Rep. Tim Roemer's Annual Attempt to Kill or Cripple Space Station Fails Again

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.


On biotechnology, it says that `NASA and its partners are planning some experiments, but the commercial interest is limited only to subsidized research.' So these claims that there is all this private sector interest and big manufacturing interests in the space station, and they are going to help the taxpayers pay for this, is just not accurate, not according to the latest article in Scientific American.

Members might say, as we approach some very, very difficult circumstances in reaching a balanced budget over the next 5 or 6 years, that we have to make some tough choices around this body. Based on science and merit, the space station is the most logical choice to eliminate.

When President Reagan first came up with the idea in 1984, he said the space station would cost us $8 billion. Does anybody in this body have any idea about the projected cost today? It is not $18 billion, it is not even $58 billion, it is close to $90 billion when we add in the costs of what we have spent, of what the space shuttle will cost us to put these different platforms up into the atmosphere, the cost of protecting it, the cost of maintaining it for the 10 or 12 years it is up there in space.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about $90 billion. Some may argue, well, Members of Congress, we have already spent about $12 billion or $13 billion, we might as well finish it. Do Members want to justify an expense of $70 or $75 billion more of the taxpayers' money because we have spent $12 billion or $13 billion bad dollars? I do not think that makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. That does not make sense to people who are working so hard for so long for their tax money to pay their bills and to try to insist on a fair cost here in Washington, DC, when we do expend a dollar.

Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for people on the other side of this issue, including the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], who was elected the same year and serves with me on the Committee on Science, and Members on the other side of the aisle. But we have to have the courage in this body to make some tough spending cuts to get to a balanced budget.

If Members look at science and look at merit, this space station just does not pass the test of what hardworking American families will ask in terms of return on their tax dollar. It is not going to return good science. It is surely not going to return any kind of good return for these high-tech objectivity measures that people do not even have interest in at the manufacturing level, according to Scientific American, and we definitely have to make some of these tough choices to get to a balanced budget.

Citizens Against Government Waste endorses this amendment offered by myself and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] and a host of other groups do as well, too, that I will list in the next few minutes. I urge the body to support this elimination of the space station, in the interests of science and in the interest of balancing the budget.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we are going through one of the annual rites of spring in Washington. The tulips bloom, the dogwoods become very beautiful, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] introduces his amendment to kill the space station.

Let me say that I will match my record on spending issues against that of the gentleman from Indiana and anybody else in this House, and I support the space station. The Citizens Against Government Waste has given me their Taxpayer Hero Award consistently. The National Taxpayers Union has named me the tightwad of the decade in terms of my votes on taxes and spending, and I am proud of that, and I support the space station.

I am not going to belabor this point very much, but I do wish to make two points for the committee's consideration. The first is that the United States taxpayers have already put $12 billion into designing the space station and building 50,000 pounds of hardware. If the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana is adopted, that $12 billion investment will just evaporate. We just chalk that up to experience,

and this vote is really a vote on whether or not to stiff the taxpayers the $12 billion that they have invested in this.

The space station is on time, it is on budget. We have settled on a design. We are not redesigning it. We are building the hardware now and we are looking forward to the launches of the first elements sometime next year.

The second point is that America's credibility is on the line, because we are the leaders of an international consortium that includes Russia, the member nations of the Russian space agency, Canada, and Japan. Should the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana be adopted, the United States will unilaterally cancel the space station, and the investments that have been made by the taxpayers of all those other countries will similarly be waived. That is about 4 billion U.S. dollars.

So if we end up stiffing our international partners and our allies, we are going to make sure that they are not going to want to get together with the United States, either on scientific endeavors or on any other endeavor, for fear that the Congress will change its mind and pull the rug out from underneath them.

