{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12445", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUED SPACE EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12445", "S12451", "[{\"name\": \"Howell Heflin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12445", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12445-S12451]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n       THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUED SPACE EXPLORATION AND RESEARCH\n\n Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, at the beginning of my first term,\nmy appointment to the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and\nSpace was beneficial, primarily because my home State of Alabama\ncontains the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. Alabama is\nhistorically an economically disadvantaged State, and by creating a\nhigh-technology corridor through northern Alabama, we have been able to\nprovide jobs at NASA and the defense and space-related activities in\nthe area. Alabama is now near the top of the list in terms of the\nnumber of high-technology industries.\n  But in fairness, it should be understood that a Senator learns to\nhave a dual purpose in what he does. It may sound cynical to say that I\nwas working for my own State and my own electorate, but that was my\njob. I didn't have any particular expertise in the Space Program before\narriving here, but learned about it because it was important to\nAlabama. My predecessor in the Senate, John Sparkman, had also taken an\ninterest in space policy. He was a native of Huntsville. While serving\non this subcommittee, an appreciation of the national, and in fact\nglobal, need to pursue the study and exploration of space and also an\nappreciation of the need to travel in space in order to expand the\nscope of humanity became more clear to me. Joe Moquin and Charles\nGrainger, who represented the Federal Affairs Division of the\nHuntsville Chamber of Commerce, as well as others, were helpful as I\nstudied these exciting issues.\n  Recent advances at NASA highlight these needs powerfully. Our voyages\nto Mars, combined with a recent discovery on Earth, have allowed us to\ndeduce that life may have existed on another planet. The Hubble space\ntelescope has given us a better understanding of the universe. The\nspace station, which is now called Alpha, will allow Americans to stay\nin space permanently and conduct manned scientific experiments.\n  Many have complained that the space program is too expensive and it\nyields little for the investment. But the space program provides a far\ngreater return than its cost. Satellites have redefined the way we\ncommunicate, and they have reshaped our economy. However, even this\nimmediately practical benefit is outweighed by other, more intangible\ngains. The knowledge we can gain in physics and technology has proved\nitself nearly unlimited. And there are unexpected benefits of the\nprogram, including what we can learn about our own planet, the advances\nwe can make in the field of medical research, and the international\ndiplomacy we will develop with the space station.\n  I want to take some time here to summarize my activities relative to\nthe space program, particularly regarding the space station and\nMarshall Space Flight Center. On a personal level, I am proudest of\nbeing the first Senator to call for and push for the development of a\nspace station and also to have been a strong supporter of the shuttle\nprogram. Marshall has been central in both of these projects, and\nmembers of the Alabama congressional delegation have done our best to\nsee that this remains the case.\n  Maintaining the independence and viability of NASA has been one of my\ntop priorities. The agency has suffered a number of public relations\nproblems in recent years, beginning with the Challenger explosion,\nfollowed by the failure of the Mars orbiter, and highlighted by the\ninitial embarrassment of the Hubble telescope. But even before these\nsetbacks, the military space budget had grown larger than NASA's. Of\ncourse, I have advocated ABM defenses, including some space-based\nprojects for the future, longer than any other Senator. But NASA's\ncivilian, independent status is necessary for the space program. For\nthis reason, it was necessary to oppose intrusions such as military\ncontrol of the heavy lift launch vehicle, which was proposed after the\nshuttle disaster, and each year, to work as hard as possible to see\nthat NASA received the money it needed to continue to serve as a viable\nagency and to accomplish its specific aims.\n\n  Of course, it is NASA, the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the\nuniversities and businesses in Alabama who deserve the real credit.\nThey are the minds who develop this astounding technology and reshaped\nthe State. As a Senator, my aim was to do everything possible to\nsupport them consistently.\n  In 1979, we worked to ensure that the Commerce Committee approved a\n$185 million supplemental authorization for Marshall to develop the\nspace shuttle. In fact, the overall funding for the center had\nincreased by $100 million since the previous year. We also worked to\npersuade the members of the Appropriations Committee to fund the\nshuttle, and they provided nearly our full request.\n  My subcommittee also approved $5 million for the gamma ray\nobservatory project, to be developed at Marshall and launched by the\nspace shuttle, and it authorized a fifth shuttle and a national oceanic\nsatellite system. However, the full committee cut these three programs,\nso we set out to be certain that they would pass in later years.\n  In 1980, the Commerce Committee approved an authorization to build a\nfifth shuttle, but the conference committee dropped it in the final\nbill. However, the Congress did pass increases for\n\n[[Page S12446]]\n\nNASA over the administration's request.\n  In the committee, my amendment to add $12 million to the NASA budget\nto begin development of the solar electric propulsion system--called\nSEPS--at the Marshall Center was attached. The program was a $300\nmillion program, spread over 5 years. Although it was originally in the\nfiscal 1981 budget, OMB had eliminated it over NASA's objections. This\nreusable system offered the high energy to fly demanding and complex\nmissions that would otherwise require several expensive and expendable\nstages. That year, both Houses passed authorizations for this program.