[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 13, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H5553-H5554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  MAKING HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT A PRIORITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday I had the great privilege of 
watching the launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis at Kennedy Space 
Center.
  As a resident of Brevard County, Florida, it is an experience of 
which I will never tire, and one which I earnestly encourage everyone 
to see, especially Members of Congress and the President, while they 
still can.
  While we have the grandeur of Monday's launch fresh in our minds, I 
find the proposed NASA budget very disappointing. The budget plan 
essentially flatlines NASA's budget for the next 5 years and appears to 
spawn an abrupt end to the space shuttle in 2010. Washington is 
spending trillions of dollars on other programs, but has not seen fit 
to make human space flight a priority at this time.
  NASA will attempt to complete the remaining flights of the space 
station manifest in 2010 within the constraints of its budgetary strait 
jacket. However, any flights that extend beyond September 2010 will be 
funded by borrowing money from the next generation vehicle, the 
Constellation, under the just released 2010 budget plan. The plan is 
unacceptable to me, and I hope it is unacceptable to you and my other 
colleagues.
  Also disappointing is the proposed open-ended review of the shuttle's 
successor and the fact it was not begun months ago. Time is of the 
essence as critical decisions are being made today that will impact 
NASA for the next several decades.
  America's space shuttle only has eight, possibly nine more launches. 
After that, many of the world's greatest engineers and technicians will 
be laid off from their jobs, and American taxpayers will pay Russians 
hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to take American 
astronauts to the international space station.
  This ironic arrangement is likely to last for a minimum of 3 years, 
and likely longer, until the next generation launch vehicle comes 
online. Various memos and budget blueprints in Washington may portray 
this arrangement with the Russians as an unwelcome necessity, but it 
has become a necessity only due to a lack of America's priorities.
  It is wishful thinking on bureaucratic whiteboards that America can 
lay off this invaluable workforce and 3 years or more later expect to 
regroup them and rebrand them in the shuttle's successor program.
  The transition is unlikely to seamless, and I speak from experience. 
In my younger days, I worked on the Apollo 11 program. I had the best 
job in the whole world that anyone my age could possibly have: 
inspecting rockets bound for the moon. But when the program came to an 
end, and it came abruptly, I and many of my fellow colleagues, some of 
the brightest minds in the world, excepting me, of course, were given 
pink slips.
  Mr. Speaker, Monday's launch represents one thing that the United 
States is undeniably, unequivocally, and universally respected for 
around the globe. Friends and foes alike acknowledge that the United 
States of America is truly the leader in space.
  So it is astonishing to me that we are so near the brink of yielding 
this military and economic high ground to Russia or China, or someone 
else. Let us bear in mind that the Chinese are not going to the moon 
solely to collect moon rocks.
  History has shown a progression in regards to our security, which we 
ignore at our own peril. It started back in Old Testament times when 
whoever could wield the biggest bone controlled the security of the 
land. And then who could muster the biggest army, and then who could 
get the straightest spears and strongest shields.

                              {time}  1815

  And then, whoever had the strongest Navy--you know, Sweden and Spain, 
the greatest powers in the world. And then in World War I, whoever 
could build the most mechanized army, that could build the most tanks 
determined how secure the world would be. And in World War II, it was 
the Air Force; whoever controlled the air would control the security of 
this world. And today, it's space; whoever controls space will control 
what security there will be on this Earth.
  Today, conflict between nations has also evolved beyond bayonets, 
bullets and bombs; we are in an economic war of survival. I fear that 
many take our position for granted and assume that our prosperity will 
continue indefinitely into the future because we have been so blessed 
with prosperity thus far.
  The President has said he wants half of our Nation's GDP to come from 
high-tech, and as you know, you can't get any more high-tech than 
space. We take for granted the countless spinoffs and inventions from 
NASA, which has issued over 6,000 patents. NASA's ``spinoff database'' 
lists over 1,600 items since 1976. Farmers rely on their weather 
satellites. We all rely on GPS now. We don't give a second thought to 
the use of our cell phones or our BlackBerrys, our laptops, or even 
Velcro for that matter. I can remember when a computer processor used 
to take up an entire room. Now, for $5 you can go down to Wal-Mart and 
get a little calculator that will fit in your wallet and do the same 
things.
  Mr. Speaker, nothing represents the future and what is possible for 
mankind more than space. The future is not yet written. We have not yet 
reached the point of no return. The NASA budget is not etched in stone. 
We can make the right decisions to reduce the space gap, minimize the 
loss

[[Page H5554]]

of our shuttle workforce, and move ahead with the shuttle's successor. 
These objectives are compatible, desirable, and overlap with the 
President's stated intentions to strengthen technology as our economic 
base.
  In conclusion, I call on the leaders of this body to revamp the NASA 
budget and to think about the implications should we travel down the 
path as currently set. America can do better, and future generations of 
Americans deserve better.

                          ____________________