Let us stay the course. Let us vote against the Roemer amendment. Let us build the space station, and then let us operate the space station and benefit from the scientific research that goes on.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[Page: H5691]
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], coauthor of this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise, not surprisingly, since I have cosponsored this amendment, in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this should not be an annual rite of spring. We should eliminate this funding. James van Allen, a respected scientist at the University of Iowa, and many other scientists have said that we will get much more bang for our buck by funding unmanned scientific explorations. The space station's spending is already $43 million over budget, or, as NASA would say, the expenses have experienced cost growth.

Despite these higher expenditures, NASA has fallen behind in the construction schedule. According to the GAO, we will sink $94 billion into this orbiting erector set before it is over, if NASA does not go any further over budget.

Our share of the price tag is not the only problem. The space station is supposed to be international, so let me speak to comments made by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin. The memoranda of understanding between NASA and the space agencies of our partners has not been finalized. We have no definitive agreements with any of our partners, whose contributions are necessary for the completion of this space station.

NASA insists that Russia has made commitments to the project. However, none of these agreements are in writing. NASA must know something that Russia does not know. For example, NASA states that an American will always be in command of the space station. The Russians, however, say that question has not been settled.

The fact that we have no written agreement with Russia I think is particularly problematic. Russian Presidential elections will be held this June, and it is uncertain who the successor to Yeltsin will be.

[TIME: 1615]
Should Mr. Yeltsin lose, it is likely that Mr. Zyuganov will be the President of Russia. As most Members know, he hates the West, and I would doubt that we would see any cooperation with the space station.

Another ally, Canada, will not decide whether they will pay for completion of the robotic arm until 1997. What if they decide not to? I suppose NASA will be back here in Congress asking for another chunk of change.

While NASA's overall budget has been declining and will continue to decline, the space station seems to be immune to scrutiny. NASA has consolidated control of the entire space station budget with the program manager, giving him an additional $300 million per year. These funds were previously controlled by various research offices responsible for scientific experiments to be conducted on the space station. This consolidation has made it possible for funds allocated for research to be used for construction of the space station.

What good will building the space station do if we spend all of the research money building the space station? Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that well-intentioned but misguided efforts to complete this project will not give us what we want. These concessions cost millions of dollars. We have the delay of completion of scientific projects in other areas. This is a black hole. The money goes in, nothing comes out.

For example, our offer to launch Russia's science power platform will upset the station construction schedule by causing a 5-month delay in launching Japan's science module and an 8-month delay in launching the centrifuge which some say is essential for life sciences research. I think we just should not throw more good money after bad. It is time to cut our losses. I believe that we should face reality, we should stop the money vacuum known as the space station now. Vote `yes' on this amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall].

Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I, of course, like all the other Members who will speak and who have spoken, have the highest regard for the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and those who support him. We just differ with him. We just think he is still wrong and probably will be wrong in the next Congress and in the Congress after that and the one after that. Because he is a fine young man, he will be reelected, and he will be here when I am in the corner room of the Rockwall Nursing Home, but I will still be calling out to save the space station for us old folks.

As I mentioned to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] at the recent full committee markup of the bill, the space station amendment, as the gentleman has said, is one of the endearing traditions here. I respect his convictions.

Mr. Chairman, the value of research today is already demonstrated in a lot of ways, but in a limited way by experiments that are being conducted on the space shuttle. In previous sessions, we have held hearings and we have held a number of hearings where we heard from some of the leading medical researchers of our day.

Dr. Michael DeBakey walked these halls 3 days, going in to visit with Members to tell them of the value of the space station and the hope that the space station holds out; in his early 80's, Dr. Mickey LeMaistre, head of M.D. Anderson, who knows the attacks that cancer makes on the citizenry, and all of us have someone in a cancer ward.

I think there is one word that the space station holds out and that one word is so important to people that are wasting away in the cancer wards. It is so important that we are even talking about revolutionizing the FDA because of that one word, and that one word for people is hope. They have hope that there is medication for them. They have hope that there is a breakthrough. We have not found that here in this environment. We hope and they hope that we will find it in the weightless environment of space.

Yes, it is a large expenditure of money, but the American people have cried out that they want this station, and if you really want to hear a hue and cry all across the universities of this country, from children in the first grade on up to the senior colleges, do something to the space station.

