[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1313-H1320]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET ON NASA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Chu). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, tonight, my colleagues and I would like to
share with you and the American people our deep concern with the
effects of the President's budget on NASA.
By overwhelming concern with the decision to cancel the Constellation
program, there are several reasons why this is bad for America, about
which my colleagues and I will go into more detail over the next hour.
{time} 2220
Madam Speaker, Constellation was and is the right path forward to
maintain America's leadership in space.
Just this past week, the Constellation program successfully completed
its preliminary design review. This is a milestone towards future
development. This is a major programmatic milestone that should be
noted and applauded by all of us in addition to the successful test
launch of the Are's I-X rocket back in September.
Madam Speaker, I am going to talk tonight about a couple of issues:
national priority; national security and how important NASA and human
spaceflight is for that; inspiration for our youth; and our educational
purposes, particularly in the discipline of STEM--science, technology,
engineering, math--and the technological benefits that every American,
every person in the world, has gotten from NASA and human spaceflight.
America's global dominance in space exploration has always been for
so much more than just the race to be first. It has signaled a
commitment from our Nation to forge a path. Previously unimaginable
scientific and technological discoveries are born both from necessity
and from risk-taking. They are born out of unexpected consequences. It
has been said many times before that it is not just the destination but
the journey.
The journey on which our space exploration program has taken the
United States has given rise to our global leadership on many, many
fronts. Our Nation's global dominance in human spaceflight has
coincided with our status as the world's only superpower, which is not
by accident. The national commitment to be the best in national
security and in space exploration goes hand in hand. That is precisely
why there is always such strong bipartisan support for NASA and for
human spaceflight.
Abandoning the enterprise of space exploration is a striking decision
because it violates something that makes us human--the desire to know
new things through personal experience. As Americans, our heritage is
about exploration. Our nature is to seek out the unknown and to
explore. The administration's decision to kill the Constellation is an
affront to that heritage.
America cannot escape the irrefutable fact that to fly regularly into
space is the most difficult technological challenge that we know is
possible under complicated and expensive scenarios. Even when done
successfully, it is difficult and dangerous. In the half century we
have been putting human beings into space, we have lost three brave
crews. The support that is needed requires an overarching vision that
requires political courage. As he stood on the football field at my
alma mater, Rice University, President Kennedy had that political
courage when he made the commitment to go to the Moon by the end of the
decade.
A person either believes that expanding the range of human action is
a noble undertaking, worthy of the cost and the risk, or a person does
not. I fundamentally believe that this goal represents the heart of
American entrepreneurialism. It is what sets our Nation apart from the
rest of the world. It is why Russia, China, and India are making the
investments necessary to catch up or to even surpass us.
Is human exploration worth the cost? If Americans question this, then
we should ask why other nations are desperately ramping up their human
space exploration.
What do China, India, Japan, and Russia know that we don't know? They
clearly know what America has known for years, which is that the direct
investment alone is worth the cost and that the indirect benefits have
provided economic drivers and scientific discoveries that have far
exceeded expectations.
Think about what human spaceflight has done for America. There is the
Hubble space telescope, one of the greatest pieces of technological
advancements in our society. Unfortunately, when it was launched, it
was launched in a flawed vehicle. It had a flawed refractory mirror on
it. It was basically a $2 billion piece of junk that we put into orbit.
Yet, because we had a human spaceflight capability and because we had
men and women who were willing to take the risk to go into space, they
went up and repaired the Hubble telescope four times. They brought it
back, and made it one of the most incredible pieces of technology in
our society. They brought back images from across the solar system and
the universe. It wouldn't have happened without human spaceflight.
We risk losing this with the President's budget. The President's
decision of NASA's role in human spaceflight is not only a step back
for America; it is a calculated decision that says we aren't up to the
challenge.
Yes, our Nation is in a fiscal situation that should force us to
examine our spending priorities. We may disagree on how our limited
resources should be spent, but there are fundamental national
priorities that are worth the investment. Abandoning human space
exploration isn't the tough decision that America needs.
We need leadership that clearly states we will not cede our
leadership in human spaceflight to any other nation on Earth. We should
not hand over space to the Russians, to the Chinese, or to India. If we
stay on the path the President's budget lays out, the United States
faces the very real and very humiliating prospect of paying billions of
dollars to Russia for years to hitch rides to the international space
station, which has been largely built by American taxpayer funds.
We used to pay the Russians just over $20 million to take one of our
astronauts to the space station. They have learned capitalism very
well; and now, this year, it is going to cost us $50 million, which is
more than double the price that it was last year. That contract only
extends through 2013. So, in all likelihood, we are going to have to
renew another contract with them in the future. They have got a
monopoly. They are going to charge us whatever
[[Page H1314]]
they want, and we are going to have to pay it if we want access to the
space station, which, again, the American taxpayers have largely
funded.
This is unacceptable. We need to stay the course with the
Constellation to make sure that we minimize that gap and to make sure
we get our astronauts delivering our people to the space station and
beyond--to the Moon and beyond.
Even more unsettling is knowing, when we finally have the ability to
get there on our own, we may find the Chinese are already there and
working it. Their goal is to be to the Moon by 2023. The United States'
goal: question mark. We don't know when we're going to be back to the
Moon, if at any time in the near future. Americans have rightly grown
accustomed to serving as the global leader in human space exploration.
Sadly, we will be in for a huge shock when reality sets in that we no
longer hold that title.
NASA has long been a cradle for innovation. Without human
spaceflight, where is the incentive for future scientists and engineers
to take up these careers?
Human spaceflight is so much more than the basis for an inspirational
movie. It is the heart of American ingenuity; and in our pioneering
nature as Americans, we say, Place our Nation at the forefront of
technology and science. Madam Speaker, we must make the commitment that
America will always stay number one.
