[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2452-2464]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Reid):
  S. 3060. A bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide for 
thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Thorium 
Energy Security Act of 2010 with my good friend and colleague Senator 
Harry Reid as an original cosponsor. Our legislation would establish a 
regulatory framework and a development program to facilitate the 
introduction of thorium-based nuclear fuel in existing and future 
nuclear power plants in the U.S.

[[Page 2453]]

  The U.S. is dependent on foreign sources for about 90 percent of its 
uranium fuel needs. However, the most recent U.S. Geological Survey 
Thorium Mineral Commodity Survey confirms that the U.S. has the largest 
thorium deposits in the world.
  I have been a longtime supporter of our Nation's nuclear power 
industry, and I expect to see a long future for nuclear power in this 
nation. I believe that future is enhanced with the possibility of 
thorium nuclear power as new source of nuclear power in the future.
  Thorium-based nuclear fuel will remain in the reactor about three 
times as long as conventional nuclear fuel, thereby cutting the volume 
of spent nuclear fuel coming out of reactors by as much as two-thirds. 
Thorium nuclear fuel could also significantly reduce the possibility 
that weapons grade material would result from the process. Finally, a 
thorium fuel cycle can be used as a very effective and efficient means 
for disposing of existing plutonium stockpiles.
  For these reasons, a number of governments throughout the world are 
aggressively seeking to establish thorium nuclear power as an element 
of their power supply. These governments want the benefits of nuclear 
power, without the difficulties associated with large volumes of waste, 
much of which can be turned to weapons grade material. Our aim with 
this legislation is to ensure that the U.S. does not fall behind the 
movement. I hope my colleagues will take a look at the potential for 
thorium-based nuclear power.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 3061. A bill to amend part B of title IV of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve 21st Century Community 
Learning Centers; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my colleague Senator 
Ensign, to introduce legislation that will provide children with safe, 
healthy, and academically focused afterschool programs.
  The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 is 
endorsed by the Afterschool Alliance, an organization representing more 
than 25,000 public, private, and non-profit afterschool providers 
dedicated to expanding access to high quality afterschool programs, as 
well as a broad coalition of other local and national organizations.
  They, and I, have committed to providing quality afterschool care 
because the record is clear: students who regularly attend afterschool 
programs have better grades and behavior in school, better peer 
relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use, 
violence, and pregnancy. When kids have something productive to do in 
the hours between when they are let out of school and when their 
parents get home from work, they are more likely to avoid the traps of 
risky behavior, more likely to be physically healthy and academically 
successful, and more likely to fulfill their potential.
  As co-chairs of the Afterschool Caucus, Senator Ensign and I have 
worked to expand awareness of these benefits by organizing annual 
briefings, sharing research, and advocating fiercely for a focus on 
afterschool care when we talk about how to give our kids the best 
opportunities possible.
  While we know that afterschool care works, the truth is that too many 
American kids don't have access to good programs. More than 15 million 
children--from kindergarten through 12th grade--spend time unsupervised 
in the hours after school. That includes an incredible 40,000 
kindergartners and nearly 4 million middle school students in grades 
six to eight.
  When the bell rings and the school day ends, these kids face some 3 
hours of unscheduled, often unsupervised time before their parents get 