\nBoth Houses also passed authorizations for the gamma ray observatory\nand the national oceanic satellite system. That same year, at a\nsubcommittee hearing in Huntsville, I urged NASA to increase laser\nresearch and development at the Marshall Center. My argument for the\nincrease was that the Soviets were spending at least three to five\ntimes America's $5 million annual budget on laser development. The\ncontinued research and development of laser technology was only one of\nthe goals for the United States in the 1980's, but the potential\nbenefits of laser power in both military and civilian applications\nmandate an accelerated interest by the scientific and industrial\ncommunities.\n  This hearing was part of a series conducted largely to investigate\nthe potential of lasers in defense. However, the applications of lasers\nseemed worthy of investigation for civilian purposes. Testimony\nrevealed the possibility that lasers might be used to generate vast\namounts of power. This power might be used in space propulsion systems.\nIn fact, at these hearings, witnesses speculated that lasers might even\nultimately be used to facilitate nuclear fusion.\n  That year, we also highlighted international pressures to increase\noverall funding for NASA. In the years since the Moon missions, America\nhad seemed preeminent in space, but the reality was that we had begun\nto fall behind the Russians. Senators John Glenn and Jack Schmitt, both\nformer astronauts, appeared on my television show, the ``Heflin\nReport,'' to discuss the U.S. space program as compared to the Soviets.\nThe United States had launched only 16 times in 1979 contrasted by the\nRussians' 87. In fact, the Russians had launched many more times over\nthe previous 15 years.\n\n  In 1981, Columbia flew its first mission, showcasing the Marshall\nSpace Center's work. This next giant step in America's ongoing\nadventure in space would not have been possible without the men and\nwomen in Huntsville who developed the shuttle's engines. Due to their\nsuccesses, we were able to authorize increases to the shuttle program,\nalthough the Congress did not fully fund the program at the\nadministration's request.\n  Despite this massive advance, however, critics continued to maintain\nthat the space program was too costly, and supporters worked as best we\ncould to clear up this misconception, such as citing studies conducted\nin the early 1970's which indicated that the program has brought $7 to\n$15 for each dollar spent. Commercial satellite launches had\ncontributed to this return. NASA had also developed technology for the\naircraft industry and the Landsat system, used to explore natural\nresources.\n  Notably, through our work in the committee that year, we also secured\nauthorizations for NASA's missions to Jupiter and to Halley's Comet.\nBoth of these NASA missions ultimately proved to be tremendously\nsuccessful.\n  In 1982, we were finally able to include funds for a fifth space\nshuttle in the NASA authorization. This authorization represented an\noverall increase, and it included money for the National Oceanic and\nAtmospheric Administration Landsat satellite scanning, something we had\nbeen fighting to get for a long time.\n  But that year, for the first time, the military's space budget grew\nbeyond NASA's. While I have long supported military initiatives in\nspace, this was seen by some of us as a threat to NASA's independent,\ncivilian status. Although there is a purpose to certain military\nmissions in space, to usurp NASA's role is contrary to the U.S. mission\nin space as it was conceived. In the years to come, especially after\nthe Challenger disaster, this threat would continue.\n  In 1983, the construction and deployment of a permanent, manned space\nstation was again urged. A permanent presence in space is the next\nlogical step in human advancement, and research in space has certain\nadvantages not to be found on Earth. The microgravity atmosphere of\nspace allows numerous scientific activities to occur. The growth of\ncrystals and the electrophoresis process can take place far better in\nspace than in the gravity atmosphere of Earth. Several kinds of metals\nwill combine only under the conditions found in space. Medical research\nhas also had many successes in space.\n  Dr. Charles Bugg, Dr. Larry DeLucas, and other scientists at the\nUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham were conducting significant\nexperiments in crystallography, but knew nothing about the\ncrystallography activities at Marshall Space Flight Center until I got\nthem together. Since then, they have developed a renowned partnership\nthat will likely lead to treatments and cures for many diseases.\n  My strength on the subcommittee increased that year when I became its\nranking member, and we crafted an authorization bill which provided\nmoney for space station design at Marshall. It also increased the\nfunding to NASA generally. The bill provided more money than the\nPresident requested for Marshall's space telescope, its materials\nprocessing, teleoperator maneuvering system, and its space plasma lab\nprograms. Finally, the bill also authorized the construction of a fifth\nspace shuttle, which Reagan had not requested. Of course, this\nauthorization bill was a particularly good one for the future of\nMarshall Center, but it also helped to bring about a more balanced NASA\nprogram.\n\n  Earlier in the year, I contacted the President to oppose the sale of\nthe Nation's weather and land satellite system and to oppose\ncommercialization of the National Weather Service because of my concern\nthat such a transfer might hinder the system's efficiency. People in\nmany parts of the country relied on the system for early warning in the\ncase of tornados and other severe storms; farmers relied on the\ninformation to determine their crops, and the scientific community\ndepended largely on the information. Under the proposal, the transfer\nseemed likely to be a single company. Since that company would require,\nas a condition of the sale, a noncompetitive, guaranteed Government\ncontract for many years for the information derived from the\nsatellites, the Government would be establishing a monopoly and\ncreating disincentives for commercialization. The committee was able to\nsecure provisions in the authorization bill to prevent the sale of NASA\nland and weather satellites, unless the sale were specifically approved\nby another law.\n  Some of us also opposed the cuts to the National Weather Service\nrecommended by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.