House Defeats Plan to Strip Space Station Funds to Assist Homeless, Elderly, Cities

In a frequently acerbic debate over national priorities, the House Wednesday soundly defeated a plan to strip $400 million from the nation’s space station project and transfer the funds to programs for the homeless, the elderly and the cities.

The controversial proposal by Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) failed on a 256-166 vote during consideration of a $59-billion appropriations bill for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 16 other federal agencies.

House members later voted, 377 to 40, for the legislation, which must be reconciled with a Senate version before being sent to the President.

Targets R&D; Funds

Opponents of Schumer’s proposal, which would have siphoned off research and development funds from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said that it would have killed the space station project and permanently retarded America’s ability to compete in outer space.

“We cannot fall victim to financial myopia and emotional appeals about priorities,” said Rep. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). “We must remain competitive in outer space, because that is truly the future of this country. We need this project.”

Others noted that the appropriations bill provided $300 million for the homeless in the next fiscal year, a significant gain over the previous year’s $189-million allocation. They also said that the $900 million appropriated in the bill for the space station already had been trimmed back during the budget process.

‘Wrong to Nit-pick’

“Nobody is opposed to the homeless . . . nobody is saying we shouldn’t worry about those programs,” said Rep. Robert A. Roe (D-N.J.). “But it’s wrong to nit-pick a dollar here and a dollar there at the expense of the space program. . . . It’s an insult to this country.”

Schumer and congressmen who supported him, however, said that NASA’s budget would increase 16% next year, even if the amendment had passed, and blasted critics for insensitivity to urban problems.

“We’re not asking a lot here. . . . It’s not so tough that we can’t all make a sacrifice and help the less fortunate,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). “We can get to Mars, Venus and Jupiter a little later.”

Others put it more bluntly: “I don’t believe that space technology should take priority over the plight of the homeless and our cities,” said Rep. Esteban E. Torres (D-La Puente). “Something must be done about the millions of homeless people, and this (amendment) is a modest step forward.”

Programs Receiving Funds

Schumer’s proposal included transferring $83.4 million from NASA to homeless shelter programs, $30 million to multifamily public housing, $40 million to the elderly and handicapped programs and $70 million to wastewater treatment projects.

The most controversial allocation, however, would have transferred $150 million to the Urban Development Action Grant program, a federal aid-to-the-cities venture that the Reagan Administration has been trying to eliminate for seven years.

Amid growing opposition from many members of Congress, the House Appropriations Committee decided this year to phase out the program. In the bill approved Wednesday, the program was left with $53 million to conclude its remaining projects, which typically provide federal support for development programs in economically distressed communities.

In another action, House members approved an amendment that appropriated $450 million for the space station in the next fiscal year but delayed the allocation of another $450 million for the program until April, 1989. The funds would automatically become available at that time, barring a presidential request to delay the appropriation.

Pesticide Amendment Rejected

Earlier, the House rejected an amendment that would have rescinded a controversial section of the federal law regulating pesticides. Under that provision, when the government decides to ban dangerous pesticides, it must reimburse manufacturers and other users for the cost of destroying or storing the chemicals.

Sponsors said that it is unconscionable to expect taxpayers to pay for such costs but opponents said that banning pesticides without compensation is an improper confiscation of private property.