We almost lost the space station several sessions ago but we have never lost it. This body has always said yes, that this gives that one thing called hope. And when we talk about Russia and whether or not they are going to stay hitched, it has been certainly my finding in Russia itself that they seem not to have money for other things, but for educational pursuits and for the space station they seem to allocate and have money to set aside for it.

Both sides requested that Al Gore give us some assurance as to what their intentions were and what they thought the Russian intentions were. I read to you a letter from Al Gore addressed to us dated May 9. It says:

[Page: H5692]
As you are aware, I recently wrote to Prime Minister Chrnomyrdin regarding the status of funding for the Russian Space Agency's cooperative activities with NASA on the international Space Station program. In response, the Prime Minister has firmly pledged that Russia will meet its commitments to the ISS program in full.

It goes on to say other things. Members all have copies of this letter. I invite them to read it. But its assurance to us that the leaders of this country, the leaders of that country, certainly the investment that Japan and other countries have made ought to cry out to us: Save this space station and give these people hope.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the distinguished Member from Texas that he certainly will probably never be in a nursing home. As talented and as fired up as he is, he will probably be on the space station if it is built some day.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the hardworking gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Roemer amendment to eliminate funding for the space station.

Just 3 weeks ago, we debated a bill that drastically cut housing aid to lower income Americans. In the name of deficit reduction, this body eliminated housing assistance for hundreds of thousands of Americans. The argument we heard was that, as a nation, we simply could not afford it.

But today, many in this Chamber are singing a different tune. This bill is definitely not about reducing spending. This bill continues the foolish proposal to spend billions of dollars for an orbiting public housing project, for just a few astronauts.

How can we tell millions of homeless people that there isn't enough money to put a safe roof over their heads, and then, continue to fund the space station? It is unconscionable to pour billions of dollars into this science fiction experiment, when we cannot afford to take care of our own citizens.

My colleagues, the real question before us today is whether millions of Americans will be forced to go without the most fundamental of needs--housing--in favor of an expensive space toy. Spending cuts to balance the budget must be applied to all domains, not just to the social programs. It is wrong to place this burden on the backs of the defenseless poor, without asking others to pay as well.

Let us not pour any more of our scarce funds into building a luxury hotel in the sky--especially after we just demolished public housing for the needy down here on Earth.

I urge my colleagues to vote `yes' on the Roemer amendment to cancel funding for the space station.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to rebut the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].

There is a cut in the NASA budget. It is a pretty significant cut. We went through all of that in terms of the debate on the personnel. But just to set the record straight, from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1997 this bill cuts the total NASA budget by $325 million.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this traditional rite of spring, to oppose the Roemer amendment and speak out in support of the future, in support of our children, in support of the space station. I would like to address several of the arguments that have been made by the people who would favor killing our space station.

One of them is that they bring out articles and quotations from bench researchers that say, no, do not spend the money on space station, spend the money on my research. I have done bench research. I have done life sciences research. I can tell my colleagues they could go into any university anywhere in the United States and say, `Would you rather we spend $17 billion on the station or on more bench research?' And they would gladly say, `Give us the money for more bench research.' The question before us is, is that the more appropriate use of our resources?

Another point that is being made by the opponents of the space station is this $90 billion figure. The space station is costing $17 billion to construct. The $90 billion figure comes from a GAO study where they added in the cost of running the shuttle program for those 7 years and the cost of all the research on the space station.

This would be equivalent, in my opinion, to saying to go out to dinner with your wife and see a movie does not cost $30, you have to factor in the cost of paving the roads to get back and forth from the restaurant and the cost of heating or cooling your house while you are in the restaurant. This kind of accounting is very, very deceptive.

The truth is the space station is on time and on budget, and there are very, very few programs run by this Federal Government that can make that claim. The space station program has been through downsizing. NASA has been through downsizing, and they have learned to be able to be lean, mean and efficient. This program is on time and it is on budget.

