[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 51 (Tuesday, April 13, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2220-S2222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  NASA

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this week President Obama is scheduled 
to visit the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Many Americans expect the 
President to explain his vision for human space flight in the decades 
ahead. I would say this vision is long overdue.
  One year after celebrating its 50th anniversary, as well as the 40th 
anniversary of the first Moon landing, the White House has proposed a 
budget that will force NASA to abandon its historic role in space 
exploration. The administration has stated its intention to terminate 
NASA's Constellation Program, our Nation's flagship endeavor to return 
Americans to the Moon and beyond. After $9 billion invested over 7 
years, the President would leave NASA adrift and without a mission. I 
hope the President will announce that he has thought better of that 
initial decision, and this morning I would like to take a few minutes 
to explain why I think he should do so.
  Texas is proud of our close connection with NASA's human space flight 
program, and we recognize how it has helped transform the greater 
Houston area into a high-tech leader. Johnson Space Center has helped 
send astronauts into space for nearly four decades. We would love for 
the President to visit the Johnson Space Center and see how we have 
helped our astronauts complete their missions and return home safely.
  We remember the region endured several years of challenges following 
the termination of the Apollo Program in 1974. We saw some of the 
brightest minds at the Johnson Space Center end their careers. The 
future of the entire industry seemed uncertain.

  NASA Administrator Charles Bolden was recently quoted as saying:

       With all due respect to everybody who opposes the budget--

  In other words, the cut of the Constellation Program--

     a very serious and real concern is the jobs.

  Now, he was correct in one way: the cancellation of Constellation, 
combined with the retirement of the space shuttle, could cost the 
region as many as 7,000 direct jobs, according to the Bay Area Houston 
Economic Partnership. With all due respect to General Bolden, Texas 
support for human space flight is not merely based on parochial 
concerns. We understand the local economic impact would be nothing 
compared to the strategic opportunity cost for the United States of 
America.

[[Page S2221]]

  For one thing, the end of the Constellation Program will increase our 
dependence on Russia to transport Americans to the International Space 
Station--a space station built with billions of American taxpayer 
dollars. Earlier this month, NASA signed a $335 million contract with 
Russia that will cost our country nearly $56 million per seat on 
Russian spacecraft--or about $8 million more per seat than what NASA 
paid in 2007. So we are literally having to depend on Russia to 
transport American astronauts to the International Space Station. Many 
Americans are already concerned about this arrangement. Many Americans 
suspect the Russians will raise the price once the shuttle program is 
ended because we will be completely dependent on them to transport our 
astronauts. Indeed, the head of the Russian space agency recently 
stated his eagerness to renegotiate costs to access the International 
Space Station following the retirement of the space shuttle.
  Soon, Russia will not be the only nation to surpass the United States 
in human space flight. The governments of China and India have also 
accelerated their investments. All of these nations are investing in 
human space flight not only because they want their flags to be the 
first on Mars but also because they know those investments will 
generate a good return.
  Innovations that will help humans survive and thrive in space will 
likely create as many spinoff technologies in the 21st century as we 
saw in the first decades of the space age. If we do not incubate these 
life-supporting technologies here in America, our children will have no 
choice but to import them from other countries. Apollo 13 astronaut Jim 
Lovell put it this way. He said the end of the Constellation Program 
``will have catastrophic consequences on our ability to explore space 
and the spin-offs we get from space technology.'' He said: ``They 
haven't thought through''--talking about the administration's proposed 
cut in the Constellation Program--``the consequences.'' I think that is 
correct.
  The White House has said it believes the private sector can play a 
larger role in space exploration, and I would say they are right--to a 
point. We certainly want to encourage private investment and public-
private partnerships in the development of space technologies. We want 
to help NASA become an even better partner with aerospace 
entrepreneurs. Leveraging the potential of the private sector is no 
less an imperative in space exploration than it is in other fields of 
innovation. But NASA cannot pass the baton of human space flight to a 
runner who is still trying on its shoes. The private sector requires 
years of further development before it can send a human being to the 
Moon or compete with America's international rivals.
  The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel--a group of independent experts 
created by Congress--reported in January that:

       No manufacturer of Commercial Orbital Transportation 
     Services is currently qualified for human-rating 
     requirements, despite some claims and beliefs to the 
     contrary.

  The panel has warned:

       To abandon the [Constellation program] for an alternative 
     without demonstrated capability or proven superiority is 
     unwise and probably not cost effective.

