Floor Statement- VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill

Mr. GORE. I thank the Chair.

I rise to express my support for H.R. 2519, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill.

I think the leadership of the committee, especially my friend and distinguished able colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, has done an outstanding job facing the extremely difficult task of allocating limited resources to programs affecting many important constituencies. I think Senator Mikulski's handling of this bill really as been extraordinary, and I will elaborate on some of the more detailed reasons for that conclusion in further statement for the Record.

I disagree with the pending amendment. I respect the view expressed so ably and eloquently by the Senator from Arkansas. I also want to say especially that I respect and acknowledge the sentiments expressed by my senior colleague from Tennessee and agree with some of the sentiments he has expressed. I voted against the super collider for the first time last week for many of those same reasons.

I have been particularly involved in this issue, and I want to share with the Senate my perspective as chairman of the authorizingsubcommittee.

Right to the point, I support the Space Station Freedom Program and will vote to oppose the pending amendment to terminateit.

Anyone who understands the way our space program is organized knows that the space station is close to being the keystone of NASA as an institution, as it currently exists, and is a central pillar of NASA's program. Ending the space station program could well mean ending America's long effort to support human presence in space. I do not think we should do that as a matter of choice.

I invite the attention of the sponsor of the amendment to the following point. This amendment proposes to terminate the space station shifting $1.2 billion into so-called deficit reduction. I do not know if everyone is a ware of it, but I want my colleagues to be aware of it, that if we vote to stop funding the space station program, we will be liable for $800 million in contract termination costs in that first year.

So there will not be, should the amendment pass, $1.2 billion in deficit reduction--$800 million of the amount authorized would have to be spent anyway, only we would get absolutely nothing for it. It would go to terminate the contract.

So we ought to be clear about what this amendment does. It terminates the space station program and related activities, but it does not produce the deficit reduction of the size advertised in the amendment because of those enormous contract termination costs.

Having articulated my basic position, I want to add that support for the space station program as well as any other has to be dictated by the availability of resources. Very simply, it is quite true the Federal Government does not have the resources to pursue every initiative regardless of costs. That is particularly true for NASA and the civil space program.

NASA's budget request for fiscal year 1992 was $15.8 billion, an increase of nearly $1.9 billion over the current year. Yet because of the 5-year budget agreement adopted last year, the resources to fund these increases simply are not available. As the Administrator of NASA has testified, more than 99 percent of his budget request would support ongoing programs. The fact is NASA cannot expect every year to get the money it needs to carry out each and every program it now administers. The Augustine committee clearly recognized this in concluding that NASA had more on its plate than it could realistically accomplish. Clearly, we have to strive to make sense of the NASA budget in an environment of limited budget growth. Endorsing the program today has ramifications for many years to come, particularly as the funding wedge that a certain program creates may preclude funding other even higher priority programs.

In this respect, NASA has failed to provide adequate long-term budget information to the Congress to ensure that decisions are made with a complete understanding of how the programs will be affected. That is why the NASA authorization bill which we passed out of committee and hope to bring to the Senate floor before the August recess provides out of the Commerce Committee a requirement that NASA give Congress a 5-year outlook of the funding needs of every major program, project, and mission, as well as life cycle costs associated with each one. We simply have to have this information to ensure that when funding decisions are made, the highest priority programs are not squeezed out of those already funded.

Mr. President, it is my hope that after this provision is enacted NASA will submit its first 5-year budget plan early next year when the President's budget is sent to the Congress. With this information we will be able for the first time to take a hard look at the future of every NASA program, including the space station.

I support the space station program but want to make it clear that with this new information future funding required for this program will be carefully scrutinized. It is indeed unfortunate that the allocation of funds of this subcommittee could not have been higher. The pending amendment offers many appealing add-ons to the subcommittee mark for other programs with great merit.

In particular, I agree that we need to--could I have one additional minute?

Mr. GORE. I ask for 30 seconds.

Mr. GORE. I want to particularly emphasize the need to fund the NASA Earth observing system. Those who know my concerns for global environmental issues realize it is with great unease that I see a cut for appropriations of EOS driven by the shortage of funds in the NASA budget.

I will elaborate the sentiment I am expressing here for the Record, but I want to close by urging my colleagues to support the bill and defeat the present amendment.

I thank my colleagues for the courtesy.