What this program is about is about the future. When we look at the cost of the space station and compare it to what we are going to spend over the next 7 years on defense, on health care, on roads and highways, this comes out to be less than 0.1 percent. I think it is about 0.01 percent of what we as a Nation are going to spend. The American people have said over and over again over the past 5, 6, 7 years, yes, we want to make this investment in the future, because that is what this is all about, the future.

I am told by teachers in my district that there is nothing that we can get children more excited about in the area of math and science than talking about space and manned space and the future. Support the station, vote `no' on the Roemer amendment.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], who used to serve on the Committee on Science and was a strong supporter and coauthor of this amendment in the past.

Mr. ZIMMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago when the gentleman from Indiana and I were freshmen and both rookie members of what was then the Science, Space and Technology Committee, we took the well of this House to warn that the space station was going to be an orbiting white elephant, that it was going to be a black hole in space that would suck up billions of tax dollars and radically expand the deficit, and we said that it simply was not worth the money.

Now, 5 years later, I wish I could say that we were wrong, but every day provides us with new evidence that we were right. In a period of declining NASA budgets, the space station, which is now estimated by the GAO to cost more than $94 billion, has already begun to cannibalize more valuable programs in space.

Bill Clinton's proposed NASA budget drops from $13.8 billion next year to $11.6 billion in the year 2000, and when inflation is factored in, the cut is even deeper. The Republican budget provides somewhat more money for NASA, but even so, the amount of available funds is drastically less than we thought it would be just a few years ago. There is simply not enough money to build the space station and to meet the Nation's more pressing needs for scientific research in space and on Earth.

According to this month's Scientific American, NASA's research and development outlay, bloated by the space station, represents almost 40 percent of the Nation's total nonhealth, nonmilitary research and development budget. The huge annual costs of the space station are sucking the life out of more cost effective programs of NASA, such as our magnificent orbiting observatories, unmanned interplanetary missions, the mission to planet Earth, as well as the development of cheaper launch systems which will make it possible for us someday to have an affordable space station.

This spring NASA has already used reserve funds to cover $144 million in cost growth of the space station program, $100 million is attributable to the program being behind schedule, and $44 million is due to the cost growth in some of the contracts. The Congressional Research Service reports that NASA officials are worried because these increases are occurring so early in the construction phase of the program.

[Page: H5693]
[TIME: 1630]
There is one aspect that I think deserves particular attention this spring, and that is our relationship with Russia as a partner in the space station. When Bill Clinton and Al Gore proposed the Russian partnership, it generated greater support in this body because it seemed like a diplomatic coup. A symbol of the cold war was becoming a symbol of international cooperation.

But, unfortunately, it looks like our partnership with Russia is turning out to be a colossal mistake. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], says Russia always comes up with money when it is needed for space, and he refers us to a letter from the Vice President and promises from the Prime Minister of Russia. But the Russian Government has already delayed funding for its service module, a critical component of the space station, and work on the service module has fallen 5 months behind because the prime contractor has received only $10 million of the $55 million that has been requested.

The Russian Government still has not approved a timetable for making these payments. The Russian service module is scheduled for launch in 1998. If it is not delivered on time, it could devastate the schedule and the budget of the space station. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin has said, `If we do not have the service module, we cannot complete construction of the space station.

If Russia withdraws from the station, NASA estimates that assembly would be delayed by 18 months and would cost the United States an additional $2 billion. Additionally, the United States and our remaining international partners would have to develop and fund a new escape vehicle.

Now, regardless of who wins the upcoming elections for President in Russia, it is clear we will be dealing with a nation that is characterized by internal political strife, by ultranationalism, authoritarianism, and perhaps insurgent imperialism as well as tremendous corruption. While we should, obviously, support Russia's struggle to become a democratic, capitalistic nation, we cannot afford to gamble $94 billion on it.