\nSpecifically, the NOAA had suggested reducing the number of weather\nstations to one-tenth their existing number. Specialized forecasts\nwould also be eliminated. But the projected savings were minimal; the\ncost to create a centralized station would outweigh the savings over\nmany years.\n  There was another project undertaken that year, which applied\nperipherally to the space program. This was the University Research\nCapacity Restoration Act which Senator Danforth and I introduced to\nbring universities and industries together in the creation of research\nparks. We introduced the bill after holding two hearings in Birmingham\non the measure.\n  University research is among the most valuable in the country, yet\nlack of funding has limited it to obsolete equipment. With this bill,\nwe hoped to use the Government as a catalyst to create research parks\nthat combine industry and university resources. We hoped that we might\nthereby increase the quality of research at such institutions as the\nUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham [UAB], the University of South\nAlabama in Mobile, Auburn, Tuskegee, and Alabama A&M. Metallurgy and\nspace-based materials processing were among the chief projects we had\nin mind.\n  In 1984, the President supported the development of a permanent space\nstation in his State of the Union Address.\n\n[[Page S12447]]\n\nI was absolutely delighted that he gave the station such strong\nsupport; without his help, this project might have died early on.\n  Energized by the President's support, I visited the Marshall Center\nin Huntsville, which would handle most of the materials processing for\nNASA's station numerous times, and each time was greatly encouraged. My\ncommittee was able to endure that the NASA authorization included funds\nfor research and development of the manned space station. This\nauthorization also created a National Commission on Space, a Mars\nmission, and a satellite to study the Earth's upper atmosphere.\nHowever, many of us were disappointed that the Congress approved the\nsale of Landsat satellites.\n\n  Other provisions of the authorization included language to create a\nNational Commission on Space to establish a plan for the civilian space\nprogram. There was some concern over the Defense Department's intrusion\non the space program, so we limited its membership on the board to a\nsingle nonvoting seat. The purpose of the commission was to study long-\nrange goals and schedules for the program.\n  The commercialization of space also became a major initiative in\nthese years. In 1984, Congress passed a law to encourage commercial\nspace launches. It required licensing, to be provided by the Department\nof Transportation, and we set about to consider further ways of\nexpanding private launches.\n  My bill to improve university research, the University Research\nCapacity Restoration Act, became law in 1984. The new law was designed\nto increase support for the NIH, the NSF, NASA, and the Defense,\nEnergy, and Agriculture Departments by combining university and private\nindustrial research efforts.\n  In 1985, when the Commerce Committee passed its NASA authorization,\nNASA's budget suffered cuts, but under this bill, Marshall Space Flight\nCenter was not affected. It included strong support for four major\nMarshall programs: the space station, the materials processing program,\nthe orbital maneuvering vehicle [OMV], and the aeronautical research\nand technology program.\n  Specifically, the bill funded the space station with a specific\nrequirement that it embrace only peaceful ends. The committee had\noriginally considered a lower level for the space station than the $200\nmillion included in the bill, but we were able to bring that figure up.\nI worked especially hard to see that Marshall got a sizable portion of\nthe space station work. Marshall was then designated to do 40 percent\nof the work, the most of any center. Robert Hager, project manager of\nBoeing, and I developed a close working relationship that proved very\neffective over the years.\n  This bill also fully funded the materials processing program at\nMarshall, a program with which several universities in my State were\nintimately involved. As a result of experiments conducted on the\nshuttle by McDonnell Douglas and Johnson and Johnson, we were hopeful\nthat some major medical breakthroughs would materialize as a result of\nNASA-private sector materials processing research.\n  At one point, the OMV was deleted from the bill, but we were\nsuccessful in persuading the committee to go forward with the\ndevelopment of this vehicle. Marshall's other chief project, the\naeronautical research and technology program, also came out well.\nAgain, this type of initiative was among NASA's chief money-making\nsources.\n  Further, the authorization bill provided for the delivery of the\nfourth shuttle--Atlantis--but Congress did not fund the fifth. We also\nauthorized the Galileo mission to Jupiter, the Ulysses mission to the\nSun, and the Hubble telescope, which has proved itself a tremendous\nsuccess despite setbacks here and there.\n  My bill to remove tax code barriers to the commercialization of space\nwas introduced that year along with the sponsorship of the\nsubcommittee's chairman, Senator Gorton. The bill would have extended\nincentives for investment and research and development, and accelerated\ndepreciation schedules. Many U.S. laws were written before the\ncommercial uses of space were ever envisioned, but commercialization of\nspace could be improved with the impetus of Government cooperation. To\nthis end, we have maintained contact with officials from the Auburn\nUniversity School of Engineering concerning corporations who might be\ninterested in space-based materials processing. We have an opportunity\nto combine the expertise of Marshall Space Flight Center with\nuniversity experts and transfer this potential to the private sector.\nThis idea is one way to help make this possible and hopefully it will\nsome day be enacted.\n\n  I also cosponsored a concurrent resolution to express the sense of\nthe Congress that the Nation must improve university research,\nrestating the ideas behind the University Research Capacity Restoration\nAct which had my cosponsorship in 1983. The 1983 bill increased support\nfor the NIH, the NSF, NASA, and the Defense, Energy, and Agriculture\nDepartments. This resolution did not fund these entities, but it\nrestated the congressional commitment to do so. We depend on our\npreeminence in science to enable us to advance technology and maintain\nour economic and national security.