[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.

                          ____________________