Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 29 (Wednesday, March 3, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 3, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1019-S1030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. 3060. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide for
thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Thorium
Energy Security Act of 2010 with my good friend and colleague Senator
Harry Reid as an original cosponsor. Our legislation would establish a
regulatory framework and a development program to facilitate the
introduction of thorium-based nuclear fuel in existing and future
nuclear power plants in the U.S.
The U.S. is dependent on foreign sources for about 90 percent of its
uranium fuel needs. However, the most recent U.S. Geological Survey
Thorium Mineral Commodity Survey confirms that the U.S. has the largest
thorium deposits in the world.
I have been a longtime supporter of our Nation's nuclear power
industry, and I expect to see a long future for nuclear power in this
nation. I believe that future is enhanced with the possibility of
thorium nuclear power as new source of nuclear power in the future.
Thorium-based nuclear fuel will remain in the reactor about three
times as long as conventional nuclear fuel, thereby cutting the volume
of spent nuclear fuel coming out of reactors by as much as two-thirds.
Thorium nuclear fuel could also significantly reduce the possibility
that weapons grade material would result from the process. Finally, a
thorium fuel cycle can be used as a very effective and efficient means
for disposing of existing plutonium stockpiles.
For these reasons, a number of governments throughout the world are
aggressively seeking to establish thorium nuclear power as an element
of their power supply. These governments want the benefits of nuclear
power, without the difficulties associated with large volumes of waste,
much of which can be turned to weapons grade material. Our aim with
this legislation is to ensure that the U.S. does not fall behind the
movement. I hope my colleagues will take a look at the potential for
thorium-based nuclear power.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 3061. A bill to amend part B of title IV of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve 21st Century Community
Learning Centers; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator
Ensign, to introduce legislation that will provide children with safe,
healthy, and academically focused afterschool programs.
The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 is
endorsed by the Afterschool Alliance, an organization representing more
than 25,000 public, private, and non-profit afterschool providers
dedicated to expanding access to high quality afterschool programs, as
well as a broad coalition of other local and national organizations.
They, and I, have committed to providing quality afterschool care
because the record is clear: students who regularly attend afterschool
programs have better grades and behavior in school, better peer
relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use,
violence, and pregnancy. When kids have something productive to do in
the hours between when they are let out of school and when their
parents get home from work, they are more likely to avoid the traps of
risky behavior, more likely to be physically healthy and academically
successful, and more likely to fulfill their potential.
As co-chairs of the Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have
worked to expand awareness of these benefits by organizing annual
briefings, sharing research, and advocating fiercely for a focus on
afterschool care when we talk about how to give our kids the best
opportunities possible.
While we know that afterschool care works, the truth is that too many

[[Page S1020]]

American kids don't have access to good programs. More than 15 million
children--from kindergarten through 12th grade--spend time unsupervised
in the hours after school. That includes an incredible 40,000
kindergartners and nearly 4 million middle school students in grades
six to eight.
When the bell rings and the school day ends, these kids face some 3
hours of unscheduled, often unsupervised time before their parents get
home from work. Those are rarely productive hours, and, worse, those
are the hours during which these children are most likely to experiment
with risky behaviors.
We can do better for our kids.
The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 has
three goals. First, to enhance the quality and sustainability of
afterschool programs. Second, to emphasize physical fitness and
wellness programs as part of our nationwide effort to reduce childhood
obesity, and third, to encourage service learning.
Our legislation provides States with tools designed to keep quality
programs going. It would allow program grantees the ability to renew
their grants if they can show that the programs are working. It gives
states the option to expand technical assistance functions to improve
the quality of afterschool programs.
Our legislation will increase opportunities for young Americans to be
more physically active. The administration has put a focus on reducing
obesity--one of the easiest medical conditions to recognize, but one of
the most difficult to treat--among our children. Obesity costs our
society as much as $147 billion each year--and the best way to stop it
is to encourage our kids to be more active. Afterschool programs offer
a tremendous opportunity to do just that, and our legislation includes
such wellness efforts in the list of programs that can receive support.
Our legislation encourages kids to get involved in service learning
and youth development activities. Service learning integrates student-
designed service projects with academic studies. This type of program
has been shown to strengthen student engagement, enhance student
achievement, lower drop-out and suspension rates, develop workforce and
leadership skills, and provide opportunities for teamwork.
Of course, as we offer this legislation, I must also remind my
colleagues that afterschool programs only work with sufficient funding.
In a difficult economy, it is even more important to focus on
empowering these programs. Studies have shown that afterschool care can
reduce worker absenteeism by as much as 30 percent and reduce worker
turnover by up to 60 percent. Decreased worker productivity related to
parental concerns about afterschool care costs our economy up to $300
billion each year. Approximately 1 in 10 children is currently enrolled
in afterschool care. However, 2/3 of parents with children who do not
participate in a program would enroll their children in afterschool if
they had that option. We should work to give them that option.
The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act is a
positive step towards offering all of our children the chance to spend
their afternoons safely and productively. It is a step towards making
good on the most important promise: the one we make to our kids. I hope
that my colleagues will join me in support of this important
legislation.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Begich, Mr. Bennett, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 3063. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide
loans to certain organizations in certain States to address habitats
and ecosystems and to address and prevent invasive species; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan
legislation that will protect the unique ecosystems of the American
West from the harmful effects of invasive, non-native species. I am
joined by my cosponsors Senators Begich, Bennet of Colorado, Bennett of
Utah, Feinstein, Merkley, Murkowski, and Wyden.
The Invasive Species Emergency Response Fund provides resources to
prevent the introduction and spread of harmful invasive species;
protect susceptible habitats; and establish early detection and rapid
response capabilities to combat incipient invasive species populations.
As global climate change patterns shift, particular habitats in the
West will be especially vulnerable to the impacts of new species
introductions. Hence, the new paradigms in invasive species management
provided via this legislation are critically needed. When it comes to
invasive species management, history is replete with examples
illustrating the adage that ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure.''
The impact of invasive species in the U.S. is now widespread. More
than 6,500 non-native, invasive species have become established
populations throughout the U.S. Studies show that the damage caused by
these pests and their associated control costs total more than $100
billion annually. The unique ecologies of the West are particularly
vulnerable to their harmful effects.
My home State of Nevada is at the center of this ecological storm.
Non-native species decrease rangeland capacity; lower water tables;
reduce water quality; increase fuel loads; and displace native plants
and wildlife habitats. Some in the environmental community have
identified the Great Basin as the third most endangered ecosystem in
the U.S. due, in part, to the dominance of invasive species.
Moreover, once invasive species have gained a foothold in Western
States, they exacerbate other critical issues, including water quantity
and quality, and wildfire. Zebra mussels in Lake Mead are poised to
wreak havoc on the lake's water quality. Tamarisk's long tap roots
infiltrate deep water tables, exploiting up to 200 gallons of water per
tree per day. Millions of acres of cheatgrass and beetle-killed trees
stand ready to burn if sparked. In fact, the fire cycle in the Great
Basin has shortened from 25-50 years to only 3-5 years as a direct
result of the take-over of invasive weeds.
These few examples underscore the need for this long overdue
legislation. State and local agencies and organizations that fight
invasive species need access to resources when a new threat is
identified, not when funds are available based on bureaucratic budget
cycle.
The revolving loan program established with this bill will provide
qualified organizations with the resources they need to tackle invasive
species threats within 90 days. The Secretary of the Interior will
ensure that these funds are being used for appropriate projects based
on vetted review criteria.
Bark beetles, quagga mussels, and Medusahead have no respect for
budget cycles or State lines. Hence, I urge my colleagues to support
this critical legislation. It is paramount if we want to protect our
unique Western landscape.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3063

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Invasive Species Emergency
Response Fund Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purpose of this Act is to encourage partnerships among
Federal and State agencies, Indian tribes, academic
institutions, and public and private stakeholders--
(1) to prevent against the introduction and spread of
harmful invasive species;
(2) to protect, enhance, restore, and manage a variety of
habitats for native plants, fish, and wildlife; and
(3) to establish early detection and rapid response
capabilities to combat incipient harmful invasive species.

SEC. 3. INVASIVE SPECIES EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Ecosystem.--The term ``ecosystem'' means an area,
considered as a whole, that contains living organisms that
interact with each other and with the non-living environment.
(2) Eligible state.--The term ``eligible State'' means any
State located in Region 4, as determined by the Census
Bureau.
(3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Invasive Species
Emergency Response Fund established by subsection (b).
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination Act and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b).

[[Page S1021]]

(5) Introduction.--The term ``introduction'', with respect
to a species, means the intentional or unintentional escape,
release, dissemination, or placement of the species into an
ecosystem as a result of human activity.
(6) Invasive species.--The term ``invasive species'' means
a species--
(A) that is nonnative to a specified ecosystem; and
(B) the introduction to an ecosystem of which causes, or
may cause, harm to--
(i) the economy;
(ii) the environment; or
(iii) human, animal, or plant health.
(7) Qualified organization.--
(A) In general.--The term ``qualified organization'' means
an organization that--
(i) submits an application for a project in an eligible
State; and
(ii) demonstrates an effort to address--

(I) a certain invasive species; or
(II) a certain habitat or ecosystem impacted by an invasive
species.