home from work. Those are rarely productive hours, and, worse, those 
are the hours during which these children are most likely to experiment 
with risky behaviors.
  We can do better for our kids.
  The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act of 2010 has 
three goals. First, to enhance the quality and sustainability of 
afterschool programs. Second, to emphasize physical fitness and 
wellness programs as part of our nationwide effort to reduce childhood 
obesity, and third, to encourage service learning.
  Our legislation provides States with tools designed to keep quality 
programs going. It would allow program grantees the ability to renew 
their grants if they can show that the programs are working. It gives 
states the option to expand technical assistance functions to improve 
the quality of afterschool programs.
  Our legislation will increase opportunities for young Americans to be 
more physically active. The administration has put a focus on reducing 
obesity--one of the easiest medical conditions to recognize, but one of 
the most difficult to treat--among our children. Obesity costs our 
society as much as $147 billion each year--and the best way to stop it 
is to encourage our kids to be more active. Afterschool programs offer 
a tremendous opportunity to do just that, and our legislation includes 
such wellness efforts in the list of programs that can receive support.
  Our legislation encourages kids to get involved in service learning 
and youth development activities. Service learning integrates student-
designed service projects with academic studies. This type of program 
has been shown to strengthen student engagement, enhance student 
achievement, lower drop-out and suspension rates, develop workforce and 
leadership skills, and provide opportunities for teamwork.
  Of course, as we offer this legislation, I must also remind my 
colleagues that afterschool programs only work with sufficient funding. 
In a difficult economy, it is even more important to focus on 
empowering these programs. Studies have shown that afterschool care can 
reduce worker absenteeism by as much as 30 percent and reduce worker 
turnover by up to 60 percent. Decreased worker productivity related to 
parental concerns about afterschool care costs our economy up to $300 
billion each year. Approximately 1 in 10 children is currently enrolled 
in afterschool care. However, 2/3 of parents with children who do not 
participate in a program would enroll their children in afterschool if 
they had that option. We should work to give them that option.
  The Improving 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act is a 
positive step towards offering all of our children the chance to spend 
their afternoons safely and productively. It is a step towards making 
good on the most important promise: the one we make to our kids. I hope 
that my colleagues will join me in support of this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Begich, Mr. Bennett, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 3063. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
loans to certain organizations in certain States to address habitats 
and ecosystems and to address and prevent invasive species; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan 
legislation that will protect the unique ecosystems of the American 
West from the harmful effects of invasive, non-native species. I am 
joined by my cosponsors Senators Begich, Bennet of Colorado, Bennett of 
Utah, Feinstein, Merkley, Murkowski, and Wyden.
  The Invasive Species Emergency Response Fund provides resources to 
prevent the introduction and spread of harmful invasive species; 
protect susceptible habitats; and establish early detection and rapid 
response capabilities to combat incipient invasive species populations.
  As global climate change patterns shift, particular habitats in the 
West will be especially vulnerable to the impacts of new species 
introductions. Hence, the new paradigms in invasive species management 
provided via this legislation are critically needed. When it comes to 
invasive species management, history is replete with examples 
illustrating the adage that ``an ounce