I urge my colleagues to look closely at what our Nation has achieved
through our leadership on human space exploration and to think about
what is at stake if we walk away.
I have some of my colleagues here tonight whom I would like to
recognize. One is my good colleague from Louisiana, Congressman Cao.
Thanks for coming tonight, Anh. I look forward to your comments.
Mr. CAO. Thank you very much, Pete.
I know that the NASA program is extremely important to your district,
and I know that it is very integral in providing good jobs to your
people in your district. It is also the same with mine. I have a NASA
facility plant in New Orleans East, a facility that is called Michoud.
Earlier this year, President Obama released his 2011 budget. To my
surprise and to the surprise of many other Members--I'm pretty sure
you're included--the President recommended canceling NASA's
Constellation human spaceflight program. During a time when our space
shuttle program is phasing out, I am very concerned that this decision
will leave our Nation with no means of transporting our astronauts to
and from the international space station. It could set the U.S. space
program back decades.
Nearly 50 years ago, President John F. Kennedy showed remarkable
vision when he directed NASA to launch the Apollo program to the Moon.
America remains the only country in the world to have landed a person
on the Moon and to have brought him back to Earth safely. We have
achieved what people once thought to be impossible because we pushed
ourselves and because we challenged our understanding of science and
the universe. To this day, we still enjoy the countless benefits reaped
from the first spaceflight.
Technologically, NASA is regularly commercialized, and it can be
found in countless products, like in improved medical devices, in
household smoke detectors, in barcode scanners, and in every computer.
{time} 2230
So we see that the technology from spaceflight is incorporated into
our everyday lives.
It has also allowed us to improve weather forecasting, which is
extremely important in Louisiana, given the threats of hurricanes and
tornadoes and what have you in the region. If you were to listen to the
former NASA Administrator, Dr. Mike Griffin, he wrote, ``I believe that
this budget request advocates a strategy that is, frankly, disastrous
for the U.S. human spaceflight program.''
Harrison Schmitt, former U.S. Senator and Apollo 17 astronaut, said,
``It is simply bad for the country.''
With the loss of our manufacturing base, many jobs have been moved to
other countries. The manufacturing of the space vehicle is among the
very few areas where we still enjoy a technical advantage, and I think
it is extremely unwise to give it up.
Like you said, the Chinese are pushing to bring a person to the Moon.
The Russians are continuing their space program, and I am pretty sure
that they are catching up with us in the technical field to put a
person on the Moon and beyond. And we, as one of the most powerful
countries in the world, the most advanced country in the world, we are
scaling back on our space program, one of the few areas where we still
have a technical advantage beyond other countries.
The Michoud facility in my own district was slated to build
components of the Orion crew module and the Ares 1 and Ares 5 cargo
rockets. Michoud faces the prospect of losing thousands of high-skilled
jobs. In a time in which we are trying to preserve jobs, trying to
create jobs, this cut will destroy jobs. With the Michoud facility
facing a reduced workforce of 1,000 employees, that is 1,000 good-
paying jobs that we can preserve and we can retain.
We have this world-class manufacturing facility in New Orleans which
has been used to build the Saturn rockets for the Apollo program and
the main fuel tanks for the space shuttle, among many other notable
achievements, and we will lose all of the experience and all of the
manufacturing jobs, along with $9 billion of taxpayer money that could
have been spent on the Constellation Program.
Some have made the argument that the future of manned spaceflight is
best outsourced to the private sector, as indicated in the budget
proposal. But I think, though, commercial spaceflight is a promising
and exciting endeavor, and we need to keep those programs in our
country, in our districts, to provide those good-paying jobs to our
people. If we are trying to preserve jobs in the United States, I think
it is unwise to outsource those good-paying jobs to other countries.
Institutional knowledge of over 40 years of human spaceflight would be
lost under the current budget proposal.
Just to close, I just want to quote a statement given by Charlie
Duke, an Apollo 16 astronaut. He said, ``We cannot afford to lose our
leadership in space. The Constellation Program must be continued.''
You know what, Pete? I cannot agree with him more. I am pretty sure
you can also agree with me on that assertion. Thank you very much for
your hard work and dedication to this project.
Mr. OLSON. Thank you for those very kind comments, and I couldn't
agree with you more. One of the problems I have with this decision is
how it was sprung upon all of us.
I am the ranking member on the subcommittee that has jurisdiction
over NASA, and I found out, like probably all of you, everybody here in
the Chamber, by reading the newspaper. No one ever gave me a heads-up
that this was coming. Nobody ever gave our ranking member a heads-up
this was coming. I don't think even the chairman of the committee had
any knowledge that this was coming. It seemed to be a small little
cabal in the White House that made this decision that has a tremendous
impact on our society.
You mentioned the loss of jobs. There are going to be thousands and
thousands and thousands of good-paying, high-tech jobs, the kind of
jobs we want here in America, that are going to go away. As you alluded
to, once those people walk out, they are gone.
Mr. CAO. And I do recognize that we are facing a budget problem, a
budget crisis in this country, and we have to cut costs, but I believe
that we have to do it in a responsible manner. Cutting one of the few
areas in which we have an advantage over every other country in the
world seems to me to be a very unwise decision.
Mr. OLSON. Again, there is no reason why we should ever, ever, give
up our leadership in human spaceflight. We have worked for it from the
onset, over 50 years ago now, almost 50 years ago since NASA was
formed.
Again, you referred to President Kennedy's speech. The ultimate
called shot; we are going to be on the Moon by the end of this decade.
And we were behind the Soviets, as you remember, at that time. We
hadn't done anything. Yet because of American ingenuity, American
persistence, and American innovation, on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong
backed down that ladder, put
[[Page H1315]]
that foot on the lunar surface, and uttered the famous words that every
American knows, ``one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.''