We just can not be certain that there is going to be a happy ending to the Russian melodrama. It is not too late to cut our losses on this space station. We should support the Roemer-Ganske amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, and I again rise in opposition, strong opposition, to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

This is, in fact, getting to be an annual ritual, I say to my colleague. I feel like one of those toys kids buy for Christmas, where you pull the back of the toy and the conversation comes out `Save Space Station', `Save Space Station', `Kill Space Station', `Kill Space Station.'

There have been 10 votes on the floor of the House since 1991 over this issue. As I count it, there have been 32 total votes both in the committee and on the floor on this very issue. I think we have had a fair fight and I think, I say to my colleague, it is time for us to get off of NASA's back.

There is not an agency that has been under more scrutiny than NASA has been over the space station project. They have redesigned it since 1991, they have cut the budget, they have cut their personnel, they have come to Congress, they have dealt with us in an open, direct way, and yet we keep saying every year now is the time to turn our back on it.

We have invested billions of dollars. Our international partners have their partnership with us at stake in this project. They have invested billions of dollars. Now is not the time to turn our back on it.

I want to echo some of the comments that my colleague from Florida, Mr. Weldon, made about children and mathematics and science. We happen to have the international space camp there at the Marshall Space Flight Center, there in Huntsville in my district, and I get to go out there two or three times a year and see all these young people come in from all over the world with their parents, young people that are inspired by NASA and by the space program, young people that want to commit their careers to mathematics and science, young people that are using NASA as their image of what they want to do with their education and their careers. Let us not tell those young people that we are the kind of country that can in fact turn our back on this kind of investment, that can turn our back on the space station program.

Space station is the centerpiece of what NASA is all about. We have, in fact, many scientific projects that our doctors are planning to conduct on the space

station. In my first year here I sat down with my colleague from Texas and a number of Texas doctors that were here that had joined with doctors from all over the world, and again they said the advances we had made in NASA technology that has given them benefits of robotics and surgery benefits and valves for artificial hearts, that we would lose our ability to complete those technologies if we, in fact, turn our back on the space station.

So I say we have had a fair fight. It is the irresponsible thing to do to turn your back on this project at this particular point. Let us kill this killing amendment and let us also kill the amendment that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] will offer next, which intends to maim the NASA space station program. Let us stop this and let us get on with it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman].

Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have only been here a few short months, but I already feel like I know the gentleman from Indiana like a brother. We voted on this so many times now that I am being called an old bull in the Committee on Science.

This is something that we apparently do around here as a ritual, but let me tell my colleagues what this is really all about. When I was a child I looked at the TV and I watched us go up in Apollo to the Moon. I believed and saw and realized America was about something greater than I could ever imagine; that was America has a vision for the future.

America is a country and a nation seeking out new places. We were founded by a man that had that vision, and we continued throughout, as we looked to the West to develop, to search and look for new solutions, and to go, as they say in `Star Trek,' boldly where no one else has ever gone.

What we are saying here is if we eliminate space station, we eliminate the vision for America. We will not hear anybody coming up here and saying we will have a new solution. This is what we are going to do.

Mr. Chairman, of all the money we spend in Government research, I submit this is the most important thing we do: Create new cures for illnesses and develop new processes to which we can feed the world.

We are obligated. We do not have a choice in this. We have to build the space station, because up there in the skies are the solutions to here on Earth. Mr. Chairman, there is no other purpose for the United States in this greatest quest.

Right now we look at the movies and the different things across the country and we know that Americans want a space station. We voted on this many times, and I submit to my friends that it is the wisest use of money. In fact, it has been researched that for every dollar we spend in space we get $7 back. That is not an expense, that is an investment.

As an accountant, I look and see things differently, and if my wife and I have trouble with our budget, we do not say, `Honey, let us cut the bonds'; `Honey, let us cut the investment.' No, we say let us cut the expense, but do not cut the investments.

Space station is an investment in our future. It is an investment in the next generation for work. If we cut research and development, tomorrow's jobs will be in Japan and in Germany because they are continuing their space program. I submit we have to support this not for us, but for the next generation.

[Page: H5694]
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] has 15 minutes remaining.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes to just reply to some of the questions and comments that have been made.

