The following Debate regarding Rep. Roemer's 2 amendments to H.R. 3322 is repeated verbatim from the 30 May 1996 Congressional Record
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ROEMER
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ROEMER
Page 24, line 20, insert `and' after `Administration;'.
Page 24, lines 21 through 24, strike paragraph (2).
Page 25, line 1, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
Page 25, lines 13 and 15, and page 26, lines 4 and 6, redesignate paragraphs (2) through (5) as paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively.
Page 26, line 14, strike `$498,500,000' and insert in lieu thereof `$230,700,000'.
Page 27, line 4, strike `$711,000,000' and insert in lieu thereof `$679,400,000'.
Page 38, line 14, through page 43, line 6, strike subtitle C.
Page 43, line 7, redesignate subtitle D as subtitle C.
Amend the table of contents accordingly.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 1 hour, with the time equally divided between the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and myself.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I guess I ask for the patience of this body, since we seem to go through this argument on eliminating the space station a couple of times a year. Certainly people on both sides could dust off their talk from 1992 or 1994 and virtually give almost the identical talk for cutting the space station or for supporting it.
I am not going to give the previous speech, because it seems that we on the opposing side of the space station continue to get more and more arguments in favor of cutting the space station, especially from the scientific community. So let me give some background as to why this is not good science. This is not in the interests of the scientific community or in the interests of taxpayers in America today.
Mr. Chairman, Scientific American, which is one of the most distinguished periodicals written in the United States today, the June issue, has a very interesting article on the space station this month. Let me quote from it: `Scientific panels, such as the National Research Council's Space Studies Board, have warned that, although some interesting research will be
possible on the station, the expected returns cannot, cannot justify the facility's overall cost.'
Another quote from this `Science in the Sky' article in the Scientific American, dated June 1996: `To date, no large companies are planning major research or manufacturing efforts on the Space Station.'
We hear from a host of proponents of the space station that this is going to solve everything from cancer to AIDS, to making, manufacturing, and testing new crystals. This is absolutely not what Scientific American says. They go on to look at what is good in the space station and what, out of the eight original missions that the space station had, what are we going to do now, in 1996, from when it was first designed in 1984.
With regard to high-technology products, it says in Scientific American: `No larger companies are currently interested in manufacturing in space.' Astronomy, remote sensing for different platforms put on the space station, those are certainly gone now since 1984, but there is no research currently planned from inside or outside or anywhere on the space station.