[[Page 2454]]

of prevention is worth a pound of cure.''
  The impact of invasive species in the U.S. is now widespread. More 
than 6,500 non-native, invasive species have become established 
populations throughout the U.S. Studies show that the damage caused by 
these pests and their associated control costs total more than $100 
billion annually. The unique ecologies of the West are particularly 
vulnerable to their harmful effects.
  My home State of Nevada is at the center of this ecological storm. 
Non-native species decrease rangeland capacity; lower water tables; 
reduce water quality; increase fuel loads; and displace native plants 
and wildlife habitats. Some in the environmental community have 
identified the Great Basin as the third most endangered ecosystem in 
the U.S. due, in part, to the dominance of invasive species.
  Moreover, once invasive species have gained a foothold in Western 
States, they exacerbate other critical issues, including water quantity 
and quality, and wildfire. Zebra mussels in Lake Mead are poised to 
wreak havoc on the lake's water quality. Tamarisk's long tap roots 
infiltrate deep water tables, exploiting up to 200 gallons of water per 
tree per day. Millions of acres of cheatgrass and beetle-killed trees 
stand ready to burn if sparked. In fact, the fire cycle in the Great 
Basin has shortened from 25-50 years to only 3-5 years as a direct 
result of the take-over of invasive weeds.
  These few examples underscore the need for this long overdue 
legislation. State and local agencies and organizations that fight 
invasive species need access to resources when a new threat is 
identified, not when funds are available based on bureaucratic budget 
cycle.
  The revolving loan program established with this bill will provide 
qualified organizations with the resources they need to tackle invasive 
species threats within 90 days. The Secretary of the Interior will 
ensure that these funds are being used for appropriate projects based 
on vetted review criteria.
  Bark beetles, quagga mussels, and Medusahead have no respect for 
budget cycles or State lines. Hence, I urge my colleagues to support 
this critical legislation. It is paramount if we want to protect our 
unique Western landscape.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3063