(B) Inclusions.--The term ``qualified organization''
includes any individual representing, or any combination of--
(i) public or private stakeholders;
(ii) Federal agencies;
(iii) Indian tribes;
(iv) State land, forest, or fish wildlife management
agencies;
(v) academic institutions; and
(vi) other organizations, as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(9) Stakeholder.--The term ``stakeholder'' includes--
(A) State, tribal, and local governmental agencies;
(B) the scientific community; and
(C) nongovernmental entities, including environmental,
agricultural, and conservation organizations, trade groups,
commercial interests, and private landowners.
(b) Establishment of Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a revolving fund, to be known
as the ``Invasive Species Emergency Response Fund'',
consisting of--
(1) such amounts as are appropriated to the Fund pursuant
to subsection (h); and
(2) interest earned on investments of amounts in the Fund
under subsection (e).
(c) Expenditures From Fund.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), on request by
the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer
from the Fund to the Secretary such amounts as the Secretary
determines are necessary to provide loans under subsection
(f)(1).
(2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amounts in the Fund--
(A) not more than 5 percent shall be available for each
fiscal year to pay the administrative expenses of the
Department of the Interior to carry out this section;
(B) not more than 5 percent shall be available for each
fiscal year to pay the administrative expenses of offices of
the Governors of eligible States to carry out this section;
and
(C) not more than 10 percent shall be available for each
fiscal year to pay the administrative expenses of a qualified
organization to carry out this section.
(d) Transfers of Amounts.--
(1) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred to
the Fund under this section shall be transferred at least
monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the Fund on
the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury.
(2) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in
amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior
estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required
to be transferred.
(e) Investment of Amounts.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the
Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current
withdrawals.
(2) Interest bearing obligations.--Investments may be made
only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States.
(f) Use of Fund.--
(1) Loans.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall use amounts in the
Fund to provide loans to qualified organizations to prevent
and remediate the impacts of invasive species on habitats and
ecosystems.
(B) Eligibility.--
(i) In general.--To be eligible to receive a loan under
this paragraph, a qualified organization shall submit to the
Governor of the eligible State in which the project of the
qualified organization is located an application at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as may
be required by application requirements established by the
Secretary, after taking into account the recommendations of
the Governors of eligible States.
(ii) Gubernatorial recommendations.--In reviewing the
applications under clause (i), the Governor may recommend to
the Secretary for approval any application of a qualified
organization under clause (i) if the Governor determines that
the qualified organization is carrying out or will carry out
a project--

(I) designed to fully assess long-term comprehensive
severity of the problem or potential problem addressed by the
project;
(II) that uses early detection and response mechanisms that
seek to prevent--

(aa) the introduction or spread of invasive species from
outside the United States into an eligible State; or
(bb) the spread of an established invasive species into an
eligible State;

(III) to prevent the regrowth or reintroduction of an
invasive species, to the extent to which the qualified
organization has achieved progress with respect to reduction
or elimination of the invasive species;
(IV) in rare or unique habitats, such as--

(aa) desert terminal lakes;
(bb) rivers that feed desert terminal lakes;
(cc) desert springs;
(dd) alpine lakes;
(ee) old growth forest ecosystems; and
(ff) special land allocations, such as wilderness,
wilderness management areas, research natural areas, and
experimental forests;

(V) that is likely to prevent or resolve a problem relating
to invasive species;
(VI) to remediate the spread of aquatic invasive species
within important bodies of water, as determined by the
Secretary (including the Colorado River);
(VII) to remediate the spread of terrestrial invasive
species within important forest ecosystems, including
wilderness, wilderness management areas, research natural
areas, and experimental forests;
(VIII) to assess and promote wildfire management
strategies, increase the supply of native plant materials,
and reintroduce native plant species intended to limit or
mitigate the impacts of invasive species;
(IX) to assess and reduce invasive species-related changes
in wildlife habitat and aquatic, terrestrial, and arid
ecosystems;
(X) to assess and reduce negative economic impacts and
other impacts associated with control methods and the
restoration of a native ecosystem;
(XI) to improve the overall capacity of the United States
to address invasive species;
(XII) to promote cooperation and participation between
States that have common interests regarding invasive species;
(XIII) that addresses or enhances the efforts of qualified
organizations, States, or landscape-level initiatives that
have invasive species responsibility, authority, or
prevention, remediation and control strategies, and
applicable plans in place; or
(XIV) to educate the public regarding the negative effects
of invasive species, to help prevent and mitigate the
introduction and spread of invasive species into or near
high-risk aquatic, terrestrial, and arid ecosystems.

(iii) Transmission to the secretary.--The Governor shall
transmit to the Secretary all applications received by the
Governor under clause (i).
(C) Sense of congress regarding multistate compacts.--It is
the sense of Congress that--
(i) Governors of States should enter into multistate
compacts in coordination with qualified organizations to
prevent, address, and remediate against the spread of
animals, plants, or pathogens, or aquatic, wetland, or
terrestrial invasive species;
(ii) the Secretary should give special consideration to
multistate compacts described in clause (i) in reviewing loan
solicitations and applications of the States and qualified
organizations that are parties to the compacts; and
(iii) if a multistate compact is entered into under clause
(i), the Governors of all States that are parties to the
compact should combine to repay to the Secretary of the
Treasury a total combined amount equal to not less than 25
percent of the amount of the loan provided under this Act
(including interest at a rate less than or equal to the
market interest rate).
(D) Petitions.--
(i) Action by governor.--Not later than 30 days after the
receipt of an application recommended for approval by the
Secretary under subparagraph (B)(ii), the Governor of an
eligible State shall submit to the Secretary, on behalf of
all qualified organizations, a petition, together with copies
of the recommended application, to receive a loan under this
paragraph.
(ii) Approval.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
receipt of a petition under clause (i), the Secretary, at the
sole discretion of the Secretary, may approve the petition.
(iii) Action on approval.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of approval of a petition under clause (ii) or the
approval by the Secretary of an application otherwise
transmitted by a Governor under subparagraph (B)(iii), the
Secretary shall provide to the qualified organization a loan
under this paragraph.
(E) Priority.--In providing loans under this paragraph, the
Secretary shall give priority to applications of qualified
organizations carrying out, or that will carry out, more than
1 project described in subparagraph (B)(ii).
(2) Requirements.--
(A) Loan repayment.--
(i) In-kind consideration.--With respect to loan repayment
under clause (ii), the Secretary may accept, in lieu of
monetary payment, in-kind contributions in such form and such
quantity as may be acceptable to the Secretary, including
contributions in the form of--

(I) maintenance, remediation, prevention, alteration,
repair, improvement, or restoration (including environmental
restoration) activities for approved projects; and
(II) such other services as the Secretary considers to be
appropriate.

[[Page S1022]]