Mr. Chairman, certainly this vote is a tough one. It is a tough one to eliminate the space station because people think that they do not want to make any votes in this body to move toward a balanced budget. There are some Democrats here in the House of Representatives that do not want to vote to cut anything. There are some Republicans in this body that will vote to cut everything but defense and the space station. We here, a bipartisan group, have come together and tried to put together an amendment based upon science and merit and the taxpayers' interests.

Now, this question is asked over and over and over, why do we keep doing this? Why do we keep making us go through this ritual every year of voting on the space station? It is because groups like the National Taxpayers Union support this amendment; Citizens Against Government Waste support this amendment; Citizens for a Sound Economy support this amendment; Taxpayers for Common Sense; the Concord Coalition. A bipartisan group of people dedicated to balancing the budget support this amendment.

This is not a bunch of Members of Congress running around trying to devise some way of balancing the budget on their own and taking away a vital project to the United States' research interests. These are grass roots organizations that feel that we should not be building this.

Now, again, I hear over and over from my colleagues this is great science. Again, I refer to Scientific American. High-tech products: Who is going to build them? Who is the company? According to this article, no large companies are currently interested in manufacturing in space. Where are they? How much money are they putting up? I want to know. That is a fair question.

Astronomy: No research currently planned, according to this article. Subsidies are required in biotechnology. They are not going to do it on their own. More taxpayers' money.

And when we talk about more taxpayers' money, we are coming back to the American taxpayer over and over and over again, with this budget going from $8 billion to $90 billion, whereas our taxpayers are sending the Russians $100 million of our hard-earned money, yet that is not going down. On the same hand, the

gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] said we are cutting NASA. Well, we are cutting NASA in all the wrong places to protect the space station.

The space station is cannibalizing, it is eating up these other programs, like Mission to Planet Earth, like new construction, like shuttle upgrades. These programs are being cut back and displaced. That is not in the best interest of good science.

So we have the space station within the science and the NASA project that is eating up more and more of our available good dollars to do good programs when NASA is doing some good things in areas like the Clementine project and the Hubble and the Galileo that went to Jupiter. We are doing some marvelous things in NASA, but we will not be doing anything in NASA before long if the space station continues to gobble up all these moneys.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues that we are not going to be disappointing the American taxpayer when we say that $14 billion already spent is going to be chased by another $70 billion before this is over. Let us save the taxpayer that $70 billion now.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is the key vote on the space station this year. I would hope that the committee will stay the course. I ask the membership to vote no on the Roemer amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 127, noes 286, not voting 21, as follows:

Roll No. 205

[Roll No. 205]
AYES--127
Ackerman
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bereuter
Blute
Brown (OH)
Camp
Christensen
Coble
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Ganske
Gibbons
Goodlatte
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hutchinson
Inglis
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
McCarthy
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Myrick
Nadler
Neumann
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Schroeder
Schumer
Shays
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Solomon
Stark
Studds
Stupak
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Waxman
Wilson
Woolsey
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--286
Abercrombie
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lofgren
Lucas
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Salmon
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
[Page: H5695]
NOT VOTING--21
Chabot
de la Garza
Doolittle
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Foglietta
Ford
Gutknecht
Hayes
Houghton
Jefferson
Lincoln
McDade
Molinari
Mollohan
Murtha
Pastor
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Quinn
Wise
[TIME: 1704]
The Clerk announced the following pair:

On this vote:

Mr. Chabot for, with Mr. Gutknecht against.

Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut and Mr. JACKSON of Illinois changed their vote from `aye' to `no.'

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, on recorded vote No. 205, I was incorrectly recorded as voting `aye.' Please let the Record show it was my intention to vote `no.' I have been and continue to be a strong supporter of the space station. .