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

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

     SEC. 3. INVASIVE SPECIES EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Ecosystem.--The term ``ecosystem'' means an area, 
     considered as a whole, that contains living organisms that 
     interact with each other and with the non-living environment.
       (2) Eligible state.--The term ``eligible State'' means any 
     State located in Region 4, as determined by the Census 
     Bureau.
       (3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Invasive Species 
     Emergency Response Fund established by subsection (b).
       (4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
     Determination Act and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b).
       (5) Introduction.--The term ``introduction'', with respect 
     to a species, means the intentional or unintentional escape, 
     release, dissemination, or placement of the species into an 
     ecosystem as a result of human activity.
       (6) Invasive species.--The term ``invasive species'' means 
     a species--
       (A) that is nonnative to a specified ecosystem; and
       (B) the introduction to an ecosystem of which causes, or 
     may cause, harm to--
       (i) the economy;
       (ii) the environment; or
       (iii) human, animal, or plant health.
       (7) Qualified organization.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``qualified organization'' means 
     an organization that--
       (i) submits an application for a project in an eligible 
     State; and
       (ii) demonstrates an effort to address--

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

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

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

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

       (III) to prevent the regrowth or reintroduction of an 
     invasive species, to the extent to

[[Page 2455]]

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

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

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

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

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

       (ii) Repayment.--Subject to clause (iii), not later than 10 
     years after the date on which a qualified organization 
     receives a loan under paragraph (1), the qualified 
     organization shall repay to the Secretary of the Treasury an 
     amount equal to not less than 25 percent of the amount of the 
     loan (including interest at a rate less than or equal to the 
     market interest rate).
       (iii) Waiver.--Not more frequently than once every 5 years, 
     the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, may waive the requirements under clauses (i) and 
     (ii) with respect to 1 qualified organization.
       (B) Long-term management and remediation strategies.--The 
     Secretary shall ensure that no loan provided under paragraph 
     (1) is used to carry out a long-term management or 
     remediation strategy, unless the Governor or applicable 
     qualified organization demonstrates either or both a reliable 
     funding stream and in-kind contributions to carry out the 
     strategy over the duration of the project.
       (3) Renewal.--After reviewing the reports under subsection 
     (g), if the Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of 
     each affected State, determines that a project is making 
     satisfactory progress, the Secretary may renew the loan 
     provided under this subsection for a period of not more than 
     3 additional fiscal years.
       (g) Reports.--
       (1) Reports to secretary.--For each year during which a 
     qualified organization receives a loan under subsection (f), 
     the qualified organization, in conjunction with the Governor 
     of the eligible State in which the qualified organization is 
     primarily located, shall submit to the Secretary a report 
     describing each project (including the results of the 
     project) carried out by the qualified organization using the 
     loan during that year.
       (2) Report to congress.--Not later than September 30, 2011, 
     and annually thereafter through September 30, 2015, the 
     Secretary shall submit a report describing the total loan 
     amount requested by each eligible State during the preceding 
     fiscal year and the total amount of the loans provided under 
     subsection (f)(1) to each eligible State during that fiscal 
     year, and an evaluation on effectiveness of the Fund and the 
     potential to expand the Fund to other regions, to--
       (A) the Committees on Appropriations, Energy and Natural 
     Resources, and Environment and Public Works of the Senate; 
     and
       (B) the Committees on Appropriations and Natural Resources 
     of the House of Representatives.
       (3) Report by borrower.--
       (A) In general.--Each qualified organization that receives 
     a loan under subsection (f)(1) shall submit to the Secretary 
     a report describing the use of the loan and the success 
     achieved by the qualified organization--
       (i) not less frequently than once each year until the date 
     of expiration of the loan; or
       (ii) if the loan expires before the date that is 1 year 
     after the date on which the loan is provided, at least once 
     during the term of the loan.
       (B) Interim update.--In addition to the reports required 
     under subparagraph (A), each qualified organization that 
     receives a loan under subsection (f)(1) shall submit to the 
     Secretary, electronically or in writing, a report describing 
     the use of the loan and the success achieved by the qualified 
     organization, expressed in chronological order with respect 
     to the date on which each project was initiated--
       (i) not less frequently than once every 180 days until the 
     date of expiration of the loan; or
       (ii) if the loan expires before the date that is 180 days 
     after the date on which the loan is provided, on the date on 
     which the term of the loan is 50 percent completed.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Fund $80,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2011 through 2015.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Carper, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 3064. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a credit for the production of energy from deep water offshore wind; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I am 
introducing today, the Deepwater Wind Incentive Act, which will provide 
a critical long-term renewable production tax credit for developing 
deepwater wind facilities in the U.S.
  Deepwater wind refers to a new offshore wind technology that utilizes 
advanced floating technologies to remove restrictions on the depth of 
the water and expand our offshore wind resource by nearly a magnitude 
of six. Last year, Popular Science named deepwater wind one of the 
eight technologies that can revolutionize our energy paradigm. I am 
pleased to have worked with Senators Carper and Collins, two longtime 
leaders on offshore wind development, on this proposal and look forward 
to discussing this bill with my Finance Committee colleagues.