\n  On January 28, 1986, the Challenger disaster brought a whole host of\nproblems to the space program and to those of us who supported it. The\npublic was horrified, and the military began to increase its\nintervention in space. Spacelab, a program to add modules to the space\nshuttle for experiments in orbit, died, and the space station suffered\ncuts; the Hubble telescope was also delayed until 1988. The Defense\nDepartment began building its own launch vehicles for satellites, and\nthe military's space budget grew to two-thirds the total U.S. space\nbudget. Further, President Reagan pocket-vetoed the NASA authorization\nwhich included money for the replacement of the Challenger shuttle,\nchiefly because of provisions creating a National Aeronautics and Space\nCouncil to advise the President on space and military issues. However,\nthe Congress did appropriate money for the new shuttle in the omnibus\nappropriations bill.\n  Morale was at a terribly low level at Marshall Space Flight Center.\nTheir spirit had been devastated by the Challenger explosion. I came\nout publicly at critical times praising the excellent work that had\noccurred at Marshall over the years and pointed out that while the\nexplosion was horrible, the fault could be placed at many doors.\nHopefully, my remarks boosted morale at Marshall. We worked behind the\nscenes to get Senator Robert Dole to visit Marshall and speak words of\nencouragement and support for the Huntsville-based space flight center.\nHis words helped restore the morale and reputation of Marshall.\n  At the end of 1986, then-NASA Administrator Fletcher announced that\nwork assignments on the space station had been finalized, and Marshall\nSpace Flight Center was to maintain roughly 40 percent of the space\nstation design and construction. It would also have responsibility for\nthe living and working quarters of the spacecraft. The Marshall Center\nwould provide technical direction for the propulsion system, conduct\nthe adaptation of the planned international module, and develop and\nconstruct the environmental and pressure systems of the station, among\nother things.\n  That year, I contacted President Reagan and Energy Secretary\nHerrington to urge construction of the superconducting supercollider in\nAlabama. Researchers at UAH had developed a compound that loses all\nresistance to electricity at a higher temperature than had been\npreviously possible. With the expertise demonstrated by this and other\nbreakthroughs in this scientific area and the outstanding support\nprovided by the University of Alabama at Huntsville and similar\noutstanding research at Auburn University, the State of Alabama has\nshown that it is a logical location for projects like the\nsupercollider. Unfortunately, Alabama was not chosen, and the project\nultimately was discontinued.\n\n  In 1987, I had to relinquish my seat on the science subcommittee in\norder to stay on the Agriculture Committee. Given the importance of the\nspace program to my constituents, it was a great sacrifice, but farming\nwas also so important to Alabama and therefore felt it wise to remain\non that committee. In any case, I did my best to stay as involved with\nspace issues as possible.\n\n[[Page S12448]]\n\n  In the aftermath of the Challenger explosion, I testified before the\nsubcommittee to oppose Air Force administration of the proposed heavy\nlift launch vehicle. The Defense Department had requested a\nsupplemental appropriation of $250 million for the project. Assigning\nthe project to the Air Force with only minimal NASA input would have\nbeen a backward way to approach the development of this vehicle. All\nthe more so since the Air Force planned to start anew, without\nincorporating any of the lessons of the shuttle. NASA would benefit\ngreatly from the vehicle's use, and its greater capacity would make up\nfor lost time in the shuttle program in the deployment of the space\nstation and other projects.\n  I successfully urged the inclusion of language in the supplemental\nappropriations bill to ensure that NASA played a more significant part\nin the development of the heavy launch vehicle. Marshall Space Center's\nexpertise in propulsion and other aspects of design could serve as an\nexcellent resource in the development of a heavy lift rocketship. And\nsuch a vehicle might one day facilitate a trip to Mars--and beyond.\n  Notably, disputes over military use of the space station made its\npassage difficult that year. Congress ultimately allowed some military\nresearch. And Alabama came out well through the debate. At the end of\nthe year, NASA awarded Boeing, with facilities in the State, the\ncontract to perform Marshall Space Flight Center's work on the station.\nThe project had my full support, since, among other things, it would\nbring over 6,000 jobs to Alabama. It was a significant leap forward for\nthe space program, and it only solidified my efforts to ensure that the\nspace station received primary consideration.\n  Another boon for Alabama came that year when NASA selected Auburn\nUniversity as host to its Center for the Commercial Development of\nSpace Power. The new center would research the generation, storage,\nconditioning and distribution of electrical power in space. This was\nthe kind of project desperately needed in my State. This center, and\nprojects like it, could become the incubator for a new industry on the\ncutting edge of space technology. Until now the power requirements of\nour space ventures have been low, but future space projects will make\nmuch higher power demands. With these types of initiatives, we will\nbegin the development of a cadre of engineers and physicists who will\nprovide the crucial talent pool needed for the space power program for\nyears to come. Hopefully, much of this work will be done in Alabama.\n  Meanwhile, my efforts to bring the supercollider to my State\ncontinued, especially through an amendment to the supplemental\nappropriations bill to decide location of the supercollider solely on\ntechnical merit. The Energy Department had just announced that it would\nconsider donations of money and land. The Senate approved this\namendment, but of course, it still did not work out as hoped.