(ii) Repayment.--Subject to clause (iii), not later than 10
years after the date on which a qualified organization
receives a loan under paragraph (1), the qualified
organization shall repay to the Secretary of the Treasury an
amount equal to not less than 25 percent of the amount of the
loan (including interest at a rate less than or equal to the
market interest rate).
(iii) Waiver.--Not more frequently than once every 5 years,
the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, may waive the requirements under clauses (i) and
(ii) with respect to 1 qualified organization.
(B) Long-term management and remediation strategies.--The
Secretary shall ensure that no loan provided under paragraph
(1) is used to carry out a long-term management or
remediation strategy, unless the Governor or applicable
qualified organization demonstrates either or both a reliable
funding stream and in-kind contributions to carry out the
strategy over the duration of the project.
(3) Renewal.--After reviewing the reports under subsection
(g), if the Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of
each affected State, determines that a project is making
satisfactory progress, the Secretary may renew the loan
provided under this subsection for a period of not more than
3 additional fiscal years.
(g) Reports.--
(1) Reports to secretary.--For each year during which a
qualified organization receives a loan under subsection (f),
the qualified organization, in conjunction with the Governor
of the eligible State in which the qualified organization is
primarily located, shall submit to the Secretary a report
describing each project (including the results of the
project) carried out by the qualified organization using the
loan during that year.
(2) Report to congress.--Not later than September 30, 2011,
and annually thereafter through September 30, 2015, the
Secretary shall submit a report describing the total loan
amount requested by each eligible State during the preceding
fiscal year and the total amount of the loans provided under
subsection (f)(1) to each eligible State during that fiscal
year, and an evaluation on effectiveness of the Fund and the
potential to expand the Fund to other regions, to--
(A) the Committees on Appropriations, Energy and Natural
Resources, and Environment and Public Works of the Senate;
and
(B) the Committees on Appropriations and Natural Resources
of the House of Representatives.
(3) Report by borrower.--
(A) In general.--Each qualified organization that receives
a loan under subsection (f)(1) shall submit to the Secretary
a report describing the use of the loan and the success
achieved by the qualified organization--
(i) not less frequently than once each year until the date
of expiration of the loan; or
(ii) if the loan expires before the date that is 1 year
after the date on which the loan is provided, at least once
during the term of the loan.
(B) Interim update.--In addition to the reports required
under subparagraph (A), each qualified organization that
receives a loan under subsection (f)(1) shall submit to the
Secretary, electronically or in writing, a report describing
the use of the loan and the success achieved by the qualified
organization, expressed in chronological order with respect
to the date on which each project was initiated--
(i) not less frequently than once every 180 days until the
date of expiration of the loan; or
(ii) if the loan expires before the date that is 180 days
after the date on which the loan is provided, on the date on
which the term of the loan is 50 percent completed.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Fund $80,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2011 through 2015.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Carper, and Ms. Collins):
S. 3064. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a credit for the production of energy from deep water offshore wind; to
the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I am
introducing today, the Deepwater Wind Incentive Act, which will provide
a critical long-term renewable production tax credit for developing
deepwater wind facilities in the U.S.
Deepwater wind refers to a new offshore wind technology that utilizes
advanced floating technologies to remove restrictions on the depth of
the water and expand our offshore wind resource by nearly a magnitude
of six. Last year, Popular Science named deepwater wind one of the
eight technologies that can revolutionize our energy paradigm. I am
pleased to have worked with Senators Carper and Collins, two longtime
leaders on offshore wind development, on this proposal and look forward
to discussing this bill with my Finance Committee colleagues.
Currently, there is a race to develop deepwater offshore wind
facilities that could eventually be placed throughout our world's
oceans and our Great Lakes. A Norwegian company is now moving forward
with deployment of the first deep-water offshore floating turbine,
which will be located in more than 328 feet of water. The key point is
that if you can successfully develop a floating turbine at that depth
it can be replicated throughout the world. Our competitors are
recognizing this opportunity and are aggressively pursuing this
technology. In fact, earlier this year the European Union Industrial
Initiative announced a roughly 6 billion euro plan to invest in next
generation wind technologies, including deepwater wind, with a goal of
supplying 20 percent of its electricity through wind power.
Deepwater wind is a resource that provides a tremendous potential for
our country and provides a more consistent resource than onshore and
near shore wind. Specifically, the U.S. has over 1500 gigawatts of
deepwater offshore wind generation within 50 nautical miles of the
coastline, and if our country can develop these deepwater technologies,
we will have the equivalent of 1500 medium sized nuclear power plants
available within a close proximity to the electricity demand of the
U.S.
Accordingly, I have modeled this legislation after the current tax
credits available for nuclear power that exists in the tax code.
Specifically, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a production tax
credit for the first 6,000 megawatts from advanced nuclear power. The
Deepwater Wind Incentive Act, follows this template and provides a 50
percent bonus renewable production tax credit for advanced offshore
wind facilities that are placed in service in more than 60 meters of
water. The credit is capped at the first 6,000 megawatts to provide an
incentive for companies to expeditiously research and deploy this
technology.
Time after time, the Department of Energy has indicated that wind can
provide a substantial amount of electricity in our country. The
Department's ``20 percent Wind Energy by 2030,'' outlined the policy
steps that would move wind to be a major source of American power. In
the report, the DOE states that the wind industry ``has responded
positively to policy incentives when they are in effect.'' This tax
policy provides a consistent and clear tax credit to achieve the 20
percent by 2030 that is considered in the report. I thank Senator
Carper and Senator Collins for their assistance in crafting this
legislation and I look forward to working with them to enact this
legislation into law.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Udall of Colorado,
Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Burris, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Wyden, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Specter, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Franken, and Mr. Cardin):
S. 3065. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the
readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy
concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as ``Don't
Ask, Don't Tell'', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, we just had a press conference this
afternoon with reference to don't ask, don't tell, the action we want
to take in the Senate for our military people. I would like to make
some brief remarks in that regard.
I come to the floor today because I believe in a basic principle, not
just a political cause. I come to the floor because courage and valor
are blind to race, religion, philosophy, and sexual orientation. I
believe every single man and woman who puts on a military uniform is
equally deserving of our thanks and our respect, and that when we
dismiss the sacrifices made by those with a different sexual
orientation, we undermine the strength of our fighting forces. When we
fail to recognize the brave contributions gay and lesbian soldiers
continue to make every single day, we diminish ourselves as much as we
diminish their service. That is why I am pleased to join the following
colleagues: Chairman Lieberman, Chairman Levin, Senator Gillibrand,
Senator Udall of Colorado, and Senator Wyden in introducing legislation
to repeal the military's don't ask, don't tell

[[Page S1023]]

policy, a policy which is discriminatory, outdated, and detrimental to
our national security.
Let me start by addressing every service man and woman, to those who
have served in our Armed Forces in the past. Let's give them a big
shout out and a big thank-you. This Nation honors the service and
sacrifice of all our veterans and those who are still serving today.
Let me say the days of serving in silence--those days are numbered.
This legislation will recognize that every soldier, sailor, airman, and
marine is equal to every other warrior, so no one will be forced to lie
about who they are if they wish to serve this country.
I know there are some who believe this is too big a change, that it
is not right and we need to wait. To them I would say it boils down to
basic fairness. I remind them that the U.S. military has made policy
changes before and with resounding success. The repeal of don't ask,
don't tell is not just another vote for me, it is a very personal issue
of basic fairness. When I was about 6 or 7 years old, I have a vivid
memory of my family members who went off to war, my uncles and uncles-
in-law and great uncles who chose to go to war and defend our country,
regardless of the color of their skin or occupation or who they were as
an individual. That choice defined them as patriots.
I have never forgotten their patriotism or their commitment to this
country. But I have also never forgotten that the U.S. military was
very different in those days. My family members volunteered to protect
this Nation, but simply because of who they were, they had limited
opportunities to serve. For all their skill, their talent, their
intelligence, and their valor, they were forced to choose among two or
three roles. They were forced to either be a cook or forced to dig
ditches or forced to drive trucks. The only thing that separated my
uncles from their brothers in arms was the color of their skin. But in
those days, some people argued that racial integration would undermine
the cohesion of our fighting forces. Yet the U.S. military came to
recognize this was not the case and successive generations proved that
everyone who volunteered to serve was capable of the same patriotism,
bravery, and heroism.
That memory is especially crisp as I stand in this Chamber to bring
an end to this discriminatory policy that forces our best and brightest
to be willing to die for our Nation, while denying they are who they
truly are. This, too, is an issue of basic fairness.
More than 60 years ago, President Truman recognized the wisdom of
integrating the Armed Forces. He understood that in so doing, the Armed
Forces grew stronger and the Nation safer. Today we recognize it is
time to end don't ask, don't tell. This repeal of don't ask, don't tell
will allow our servicemembers to live their lives openly, honestly, and
still fight for the country we all love. So, regardless of sexual
orientation or race or any other factor, today we stand to say we are
grateful to the brave patriots who chose to defend our Nation and we
salute them.
This is about fairness. This is about more than right versus left or
Republican versus Democrat. This is about fighting for those who fight
for us every day. Ending this policy is the fair thing to do, it is the
right thing to do, and it is long overdue.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to state my strong support for
the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, which would repeal the
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy in our Armed Forces.
I am one who believes that the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has
done more harm than good. The policy has forced American citizens to
choose between serving their country and being honest about who they
are; and, even worse, it has led to the discharge of some 13,000 brave
men and women because their sexual orientation was discovered.
The criteria for serving in our Armed Forces should be competence,
courage, and a willingness to serve; not race, gender, or sexual
orientation.
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would finally repeal
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and create a policy of nondiscrimination in
the military. That is the right thing to do, and I will support this
legislation every step of the way.
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would repeal the 1993
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy; allow people who were removed under
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' to re-enter the military; establish a policy
of nondiscrimination in the Armed Forces to prevent discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation; and require a Pentagon working group
established by the Department of Defense to issue recommendations on
how to implement repeal throughout the military.
The bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to report to
Congress 180 days after enactment on what actions are being taken to
ensure that any school that does not allow a ROTC unit on its campus
does not receive Federal funds.
It is important for people to realize that ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
is not an abstract policy. This policy has had real and harmful effects
on our military readiness by denying able and willing men and women the
opportunity to serve, and by requiring the discharge of brave
individuals who have served courageously and even risked their lives
for their country.
Let me give you just a few of the thousands of examples:
Anthony Woods, of Fairfield, CA, graduated from the U.S. Military
Academy at West Point and went on to serve two tours of duty in Iraq,
including in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He earned the Bronze Star and
Army Commendation Medal, and all 81 soldiers who served under his
leadership in Iraq returned home safely to the United States. Mr. Woods
was discharged from the U.S. Army in 2008 because of ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell.''
MAJ Margaret Witt joined the U.S. Air Force in 1987 and served as a
flight nurse for 18 years. She received numerous awards, including the
Meritorious Service Metal, Air Medal, and the Air Force Commendation
Medal. In 2003, President Bush noted in citation that her ``airmanship
and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of
important missions under extremely hazardous conditions.'' Major Witt
was discharged 6 years ago after the Air Force received a tip that she
was gay. Major Witt has challenged her case in court because, as she
says, ``I joined the Air Force because I wanted to serve my country. I
have loved being in the military--my fellow airmen have been my family.
I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded
people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad
to see me there.'' The case is currently pending before the Ninth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA.
LT Daniel Choi, originally from Orange County, CA, also graduated
from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He is an Arabic linguist
and served as an infantry officer in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, but he was
recommended for discharge from the U.S. Army after announcing last year
that he was gay. Lieutenant Choi has said that: ``The lessons of
courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most
important. . . . I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to
my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and
courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.'' The
New York National Guard has recently indicated that they will allow
Lieutenant Choi to begin participating in drills with the unit again.
LTC Paul Fanning, a spokesperson for the New York Guard, has stated:
``We do not have an issue with it. It's a deeply personal thing. To us
a soldier is a soldier is a soldier.''
Veteran U.S. Marine Bob Lehman, of San Diego, CA, served in the gulf
war in the 1990s and was never dismissed for being gay. He has
explained that, ``Nobody in my unit knew artillery better than I did,
including the officers. During combat, the gay thing didn't even exist.
My biggest fear was bringing my guys home alive.'' However, Mr. Lehman
has said he believes that the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy forces
U.S. soldiers into a moral dilemma. ``Marines don't lie, cheat or
steal. It was hard to lie . . . There was a lot of denial and
depression because of the inability to be out openly, (the fear) that I
might get fired.''
Courageous men and women like these should be applauded for their
service, not discharged for their sexual