[[Page 2456]]

  Currently, there is a race to develop deepwater offshore wind 
facilities that could eventually be placed throughout our world's 
oceans and our Great Lakes. A Norwegian company is now moving forward 
with deployment of the first deep-water offshore floating turbine, 
which will be located in more than 328 feet of water. The key point is 
that if you can successfully develop a floating turbine at that depth 
it can be replicated throughout the world. Our competitors are 
recognizing this opportunity and are aggressively pursuing this 
technology. In fact, earlier this year the European Union Industrial 
Initiative announced a roughly 6 billion euro plan to invest in next 
generation wind technologies, including deepwater wind, with a goal of 
supplying 20 percent of its electricity through wind power.
  Deepwater wind is a resource that provides a tremendous potential for 
our country and provides a more consistent resource than onshore and 
near shore wind. Specifically, the U.S. has over 1500 gigawatts of 
deepwater offshore wind generation within 50 nautical miles of the 
coastline, and if our country can develop these deepwater technologies, 
we will have the equivalent of 1500 medium sized nuclear power plants 
available within a close proximity to the electricity demand of the 
U.S.
  Accordingly, I have modeled this legislation after the current tax 
credits available for nuclear power that exists in the tax code. 
Specifically, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided a production tax 
credit for the first 6,000 megawatts from advanced nuclear power. The 
Deepwater Wind Incentive Act, follows this template and provides a 50 
percent bonus renewable production tax credit for advanced offshore 
wind facilities that are placed in service in more than 60 meters of 
water. The credit is capped at the first 6,000 megawatts to provide an 
incentive for companies to expeditiously research and deploy this 
technology.
  Time after time, the Department of Energy has indicated that wind can 
provide a substantial amount of electricity in our country. The 
Department's ``20 percent Wind Energy by 2030,'' outlined the policy 
steps that would move wind to be a major source of American power. In 
the report, the DOE states that the wind industry ``has responded 
positively to policy incentives when they are in effect.'' This tax 
policy provides a consistent and clear tax credit to achieve the 20 
percent by 2030 that is considered in the report. I thank Senator 
Carper and Senator Collins for their assistance in crafting this 
legislation and I look forward to working with them to enact this 
legislation into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Udall of Colorado, 
        Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Burris, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Wyden, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Specter, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Franken, and Mr. Cardin):
  S. 3065. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the 
readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy 
concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as ``Don't 
Ask, Don't Tell'', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of 
sexual orientation; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, we just had a press conference this 
afternoon with reference to don't ask, don't tell, the action we want 
to take in the Senate for our military people. I would like to make 
some brief remarks in that regard.
  I come to the floor today because I believe in a basic principle, not 
just a political cause. I come to the floor because courage and valor 
are blind to race, religion, philosophy, and sexual orientation. I 
believe every single man and woman who puts on a military uniform is 
equally deserving of our thanks and our respect, and that when we 
dismiss the sacrifices made by those with a different sexual 
orientation, we undermine the strength of our fighting forces. When we 
fail to recognize the brave contributions gay and lesbian soldiers 
continue to make every single day, we diminish ourselves as much as we 
diminish their service. That is why I am pleased to join the following 
colleagues: Chairman Lieberman, Chairman Levin, Senator Gillibrand, 
Senator Udall of Colorado, and Senator Wyden in introducing legislation 
to repeal the military's don't ask, don't tell policy, a policy which 
is discriminatory, outdated, and detrimental to our national security.
  Let me start by addressing every service man and woman, to those who 
have served in our Armed Forces in the past. Let's give them a big 
shout out and a big thank-you. This Nation honors the service and 
sacrifice of all our veterans and those who are still serving today. 
Let me say the days of serving in silence--those days are numbered. 
This legislation will recognize that every soldier, sailor, airman, and 
marine is equal to every other warrior, so no one will be forced to lie 
about who they are if they wish to serve this country.
  I know there are some who believe this is too big a change, that it 
is not right and we need to wait. To them I would say it boils down to 
basic fairness. I remind them that the U.S. military has made policy 
changes before and with resounding success. The repeal of don't ask, 
don't tell is not just another vote for me, it is a very personal issue 
of basic fairness. When I was about 6 or 7 years old, I have a vivid 
memory of my family members who went off to war, my uncles and uncles-
in-law and great uncles who chose to go to war and defend our country, 
regardless of the color of their skin or occupation or who they were as 
an individual. That choice defined them as patriots.
  I have never forgotten their patriotism or their commitment to this 
country. But I have also never forgotten that the U.S. military was 
very different in those days. My family members volunteered to protect 
this Nation, but simply because of who they were, they had limited 
opportunities to serve. For all their skill, their talent, their 
intelligence, and their valor, they were forced to choose among two or 
three roles. They were forced to either be a cook or forced to dig 
ditches or forced to drive trucks. The only thing that separated my 
uncles from their brothers in arms was the color of their skin. But in 
those days, some people argued that racial integration would undermine 
the cohesion of our fighting forces. Yet the U.S. military came to 
recognize this was not the case and successive generations proved that 
everyone who volunteered to serve was capable of the same patriotism, 
bravery, and heroism.
  That memory is especially crisp as I stand in this Chamber to bring 
an end to this discriminatory policy that forces our best and brightest 
to be willing to die for our Nation, while denying they are who they 
truly are. This, too, is an issue of basic fairness.
  More than 60 years ago, President Truman recognized the wisdom of 
integrating the Armed Forces. He understood that in so doing, the Armed 
Forces grew stronger and the Nation safer. Today we recognize it is 
time to end don't ask, don't tell. This repeal of don't ask, don't tell 
will allow our servicemembers to live their lives openly, honestly, and 
still fight for the country we all love. So, regardless of sexual 
orientation or race or any other factor, today we stand to say we are 
grateful to the brave patriots who chose to defend our Nation and we 
salute them.
  This is about fairness. This is about more than right versus left or 
Republican versus Democrat. This is about fighting for those who fight 
for us every day. Ending this policy is the fair thing to do, it is the 
right thing to do, and it is long overdue.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to state my strong support for 
the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010, which would repeal the 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy in our Armed Forces.
  I am one who believes that the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has 
done more harm than good. The policy has forced American citizens to 
choose between serving their country and being honest about who they 
are; and, even worse, it has led to the discharge