I agree with you, we cannot give that up. I think if you could talk
to Astronaut Schmitt, Apollo 17, that was the last Moon mission, and if
you could have talked to him when he got back home and said, Well, you
know, sir, we are not going to be back for at least 40 years, he would
have taken money and said, No, we are going to go back. We are going to
be there over and over. We are going to be at Mars by 40 years from
now.
Unfortunately, we are looking at cutting the program and continuing
our domination of low-Earth orbit, which the Augustine Commission that
the administration cites as sort of the bible for their action also
here basically said, the front page of their summary, we are done with
low-Earth orbit. There are no more challenges for our Nation in low-
Earth orbit. We have got to fund a fantastic space station up there
that is delivering science and discoveries to us every day, but we are
not challenging ourselves from an exploration perspective going beyond
low-Earth orbit.
We have to do that, and the Augustine Commission recognized that, and
killing the Constellation just completely curtails that. There is no
plan to get beyond low-Earth orbit. And, quite frankly, that is not
what our country wants. That is not what we need. As you alluded to, we
are number one, we have been number one throughout history, and we
should never give that up.
Thank you for your comments.
Very briefly, I would like to talk about sort of the education
perspective, some of the issues involved with promoting our youth and
getting them involved again in the STEM disciplines, the science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
When we think about the new competitive global economy, we know that
China and India don't hesitate to encourage their top students to
pursue science and math careers. They know that it is this expertise
that will dictate their countries' futures. Unfortunately, these are
the careers which America is losing ground on, calling into question
our own future.
The problems with U.S. test scores and recruiting teachers in
science, math, and engineering fields are well publicized. U.S.
students lag well behind their Asian and Indian counterparts, and we
risk losing the level of excellence in science, research, and
innovation that is necessary to meet the needs of our future.
Harvard University and many others recruit top students from China to
be educated here in America. Why? Because Chinese students are laser-
focused on a top education, and their test scores reflect that.
Unfortunately, after those students receive a top-tier degree at an
American school, they go back home and return to their country and we
will not benefit from that knowledge that they got here in America. And
here at home we have some American students graduating from high school
needing remedial math courses to begin college level math.
{time} 2240
We have a shortage of teachers to inspire young minds and we have
deemphasized the pursuit of solving difficult problems and seem to
choose the path of least resistance. While the solutions to those
problems may require a great national epiphany, we do see small but
important steps taking place every day across America. The Johnson
Space Center in the district I'm fortunate to represent in Houston
hosts several programs in which employees volunteer their time to
mentor students in math, science, and engineering.
Just recently, just this past Monday, I was pleased to be present
when Hannah Gorse, a student at Pearland High School in the district I
represent, won a slot at the prestigious NASA High School Aerospace
Scholars Program. Hannah is a junior there at Pearland High School. She
told me that all she wants to do when she grows up is become an
astronaut or an aerospace engineer and work in human spaceflight
exploration. As part of this program, she designs things. I was
stunned. She designed a CEV--a crew exploration vehicle. A lunar rover,
for those of you who have been following the space program. She's
designed parts to a shuttle; she designed components for the
international space station, all as part of this program.
Madam Speaker, Hannah is the kind of student we want to get the math
or science degree and channel her intellect toward great achievements
in human spaceflight. We cannot take that inspiration and opportunity
away from our students. And we do exactly that by killing the
Constellation Program.
The NASA High School Aerospace Scholars Program allows students to
write essays, solve math problems, design upgrades for the
international space station, like Hannah did, among other projects.
It's coordinated, as I said, through the Johnson Space Center, and
serves as a valuable tool for students like Hannah to encourage them to
pursue the career degrees in math and science. These innovative
initiatives encourage and inspire students to be the pathfinders we
want when we show the way forward. These young leaders will scale
greater heights in their critical careers that will help develop new
technologies in science, engineering, and health care.
There's another opportunity for our Nation through the government to
have a role in this solution, but to do so we must fully commit to our
Nation's human spaceflight program. The Constellation Program is that
program. A robust national program like Constellation maintains our
global leadership in human space exploration and inspires generations
of young minds like Hannah Gorse to create the next level of American
superiority. As we speak, China and India are demonstrating their
commitment to human space exploration, and they have the students
graduating with the degrees to get the job done. Again, the Chinese
plan to be back to the Moon between 2025 and 2030. The United States
has no plans to go back to the Moon at this time.
Space exploration has always been a primary motivator for students to
pursue careers in math, science, and engineering. Children stare up at
the stars or watch grainy footage of the first man on the Moon or watch
a shuttle blast off at nighttime, and a future scientist, astronaut, or
engineer is born. As it stands now, the administration's budget is
putting the U.S., the global leader in human spaceflight exploration,
firmly into fourth place. Without a manned space program, again, we
will be forced to pay Russia over $50 million per astronaut to give
access to the international space station.
The United States has been a beacon of cutting-edge technology when
it comes to pioneering the path in science and space exploration. We
were the first to set foot on the Moon because we made a national
commitment to being first and being the best. That's what America does.
We must continue that investment so our next generation reaps the
benefits of excellence in science, math, engineering. Human space
exploration is part of that national plan. There's still time to
correct our national decline in both education and space exploration.
They go hand-in-hand.
Madam Speaker, a strong human space exploration program is a key
motivator for America's students to pursue careers, again, in science,
math, and engineering that we desperately need to compete globally. It
requires a national commitment, both public and private. That is
America at its best--and that's what we want to keep. We do that by
maintaining the Constellation Program.
If my colleague from Utah would like to speak to some of these
issues, I yield the floor to him.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding me
some time on this significant issue. I have read some of the comments
that have been made in the past, saying, You're a conservative. NASA is
saying in this new budget that they want to commercialize and privatize
the program. Why aren't you supporting that? I have to admit, I think
it comes down to an issue of semantics. When I think of privatization,
I make three assumptions: It will cost the taxpayer less money, there
will be a smaller government force in use, and there will be a better
product.