[[Page S1024]]

orientation. The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would
ensure that is the case and would require the military to readmit
anyone who was discharged solely because of their sexual orientation
and is otherwise willing and able to serve.
The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has long been a contentious one,
and I do not state my support for repeal lightly.
It is absolutely essential that we undertake this project with great
care, so that repeal of the policy will enhance military readiness and
the effect will be positive for all of our servicemembers in the field.
I am confident that we are up to the task of doing so.
In the last few months alone, high ranking officials from various
components of the military have come forward to say that repeal is not
only feasible, it is the right thing to do. For example:
ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified
before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, ``Speaking for myself
and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and
lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how
I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we
have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about
who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.''
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified at the same hearing that,
``I fully support the president's decision. The question before us is
not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best
prepare for it.''
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has said, ``I support the repeal of
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I do think the President has come up with a
very practical and workable way to do that to work through the working
group that the Secretary of Defense has set up, to make sure that we
implement any change in the law that Congress makes in a very
professional and very smooth manner, and without any negative impacts
on the force.''
Retired General Colin Powell issued an official statement expressing
that ``In the almost 17 years since the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I
fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services
Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.''
These military leaders believe repeal is not only feasible, it is
right. According to the University of California, military leaders in
many other countries agree. Twenty-five countries currently have
policies allowing gay servicemembers to serve openly in their
militaries, including 15 NATO countries, Australia and Israel.
This year, Secretary Gates has appointed a Pentagon working group to
study in great detail how repeal can be implemented in a manner that
will enhance the readiness and effectiveness of our troops. This group,
led by Army General Carter Ham and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh
Johnson, is tasked with engaging troops and their families at all
levels of the Armed Forces to determine what changes will be necessary
in regulations, in education and training practices, and in military
policy to implement a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation in our Armed Forces. The study will be careful, and
the review will be comprehensive.
The time has come to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting the Military Readiness Enhancement
Act of 2010. I am confident that our military will be stronger and
better when this bill becomes law.
______

By Mr. KYL (for Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 3068. A bill to reauthorize the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Human Space Flight Activities, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today
that is intended to chart what I believe to be the proper course for
the future of the nation's human space flight programs. This bill would
provide an alternative to the Administration's proposed course of
ending the government role in Human Space Flight and avoid the complete
reliance on other nations or an as-yet-unproven commercial capability
to launch American astronauts and scientists into space. It would also
reaffirm the goals of moving beyond low-earth orbit and restore the
kind of exciting vision that will help inspire young people to excel in
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. The bill echoes the
decision of the Obama administration to support the International Space
Station, ISS, through at least the year 2020, as we endorsed in our
NASA Authorization Act, passed in 2008. But the administration's
proposal does nothing to ensure that we can fully maintain and utilize
the space station, especially during the next 5 years. This bill would
correct that, and ensure that full use of the space station is not an
empty promise.
Since the release of the fiscal year 2010 Budget last year, the
future of human space flight programs has been in question. As part of
that Budget Request, the administration announced it would establish an
independent review panel, chaired by my good friend Mr. Norman
Augustine, to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans and provide options
for how those programs should proceed in the future.
The Augustine Panel completed its review in late August of last year,
and provided its Summary Report to NASA, the White House, and the
Congress on September 8, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the Subcommittee on
Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation held a hearing on the report with Mr. Augustine
appearing as our witness. The Augustine Panel released its full report
at the end of September, and we have all been awaiting the response of
the Obama administration to the report.
When the fiscal year 2010 Budget was submitted in 2009, the budget
request for Exploration Systems included a notation that the amount
requested was a ``placeholder'' number, and that, once the Human Space
Flight Plans Review Committee completed its work, the Administration
would submit an amended budget request to support the programmatic
decisions made as a result of that report. That never happened.
Instead, the response to the Augustine Panel Report was left to the
fiscal year 2011 Budget request, which we received on February 1st.
Because of the administration's failure to offer a budgetary blueprint
until the fiscal year 2011 budget, we will now experience yet another
year's delay in undertaking the steps necessary to advance beyond the
uncertainty about the future of human space flight programs that
prompted the review.
The Augustine Panel provided five basic options for consideration,
with an additional two options that were modifications of these five
basic options. The Augustine Panel thus provided a total of seven
approaches that could be taken to ensure America's continued leadership
in space--to establish a space program ``worthy of a great nation,'' as
suggested by the title of their final report. None of those options
leapt out as the obvious, consensus answer to the mix of vehicle
development options and strategies necessary to meet the challenges of
the next generation of human space flight. There was, however, a clear
consensus on two important points.
First, the Panel found that, without a significant increase in the
total amount of funding made available to NASA, none of the options
presented could be expected to succeed--including the current plans and
programs for developing the Ares 1 and Ares V launch vehicles and the
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. The Panel's conclusion underscored what
we in the authorizing committees have been saying for the past five
years, and which formed the basis for the funding levels that we
authorized in both our 2005 and 2008 NASA Authorization Acts, which
would have led to a more timely and successful level of development for
the vehicles to replace the space shuttle systems. The Bush
administration, however, simply never requested that level of funding.
In fact, the prior Administration even reduced the level of funding for
those programs that had been projected in the run-out estimates
included in the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request, which initiated the
``Vision for Exploration'' announced by President Bush on January 14,
2004.

[[Page S1025]]

Second, the Panel recommended that a decision be made to formally
extend U.S. plans to operate and utilize the ISS through at least the
year 2020. This was also consistent with guidance the authorizing
committees provided in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act, where we
directed NASA to take no steps to preclude operations of ISS through at
least 2020, and directed the Agency to provide a plan which would
outline how they would prepare to support and utilize the space station
for that extended period of time. Up to that point, NASA's internal
planning--and budget guidance from the Office of Management and
Budget--was to cease operations aboard the space station in 2015, just
five years after its assembly and outfitting would finally be completed
by the remaining space shuttle flights.
Some of the good news in the fiscal year 2011 Budget Request is that
the Obama administration agrees with the need to continue supporting
the space station to at least 2020, and to expand and increase its
utilization for research. That is welcome news. The problem is that the
request does not provide the means to ensure that the extension and
full utilization of the space station can be realized.
It is worth noting that after the budget reductions were made for
Exploration in the 2006 Budget Request, the number of flights planned
to complete space station assembly were reduced--at the direction of
OMB for purely budgetary reasons--from 28 remaining flights to 17
flights, plus an optional added flight to conduct a final mission to
service the Hubble Space Telescope. The effect of those reductions was
to force NASA to change the planned payloads for those remaining 17
flights to try to accommodate the most important spare parts and
replacement parts from the 10 ``cancelled'' flights, for ensuring the
safe and effective operation and utilization of the station. Ten
flights' worth of flight-ready payloads--averaging between 40,000 to
50,000 pounds per flight--were essentially relegated to storage
warehouses where most of them remain today, ready to fly, ready to use,
but with no guaranteed ``ticket to ride'' to be of any use to the
station. Over 1,400 parts and pieces of equipment, Mr. President! What
is most important to remember, is that the decisions about which
instruments and equipment to swap into the remaining flights were based
on the internal assumption of the need to support the ISS through
2015--not through 2020.