[[Page 2457]]

of some 13,000 brave men and women because their sexual orientation was 
discovered.
  The criteria for serving in our Armed Forces should be competence, 
courage, and a willingness to serve; not race, gender, or sexual 
orientation.
  The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would finally repeal 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and create a policy of nondiscrimination in 
the military. That is the right thing to do, and I will support this 
legislation every step of the way.
  The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would repeal the 1993 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy; allow people who were removed under 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' to re-enter the military; establish a policy 
of nondiscrimination in the Armed Forces to prevent discrimination on 
the basis of sexual orientation; and require a Pentagon working group 
established by the Department of Defense to issue recommendations on 
how to implement repeal throughout the military.
  The bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to report to 
Congress 180 days after enactment on what actions are being taken to 
ensure that any school that does not allow a ROTC unit on its campus 
does not receive Federal funds.
  It is important for people to realize that ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' 
is not an abstract policy. This policy has had real and harmful effects 
on our military readiness by denying able and willing men and women the 
opportunity to serve, and by requiring the discharge of brave 
individuals who have served courageously and even risked their lives 
for their country.
  Let me give you just a few of the thousands of examples:
  Anthony Woods, of Fairfield, CA, graduated from the U.S. Military 
Academy at West Point and went on to serve two tours of duty in Iraq, 
including in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He earned the Bronze Star and 
Army Commendation Medal, and all 81 soldiers who served under his 
leadership in Iraq returned home safely to the United States. Mr. Woods 
was discharged from the U.S. Army in 2008 because of ``Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell.''
  MAJ Margaret Witt joined the U.S. Air Force in 1987 and served as a 
flight nurse for 18 years. She received numerous awards, including the 
Meritorious Service Metal, Air Medal, and the Air Force Commendation 
Medal. In 2003, President Bush noted in citation that her ``airmanship 
and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of 
important missions under extremely hazardous conditions.'' Major Witt 
was discharged 6 years ago after the Air Force received a tip that she 
was gay. Major Witt has challenged her case in court because, as she 
says, ``I joined the Air Force because I wanted to serve my country. I 
have loved being in the military--my fellow airmen have been my family. 
I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded 
people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad 
to see me there.'' The case is currently pending before the Ninth U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA.
  LT Daniel Choi, originally from Orange County, CA, also graduated 
from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He is an Arabic linguist 
and served as an infantry officer in Iraq in 2006 and 2007, but he was 
recommended for discharge from the U.S. Army after announcing last year 
that he was gay. Lieutenant Choi has said that: ``The lessons of 
courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most 
important. . . . I refuse to lie to my commanders. I refuse to lie to 
my peers. I refuse to lie to my subordinates. I demand honesty and 
courage from my soldiers. They should demand the same from me.'' The 
New York National Guard has recently indicated that they will allow 
Lieutenant Choi to begin participating in drills with the unit again. 
LTC Paul Fanning, a spokesperson for the New York Guard, has stated: 
``We do not have an issue with it. It's a deeply personal thing. To us 
a soldier is a soldier is a soldier.''
  Veteran U.S. Marine Bob Lehman, of San Diego, CA, served in the gulf 
war in the 1990s and was never dismissed for being gay. He has 
explained that, ``Nobody in my unit knew artillery better than I did, 
including the officers. During combat, the gay thing didn't even exist. 
My biggest fear was bringing my guys home alive.'' However, Mr. Lehman 
has said he believes that the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy forces 
U.S. soldiers into a moral dilemma. ``Marines don't lie, cheat or 
steal. It was hard to lie . . . There was a lot of denial and 
depression because of the inability to be out openly, (the fear) that I 
might get fired.''
  Courageous men and women like these should be applauded for their 
service, not discharged for their sexual orientation. The Military 
Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 would ensure that is the case and 
would require the military to readmit anyone who was discharged solely 
because of their sexual orientation and is otherwise willing and able 
to serve.
  The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has long been a contentious one, 
and I do not state my support for repeal lightly.
  It is absolutely essential that we undertake this project with great 
care, so that repeal of the policy will enhance military readiness and 
the effect will be positive for all of our servicemembers in the field.
  I am confident that we are up to the task of doing so.
  In the last few months alone, high ranking officials from various 
components of the military have come forward to say that repeal is not 
only feasible, it is the right thing to do. For example:
  ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, ``Speaking for myself 
and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and 
lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how 
I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we 
have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about 
who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.''
  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified at the same hearing that, 
``I fully support the president's decision. The question before us is 
not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best 
prepare for it.''
  Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has said, ``I support the repeal of 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I do think the President has come up with a 
very practical and workable way to do that to work through the working 
group that the Secretary of Defense has set up, to make sure that we 
implement any change in the law that Congress makes in a very 
professional and very smooth manner, and without any negative impacts 
on the force.''
  Retired General Colin Powell issued an official statement expressing 
that ``In the almost 17 years since the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' 
legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I 
fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.''
  These military leaders believe repeal is not only feasible, it is 
right. According to the University of California, military leaders in 
many other countries agree. Twenty-five countries currently have 
policies allowing gay servicemembers to serve openly in their 
militaries, including 15 NATO countries, Australia and Israel.
  This year, Secretary Gates has appointed a Pentagon working group to 
study in great detail how repeal can be implemented in a manner that 
will enhance the readiness and effectiveness of our troops. This group, 
led by Army General Carter Ham and Pentagon General Counsel Jeh 
Johnson, is tasked with engaging troops and their families at all 
levels of the Armed Forces to determine what changes will be necessary 
in regulations, in education and training practices, and in military 
policy to implement a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of 
sexual orientation in our Armed Forces. The study will be careful, and 
the review will be comprehensive.
  The time has come to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' I urge my 
colleagues