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 25, line 12, strike `$1,840,200,000' and insert in lieu thereof `$1,765,200,000'.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, with the agreement of the gentleman from Indiana, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes 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 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] will be recognized for 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the House has spoken on eliminating the space station in that last amendment. They do not think that we should eliminate the space station. This amendment that I offer now for the consideration of this House is not the elimination of the space station. It is very, very different than eliminating the space station. All this amendment offered by myself and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] does is to cut $75 million out of a $2.1 billion allocation for the space station every single year. They get $2.1 billion. We are just saying in this year's budget cut 3 percent, $75 million out of $2.1 billion.

Now, when everything else is being cut around here, when we argued about a cut in Head Start for a month and a half, when we argued about cuts in Medicare, when we have been arguing about cuts, some of the safety nets for some of our senior citizens and some of our schoolchildren, certainly a space station that gets $2.1 billion each year should be a part of balancing the budget.

Now, the other side, Mr. Chairman, is going to say this is a killer amendment, this is going to kill the space station. A 3-percent cut? Three percent, $75 million out of $2.1 billion, is not going to cut this space station. It is not going to eliminate the space station. This is just a way of saying what is fair is fair in terms of getting to a balanced budget.

So in conclusion, before I yield a few seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas, I urge Members to consider voting not for an elimination of the space station but for a 3-percent cut in a $2.1 billion budget. This is what would be fair to the American people.

This is the fairest way to get to a balanced budget in the next 6 years. This is fair to NASA when they are cutting the shuttle, when they are cutting new construction and a host of other important programs. Do not let the space station continue to cannibalize the other programs in NASA.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] who is going to argue against me.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. There is not a person on the Committee on Science that I do not have the greatest respect for, like the gentleman and his integrity on this issue. But just like I disagreed with the gentleman on the previous vote and the previous effort to eliminate the space station, let me argue vigorously against the decrease because I would simply say that we cannot do any more.

The space station has already done as much cutting back through a series of restructuring and redesigns. We do not have any more slack in the program. What we have done is we have got a $2.1 billion program that will see us launch in about a year and a half. We have got a privatization program going on that efficiently uses both the civilian employees as well as our private sector employees or our civil service employees.

I will simply say to the gentleman from Indiana that we know that there are priorities, and those priorities have to be that we share with the American people. But I do believe that the space station creates jobs for the 21st century. I would ask my colleagues to vote against the gentleman from Indiana and support the space station.

Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost in respect for my fellow committee member and Democratic colleague, Mr.Roemer, but I happen to believe that his position with regard to the space station is patently wrong. The Nation has always expanded its horizons and explored all its frontiers and the international space station Alpha continues in the tradition of American know-how and fortitude. Alpha has had a long and tortuous history, and finally, after many years, several redesigns, numerous congressional votes and several administrations, this Nation, along with its international partners are on the cusp of beginning the constant human presence in space; our final frontier. With the first momentous launch of Alpha hardware almost upon us, hardware is being cut, tested, and assembled even as we speak.
Alpha will allow us to do research that cannot be done here on mother Earth. The station will provide opportunities for research in the areas of materials, life sciences, physics, astronomy, and many other sciences. In addition, the very effort of designing and building the space station has created new building and engineering techniques, light-weight materials, and many new technologies.
NASA has accepted the funding cap Congress has held it to and has testified and pledged that barring unforeseen acts of God, they will complete the project on time and on budget. Period. Our international partners have promised their full economic and operational support, and NASA has a strong record of working with them to solve problems that arise as the program progresses.
I have always supported the space station, and I continue to do so, as evidenced by my vote today. I support the project, its goals, and its efforts. I also support the motivated and hard working employees of NASA, its many contractors, and all those involved in putting this project together. Let's honor them and their efforts by voting against the Roemer amendments, one to eliminate the space station and the alternative to reduce its funds.
[Page: H5696]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very deceptive amendment because it says that, if we just take a little bit of money out of a $2.1 billion program, we will be able to save some money and nothing is going to happen to it. That conclusion is absolutely false.

One of the reasons why NASA brought itself into disrepute in the last decade is that both NASA and Congress decided to reduce costs in many of the accounts. The reduced costs saved money in the next fiscal year, but it ended up resulting in projects not being completed and projects were completed late and cost overruns. All of the engineers stayed on the payroll to complete the project when the meter is ticking.

NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, who I believe has done a marvelous job in making NASA faster, better and cheaper, has written me a letter. I want to quote it in part. It says, simply put, an arbitrary reduction of $49 to $100 million means a slowdown of work. A slowdown of work means a schedule slip, and schedule slip means increased cost. Analytically, the impact to the station schedule is up to 3 months, referring to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and the increased cost as much as $200 million, or at least twice the amount saved by the proposed amendment.

This is an unacceptable risk to our careful balance of hardware elements and payroll deployment. What the gentleman from Indiana is doing here today in the name of saving money is to set this House and NASA up for a complaint that the station experiences cost overruns because of the stretch-out and the schedule slip that is caused by the gentleman from Indiana's amendment. Then he will be back next year when the dogwood bloom and the tulips sprout saying NASA has not been able to hold to its schedule; there has been a cost overrun; let us kill the Space Station.

Well, the way to prevent the gentleman from making that argument is by rejection of his amendment today because the $75 million he proposes to save now will cost the taxpayers $200 million according to the NASA Administrator, who says he works for the President of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, heaven is not reached by a single bound. But we build the ladder by which we rise.

Mr. Chairman, the international space station has, and will continue, to provide Americans with substantial benefits in areas including medicine, the environment, transportation, and even communications. And the benefits don't just stop there. Since the inception of the U.S. space program, the secondary applications of space technology have yielded $9 to the economy for every tax dollar spent. The returns are clearly well worth the investment.
The partnerships created through the space station serve as an exceptional model for future international ventures. The partners of this program have already contributed billions of dollars to the space station, demonstrating their commitment to completing the largest cooperative science program in history.
The international space station will be a world-class orbiting laboratory, which will serve as a test-bed for hundreds of science and technology experiments that could not be conducted on this planet. We will learn new research techniques for growing tissue samples outside of the human body, for use in cancer research and bone injuries. There will be new understandings of the aging process, with subsequent developments in counteracting the effects of aging.
Imagine the possibilities of academic involvement in the space station's activities. Through the cooperative efforts of NASA and academic institutions throughout the world, the space station will launch future generations into a brand new dimension of learning about space science.
Author J.G. Holland said, `Heaven is not reached by a single bound. But we build the ladder by which we rise.' We are currently building that ladder, in a series of bounds. What we find at the top of this ladder will inspire future generations to imagine, explore, and actually see, first-hand, the unprecedented advances that the space station will provide. We must retain funding for the space station. I urge a `no' vote on the Roemer-Ganske amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[TIME: 1715]
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 146, noes 269, not voting 19, as follows:

Roll No. 206

[Roll No. 206]
AYES--146
Ackerman
Allard
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bereuter
Blumenauer
Blute
Brown (OH)
Camp
Christensen
Clay
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Ehrlich
Ensign
Evans
Fattah
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Ganske
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Holden
Hutchinson
Inglis
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
McCarthy
McHugh
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Montgomery
Myrick
Nadler
Neumann
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Roukema
Rush
Sanders
Sanford
Schaefer
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Shays
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Studds
Stupak
Tauzin
Thompson
Torkildsen
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Yates
NOES--269
Abercrombie
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lantos
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Watt (NC)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
[Page: H5697]
NOT VOTING--19
Chabot
Conyers
de la Garza
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Foglietta
Gutknecht
Hayes
Houghton
Jefferson
Lincoln
McDade
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Quinn

  • submit to reddit


Loading



AAS Glenn Symposium July 10-12 in Cleveland
Global MilSatCom, November 5-7, 2019, London, UK
49th International Conference on Environmental Systems - ICES 2019




Join our mailing list




Monthly Archives

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Keith Cowing published on May 30, 1996 11:27 PM.

NASA Staff Meeting Minutes 28 May 1996 was the previous entry in this blog.

NASA Staff Meeting Minutes 3 June 1996 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.