The result of this is that we do not know how many, or which, of
those ``grounded payload'' items might actually be needed in order to
ensure the station can be supported and maintained until 2020. Not only
that, we do not know which, or how many, of them are simply too large
or too heavy to be carried to orbit by any existing vehicle other than
the space shuttle. And finally, we do not know what additional items
might need to be ordered, manufactured and delivered in the future, or
what launch vehicle capacity will be needed to deliver them to the
station.
This is not the way a great nation should conduct its civil space
program. This is not the way to ensure that a decision and
pronouncement to continue operations through 2020 will not become an
empty gesture due to the deterioration, damage, or failure of equipment
and systems vital to providing the oxygen, water, power to make the ISS
habitable and to support scientific research in the period following
2015.
This is just one example of the type of considerations that
preparations that the Obama administration appears to have ignored
while preparing its response to the Augustine panel Report. It is an
issue I propose to address, among many, in the legislation being
introduced today.
Since last May, when the President announced the appointment of a
Committee to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans, we have all been
waiting for clear policy direction based on the report of that
Committee, which was released in late September. Throughout that time,
at my direction, my committee staff carefully followed the public
meetings and briefings of the Augustine panel, and considered the
implications of the various options discussed and eventually included
in the panel's final report.
In the course of that ongoing review, as well as our Committee
hearing last September, I began forming my own conclusions about the
correct path for the future of U.S. human space flight programs, as is
my responsibility as the Ranking Republican on the policy and oversight
committee for NASA. The key factors driving my position regarding that
path forward have been: the need to maintain U.S. leadership in space
exploration, which I believe is essential to our economic and national
security; the need to ensure we do not lose the skills, expertise and
industrial capacity that are necessary to conduct space exploration;
the need to ensure, as our Committee has in the previous two NASA
Authorization bills we have developed and seen enacted into law, that
NASA has both a balanced range of activities across its full mission
responsibilities, and was authorized the funds needed to carry out that
range of activities; and the need to protect--and capitalize on--our
massive investment in the ISS, which, along with our international
partners, is close to $100 billion. Now that it is almost completed and
has a six-person permanent crew, we can begin to conduct the research
that we have anticipated all these years during its construction.
Research that has the potential to fundamentally change and enhance our
understanding of physical processes, vaccine development, and a whole
host of other research.
In order to meet those needs, we must first take steps to ensure we
do not have an extended period of time during which there is no
capability within the United States to launch humans into space,
whether to the space station or any other destination. The easiest,
most logical and obvious answer in the short term is to continue to use
the one launch vehicle that already exists, has a proven history of
98.7 percent probability of success for each mission, and upon which
the space station was designed, assuming the shuttle's availability
throughout the station's on-orbit lifetime to provide support and
maintenance.
Prematurely and voluntarily ending the space shuttle program without
a near-term U.S.-built alternative on the horizon simply seems
irresponsible, and that is an issue that I believe the Congress must
address. While the Space Shuttle will never be completely safe, just as
with any vehicle that must carry humans into the harsh environment of
space, it is currently flying as safely, if not more safely, than it
ever has.
The legislation I am introducing today would ensure that a final
decision on the timing of the space shuttle retirement, or even the
number of missions it might still be required to fly, would not be made
until the issues involved are fully considered and resolved and we are
fully convinced that the shuttle's capability is no longer needed. In
particular, we must answer the question of how we support, maintain,
and fully utilize the ISS, not just in 5 or more years, when any new
commercially-developed vehicle might be available, but right now, as we
are about to cut the ribbon on it as a finally completed research
facility.
I have already mentioned the lack of complete information regarding
the ability to adequately ensure the availability and deliverability of
spare and replacements parts needed between now and 2020 to keep the
space station fully and safely functional. All this is to underscore
that the issue of whether to continue flying the shuttle, and the
number of additional shuttle flights that are needed, is not simply a
matter of shortening the gap between shuttle retirement and the
availability of its replacement, or protecting a vitally important
workforce. This issue also requires policy makers to understand what
the space shuttle can do--and possibly do exclusively in the case of
large, heavy replacement systems and structures--to ensure that the
promise to extend the ISS to 2020 can actually be fulfilled. We must be
certain the ISS can be kept alive and fully functioning over the next
10 years. Again, the administration's Budget Request offers no answers
to how we will be able to deliver all the equipment necessary to extend
the life of the ISS if the shuttle is not available.
I am also very concerned about the proposal to simply cancel the
Constellation programs of Ares 1, the low-earth orbit crew launch
vehicle, the Ares V Heavy Lift vehicle for enabling flights beyond low-
Earth orbit, and the

[[Page S1026]]

Orion Crew Exploration capsule to carry the crews for both of those
missions. It is very clear that many of my colleagues are also deeply
concerned about this part of the President's budget. I simply believe
any decision to terminate those projects needs much more consideration
than I believe it has gotten during the preparation of the Obama
administration's proposal for NASA.

The approach of the administration--their so-called ``bold new
initiative''--is to turn to an entirely new approach based exclusively
on the development of commercially-developed crew launch systems. There
appears to have been little thought given to how we might leverage the
$9 billion already spent on the Constellation vehicles in the
identification of potential providers for those commercial systems. I
believe that is wasteful and irresponsible and all but guarantees that
commercial developments will start from scratch--and therefore take
much longer to develop and be much more costly, in the long run, to the
American taxpayers.
Another concern with this new approach is that we do not yet have any
details about how the $6 billion proposed in the Budget Request for
commercial space flight over the next 5 years will be allocated and
what it will be expected to support. We don't know whether this will be
a collaborative program, creating incentives for matching funding from
the private sector, or whether it will represent more of a government
subsidy to develop systems for which there may not be a sustainable
market for those services beyond what NASA would purchase. I am
philosophically and fundamentally opposed to such government subsidies,
particularly when it is not clear that taxpayer funding for an approach
like this won't have to be followed by even more taxpayer dollars to
keep the systems available to meet the needs of the space station, or
other government space projects.
The legislation I am proposing will address that issue by directing
NASA to consider ``commercial'' options that include the possibility of
agreements not only with the ``entrepreneurial'' start-up companies
like SpaceX, which represent an exciting but still unproven set of
vehicles designed to service a still non-existent commercial market,
but also with other, longer-standing and experienced commercial
companies. The key aerospace companies with whom NASA currently has
development contracts might well be able to jointly develop a new
launch system as a modification of their existing contracts under the
Constellation program. They could combine their expertise and
capability to transition their efforts toward developing a new launch
capability based on existing shuttle main engines, external tank
manufacturing capability, solid rocket motors, and the Orion crew
vehicle. Something like that has been, I am told, a subject of informal
conversations among those companies for some time. I believe we need to
ensure through legislation that such an alternative will be fully
evaluated and considered as one possible approach to the new
``commercial'' space systems development. We have not been given
details of this possible approach, because those discussions are
apparently still ongoing. But I believe we need to make sure there is a
legislative underpinning that would at least allow the full
consideration of that approach.
I would not view such an approach as precluding the continued pursuit
of the current COTS, Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems,
activities being pursued with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation
for cargo delivery services for the Space Station. I have consistently
supported that development and believe we should continue to do so. My
concern, one I know that of a number of my colleagues share, is to
ensure we have redundant and alternative means of providing U.S. human
spaceflight capability. If one of those can be more fully commercial in
nature, and something that can stand on its own without the taxpayers
being responsible for their success, so much the better.
I will be working with my colleagues in the Senate, and reaching out
to our counterparts in the House of Representatives, to ensure all of
these issues are put on the table for discussion, using the vehicle of
this legislation to provide an alternative view to that proposed by the
Obama Administration.
This legislation actually tracks closely with the President's
request, in terms of the amounts authorized for NASA. It authorizes
programs largely at funding levels already enacted for fiscal year
2010, with some very minor exceptions, and at the same base account
levels requested by the administration for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal
year 2012.
What my legislation adds is the authorization levels necessary to
implement the potential continuation of space shuttle flights, at a
greatly reduced annual level of flights and associated costs, as well
as modest increases in the short-term for the establishment and support
of an enterprise to be developed to manage and operate the U.S.
National Laboratory.
The greatest difference, as I have indicated, is that this
legislation points the way to what I believe is a more measured and
reasoned approach that ensures the best use of investments we have
already made, provides the Congress and the administration with
necessary information to inform our judgments on alternative launch
vehicle developments, and provides a means of avoiding severe economic
dislocations in the aerospace industry and the highly skilled and
dedicated workforce that has provided the capability for this nation to
be the world leader in space exploration.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3068

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Human
Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act of
2010''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Statement of human space flight policy.
Sec. 4. Space Shuttle operations.
Sec. 5. International Space Station operations.
Sec. 6. International Space Station utilization.
Sec. 7. Transportation systems development.
Sec. 8. Definitions.
Sec. 9. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 10. Application with other laws.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States Human Space Flight program has, since
the first Mercury flight on May 5, 1961, has been a source of
pride and inspiration for the Nation.
(2) The extraordinary challenges of achieving access to
space both motivated and accelerated the development of
technologies and industrial capabilities that have had
widespread applications which have contributed to the
technological excellence of the United States.
(3) It is essential to the economic well-being of the
Nation that the aerospace industrial capacity, highly skilled
workforce, and embedded expertise remain engaged in
demanding, challenging, and exciting efforts that ensure
United States leadership in space exploration and related
activities.
(4) The completion of the International Space Station, the
ability to sustain a crew of at least 6 members, and the
ability to conduct unique microgravity research that can only
be accomplished in the space environment, provides an
opportunity for scientific and technological advancement that
must be immediately and fully exploited.
(5) The designation of the U.S. Segment of the
International Space Station as a National Laboratory, as
provided in section 507 of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16767)
and as further provided in subtitle A of title VI of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17751 through 17753), provides an
opportunity for multiple United States government agencies,
University-based researchers, commercial research
organizations, and others to utilize the unique environment
of microgravity for fundamental scientific research and
potential commercial developments.
(6) In order to assure the full and complete utilization of
the International Space Station, including the ability to
sustain the systems and physical infrastructure of the
vehicle, effective and timely transportation systems are
required, which must be able to deliver the full range of
logistics, support, and maintenance items which may be
necessary through the year 2020.
(7) For some potential replacement elements necessary for
Space Station sustainability, the Space Shuttle represents
the

[[Page S1027]]

only vehicle, existing or planned, capable of carrying those
elements to the International Space Station in the near term.
(8) In order to ensure effective utilization of Space
Station research facilities, the capability for returning
processed experiment samples and research-related equipment
to Earth is essential.
(9) The maintenance of human exploration goals, such as a
return to the Moon, a voyage to Mars, or other celestial
bodies or locations is essential for providing the necessary
long-term focus and programmatic robustness of the United
States civilian space program.
(10) The United States must develop, as rapidly as
possible, replacement vehicles capable of providing both
human and cargo launch capability to low-Earth orbit and, by
expansion or modification of core design features, capable of
delivering large payloads into low-earth orbit or to
destinations beyond low-Earth orbit.
(11) While commercial transportation systems may contribute
valuable services, it is in the United States' national
interest to maintain a government-operated space
transportation system for crew and cargo delivery to low-
Earth orbit and beyond.

SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT POLICY.

(a) Use of Non-U.S. Human Space Flight Transportation
Capacity.--It is the policy of the United States that
reliance upon and use of non-United States human space flight
capability shall only be undertaken as a temporary
contingency in circumstances where no United States-owned and
operated human space flight capability is available,
operational, and certified for flight by appropriate Federal
agencies.
(b) U.S. Human Space Flight Capacity.--The Congress
reaffirms the policy stated in section 501(a) of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the United States shall
maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight
and operations in low-earth orbit, and beyond, as an
essential instrument of national security and the ability to
ensure continued United States participation and leadership
in the exploration and utilization of space.

SEC. 4. SPACE SHUTTLE OPERATIONS.

(a) Retention of Space Shuttle Operations Capability.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall take all necessary
steps to ensure that all Space Shuttle Program activities and
operations are able to continue, or to be resumed, including
flight operations and support, pending the completion of the
reviews, requirements, and reports of this section.
(2) Current shutle manifest flight assurance.--The
Administrator shall take all steps necessary to ensure
shuttle launch capability through fiscal year 2011 to enable
launch, at a minimum, of all payloads manifested as of
February 28, 2010. In fulfillment of this requirement, the
Administrator is prohibited from terminating any contractor
support which will endanger or inhibit the launching of
shuttle payloads manifested as of February 28, 2010, should
launches be required after the first quarter of fiscal year
2011.
(b) Certification of Space Shuttle Systems; Validation of
Flight Readiness Determination Procedures.--No later than 30
days after the date of enactment of this Act the
Administrator shall ask the National Academies of Science to
appoint a Flight Certification Review Committee, consisting
of 5 individuals with appropriate engineering expertise and
experience in certification of space flight vehicle hardware,
systems, and equipment testing and validation procedures, to
review space shuttle certification activities undertaken or
initiated after February, 2003. The Committee shall provide
an assessment regarding the adequacy of those validation
procedures in assuring vehicle durability, flight-worthiness,
and sustainability for continued operations through a period
of up to 5 years beyond the space shuttle flight manifest
planned as of February, 2010. The Committee shall take into
account current and historical trends in anomaly detection
and resolution within major components of the space shuttle
systems.
(c) Completion of Certification Review and Reporting
Requirement.--The Committee appointed under subsection (b)
shall complete its task within 90 days of its appointment and
shall provide its findings and determinations concurrently to
the Administrator and to the committees of jurisdiction no
later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Space Shuttle Capability Retention.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, to the extent practicable NASA
shall operate the Space Shuttle program at a flight rate of
no more than 2 missions in any consecutive 12-month period
beginning during the fiscal years for which appropriations
are authorized under section 9 of this Act.
(e) Existing Hardware Components.--The Administrator shall
ensure that hardware components in existence as of March,
2010, remain available for use in connection with any
additional flights required under subsection (g)(2) beyond
those on the current flight manifest schedule.
(f) Prohibition of Scheduled Termination.--The
Administrator may not terminate the Space Shuttle Program as
of a scheduled date certain.
(g) Termination Conditions.--Termination of space shuttle
missions operations shall be contingent upon--
(1) completion of the space shuttle flights planned as of
February 28, 2010;
(2) delivery of remaining manufactured orbital replacement
units, research instrumentation, and other maintenance
materials and equipment originally scheduled for delivery to
the International Space Station in the flight manifest
schedule prepared no later than November, 2005, and which are
identified in the review required by section 5(b)(2) and
deemed essential for maintenance and support of the
International Space Station through the end of fiscal year
2020, and which require the payload capability of the space
shuttle Orbiter for delivery to the International Space
Station; and
(3) a determination by the President that termination of
space shuttle missions in support of International Space
Station operations--
(A) is consistent with paragraph (2) of this subsection,
and any other provision of this Act regarding the provision
of human space flight capabilities; and
(B) will not cause a degradation of the equipment,
logistics, cargo up-mass and down-mass delivery capability
necessary to provide full utilization of international space
station science and research capabilities for both United
States National Laboratory and International Partner
scientific research and experimentation which the United
States is obligated by international agreement to provide.
(h) Additional Determination Requirements.--The President
shall include in such a determination a detailed description
of alternate means for the provision of necessary support for
the conduct of full utilization of the International Space
Station for research and development in science, engineering,
and technological development, the scheduled availability of
such alternative means of support, and such materials as may
be necessary to justify the determination.
(i) Notice to Congress.--The President shall provide any
determination under this section to the committees of
jurisdiction, which shall review such determination and
consider whether to recommend legislative action to establish
further conditions for termination of space shuttle
operations.
(j) Termination.--The Administrator may not take steps to
terminate the Space Shuttle Program before the later of--
(1) the date that is 60 legislative days after receipt of
the determination by the Congress; or
(2) the date on which the Congress has taken final action
with respect to any bill reported by a committee of
jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (i).
(k) Decommissioning of Orbiter Vehicles.--
(1) In general.--Upon the termination of the Space Shuttle
program as provided in this section, the Administrator shall
assume responsibility for decommissioning the remaining
orbiter vehicles according to established safety and historic
preservation procedures prior to their designation as surplus
government property. The remaining orbiter vehicles shall be
made available and located for display and maintenance by a
competitive procedure established pursuant to the disposition
plan developed under section 613(a) of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
2008 (42 U.S.C. 17761(a)), with priority consideration given
to eligible applicants meeting all conditions of that plan
which would provide for the location, display, and
maintenance of one orbiter at or near the Johnson Space
Center, in Houston, Texas, and one orbiter at or near the
Kennedy Space Center near Titusville, Florida.
(2) Display and maintenance.--The orbiter vehicles made
available under paragraph (1) shall be displayed and
maintained through agreements and procedures established
pursuant to section 613(a) of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C.
17761(a)). NASA shall be responsible for the costs of safely
decommissioning, transporting, and re-assembling the orbiter
vehicle for display.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to NASA such sums as may be necessary to
carry out this subsection.
(l) Preservation of Vehicle and Systems Design and
Engineering Data.--The Administrator shall immediately take
all necessary steps to ensure the collection and preservation
of space shuttle structures, systems, and infrastructure
design, manufacturing, testing, and maintenance data for
historical archival purposes and for possible use as
technical resource material and programmatic lessons learned
and technical interchange applicability for future space
vehicle design and operations.

SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION OPERATIONS.

(a) Policy Statement.--It shall be the policy of the United
States, in consultation with its International Partners in
the International Space Station program, to support full and
complete utilization of the Space Station through at least
the year 2020.
(b) Maintenance of U.S. Segment.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall take all steps
necessary to ensure the safe and effective operations,
maintenance, and maximum utilization of the United States
Segment of the International Space Station through fiscal
year 2020.
(2) Vehicle and component review.--In carrying out
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall, immediately upon
enactment of this Act, conduct an in-depth assessment of

[[Page S1028]]

all essential modules, operational systems and components,
structural elements, and permanent scientific equipment on
board or planned for delivery and installation aboard the
International Space Station, including both United States and
international partner elements, to determine anticipated
spare or replacement requirements to ensure complete,
effective, and safe function and full scientific utilization
of the ISS. The Administrator shall enable the Comptroller
General to monitor and, as appropriate, participate in the
review required by this paragraph in such a way as to enable
the Comptroller General to provide an independent assessment
of the review to the committees of jurisdiction.
(3) Reporting requirements.--No later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act the Administrator shall
provide the completed assessment to the committees of
jurisdiction. The results of the required assessment shall
include, at minimum, the following:
(A) The identification of spare or replacement elements and
parts currently produced, in inventory, or on order, and the
state of readiness and schedule for delivery to the ISS,
including the planned transportation means for such delivery.
Each element identified shall include a description of its
location, function, criticality for system integrity, and
specifications regarding size, weight, and necessary
configuration for launch and delivery.
(B) The identification of anticipated requirements for
spare or replacement elements not currently in inventory or
on order, a description of their location, function,
criticality for system integrity, the anticipated cost and
schedule for design, procurement, manufacture and delivery,
and specifications regarding size, weight, and necessary
configuration for launch and delivery, including available
launch vehicles capable of transportation of such items to
the International Space Station.
(c) Research Facilities and Capabilities.--Utilization of
research facilities and capabilities aboard the International
Space Station other than exploration-related research and
technology development activities, and associated ground
support and logistics, shall be planned, managed, and
supported by the organizations described in section 6.

SEC. 6. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION MANAGEMENT AND
UTILIZATION.