[[Page 2458]]

to join me in supporting the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 
2010. I am confident that our military will be stronger and better when 
this bill becomes law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 3068. A bill to reauthorize the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Human Space Flight Activities, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today 
that is intended to chart what I believe to be the proper course for 
the future of the nation's human space flight programs. This bill would 
provide an alternative to the Administration's proposed course of 
ending the government role in Human Space Flight and avoid the complete 
reliance on other nations or an as-yet-unproven commercial capability 
to launch American astronauts and scientists into space. It would also 
reaffirm the goals of moving beyond low-earth orbit and restore the 
kind of exciting vision that will help inspire young people to excel in 
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. The bill echoes the 
decision of the Obama administration to support the International Space 
Station, ISS, through at least the year 2020, as we endorsed in our 
NASA Authorization Act, passed in 2008. But the administration's 
proposal does nothing to ensure that we can fully maintain and utilize 
the space station, especially during the next 5 years. This bill would 
correct that, and ensure that full use of the space station is not an 
empty promise.
  Since the release of the fiscal year 2010 Budget last year, the 
future of human space flight programs has been in question. As part of 
that Budget Request, the administration announced it would establish an 
independent review panel, chaired by my good friend Mr. Norman 
Augustine, to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans and provide options 
for how those programs should proceed in the future.
  The Augustine Panel completed its review in late August of last year, 
and provided its Summary Report to NASA, the White House, and the 
Congress on September 8, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the Subcommittee on 
Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation held a hearing on the report with Mr. Augustine 
appearing as our witness. The Augustine Panel released its full report 
at the end of September, and we have all been awaiting the response of 
the Obama administration to the report.
  When the fiscal year 2010 Budget was submitted in 2009, the budget 
request for Exploration Systems included a notation that the amount 
requested was a ``placeholder'' number, and that, once the Human Space 
Flight Plans Review Committee completed its work, the Administration 
would submit an amended budget request to support the programmatic 
decisions made as a result of that report. That never happened. 
Instead, the response to the Augustine Panel Report was left to the 
fiscal year 2011 Budget request, which we received on February 1st. 
Because of the administration's failure to offer a budgetary blueprint 
until the fiscal year 2011 budget, we will now experience yet another 
year's delay in undertaking the steps necessary to advance beyond the 
uncertainty about the future of human space flight programs that 
prompted the review.
  The Augustine Panel provided five basic options for consideration, 
with an additional two options that were modifications of these five 
basic options. The Augustine Panel thus provided a total of seven 
approaches that could be taken to ensure America's continued leadership 
in space--to establish a space program ``worthy of a great nation,'' as 
suggested by the title of their final report. None of those options 
leapt out as the obvious, consensus answer to the mix of vehicle 
development options and strategies necessary to meet the challenges of 
the next generation of human space flight. There was, however, a clear 
consensus on two important points.
  First, the Panel found that, without a significant increase in the 
total amount of funding made available to NASA, none of the options 
presented could be expected to succeed--including the current plans and 
programs for developing the Ares 1 and Ares V launch vehicles and the 
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. The Panel's conclusion underscored what 
we in the authorizing committees have been saying for the past five 
years, and which formed the basis for the funding levels that we 
authorized in both our 2005 and 2008 NASA Authorization Acts, which 
would have led to a more timely and successful level of development for 
the vehicles to replace the space shuttle systems. The Bush 
administration, however, simply never requested that level of funding. 
In fact, the prior Administration even reduced the level of funding for 
those programs that had been projected in the run-out estimates 
included in the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request, which initiated the 
``Vision for Exploration'' announced by President Bush on January 14, 
2004.
  Second, the Panel recommended that a decision be made to formally 
extend U.S. plans to operate and utilize the ISS through at least the 
year 2020. This was also consistent with guidance the authorizing 
committees provided in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act, where we 
directed NASA to take no steps to preclude operations of ISS through at 
least 2020, and directed the Agency to provide a plan which would 
outline how they would prepare to support and utilize the space station 
for that extended period of time. Up to that point, NASA's internal 
planning--and budget guidance from the Office of Management and 
Budget--was to cease operations aboard the space station in 2015, just 
five years after its assembly and outfitting would finally be completed 
by the remaining space shuttle flights.
  Some of the good news in the fiscal year 2011 Budget Request is that 
the Obama administration agrees with the need to continue supporting 
the space station to at least 2020, and to expand and increase its 
utilization for research. That is welcome news. The problem is that the 
request does not provide the means to ensure that the extension and 
full utilization of the space station can be realized.
  It is worth noting that after the budget reductions were made for 
Exploration in the 2006 Budget Request, the number of flights planned 
to complete space station assembly were reduced--at the direction of 
OMB for purely budgetary reasons--from 28 remaining flights to 17 
flights, plus an optional added flight to conduct a final mission to 
service the Hubble Space Telescope. The effect of those reductions was 
to force NASA to change the planned payloads for those remaining 17 
flights to try to accommodate the most important spare parts and 
replacement parts from the 10 ``cancelled'' flights, for ensuring the 
safe and effective operation and utilization of the station. Ten 
flights' worth of flight-ready payloads--averaging between 40,000 to 
50,000 pounds per flight--were essentially relegated to storage 
warehouses where most of them remain today, ready to fly, ready to use, 
but with no guaranteed ``ticket to ride'' to be of any use to the 
station. Over 1,400 parts and pieces of equipment, Mr. President! What 
is most important to remember, is that the decisions about which 
instruments and equipment to swap into the remaining flights were based 
on the internal assumption of the need to support the ISS through 
2015--not through 2020.
  The result of this is that we do not know how many, or which, of 
those ``grounded payload'' items might actually be needed in order to 
ensure the station can be supported and maintained until 2020. Not only 
that, we do not know which, or how many, of them are simply too large 
or too heavy to be carried to orbit by any existing vehicle other than 
the space shuttle. And finally, we do not know what additional items 
might need to be ordered, manufactured and delivered in the future, or 
what launch vehicle capacity will be needed to deliver them to the 
station.
  This is not the way a great nation should conduct its civil space 
program. This is not the way to ensure that a decision and 
pronouncement to continue