\n  In 1988, during the Presidential campaign, some of NASA's Democratic\nsupporters were disappointed that our party's candidate did not show\nany particular support for the space program, nor the space station. I\ntalked several times with Governor Dukakis asking for a revised stand\non the issue. At a Huntsville campaign stop, he recited his full\nsupport for the space program and space station. We were able in\nCongress to pass funding at the full level of President Reagan's\nrequest.\n  That same year, I became a strong supporter of the Advanced Solid\nRocket Motor project, which came about after the failings of the\nshuttle boosters and their O-rings became known, and talked to each of\nthe Members of the Alabama Congressional Delegation asking for their\nfull support of this ASRM Project for NASA and to support the\nappropriation process in Congress. Although there had been partisanship\nand divisiveness concerning the location of the rocket plant, the\nAlabama Congressional Delegation needed to pull together as a team and\npresent a solid and united effort for this project and Alabama jobs.\n  In 1989, we protested the budget resolution's funding level for the\nspace station. Knowing it would be a very tough budget year for the\nspace station, we enlisted the support of Senators Sasser and Domenici\nof the Budget Committee. But when the Senate passed its VA-HUD\nappropriations for fiscal year 1990, the low funding level for NASA was\ncriticized by me and others. While the bill provided for a 15-percent\nincrease for the space program, that was only the bare minimum and it\nfell short of what was needed to maintain world leadership in space\nresearch, technology, and exploration. Most notably, the space station\nwas funded at $200 million less than NASA's request. While fighting\nhard for full funding for the space station, I was nonetheless hopeful\nthat the funding level would provide enough for the program to move\nforward without any serious program modifications, rescoping, or\nschedule delays.\n  During a speech I delivered on the Senate floor on the 20th\nanniversary of the Moon landing, my support for the station was again\nemphasized. We cannot just leave our advances at that. We need to\nreturn to the Moon and travel to Mars. The President agreed that the\nspace station was the first step to these ends, and a space summit with\nMembers of Congress was suggested.\n  After much debate on the advanced solid rocket motor plant, we\nfinally secured funding through the conference through use of an\nunusual procedural tactic. The House had not included funding, but we\nmade sure the Senate included money so that there could be an increase\nduring conference. Congressmen Whitten and Bevill were extremely\nhelpful in this effort. Although some questioned this strategy, we\nadhered to the rules completely. This bargaining chip worked, and we\npushed the funding through successfully.\n  In 1989, the benefits of the Space Grant College and Fellowship Act\nwere realized in my home State. Under its provisions, NASA selected\nseveral Alabama Universities to comprise a consortium for the new\nNational Space Grant College and Fellowship program; these schools\nincluded UAH, UAB, Alabama A&M, the University of Alabama, and Auburn.\n  As a side note, NASA selected two Alabama women to fly on shuttle\nmissions that year. These women were Mae C. Jemison, M.D. and N. Jan\nDavis, Ph.D. Dr. Jemison was the first African American woman selected\nfor space flight. Without question, Alabama played an important role in\nthe development and implementation of the space shuttle program. I took\nsome pride in knowing that two people from my home State could take\nadvantage of those efforts and experience the accomplishments of their\nfellow Alabamians first-hand.\n  In 1990, NASA suffered cuts after the Hubble telescope debacle, and\nit saw the death of National Space Council's long-term proposals for\nlunar and Mars missions. The problems of the telescope had brought very\nhard times on the agency, and the Congress needed to combat an\nincreasing negativity in the press and among the public.\n  To work out these problems, the President held the space summit\nsuggested the year before at the White House. It brought together the\nPresident, the Vice President, NASA officials, and other Members of\nCongress, including myself. Elected officials must continue to hold\nthese kinds of summits in the future, because talks regarding the space\nstation need to be centralized and should focus on the goals of\nacquiring and maintaining full funding and placing the space station in\norbit.\n  During that same year, the Augustine Advisory Committee on the Future\nof the U.S. Space Program issued its report. I was quite pleased with\nits recommendations, including its advocacy of a heavy lift launch\nvehicle. At the time, the Congress and the committee were still waiting\nfor a redesign of the space station, which had been dubbed ``Freedom.''\nThe HLLV seemed like it might be a good device for deployment of the\nstation.\n  By that time, we had won the battle for the ASRM plant, which was to\nbe located at Yellow Creek in Michigan, just across the border from\nAlabama. And that year, the Marshall Center awarded a $550 million\ncontract to Lockheed for the design and construction of the Advanced\nSolid Rocket Motor. Lockheed arranged to subcontract the work to RUST\nInternational of Birmingham. It was going to be a great boon to Alabama\nas well\n\n[[Page S12449]]\n\nas the space program; in the following years, we did our best to\ncontinue this project.\n  In 1991, President Bush's fiscal 1992 budget request for NASA\nreceived my support. It was a 13-percent overall increase to fund the\nspace station, NASA's share of the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle program,\nand to increase space science research. The budget allowed the\npropulsion element for the space shuttle program at Marshall Space\nFlight Center in Huntsville to continue without interruption. And\ncompletion of the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor plant in Yellow Creek was\nalso included.\n  But, of course, the space station met opposition again. To push the\nproject, I met with the Vice President, administration officials, and\nother Members of Congress to discuss the future of the space station\nafter its redesign, and we all came out of this meeting with a feeling\nthat we were going to join forces. Vice President Quayle assured us\nthat the President had assigned a high priority to the station.\n  There was an attempt to cut the program in the Senate, but it was\nopposed on the floor. The Senate voted to keep the funding in the bill.