I think, as the gentleman from Texas would agree with me, this plan
that NASA has put forward doesn't do any
[[Page H1316]]
of those. Indeed, it costs more for a NASA budget. It increases the
cost that the taxpayer will be spending on NASA. There are no Federal
jobs that will be eliminated, only private-sector jobs, to the tune of
about 30,000 jobs nationwide of scientists, engineers, mathematicians,
those kinds of jobs that we don't really want to lose and we're trying
to encourage young students to go into, and there is not a better
product.
As the gentleman from Texas said, it was ironic that the other day
the Constellation Program passed their predesign review, which means
after expensive engineering and technical checks, they passed
everything. There is nothing technologically wrong with Constellation.
It is ready to go forward. Ironically enough, on that very same day,
one of the alternatives that the NASA administration would like us to
fund was having a test on their engine, and it was a total failure.
Ironically, NASA didn't publicize either of those events--the engine
failure or the complete success in the predesign and review of
Constellation.
So let me just spend a moment and talk about these commercial startup
enterprises that NASA administrators are telling us they want to
transfer all American taxpayer moneys into going into this direction.
These are programs like Rocketplane Kistler, which after a 14-month
review or alliance with NASA, was terminated because it failed to meet
any of its goals. Or, SpaceX, which over 8 years working with NASA and
being funded by taxpayer money, has had a 40 percent success rate. The
Falcon 9 was supposed to be ready for flight in 2009. It's not there
yet. It is now scheduled for sometime in 2010, but that was the engine
failure that I talked about that happened this very week. They are
behind. They have already received $158 million of tax money, but
obligations of NASA run in the multibillions of dollars.
Orbital, another of those companies, is 7 months late on all of their
assignments, which means if you actually look in the proposed budget,
there is $312 million assigned to a category called: Additional
incentives for commercial cargo providers. If you want to take the spin
off of it, it's a bailout for these companies who are not meeting their
deadlines, who are not providing the product.
After $600 million to these kind of companies, NASA can clearly say
they have no hardware to show for it. They have no services that have
been delivered with it. There are no intellectual property rights. And
this is what certain administrators within NASA call the ``bold new
direction for this country.'' It is ludicrous.
When the Columbia accident occurred--and was a tragic event all of us
mourned--there was an intense study to find out what went wrong and how
to prevent it. And they came up with two goals: that if there is an
entity that's going to be successful, they have to first have a clear
goal of what their mission is. And second, they have to have an
ultimate emphasis on safety.
Let me talk about safety for just a moment, because the Bowman
report, as much as we may not like it, clearly said the Federal
Government's supervision in this area produces a safer project. But in
that report as well there was a mandatory report given by the Aerospace
Safety Advisory Panel after that Columbia accident. In the report in
2008, in which the current chairman--General Bolden was a member--as
well as this year's report, at no time were they supportive of making
entrepreneurial commercial options the primary means of U.S. human
spaceflight.
{time} 2250
So what were they supportive of? Well, Constellation. Time magazine
this year--actually I'm sorry, the end of last year--came up with their
50 Great Inventions of the Year. And what was the invention they rated
number one? Ares, the Ares rocket which is part of the Constellation
program. That's what they did.
In the official report to NASA, it says, The simplicity of the Ares
design makes the mature Ares 1 clearly superior to all other vehicles
no matter what choice of qualification method. Even accounting for
error bars on method and model inputs, Ares 1 is superior to all other
options with more than a 90 percent confidence.
In short, results suggest that the Ares 1 launch vehicle is clearly
the safest launch vehicle option and the only one that can meet the
goal post-Columbia of having a launch vehicle that was 100 times safer
than the space shuttle which it was designed to replace. What they are
doing, simply, is Constellation is meeting the goals.
Now, once again, the goals are somewhat nebulous. If you don't have a
goal, almost anything you appropriate can meet your goal. And I am
suggesting that the NASA administrators right now do not have a clear
goal.
Deputy Administrator Garver gave a speech today over in Maryland in
which she said that the President's budget should be approved by
Congress because it will enable NASA to align with the priorities of
the Nation. And those priorities, these key national priorities that I
am referring to are: economic development, ending poverty, hunger and
creating jobs; international leadership in geopolitics, or world peace;
education; and environment.
Now, I hate to say anything, but in 1958 when NASA was started, their
goal was to--and I will quote, Provide for research into problems of
flight within and outside Earth's atmosphere and to ensure that the
United States conducts activities in space devoted to peaceful purposes
for the benefit of humankind. Nearly 50 years later, NASA proudly
pledges to redefine what is possible for the benefit of all humankind
by using NASA's unique competencies in scientific and engineering
systems to fulfill the agency's purpose, to pioneer the future in space
exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.
Mr. OLSON. If my colleague would yield for a quick question. So
economic development, international global leadership and education?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. And environment. I think at some time, Ms. Garver
needs to explain what she meant, as this is the priority of NASA now
when, in reality, this should have been the priority of NASA. And once
again, if you have those goals, I think it makes sense to take away the
program that everyone who knows what they are talking about says is
clearly the best innovation we have and the only way of supplanting the
space shuttle with safe vehicle mechanisms for the future and for
manned space flight. But once again, if your goals are to eliminate
anything that deals with the traditional role of NASA, then perhaps
those goals aren't significant whatsoever.
I have one last area, and if the gentleman from Texas has time, I
would like to go into that or I could wait if you would like to.
Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Let me try one last thing. We talk a lot about
the industrial base. It's a term that maybe not a lot of people
understand. As I define the industrial base, I simply want to say that
the kinds of people, the kinds of jobs that put a man on a rocket and
shoot him to the Moon are the same kinds of people and the same kinds
of jobs that build our missile defense against those who wish to attack
this country. That is our industrial base.
Last year, this country engaged in some significant--and I think
unwise--decreases in our military missile defense system, and it had
the effect of putting our industrial base in disarray.
However, if now NASA goes through with this, I think, unwise and
naive approach of canceling Constellation, it is going to destroy that
industrial base, which means not only will you not have the ability of
putting a man in space very quickly with a program that works. If,
indeed, our projections of the threat of countries like North Korea and
Iran are underestimated, we will have no capacity to ramp up for a
missile defense future.
Now, what that simply means is--and the Pentagon has recognized
this--last year, three different reports came to us. In April of last
year, the Defense Department report to Congress on the solid rocket
motor industrial base said, If there was a delay in Constellation, it
would have a negative impact on our defense system. Next month after
that, there was another report. This time the solid rocket motor
capabilities report to Congress in June which had a
different conclusion. This report said, If there was a delay in
Constellation, there would be a significant negative impact on the
military capabilities of this country.
[[Page H1317]]
Later, the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Acquisitions sent us a
letter in which he simply said that the technological base in the world
is not a birthright which means several years ago the Air Force dropped
all of its military missile plants to build these projects. We are
relying on the private sector, and it's into the birthright. It's about
certain kinds of jobs, very rare kinds of skills that are not easily
replicated in the commercial world. And if we allow them to erode, it
would be difficult to rebuild.
Mr. OLSON. Would my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Please.
Mr. OLSON. What kind of consultation went on with DOD, with NASA and
this decision? I heard press reports that said there was little, if
none. DOD, just like you and I, woke up and read the paper and saw what
had happened had not had any opportunity to let the powers that be, the
administration know that you are putting our national security at risk
by cutting the Constellation program. I wonder if my colleague has
heard anything along those lines.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. If you would yield, I will try to come up with
that because, indeed, the deputy administrator of NASA said that she
did have consultations. But one she said she consulted is the very same
person who said that if it's allowed to erode, it would be difficult to
rebuild.
I'm on the Armed Services Committee, and we had the opportunity to
question Secretary Gates when he came in. I asked if there was any
consultation. He said no. I asked the same thing of the Air Force
chief, if they had had any consultation. His response was over this
entire issue--and I added the Minuteman III issue as well--We recognize
not just the Minuteman challenge going forth but a broader industrial
base issue which we're going to have to wrestle with this year. So we
do not right now have a long-term solution to that in hand, which means
that the Defense Department was caught unaware.
There was no communication between NASA and Defense. If, indeed,
there was, then clearly NASA was not listening to what was being told
to them because we have had a year of comment from the Defense
Department and from the Pentagon, saying that this is a significant
issue, that if, indeed, North Korea and Iran have a greater capacity
than we think, and you've destroy the industrial base, we do not have
the capacity to react to it and defend this country.
Now, what we are simply doing in this program is not just dismantling
our manned space mission. We're not just losing the ability to go up to
the Moon and beyond. We are also destroying our defense capability at
the same time, and that is a consequence of this rash and naive
proposal that has to be fully explored, and this Congress needs to
address because it is the future of this country.
This NASA opinion, in my estimation, is nothing more than managing
America's decline in the world, and that is not the role we should be
doing. That is not the purpose of this country. That's not the purpose
of this Congress. This Congress needs to make the clear statement that
NASA is going on the wrong approach. It has to have a proper goal for
its mission. It has to properly fund its goal for its mission. This,
the Constellation, is the solution to the space shuttle and beyond.
Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir, I couldn't agree more with my colleague from
Utah. And just to reinforce some of your things for my people back
home, one of the things I heard being at the Johnson Space Center this
past Monday, numerous people came up to me and said, What's our plan? I
mean, what's our mission? This is an organization that has been focused
on a mission for 40 years. And right now, they have no idea what
they're working towards. Some nebulous stuff about global warming
research, climate change research, developing the private sector
doesn't do anything to inspire them.
Again, these are the best, most qualified engineers, propulsion
people, defense, as well, in the world. And we are giving them no
mission and possibly letting them walk out the door. Once they walk,
they're gone.
{time} 2300
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It is not wise for us to take our 30,000 best
scientists and engineers and give them pink slips.
One thing you said as well, when John Kennedy gave us the challenge
to go to the Moon, those people who started to study engineering,
science, and math, it skyrocketed because there was a challenge. There
was a mission there.
NASA is talking about all kinds of programs to encourage kids to get
excited about space with their summer school programs. They instituted
a new computer simulation game so students could pretend to go up to
the space shuttle. I am contending to you, it is cruel to excite these
kids about this future when you give them no realistic way of
exercising that dream because we have stopped the mechanism of doing
it.
Once again, as we should have learned out of Columbia, we have to put
safety first. This program is not. And secondly, we have to have a
clear goal. If we don't do those two things, we are courting another
disaster. This plan of certain NASA administrators is courting another
national disaster.
Mr. OLSON. My colleague, getting into the safety issue, which is a
big issue, has NASA published any safety regulations or requirements
for the commercial spaceflight operators? I have had many come in my
office and say they are working towards that, and I have gotten
information from other people who say, no, NASA has not published
anything yet. Have you heard anything?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. To my understanding, that has not taken place
because those other commercial endeavors are not far enough along in
their testing and their success pattern to be to that stage. Once
again, it goes back to why we should keep Constellation. It was
designed to have that factor of safety. That was the purpose for its
design. That is its simplicity. For example, there has to be a way of
escaping. That is the Orion capsule, where people will be kept. It has
to have an escape process. None of the other commercial ventures have
any kind of plan or design for that component yet, and it is a long,
long way away.
Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. And there was an issue with that as well. The
administration put out, as I understand it, the test was supposed to be
in your district. It was supposed to happen in April, and there was a
notice to cease and desist, and we contacted the administration, a
bipartisan letter, saying I'm sorry, Constellation is the law of the
land. You don't have the ability to cut and choose programs that you
don't think are going to be valuable or project into the future,
because the President only has a voice in this. Congress is the final
authority.
I thank my colleague for coming here late because you speak the
truth. It is a battle that we can win. The American people get this.
Thank you again for your time tonight.
Finally, I would like to finish up with talking about some of the
technology issues associated with Constellation and its cancellation.
The administration's budget plan again cancels NASA's Constellation
to develop vehicles that will ensure America has access to space and
capabilities to go beyond low-Earth orbit. But what they have done,
they have eliminated Constellation which does that in favor of
undefined ``game-changing technology efforts'' without clearly defined
goals and metrics.
This is exactly what my constituents back home are saying: What is
our goal? What is our mission?
In my experience, whenever someone, whether it is a company or
government agency, proposes that some new radical breakthrough is just
around the corner and will provide the solutions to all of our
problems, I want to immediately grab my wallet, button my back pocket,
and hunker down. Spaceflight is governed by the laws of chemistry and
physics, and there are very few game-changing technologies.
I want to say that I am an avid supporter of NASA, and I think
technology development is an important part of what we have gotten from
NASA. New technology is one of the many benefits we get from human
spaceflight, but that technology development must be the result of a
mission-driven pursuit with clearly defined goals and objectives. Like
my colleague mentioned, the difficulty of the mission is what forces
the development of technology. The proponents
[[Page H1318]]
are always ardent and sincere in their desire to make a difference, but
history shows that it is not an effective way to manage programs.
I want to explain how the misguided quest for game-changing
technologies and flexible paths similar to what is currently proposed
have led to wasteful and ultimately futile spending efforts over the
past 18 years.
This is a chart of NASA's human spaceflight development programs from
1992 to 2010. The red areas are cancelled programs; blue, completed
programs; ongoing, yellow. As you can see, we only have two ongoing
programs out there right now, and they are the commercial private
programs. We have got the international space station still rolling
strong, probably going to go beyond 2015 to 2020. We have completed a
superlightweight tank, completed the X-43A, but then ran into the X-43B
and cancelled that program. And then the only other thing we have was
the DARPA program, which failed. This is one of the challenges of NASA.
We have gone through all of these programs and changes with different
administrations, and we are looking to do that right now, another
change, a huge change in our human spaceflight path by shifting gears
to the program of record, the Constellation Program, and going to some
unknown, unproven technology from the private sector.
I support the private sector. I think they have a role in certainly
some cargo resupply of the space station, but they need to prove that
they have the capabilities, and they are not close. As my colleague
from Utah alluded to earlier, they had a firing of an engine, and I
believe some of the fire came out towards the side. Everybody here
knows that rockets, it needs to come out the bottom and generate
propulsion up. Coming out the side is not something that you want to
see. That is what we are dealing with right now. That is what the
administration has chosen to hang our future in human spaceflight on. I
think it is an incredibly poor decision.
Congress, we have seen a number of game-changing proposals over the
years. Again, this graph shows all of the different programs that have
been ``game changers,'' and the blue ones are the only ones that
actually came to fruition.
What this represents are billions of dollars being spent without
anything to show for it. Again, the Constellation is on track. We have
had a very successful test launch of the Ares I-X. We passed our PDR
this week. This program is the program of record. It deserves to go
forward. It is in America's best interest, and we need to stay the
course, put Constellation, bring it up and put U.S. astronauts in space
again, get rid of that gap with the space shuttle being retired, get
our astronauts up there again, going to the space station and going to
the Moon and going beyond.
It is up to Congress to remember the lessons of the past and ensure
that the administration's ill-conceived proposals are thoroughly
reviewed. We should not agree to open-ended, unproven, unconstrained
technological demonstrations. Anything we agree to must be clearly
defined. NASA must show us how and why it is included, and it should be
part of an as yet to be defined broader goal for human spaceflight
exploration.
Would my colleague like to add anything?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would just like to echo what you have said in
all of these particular areas. It is important that we move forward. I
think it is common sense that we do not cede space to the Russians and
the Chinese. The United States has been a leader in this area. It has
been very productive for us. We ought to ensure that our goal is to be
number one and to continue to be a leader.
Having our astronauts standing on the edge of space trying to catch a
Russian taxi where the meter will say $51 million as soon as they sit
down is not the way America becomes a leader in this particular world.
We have the ability to do the right thing. It is planned. We need to
follow through with the original plan and not change courses right now
to an experiment that is unproven and has a history of failure.
I appreciate the gentleman for allowing me to join him tonight. This
is an important issue for all of us, and it is important for America's
future.
Mr. OLSON. You raise some great points. Again, $51 million to put our
astronauts on facilities to get up to the international space station.
As I understand it, that contract has been signed through 2013, and it
is highly unlikely given the current situation, and certainly a
cancellation or with the attempted cancellation of the Constellation
Program, that we will have the capability to get our astronauts up to
the station by 2013. It will probably be 2015 or somewhere in that
window.
The Russians were a communist country when I was born. They have
moved over to capitalism. They have figured it out. They have it down.
It was $20 million last year. Now that we are in the throes of this,
getting rid of the Constellation and having this gap, it is up to $50
million, and who is to say what it is going to be after 2013 when the
contract expires.
{time} 2310
So we've got ourselves in a big pickle, and we need to stick with the
program of record.
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me
here tonight, and I saw my colleague from Houston, my fellow Texan come
here.