  NASA was assigned the constellation mission for the same reason it 
took on Apollo: It remains the only entity in our country capable of 
getting the job done.
  So what should President Obama say when he visits the Kennedy Space 
Center this week? I would like to offer just a few thoughts.
  First, I hope President Obama would recognize the tremendous 
uncertainty his administration has created by proposing to end the 
Constellation Program without identifying a viable alternative.
  Second, he should make clear that Congress has the last word on the 
Constellation Program--which we do--and that NASA will follow the 
current law during this fiscal year and every year Congress continues 
to fund the program.
  Third, I hope he would articulate a clear vision for the future of 
human space flight in our country, and that vision would include a 
clear exploration mission, a timeline, goals, and a destination. And I 
hope his vision would include a new commitment to the Constellation 
Program, which remains America's best bet to ensure America's continued 
leadership in human space exploration.
  Fourth, I hope he would make a budget request that will fund this 
vision and that it will carefully be aligned with this exploration 
plan.
  Just yesterday, a number of American heroes made clear what a vision 
for American space flight should look like. More than two dozen former 
astronauts and flight directors, as well as a former NASA 
Administrator, wrote an open letter to the President. They wrote, in 
part:

       America's greatness lies in her people: she will always 
     have men and women willing to ride rockets into the heavens.
       America's challenge is to match their bravery and 
     acceptance of risk with specific plans and goals worthy of 
     their commitment.
       NASA must continue [to be] at the frontiers of human space 
     exploration in order to develop the technology and set the 
     standards of excellence that will enable commercial space 
     ventures to eventually succeed.

  I hope President Obama listens to those words. I hope the President 
listens to Congress, which has given broad bipartisan support to the 
Constellation Program over many years. And I hope he listens to the 
millions of Americans who understand that human space flight represents 
our Nation's future, not merely its past.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, President Obama is going to travel to 
Florida where many expect him to discuss the adverse reaction to his 
proposed budget for NASA and possible alternative options for the 
future of America's manned space exploration capability. I know members 
of the NASA family and everyone living in communities that directly 
support the space program--from Maryland to Utah to Florida to Alabama 
to Louisiana and Texas--are, at the very least, uncertain about the 
President's budget proposal and how it would affect America's 
leadership role in space exploration. I share those concerns. Every 
American should share those concerns, because it will determine our 
role in science, space, research, exploration, and so much that will 
determine our future economically and in security.
  I hope the President has heard the concerns that have been raised 
since the budget was proposed and that he will take the opportunity to 
meet with the individuals who have worked hard to keep America in the 
forefront of space exploration for the last four decades. I also hope 
the President will recognize that he has an opportunity to reach out on 
a truly bipartisan basis for a new plan for NASA's future that 
prioritizes scientific research, protects our $100 billion investment 
in the International Space Station, and ensures that America retains 
independent human space flight capability.
  Last month, I introduced legislation that would provide such a 
framework. Identical companion legislation has been introduced in the 
House of Representations by Suzanne Kosmas, a Democrat from Florida, 
Bill Posey, a Republican from Florida, and others. This can be a 
starting point for bridging the differences between the President's 
proposal and the views of many in Congress. We may miss this 
opportunity to work together to build on America's legacy of space 
leadership unless the administration looks at its current approach and 
makes some alterations.
  The budget proposal put forward by the administration has created an 
unnecessary choice between the President's plans for increased research 
and development and the necessary transition to the next generation of 
technology on the one hand and maintaining a viable space station and 
an American human space flight capability over the next few years on 
the other. We can do both.
  Let me be clear why I believe the President should make his visit to 
Florida the beginning of a renewed discussion on the country's civil 
space program. I believe the President's advisers, in reaching for a 
bold new direction for NASA, failed to take into account some very 
important realities of our space program. The decision made in 2004 to 
discontinue the shuttle program at the end of 2010 was based on an 
International Space Station service end date of 2015. Two years ago 
this

[[Page S2222]]