\nThe station's toughest battle that year was in the House of\nRepresentatives. Congressmen Bud Cramer and Tom Bevill did great work\nin restoring funding after the House appropriations subcommittee had\ncut funding for the program from its bill. Together, we sought to\nreturn NASA to a reasonable and balanced profile of programs and to\nmake sure that America did not abandon the 100,000 scientists,\nengineers, and support staff associated with NASA and its contractors\nwho work on the development of the space station programs. We also\nsought to save the more than 3,000 jobs in Huntsville.\n  We protected other local jobs as well. The ASRM plant received full\nfunding. And other programs which were funded were the Marshall\nCenter's Advanced X ray Astrophysics Facility, and the National Launch\nSystem/Space Transportation Main Engine program. The Earth Observing\nSystems program also faired well.\n  In October, the President signed a bill to facilitate the\nconstruction of Space Station Freedom. Soon afterward, there was a\nmeeting with a group of astronauts to discuss the station's future and\ntalked with the astronauts about Mission to Planet Earth, a program to\nstudy the Earth's atmosphere with satellites.\n  As the whole debate on funding went on, I spoke about how much\nAlabama's economy had grown since the space program began there in the\n1950's. Its role in the State's future was crucial. The growth began\nwith the Army's development of the Redstone and Jupiter missile systems\nin response to Sputnik, and continued when Milton Cummings and Joe\nMoquin established the Cummings Research Park. Last, the Army Missile\nCommand, the Redstone Arsenal, the Marshall Space Flight Center, and\nthe Strategic Defense Command had great potential to continue the\nexpansion.\n  In 1992, another amendment to eliminate the space station came before\nthe Senate. The Senators who supported this amendment had deliberately\ninflated the cost of the station, and they perpetuated the myths of the\nstation's extravagance. Again, the Senate failed to approve the\namendment.\n  That year, the Senate also approved a resolution to place two full-\nscale models of the space station at the Capitol from June 2 through 4,\n1992. The fight to fund the space station continued to be impassioned\neach year. If my colleagues had an opportunity to see first-hand the\nincredible potential the space station offers, they would understand\nhow important continued funding is to the program. The NASA exhibit\nincluded two modules, the habitation and laboratory units, each housed\nin a tractor-trailer. I toured the exhibit myself with NASA\nAdministrator Goldin and a visiting boy scout troop from Alabama.\n  I used a floor speech commemorating the quincentenary of Columbus'\nvoyage to the Americas to again illustrate the importance of the Space\nProgram. When hearing some of my colleagues rail against the space\nstation and other projects designed to propel us into the future, one\ncannot help but wonder what they would have said had they been around\nin 1492. Some of the most important human advances, like Columbus'\nvoyage and many breakthroughs in medicine, had been accidental. We may\nnot always know exactly what is out there, but we know we must continue\nto explore in order to discover. Because of believing this so strongly,\nI met with the crew of Endeavor to discuss the future of the Space\nProgram. Among these astronauts was Kathryn Thornton of Alabama.\n  Another proposal which was short-sighted was the President's decision\nto eliminate the advanced solid rocket motor plant from his budget\nrequest. Its supporters could not understand the rationale behind\ncancellation, since this system would have been much more reliable than\nprevious boosters. In a letter to Senator Mikulski, the chair of the\nappropriations subcommittee, I asserted that it would cost more to\ncancel the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor Program than to complete it.\nThat fact, combined with its increased safety and efficiency, certainly\njustified the ASRM in my own mind, and, fortunately, she agreed.\n  But this was not enough. We had to use the same strategy we used in\n1989. The House had voted to kill the ASRM plant at the request of the\nDirector of OMB. So, I spent an entire day convincing the Senate\nAppropriations Committee to include some funding to the program.\nRepresentative Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, chairman of the House\ncommittee, used this as a starting point to provide full funding in the\nconference. We also convinced Al Gore to voice support for the ASRM in\nspeeches as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate.\n  The final appropriations bill, which went to the President, included\na much higher level of funding than appeared in the first Senate\nappropriations bill for ASRM, $2.1 billion for the space station, and\n$167 million for Marshall's AXAF Program, which was also in danger of\nelimination entirely.\n  In 1992, my bill to endorse the U.S. Space Camp, the U.S. Space\nAcademy, and Aviation Challenge programs was introduced. Our goal in\nCongress must be to support educational programs and to tear down any\nbarriers that would prevent government agencies from working in\nconjunction with private enterprise dedicated to teaching our youth.\n  Shortly after taking the oath of office as President, Bill Clinton\nbegan a program of downsizing the Government. The enemies of NASA went\nto work at OMB, and in the original recommendations from OMB, the space\nstation was to be canceled. Many of the enemies of the space station in\nCongress were urging President Clinton to cancel the space station.\n  Congress recessed around the holiday celebrations of the birthdays of\nPresidents Washington and Lincoln in February 1993. I had scheduled a\nreturn to Alabama to visit numerous places in the State with a series\nof town meetings. Upon learning that President Clinton was seriously\nconsidering canceling the space station, my entire recess schedule was\nput on hold in order to stay in Washington to do everything possible to\nsee that the space station survived in the President's budget. We\nworked with representatives of Boeing, McDonell Douglas, and others\ninvolved to stop the cancellation. For more than a week, we rallied\nforces to support the space station. On several occasions, I personally\ndiscussed the merits of the program with our President and Vice\nPresident.