It's just stunning that this decision has been made, and again, the
manner in which it was made. No one at the NASA centers--not the
director of the Johnson Space Center, he was not consulted--had any
input into this decision.
Across the center, again, Congress, no one that I'm aware of, had any
inclination of what was going to happen until he got up and read the
paper and saw that the Constellation Program had been canceled. And
again, if it's allowed to stand--and we're going to do everything we
can here in this Congress to ensure that it doesn't stand--but if it's
allowed to stand, it condemns the United States to being an average
country in terms of human spaceflight, giving up the leadership that
we've had for almost 50 years now. It will ensure that we will lose
hundreds of thousands of jobs here in America, good paying high-tech
jobs, the kind of jobs we are trying to generate particularly in this
economy. And it will take away the inspiration--you can't put a dollar
value on this, but the ability to inspire America's youth to get into
science, technology, engineering, and math degrees.
The Constellation Program is the right program for our human
spaceflight efforts at this time in our history. We can't cancel it. We
need to go forward and do everything we can to minimize that gap.
To my colleague from Texas, from the 18th Congressional District of
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), thank you for coming out tonight,
Congresswoman.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Congressman Olson, and
to the colleagues that have joined you tonight and who recognize the
importance of this hour, albeit how late it might be, to really
emphasize the uniqueness of America's space program and the uniqueness
of, if you will, the human space exploration.
As I was listening to the debate, I was very much convinced that we
do have an opportunity to save this valuable asset. I think we know
that the NASA budget actually, as I understand it, has seen an increase
in 2011. And I think all of us would admit--and thank the President--
that's a good thing that the budget itself has increased, but we know
that the program that deals with exploration to the Moon and Mars have
suffered a blow.
So I would say that we have an easy fix, a reprogramming of the
moneys to allow for a program that has now had a sufficient start to be
able to redesign itself, to be able to focus on what's important about
human space exploration. But the main thing is to save it, because when
we save it, we not only save jobs of today--Johnson, Huntsville,
Mississippi, Florida, and places around the Nation--but we save the
jobs for 2020, 2030, 2040, and beyond.
I think it's important for our colleagues to know that we built the
space station. I was on the Science Committee. That space station is
barely a decade old--it is a decade-plus. We put it together piece by
piece. And when our friends, the Russians, were delayed, they had bad
economic times, we moved on.
[[Page H1319]]
The space station is the size of a football field. And the necessity
of human space exploration is to be able to tend to that space station
which has the possibilities of massive research that creates jobs.
Let me thank my friends on the floor. And Congressman Olson, let me
thank you for your leadership--we have joined you in this bipartisan
effort--for signing onto the legislation, H. Res. 1150, which
establishes or, if you will, determines that NASA is a national
security asset, and it is. Because involved in NASA is much of our
military science, climatic science, and technology not yet discussed or
discovered.
And so I would rise today to support the moving forward on the
Constellation Program, but also the working with this administration. I
think we all know that we have a leader at NASA who knows Houston, for
example, but also knows the human space exploration program. General
Bolden was an astronaut and a marine. That's good news for us. And the
reason why it is good news is because that is a voice that can be part
of this discussion.
I don't take the initial budget by the President as a statement that
human space exploration is not good. And I think it is important
tonight to take a stand for our continued effort and energy in working
to bring about the right kind of response between the Congress and the
administration, a budget that is right there in the President's budget,
one that can be reprogrammed, reformed, enhanced, if you will, to
emphasize the importance of saving the space exploration, this
Constellation Program.
Now, let me say this, Constellation is Moon and Mars. And there are
scientists who probably have different perspectives, but I don't think
anyone can have a different perspective on the pushing of the human
capacity and what it brings about in terms of our own enhancement, both
in terms of the knowledge that we gain--and I remember when we were
trying to gain votes, Congressman Olson, that we would say things which
were really true--the kind of research on the space station had to do
with heart disease, cancer, HIV/AIDS. And discoveries today are being
utilized. Those discoveries are saving lives, but they also create
jobs, medical jobs.
So I, one, want to continue to raise the question. I want to put in
the Record that the potential of jobs lost at Johnson Space Center
could be anywhere from 4,000 to 7,000 high-tech jobs. And each day jobs
are being created more and more. And then of course the idea of the
national security information--classified, climatic, as I've said, the
weather research that's being done--and the need I think most of all--
let me not say most of all because we stand on our own merit here in
the United States, we are inventors, we are world leaders, but there
are other countries that have looked to our leadership, Russia, India,
China, all competing to be part of space exploration.
Let me close and yield back to you by saying this: I want to see
business involvement in this industry, but I believe it is important
for NASA to, in essence, be part of the government and for the jobs we
save all over this Nation on behalf of the American people.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of NASA
programs across the country and to express my concerns about the
Administration's proposal to cancel NASA's Constellation Program, which
includes the Orion Crew Capsule, the Altair Lunar Lander, and the Ares
I and Ares V rockets.
These programs, which together comprise our human spaceflight
program, were authorized in both 2005 and 2008 by Republican and
Democratic Congresses respectively. It is under the Constellation
program, that NASA is currently developing new launch vehicles and
spacecraft capable of travel to the moon, Mars and other destinations.
Not only does cancelling the Constellation Program jeopardize America's
leadership role in human space exploration, but it will have
detrimental effects on our economy and national security.
Take, for example, the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. The
Johnson Space Center has the lead to manage the Constellation Program
and several of its major elements, including the Orion Crew Exploration
Vehicle and the Altair Lunar Lander. Without Constellation, the Johnson
Space Center could lose anywhere from 4,000 to 7,000 high-tech jobs. If
the JSC loses 4,000 direct jobs, an additional 2,315 indirect jobs
would be lost, totaling 6,315; loss of income and expenditures locally
would be over $567 million. If the JSC loses 7,000 direct jobs, an
additional 4,052 indirect jobs would be lost, totaling 11,052; loss of
income and expenditures locally would total almost $1 billion.
