enthusiastic, unabashed, and unrelenting sponsor of this later on this afternoon. In the meantime, as a courtesy and collegiality to move our bill, I yield the floor now and look forward to resuming my comments on the space station later this afternoon. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I bring to the Senator's attention that it is 12:10.

Ms. MIKULSKI. My question is, does the Senator wish to continue before we adjourn at 12:30?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I bring to the Senator's attention that at 2:15, the Senate will go to consideration of military construction. Upon completion of that, we will return to the bill. Perhaps before the Senator leaves for his other Senate commitment, you and I can talk about that.

Ms. MIKULSKI. We would like very much to be able to do that for the Senator. We go to MilCon at 2:15 for 30 minutes, and from there we will first have a vote on MilCon. Then we resume consideration of the bill. At such time, I believe Senator Wellstone wishes to talk about compelling needs of veterans, and you have to be in an agricultural markup. We wonder if then around 4 o'clock, you could go to wrap-up and we could have a vote?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Senator DeWine. The bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee would enable Federal employees, whose health insurance is provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, to receive coverage for abortion services. The DeWine amendment would prohibit coverage for abortion, except in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest. It would continue a ban which has prevented Federal employees from receiving a health care service which is widely available for private sector employees. I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First of all, it is it is an assault on the earned benefits of Federal employees. Second, it is part of a continuing assault on women's reproductive rights and would endanger women's health. In the 104th Congress we saw vote after vote designed to roll back the clock on women's reproductive rights. In the last Congress, there were 53 votes in both the House and Senate on abortion-related issues. It's clear that this unprecedented assault on a woman's right to decide for herself whether or not to have a child is continuing in this Congress. Well, I support the right to choose. And I support Federal employees. And that is why I strenuously oppose this amendment. Let me speak first about our Federal employees. Some 280,000 Federal employees live in the State of Maryland. I am proud to represent them. They are the people who make sure that the Social Security checks go out on time. They make sure that our Nation's veterans receive their disability checks. At NIH, they are doing vital research on finding cures and better treatments for diseases like cancer, Parkinson's and Alzheimers. There is no American whose life is not touched in some way by the hard work of a Federal employee. They deserve our thanks and our support. Instead, Federal employees have suffered one assault after another in the last year or two. They have faced tremendous employment insecurity, as Government has downsized, and eliminated over 200,000 Federal jobs. Their COLA's and their retirement benefits have been threatened. They have faced the indignity and economic hardship of three Government shutdowns. Federal employees have been vilified as what is wrong with Government, when they should be thanked and valued for the tremendous service they provide to our country and to all Americans. I view this amendment as yet another assault on these faithful public servants. It goes directly after the earned benefits of Federal employees. Health insurance is part of the compensation package to which all Federal employees are entitled. The costs of insurance coverage are shared by the Federal Government and the employee. I know that proponents of continuing the ban on abortion coverage for Federal employees say that they are only trying to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. But that is not what this debate is about. This is about prohibiting the compensation package of Federal employees from being used for a legal and sometimes vital medical service. Health insurance is part of the Federal employees pay. If we were to extend the logic of the argument of those who favor the ban, we would prohibit Federal employees from obtaining abortions using their own paychecks. After all, those funds also come from the taxpayers. But no one is seriously suggesting that Federal employees ought not to have the right to do whatever they want with their own paychecks. And we should not be placing unfair restrictions on the type of health insurance Federal employees can purchase under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. About 1.2 million women of reproductive age depend on the FEHBP for their medical care. We know that access to reproductive health services is essential to women's health. We know that restrictions that make it more difficult for women to obtain early abortions increase the likelihood that women will put their health at risk by being forced to continue a high-risk pregnancy. If we continue the ban on abortion services, and provide exemptions only in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest, the 1.2 million women of reproductive health age who depend on the FEHBP will not have access to abortion even when their health is seriously threatened. We will be replacing the informed judgment of medical care givers with that of politicians. Decisions on abortion should be made by the woman in close consultation with her physician. These decisions should be made on the basis of medical judgment, not on the basis of political judgments. Only a woman and her physician can weigh her unique circumstances and make the decision that is right for that particular woman's life and health. It is wrong for the Congress to try to issue a blanket prohibition on insuring a legal medical procedure with no allowance for the particular set of circumstances that an individual woman may face. I deeply believe that women's health will suffer if we do so. I believe it is time to quit attacking Federal employees and their benefits. I believe we need to quit treating Federal employees as second class citizens. I believe Federal employees should be able to receive the same quality and range of health care services as their private sector counterparts. Because I believe in the right to choose and because I support Federal employees, I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the DeWine amendment.