\n  We got Texas Governor Ann Richards to become actively involved in our\nefforts. There were numerous people working night and day to do\neverything they could to save the space station, and I hesitate to list\nall of them because there were so many that might be left out. But,\nChris Hansen of Boeing and Amy Bondurant, an attorney representing\nMcDonnell Douglas, were extremely helpful in this effort. Jyles Machen,\nour loan from Marshall, served as a congressional fellow in my office\nfor 2 years, and his expertise was invaluable to me on the space\nstation and to all issues and projects relating to NASA.\n  Vice President Albert Gore had always been a supporter of the Space\nProgram, and he was convinced to go all out to preserve it. Greg Simon,\na highly intelligent and knowledgeable member of Vice President Gore's\nstaff, was especially helpful in this battle.\n\n[[Page S12450]]\n\nDuring this time, we kept in constant contact with the officials at\nMarshall Space Flight Center as well. The team that worked to save the\nstation at that time all cooperated and performed exceptional work.\nWhen the President's budget was finally submitted, he called for the\nfull funding that NASA requested for the space station.\n\n  In 1993, the ASRM program died after the House had voted it down for\nthe fifth time, even though the new Vice President and other officials\nwere strong supporters. The House votes during 1993 were so\noverwhelmingly negative that it became clear that the best to be hoped\nfor was a reassignment to keep Yellow Creek employed in some other\nactivity. My chief concern by this point was saving Alabama jobs. The\nplant was nearly completed, and it had several possible uses, so the\nNASA administrator came to my office to discuss its future.\n  Later that year, NASA and the Thiokol Corporation announced that\ncompany would transfer its rocket nozzle section from Utah to Yellow\nCreek. Eight hundred people would start work there. The transfer made a\nlot of sense, since Marshall would be the chief buyer, and of course we\nwanted to see the jobs there.\n  But there were other disappointments that year, including, most\nnotably, the fact that Marshall was not chosen to be the lead center\nfor the space station program. However, Boeing, also located in\nnorthern Alabama, would serve as a major contractor. Of course,\nMarshall would have been an excellent choice to host the project,\nespecially because of the quality work the management and employees\nthere had done on the program. They had done it without any of the\nlarge cost overruns that plagued other centers working on the space\nstation project.\n  But in our Yellow Creek meeting with the NASA administrator, he\nassured Congressman Cramer and me that any rumors Marshall would be\nclose were ``poppycock,'' and his assurances seemed pretty solid. The\nfinal appropriations bill included more than $2.1 billion for the space\nstation. This funding level included vital elements such as the payload\nutilization operations conducted at Marshall Space Flight Center. And\nNASA had selected the Marshall Center to build the Space Station\nFurnace Facility, a project which would employ 160 people.\n  That year's appropriations bill had other advantages for Alabama,\ntoo. It included millions for the Centers for the Commercial\nDevelopment of Space. These centers were comprised of a consortium of\nuniversities, including UAB, UAH, and Auburn. NASA had recently\nconducted a peer review of these centers and scored Alabama's three\ncenters very well. By the recommendations of this same report, 6 of the\n17 centers were scheduled for closure, but not ours.\n  In 1994, the dramatic and successful repair of the Hubble Telescope\nhelped NASA to restore some of its own credibility with the public.\nAnother tremendous benefit was the report issued by the Advisory\nCommittee on the Redesign of the Space Station, an independent group of\nacademic, scientific, and business leaders, headed by MIT President\nCharles Vest. This committee had reversed its initial, negative view on\nthe space station printed in 1993. This time, Chairman Vest clearly\nstated that the program had progressed well beyond his expectations. It\nwas not an endorsement to be taken lightly and it further emphasized\nthe need for budgetary stability and a firm national commitment for the\nInternational Space Station.\n  However, NASA still had its vocal opponents. For instance, CBO\npublished a report stating that NASA could save half of its money by\nhalving its workload. We were able to point out many errors in the\nreport. This sort of haphazard approach was reflected in the budget\nallocation handed to the VA-HUD subcommittee, which cut $700 million\nfrom NASA's budget. I was very concerned by the proposed cuts, and\nbegan working to ensure that the space station and other programs were\nprotected.\n  1994 saw yet another Senate amendment to cut the space station. By\nthat time, the program had already been assigned a district management\nstructure with clear lines of responsibility and authority. One center\nhad been designated as a host center to facilitate program\nadministration, and one contractor was selected as the prime, with all\nothers working as subs. Transition to the previous year's redesign and\nthis new management structure was complete. The new management\nstructure included a concept widely embraced within the private sector,\na tenet of total quality management known as the integrated product\nteam. These teams are a flexible management tool designed to bring\ntogether experts from several fields to work individual issues, solve\nproblems, improve communications, and speed decision making. Essential\ndesign and review stages were almost completed.\n  Compared to the Freedom design, the International Space Station had\nnearly twice the power, almost double the pressurized volume, and twice\nthe number of laboratory modules. The station was designed to orbit at\na higher inclination, broadening the band of the Earth's surface and\natmosphere visible to the station. The crew size has been increased\nfrom 4 to 6 fulltime crew members. The amount of extra-vehicular\nactivity, or ``spacewalks'' required to construct the station has been\ndrastically reduced, thereby reducing program risk. Furthermore, the\ninternational partners in the project had completed their essential\ndesign and review stages.