When speaking of the decision to cancel the Constellation Program,
Administrator Bolden stated that ``NASA intends to work with the
Congress to make this transition smooth and effective, working
responsibly on behalf of the Taxpayers.'' To the contrary, I believe
that the best use of taxpayers' money is to continue the investment in
NASA to build America's scientific future. That future will create
jobs. Finally, I would like to reiterate that the present
Administration's plan for the Constellation Program would cause drastic
job loss across America and would place America in a behind the edge
position as it relates to competitiveness in scientific research.
NASA and the space industry are critical to Houston's economic
success in both the short and long term. According to the Bay Area
Houston Economic Partnership, NASA accounts for nearly 16,800 direct
federal jobs and serves as the engine for another 3,100 civilian jobs
that together supply more than $2.5 billion in payroll into Houston's
regional economy. As you are aware, the Johnson Space Center is the
primary location for training Astronauts for spaceflights and this
move; yet, the proposed budget will effectively cancel America's human
spaceflight program.
In his statement announcing NASA's budget, Administrator Bolden
stressed that changes in the FY 2011 budget would be ``good for NASA,
great for the American workforce, and essential for our nation's future
prosperity.'' While I seek the same objectives, I strongly disagree
with the closing of this project and I believe it will hurt America's
scientific progress.
Additionally, the aerospace industry would lose as many as 20,000-
30,000 jobs nationally in either of these scenarios.
Given our current economic downturn, we cannot take the possibility
of these job losses lightly and the Johnson Space Center is just one
example of what the cancellation of this program would do to other NASA
centers nationally.
It will take years for the commercial spaceflight industry to get up
to speed to reach the level of competence that exists at NASA today.
Our government has already invested literally years and billions of
dollars into this program. We should build upon these investments and
not abandon them. Our country can support the commercial spaceflight
industry, but not at the expense of our human spaceflight program,
which for years has inspired future generations and driven technology
that enhances our quality of life.
This technology is crucial to our national security. NASA conducts
aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control,
noise and, emissions reductions and fuel efficiency. NASA's
contribution to our knowledge of air and water supports improved
decision making for natural resource management and emergency response,
thus enabling us to better respond to future homeland security threats.
Knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical first step in
protecting our water supply; water flows over the Earth's surface in
oceans, lakes, and streams, and is particularly vulnerable to attack.
NASA sensors provide a wealth of information about the water cycle;
and contributes to improving our ability to monitor water resources and
water quality from space; we must also protect the quality and safety
of the air we breathe; airborne contaminants can pose danger to human
health; and chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are
plausible threats against which we can protect.
Thus, join me in my efforts to restore funding for the Constellation
to the FY 2011 budget for the following reasons:
(1) Elimination of the Constellation program, will present Homeland
security implications for Cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and
Intelligence community of the United States;
(2) Elimination of the Constellation program will compromise the
effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the
strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence;
(3) Continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial to
improving national security, climate, and research in science and
medicine.
It is my hope, Madam Speaker, that this Congress will continue to
support NASA's Constellation Program and to support balanced energy
policies that promote economic growth and will help us meet our clean
energy goals.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 9, 2010.
Dear Colleague: I hope you will consider joining me as a
co-sponsor for the resolution I will introduce expressing the
sense of Congress that the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) is a national
[[Page H1320]]
security interest and asset, and that the elimination of
funding for the NASA Constellation program in the President's
proposed FY 2011 budget presents national security concerns.
The President's proposed FY2011 budget eliminates funding
for the Constellation Program which includes the Orion Crew
Capsule, the Altair Lunar Lander, and the Ares I and Ares V
rockets. These programs, which together comprise our human
spaceflight program, were authorized in both 2005 and 2008 by
Republican and Democratic Congresses respectively. It is
under the Constellation program, that NASA is currently
developing new launch vehicles and spacecraft capable of
travel to the moon, Mars and other destinations. Not only
does cancelling the Constellation Program jeopardize
America's leadership role in human space exploration, but it
will have detrimental effects on national security.
NASA conducts aeronautics research to address aviation
safety, air traffic control, noise and, emissions reductions
and fuel efficiency. NASA's contribution to our knowledge of
air and water supports improved decision making for natural
resource management and emergency response, thus enabling us
to better respond to future homeland security threats.
Knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical first step
in protecting our water supply; water flows over the Earth's
surface in oceans, lakes, and streams, and is particularly
vulnerable to attack.
NASA sensors provide a wealth of information about the
water cycle; and contributes to improving our ability to
monitor water resources and water quality from space; we must
also protect the quality and safety of the air we breathe;
airborne contaminants can pose danger to human health; and
chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are
plausible threats against which we can protect.
Thus, join me in my efforts to restore funding for the
Constellation to the FY 2011 budget for the following
reasons:
(1) Elimination of the Constellation program, will present
Homeland security implications for Cyberspace, critical
infrastructure, and Intelligence community of the United
States;
(2) Elimination of the Constellation program will
compromise the effectiveness of the International Space
Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space
station research, and intelligence;
(3) Continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial
to improving national security, climate, and research in
science and medicine.
(4) The United States should maintain its funding of the
Constellation program and should begin funding commercial
space in five years and not sooner.
To join as a co-sponsor, please call my office for Mona K.
Floyd of my staff or email (Mona.FloydPmail.house.gov).
Very truly yours,
Sheila Jackson Lee,
Member of Congress.
Mr. OLSON. Very briefly, I would like to thank my colleague from
Texas for all her support of the Johnson Space Center. True hero back
home. And I couldn't agree with you more about every American has
benefited from the human spaceflight.
I thank all my colleagues for coming here tonight.
____________________