(a) Establishment of Office of Responsibility for United
States Space Station National Laboratory.--The Administrator
shall establish responsibility for the International Space
Station United States National Laboratory within the Space
Operations Mission Directorate, ISS Program Office at NASA
Headquarters, or any successor entity within NASA. The head
of the Office shall be an official, designated by the
Administrator, who shall serve as a Deputy Associate
Administrator for International Space Station, or at an
equivalent rank, and to whom responsibility shall be
delegated for, at a minimum, the conduct of ISS operations,
maintenance and utilization by both NASA and non-NASA
organizations. The Officer shall serve as the formal liaison
to the organization specified in subsection (b).
(b) Establishment of National Laboratory Management
Entity.--The Administrator shall execute an agreement with a
cooperative organization described in section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt from
taxation under section 501(a) of such Code to manage the
activities of the ISS United States National Laboratory. The
organization shall be designed specifically for the unique
purpose of developing and implementing research and
development projects utilizing the International Space
Station U.S. Segment, and to be engaged exclusively in this
enterprise without other organizational objectives or
responsibilities on behalf of the organization or any parent
entity. The head of the office established by subsection (a)
is responsible for liaison and management of the agreement.
The Administrator shall delegate, at a minimum, the following
responsibilities to the organization, which shall carry out
its responsibilities in cooperation and consultation with the
head of the office established by subsection (a):
(1) Planning and coordinating the ISS National Laboratory
research activities.
(2) Development and implementation of guidelines, selection
criteria, and flight support requirements for non-NASA
scientific utilization of International Space Station
research capabilities and facilities available in United
States-owned modules or in partner-owned facilities allocated
to United States utilization by international agreement.
(3) Interaction with and support of the International Space
Station National Laboratory Advisory Committee, established
under section 602 of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17752),
and the review and implementation of recommendations provided
by that Committee under the terms of the enabling legislation
and subsequent organizational documents, negotiation,
approval, and implementation of memoranda of understanding,
Space Act agreements, or other authorized cooperative
mechanisms, with non-NASA United States government entities,
academic institutions or consortia, and commercial entities,
leading to utilization of the United States International
Space Station National Laboratory facilities.
(4) Coordination of transportation requirements in support
of the United States International Space Station National
Laboratory facilities, including provisions for delivery of
instrumentation, logistics support, and related experiment
materials, and provisions for return to Earth of collected
samples, materials, and scientific instruments in need of
replacement or upgrade.
(5) Cooperation with NASA, other Federal Agencies, States,
or commercial entities in ensuring the enhancement and
sustained operations of non-exploration-related space-station
research payload ground support facilities, including the
Space Life Sciences Laboratory, Space Station Processing
Facility and Payload Operations Control Center and any other
ground facilities critical to the utilization of the
International Space Station.
(6) Development and implementation of scientific outreach
and education activities designed to ensure effective
utilization of International Space Station research
capabilities, through such instruments as memoranda of
understanding, Space Act agreements executed by NASA, or
other cooperative agreements, and through the conduct of
scientific assemblies, conferences, etc., for presentation of
research findings, methods and mechanisms for dissemination
of non-restricted research findings, and development of
educational programs, course supplements, interaction with
educational programs at all grade levels, including student-
focused research opportunities for conduct of research in the
United States International Space Station National Laboratory
managed facilities.
(c) Research Facilities allocation and Integration of
Research Payloads.--
(1) Allocation of ISS Research Facilities.--Beginning as
soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act,
United States International Space Station National Laboratory
managed experiments shall be guaranteed access to, and
utilization of, 50 percent of the United States research
facilities allocation and requisite crew time through fiscal
year 2014. Beginning with fiscal year 2015, the percentage
allocation shall increase by an additional 10 percent per
year through fiscal year 2020.
(2) Additional research capability.--If the head of the ISS
Program Office determines that there are NASA research plans
that would require research capability beyond the percentage
allocation under paragraph (1), those research plans shall be
prepared in the form of requested research opportunities
submitted to the established process for consideration of
proposed research within the allocations and capabilities of
the International Space Station National Laboratory, as
provided in paragraph (1). These research proposals may
include the establishment of partnerships with non-NASA
institutions eligible to propose research to be conducted
within National laboratory allocated research facilities.
Until fiscal year 2020, the head of the Office may grant
exceptions to this requirement if the proposed experiment is
deemed essential for purposes of preparing for exploration
beyond low Earth Orbit, as determined by joint agreement
between the organization described in subsection (a) and the
head of the office established under subsection (b).
(3) Research priorities and enhanced facilities.--The
organization described in subsection (b) and the head of the
office established under subsection (a) shall take into
account recommendations of the National Academies of Science
Decadal Survey on Life and Microgravity Sciences in
establishing research priorities and in developing proposed
enhancements of research facilities and opportunities.
(4) Research payload responsibility.--NASA shall retain its
roles and responsibilities in providing research payload
transportation integration and operations processes essential
to ensure safe and effective flight readiness and vehicle
integration of research facilities and activities approved
and prioritized by the organization described in subsection
(b) and the head of the office established under subsection
(a).

SEC. 7. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General.--The Administrator shall take steps to
ensure that the development of space transportation vehicles,
systems, and infrastructure shall occur in such a way as to
ensure the availability of complementary and, where
necessary, redundant transportation systems capable of
delivering crew and cargo to low-Earth orbit, in particular
to the International Space Station, and to destinations
beyond low-Earth orbit. Systems developed and operated by the
United States Government shall be the primary means for
delivering crew and cargo to destinations in low-Earth orbit
until such time as commercial entities demonstrate, through a
successful flight regime, as determined by established
milestones within current Space Act Agreements, that they
have the capability to deliver cargo to destinations in low-
Earth orbit, including the International Space Station.
Systems developed and operated by the United States
government shall be the primary means for delivering crew and
cargo to destinations beyond low earth orbit. Commercially
developed launch systems, such as those being developed under
NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation System, for which
the United States government will serve primarily as a
customer, shall be the primary means for delivering cargo to
the International Space Stations once they have successfully
demonstrated

[[Page S1029]]