Congress, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, enacted the NASA 
authorization bill of 2008, which stated that the space station should 
be kept in service until at least the year 2020. In the bill, we also 
required NASA to ensure that the capability to continue shuttle flights 
in support of the space station should be preserved for a period of 
time to give the new administration a chance to consider its plan for 
NASA.
  The Obama administration ordered a full review of U.S. human space 
flight plans as part of its 2010 budget request and eventually deferred 
a final proposal until the 2011 budget request. One of the important 
points made by the review committee, chaired by the eminently qualified 
Norman Augustine, was that the space station should be extended until 
2020, which is what Congress has already said is the policy of our 
country. The President's proposal accepts the recommendation which is 
consistent with the 2008 bill and which I believe is vital to making 
full use of the scientific research capacity that is only just now 
being made available with the completion of the space station assembly. 
However, I remind my colleagues that the space station was designed and 
built with the idea that the shuttle would be available to keep it 
supplied and maintained, and to be able to bring large replacement or 
spare parts up should they be needed in order to keep the space station 
functioning. The parts and equipment being flown on the last three 
remaining shuttle flights were selected from over 1,400 total items 
based on what would be needed for the station to be extended until 
2015.
  So while I commend the decision to extend the life of the station 
until 2020, flying the remaining shuttles scheduled for this year 
before completing an analysis of the station's needs based on a 2020 
service date would surely be a mistake. We need to determine the parts 
and equipment needed to extend the station's life and ensure we have 
the capability to deliver them to the station. If we were to end the 
shuttle program as scheduled this year, we would be dependent on the 
Russian Soyuz vehicle and other possible cargo vehicles which lack the 
capability that the shuttle provides. Now let me remind all of those 
who are interested in the cost that using the Soyuz costs over $50 
million per person. Probably a minimum of six per year--well, six over 
a 2-year period, so at least three per year--would be about $150 
million a year. This is $150 million that we could be using to extend 
America's capabilities for its crewed vehicle that we have on the 
drawing boards--the Constellation program. We could be putting that 
money to our use rather than paying the Russians for the Soyuz, for 
using their vehicle. The President's proposal fails to recognize this, 
thereby endangering our ability to sustain the station until 2020. My 
legislation would address this deficiency by keeping the shuttles as an 
option at a reduced rate of two flights per year, but only until it can 
be determined that the station has parts and equipment on hand to keep 
functioning until 2020 in the absence of the shuttle's capability.
  The President's proposal also relies on a still emerging commercial 
space industry to develop the launch and crew-carrying capability to 
replace the shuttle. I support the development of a commercial 
capability, but as a supplement to a NASA capability, and with the 
development--and proving out--of a cargo capability. We should take 
this first step in commercial development before committing our entire 
national human space flight effort to launch systems that would be 
another generation beyond the cargo capabilities currently being 
developed.
  I remind my colleagues that much of the ``business case'' for a 
commercial system is based on the assumption of a viable space station. 
If the risk to station survivability presented by the President's 
proposal is not addressed, the case for investment in a commercial 
sector may weaken and the development of these capabilities may not 
even materialize. If this happens, America would have no long-term 
space flight capability and would need to rely completely on other 
nations for access to space. If an accident or technical issue results 
in the Russian Soyuz being unavailable for any extended period of time, 
the space station would very likely have to be abandoned and deorbited 
within a matter of months. Taking that level of risk is entirely 
unacceptable for a nation with our history of space leadership.
  A nation with our heritage of stretching beyond the possible and 
reaching for the heavens deserves more. We need an approach that 
ensures the sustainability of the station, facilitates the transition 
to a replacement for the shuttle, and reduces the gap in our Nation's 
ability to reach space. My legislation would address these issues by 
allowing for the extension of shuttle if needed for station 
sustainability and authorizing the accelerated development of a NASA-
owned replacement to the shuttle such as a shuttle-derived design using 
existing systems and capabilities and the current contractor workforce, 
which might be available in time to shorten our reliance on other 
nations for access to space after the shuttle is retired. All of this 
can be done while allowing for the change in NASA's long-term mission 
and the increase in scientific research and technology funding 
envisioned in the President's proposal. Simply moving--and this is how 
we can do it within a budget that does not increase spending--we can 
move the remaining shuttle flights scheduled for this year into 2011 
and 2012, and adding the backup flight already prepared as a 
contingency would provide enough flexibility to complete the analysis 
of station needs and guarantee a cargo capability for an additional 2 
years. It is possible to accomplish even this modest but critical goal 
while holding the line on spending at the level in the President's 
budget. That is key, that we can do this within the President's own 
budget, yet extend our capabilities to have our control over the 
shuttles that would provide the space station what it needs to continue 
as we assess the needs to go on until 2020.
  The principles necessary to bridge the gap between the President and 
Members of Congress have been set forward by my legislation that has 
also been introduced in the House. All that is needed to align these 
principles with the President's goals and existing budget realities is 
a willingness to make the effort and take the same risks that have been 
hallmarks of our Nation's commitment to space exploration. The 
bipartisan foundation is there to make a cooperative effort.
  I stand ready to work with the President to bridge the differences 
between his budget proposal and the views of many in our Nation and 
many in Congress that the proposal places too much faith in unproven 
private sector alternatives to a NASA-managed replacement for the space 
shuttle and does not address the critical need to ensure the full and 
complete utilization and return on the investment in the International 
Space Station. For the sake of our Nation's space program and future 
generations of space pioneers, I hope when the President returns from 
his trip to Florida, he will accept my invitation to work together on a 
comprehensive space flight proposal that is worthy of our Nation and 
one that I think all of us who have worked on this issue for years--I 
am the ranking member of the Commerce Committee and I have been the 
chairman of the Space Subcommittee. I know we can do this. Senator 
Nelson of Florida, Senator LeMieux of Florida know this issue so well. 
We can do this if the President will work with us to come forward with 
a plan that is budget responsible and has the capability to extend our 
shuttles and make sure we utilize the investment we have already made 
in the space station.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________