\n\n  It made no sense to cut the program, and the Senate knew it. In the\nsubsequent vote, 64 members voted for the space station, a remarkable\nvictory. We did a not of preparatory work for the vote and all of our\nefforts paid off and everything turned out well. Those of us who were\nproponents of the space station contacted every Senator numerous times\nin advance of the vote. I was pleased to serve as chairman of the vote\nround-up group as on several occasions before and since. We tried to\nget as many votes as possible so we could put this continual fight for\nspace station funding behind us. Our position was greatly strengthened\nby the House of Representatives, which also gave a strong show of\nsupport for the space station that year.\n  Senators Milkulski and Gramm of the Appropriations Committee did\noutstanding work on the NASA budget, which reflected remarkable support\nfor the Space Station and the space science programs. It increased\nNASA's funding over the President's request, and fully funded the space\nstation.\n  That year, the Senate also passed an amendment to appropriate $40\nmillion for the continuation of the commercial mid-deck augmentation\nmodule for the space shuttle--widely known as ``Space Hab.'' The\namendment became part of the emergency supplement bill to aid victims\nof the earthquake. The primary contractor for the project was McDonnell\nDouglas, headquartered in Huntsville, which would employ 150 people to\nfinish the quasi commercial venture. The Space Hab program has been in\nserious danger due to budget cuts, but the appropriation allow it to\ncontinue. It was a crucial project in the commercialization of space.\n  We also continued our efforts to maintain Yellow Creek that year,\npursuing the rocket-nozzle factory at the plant and other options. In a\nmeeting with Navy Secretary Dalton, I proposed conversion of NASA's\nYellow Creek facility into a site for Navy demilitarization of surplus\nstrategic and tactical rocket motors. NASA's Advanced Rocket Motor\nDirector had given me the idea in another meeting. The Navy would\nreceive a flexible facility to enable the sound disposal of excess\nrocket motors; the transfer would create a means to investigate energy\nproduction and reusable chemicals, and jobs would be saved.\n  Last year, there were misguided efforts to cut the NASA budget\nsignificantly. The Republicans advocated huge cuts, and the President\nand NASA Administrator claimed they had to propose cuts, too. The\nExecutive Branch told me that some of the funding reductions would\noccur after the construction of the space station was completed.\nStreamlining the shuttle program was another cost-savings plan.\n  In a meeting in May, the NASA Administrator announced that both the\nSenate and the House versions of the Republican budget proposals would\ncause severe cuts to the agency's personnel. To pay for the tax cut\ncontained in the House of Representatives budget plan, he told me NASA\nwould be forced to cut 45,000 civil service and\n\n[[Page S12451]]\n\ncontractor jobs at NASA by the year 2000. The House proposal was worse,\nand it required large cuts by this year. Of course, the President\nvetoed this budget, but the agency is still in trouble.\n  Most disturbing, however, was the House Republicans' announcement\nthat they would close Huntsville's Marshall Space Flight Center by 1998\nalong with other NASA facilities in Maryland and Virginia. In a meeting\nwith NASA Administrator Goldin, he assured me he would fight to\nmaintain all three center the House had targeted: Marshall, Goddard,\nand Langley. We had already done a lot of work in the Senate, and\nSenator Shelby and I had contacted key leaders in the Senate and\nreceived their commitments to keep Marshall and the other centers open.\n  In September 1996, we fought against yet another Senate amendment to\ncut funding for the space station. Tens of thousands of pounds of\nequipment had already been constructed, and the shuttle had flown its\nfirst station related mission the year before. Although the Senate\nvoted the amendment down, it is unfortunate that the biggest challenge\nthe station program faces appears to be the Congress of the United\nStates, specifically a small handful of members who continue to offer\nlegislation aimed at terminating the station program. Since the\ninception of the program, votes have been held over 18 times on the\nstation. We must continue to reject these attempts and continue our\nsupport of the Space Station program. We owe this to the future of the\ncitizens of the United States and to all the people of Earth.\n  Unfortuantely, the Premiere Nozzle Center at Yellow Creek came to an\nend last year. Mississippi state officials seem to have made a deal\nwith NASA to gain title to the property.\n  The Yellow Creek saga began when TVA terminated a 30-percent-complete\nnuclear reactor. Then came the rash cancellation of the ASRM plant,\nwhich was designed to prevent future space shuttle disasters like the\nChallenger incident in 1986. Last, we were faced with the sell-out of\nthe nozzle center, a project which first was announced just 18 months\nbeforehand.\n  In reviewing its history, it is hard to dismiss the theory that the\nuse of Yellow Creek as a site for ASRM and as a Nozzle Center was being\nsabotaged from the beginning after the Revised Solid Rocket Motor was\ncompleted. Given its history, hopefully something productive can occur\nat Yellow Creek; otherwise it will stand as a monument to Government\nineptitude an incompetence, as well as a destructive conspiracy.\n  In my last year as a Senator, NASA and the space station have,\nthankfully, enjoyed a banner year. Congress has approved a NASA budget\nof $14.37 billion, which includes $2.1 billion for the International\nSpace Station. Space Lab received $102.3 million, which is 10 million\nover the original request. In April, NASA safely concluded the second\nlongest shuttle mission. The space station was reconfigured within\ncongressional budget limits and considerable improvements were made in\nmanagement, engineering and budgeting the program. These changes led to\na resounding endorsement from the Vest Committee.\n  It is rewarding to those of use who have worked long and hard in\nsupport of this important international scientific collaboration that\nthe groundswell of public and congressional support is growing\nstronger. Credit for this success belongs to the team of personnel--\nscientists, engineers, contractors, universities and government\nagencies--who have worked tirelessly to make this program a viable path\nto the future.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12445"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.3572000209242105, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}