that capability, as required by this subsection.
(b) National Space Transportation System.--The
Administrator is directed to develop a plan, no later than 90
days after the date of enactment of this Act, for the
establishment of a National Space Transportation System. The
National Space Transportation System shall include--
(1) an architecture of government developed and operated
space transportation systems, including one or more launch
vehicles and associated crew and cargo carriers;
(2) a streamlined approach to development and acquisition
of such systems funded and overseen by the United States
Government, including possible adoption or modification of
effective acquisition practices utilized by the Department of
Defense, where appropriate, to more effectively meet civil
space transportation requirements;
(3) an operational concept that utilizes existing
government and industry personnel and infrastructure in an
efficient and cost effective manner;
(4) continuation or modification of ongoing programs,
associated contracts, and testing and evaluation plans
initiated under the Constellation Program, including the
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Ares-1 Crew Launch
Vehicle, to the extent that such elements are determined to
be cost effective and operationally effective;
(5) a plan for incrementally upgrading initially developed
and deployed systems so that such systems can be made
operational with existing technology at the earliest possible
opportunity and then upgraded over time to fulfill more
demanding missions and incorporate new technology as it
becomes available; and
(6) a United States Government managed approach for
overseeing and ensuring crew safety, including oversight of
human ratings requirements established under subsection
(f)1)(C) of this section.
(c) Technology Development to Support National Space
Transportation Systems Evolution.--The Administrator shall
develop and keep up to date a technology development plan to
support the evolving requirements of the National Space
Transportation System, both for low-Earth orbit requirements
and for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. Technology funding
provided pursuant to this subsection shall be determined
based on the specific mission benefits and the performance
requirements needed to achieve clearly identified mission
objectives, such as planning to reach destinations beyond
low-Earth orbit. There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Administrator such amounts for technology funding for
propulsion elements as may be necessary to advance the state
of the art in propulsion elements as a priority over
developments of current state of the art in propulsion
systems.
(d) Heavy-lift Vehicle Development.--
(1) Review.--As part of the National Space Transportation
system required in subsection (b) of this section, the
Administrator is directed to conduct a review of alternative
heavy lift launch vehicle configurations that may be
developed by the United States government to transport crew
and cargo to low-Earth orbit and beyond.
(2) Content.--The review shall--
(A) include shuttle-derived vehicles which use existing
United States propulsion systems, including liquid fuel
engines, external tank, and solid rocket motor technology and
related ground-based manufacturing capability, launch and
operations infrastructure, and workforce expertise;
(B) take into consideration technologies developed under
the Constellation Program, including those developed for the
Ares I system;
(C) include consideration of the degree to which
alternative vehicles may be developed in an evolutionary
fashion with the objective of supporting initial crew and
cargo transportation to the International Space Station by
the end of 2013 and missions beyond low-Earth orbit by the
end of 2018; and
(D) include comparative development and projected
operational costs.
(e) National Space Transportation System Authority To
Proceed.--The Administrator is directed to select a heavy
lift launch vehicle and accompanying crew vehicle design
concept and to initiate detailed design activities no later
than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act. If
ongoing program development elements and activities from the
Constellation Program are to be included in such a National
Space Transportation System, the Administrator shall take
appropriate steps to extend or modify existing contracts to
facilitate this objective.
(f) Commercially-developed Space Transportation Vehicles.--
(1) Launch and delivery systems.--The Congress restates its
commitment, expressed in the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Acts of 2005 and 2008, to the development of
commercially-developed launch and delivery systems to the
International Space Station for crew and cargo missions,
known as the Commercial Orbital Transportation System.
(2) Preliminary requirements for commercial crew capability
development.--Before undertaking any development activity in
support of commercially-developed crew transportation
systems, the Administrator shall ensure that, at a minimum,
the following steps are completed:
(A) Human rating requirements.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator
shall develop and make publicly available detailed human
ratings requirements to guide the design of commercially-
developed crew transportation capabilities. The requirements
shall be at least equivalent to proven requirements in use as
of the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Commercial market assessment.--The Administrator shall
initiate, using an appropriate and qualified independent
entity, an assessment of the potential non-government market
for commercially-developed crew and cargo space
transportation systems and capabilities. The assessment
shall--
(i) include activities associated with potential private
sector utilization of International Space Station research
and technology development capabilities and other potential
activities in low-Earth orbit; and
(ii) be completed and provided to the committees of
jurisdiction no later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(C) Procurement system review.--The Administrator shall
review established government procurement and acquisition
practices and processes, including Space Act Agreement
authorities, to determine the most cost-effective means of
procuring commercial crew capabilities and related services
which will ensure appropriate accountability, transparency,
and maximum efficiency in the procurement of such services.
The review shall include a description of proposed measures
to address risk management processes and the means of
indemnification for third party commercial entities, and
processes for quality control, safety oversight, and
application of Federal oversight processes within the
jurisdiction of other Federal agencies. A description of the
proposed procurement process and justification for its
selection shall be included in any proposed initiation of
procurement activity for commercially-developed crew
transportation services and shall be subject to review by the
committees of jurisdiction before the initiation of any
competitive process to procure such services. In support of
the committee review, the Comptroller General shall undertake
an assessment of the review required by this subparagraph and
provide a report to the committees of jurisdiction within 90
days after the date on which the Administrator provides the
description and justification to the committees of
jurisdiction.
(D) Use of government-supplied capabilities and
infrastructure.--In evaluating any proposed development
activity for commercially-developed crew or cargo launch
capabilities, the Administrator shall identify the
anticipated contribution of government personnel, expertise,
technologies, and infrastructure to be utilized in support of
design, development, or operations of such capabilities. The
Administrator shall include details and associated costs of
such support as part of any proposed development initiative
for the procurement of commercially-developed crew or cargo
capabilities or services.
(E) Establishment of flight demonstration and readiness
requirements.--The Administrator shall establish appropriate
milestones and minimum performance accomplishments which must
be completed before any authority is granted to proceed to
procurement of commercially-developed crew transportation
systems or capabilities.
(3) Sense of the congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the development of commercial capabilities for the use
of space may be of value in maximizing the utility and
productivity of the International Space Station by providing
a commercial means of enabling crew transfer and crew rescue
services for the International Space Station. The Congress
further believes that once such commercial services have
demonstrated the capability to meet established ascent,
entry, and International Space Station proximity operations
safety requirements the United States should make use of
domestic commercially-provided crew transfer and crew rescue
services to the maximum extent practicable. The Congress
further believes that the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration should expedite, where possible, the use of
domestic commercially provided International Space Station
cargo missions, and that upon the certification by
appropriate Federal agencies of operational flight readiness
for the provision of commercial crew transportation
capabilities, the Administrator should limit, to the maximum
extent practicable, the use of a United States government
crew transportation vehicle to missions carrying crew beyond
low Earth orbit.
(4) Limitation on obligation or expenditure of funds.--No
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be
obligated or expended for the purpose of procuring a
commercially-developed crew transportation vehicle prior to
completion of the requirements of paragraph (2) of this
subsection.
(g) Cargo Return Capability.--The Administrator is directed
to conduct a study of alternative means for development of
the capability for a soft-landing return for return research
samples or other derivative materials, and small to mid-sized
(up to 1,000 kilograms) equipment for return and analysis, or
refurbishment and redelivery to the ISS. If the Administrator
decides that an independent study is appropriate, the results
of the study shall be transmitted to the committees of
jurisdiction no later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(h) Report to Committees of Jurisdiction.--The
Administrator shall submit a report to the committees of
jurisdiction on

[[Page S1030]]

plans for implementing the requirements of this section no
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this act.

SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of NASA.
(2) Commercial entity.--The term ``commercial entity''
means a for-profit entity operating in such a way that--
(A) private capital is at risk in the provision of a
product, activity, or service;
(B) there are existing or potential nongovernmental
customers for the product, activity, or service conducted or
provided by the entity;
(C) the commercial market ultimately determines the
viability of such product, activity, or service; and
(D) primary responsibility and management initiative for
the entity resides with the private sector.
(3) Committees of jurisdiction.--The term ``committees of
jurisdiction'' means--
(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives.
(4) Down-mass.--The term ``down-mass'' means physical
elements, such as equipment removed for repair, replacement
or analysis, experiment products, samples and devices, tools,
personal crew items, manufactured goods, or other non-
disposable items, including historically significant
materials or items, whether the property of the United States
or an international partner, or a non-government or
commercial entity.
(5) ISS.--The term ``ISS'' means the International Space
Station.
(6) ISS national laboratory.--The term ``ISS National
Laboratory'' means the International Space Station United
States National Laboratory Enterprise.
(7) Legislative day.--The term ``legislative day'' means
any calendar day on which the Senate and the House of
Representatives are in session.
(8) NASA.--The term ``NASA'' means the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
(9) Space Act.--The term ``Space Act'' means the National
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.).
(10) United States segment of the International Space
Station.--The term ``United States Segment of the
International Space Station'' includes all structural
elements, supporting equipment, external attachment
locations, pressurized modules, and associated contents,
purchased or manufactured by or for the United States, and
partner-supplied facilities allocated for utilization as
determined through bilateral and multilateral agreements.
(11) Up-mass.--The term ``up-mass'' means physical
elements, such as equipment, spare parts, replacement parts,
experimental facilities, and associated materials, and
various supplies necessary for the operation and maintenance
of the space station vehicle, modules, hardware, and crew
support.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) FY 2010.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal
year 2010:
(1) Space Science Mission Directorate, $4,493,300,000.
(2) Exploration Systems Mission Directorate,
$3,779,800,000.
(3) Space Operations Mission Directorate, $6,180,600,000.
(4) Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology Mission
Directorate, $682,200,000.
(5) Education Programs, $183,800,000.
(6) Cross-Agency Support, $2,919,900,000.
(7) Construction and Environmental Compliance and
Restoration, $448,300,000.
(8) Office of Inspector General, $35,000,000.
(b) FY 2011.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal
year fiscal year 2011:
(1) Space Science Mission Directorate, $5,005,600,000.
(2) Exploration Systems Mission Directorate,
$4,263,400,000.
(3) Space Operations Mission Directorate, $4,887,800,000.
(4) Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology Mission
Directorate, $1,151,800,000.
(5) Education Programs, $145,800,000.
(6) Cross-Agency Support, $3,111,400,000.
(7) Construction and Environmental Compliance and
Restoration, $397,300,000.
(8) Office of Inspector General, $36,000,000.
(c) FY 2012.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal
year 2012:
(1) Space Science Mission Directorate, $5,248,600,000.
(2) Exploration Systems Mission Directorate,
$4,577,400,000.
(3) Space Operations Mission Directorate, $4,290,200,000.
(4) Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology Mission
Directorate, $1,596,900,000.
(5) Education Programs, $145,800,000.
(6) Cross-Agency Support, $3,189,600,000.
(7) Construction and Environmental Compliance and
Restoration, $363,800,000.
(8) Office of Inspector General, $36,000,000.
(d) Space Shuttle Sustaining Operations.--For purposes of
implementing section 4, there are authorized to be
appropriated an additional $200,000,000 for Space Shuttle
operations in fiscal year 2010, $1,200,000,000 for Space
Shuttle Operations in fiscal year 2011, and $2,000,000,000
for Space Shuttle Operations in fiscal year 2012.
(e) ISS Operations.--For purposes of implementing section
5, there are authorized to be appropriated an additional
$36,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 for procurement of necessary
spares, replacement units, and associated transportation
costs of elements necessary to ensure viable sustained
vehicle maintenance and operations, $100,000,000 for fiscal
year 2011, and $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
(f) ISS Utilization.--For purposes of implementing section
6, there are authorized to be appropriated an additional
$20,000,000 in fiscal year 2010, $15,000,000 for fiscal year
2011, and $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
(g) No Fiscal Year Limitation on Funding.--All funds
appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available
until expended.
(h) Transfer of Funds.--The Administrator may transfer
funds among any of the accounts identified in this section
if, not less than 30 days before the date of any such
transfer, the Administrator provides a detailed explanation
of the needs for the transfer, the amount proposed to be
transferred, and an analysis of the impact on activities from
which funding is proposed to be transferred, to the
committees of jurisdiction of the House of Representatives
and the Senate. No such transfer shall occur until the
Administrator has received an affirmative response indicating
agreement to the proposed transfer from the chairs of the
committees of jurisdiction.

SEC. 10. APPLICATION WITH OTHER LAWS.

The proviso under the heading ``exploration'', under the
heading ``science'' in the matter dealing with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration in the Science
Appropriations Act, 2010 (title II of division B of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010; Public Law 111-117)
shall not apply to any activity authorized under this Act.

____________________