[[Page 2459]]

operations through 2020 will not become an empty gesture due to the 
deterioration, damage, or failure of equipment and systems vital to 
providing the oxygen, water, power to make the ISS habitable and to 
support scientific research in the period following 2015.
  This is just one example of the type of considerations that 
preparations that the Obama administration appears to have ignored 
while preparing its response to the Augustine panel Report. It is an 
issue I propose to address, among many, in the legislation being 
introduced today.
  Since last May, when the President announced the appointment of a 
Committee to review U.S. Human Space Flight Plans, we have all been 
waiting for clear policy direction based on the report of that 
Committee, which was released in late September. Throughout that time, 
at my direction, my committee staff carefully followed the public 
meetings and briefings of the Augustine panel, and considered the 
implications of the various options discussed and eventually included 
in the panel's final report.
  In the course of that ongoing review, as well as our Committee 
hearing last September, I began forming my own conclusions about the 
correct path for the future of U.S. human space flight programs, as is 
my responsibility as the Ranking Republican on the policy and oversight 
committee for NASA. The key factors driving my position regarding that 
path forward have been: the need to maintain U.S. leadership in space 
exploration, which I believe is essential to our economic and national 
security; the need to ensure we do not lose the skills, expertise and 
industrial capacity that are necessary to conduct space exploration; 
the need to ensure, as our Committee has in the previous two NASA 
Authorization bills we have developed and seen enacted into law, that 
NASA has both a balanced range of activities across its full mission 
responsibilities, and was authorized the funds needed to carry out that 
range of activities; and the need to protect--and capitalize on--our 
massive investment in the ISS, which, along with our international 
partners, is close to $100 billion. Now that it is almost completed and 
has a six-person permanent crew, we can begin to conduct the research 
that we have anticipated all these years during its construction. 
Research that has the potential to fundamentally change and enhance our 
understanding of physical processes, vaccine development, and a whole 
host of other research.
  In order to meet those needs, we must first take steps to ensure we 
do not have an extended period of time during which there is no 
capability within the United States to launch humans into space, 
whether to the space station or any other destination. The easiest, 
most logical and obvious answer in the short term is to continue to use 
the one launch vehicle that already exists, has a proven history of 
98.7 percent probability of success for each mission, and upon which 
the space station was designed, assuming the shuttle's availability 
throughout the station's on-orbit lifetime to provide support and 
maintenance.
  Prematurely and voluntarily ending the space shuttle program without 
a near-term U.S.-built alternative on the horizon simply seems 
irresponsible, and that is an issue that I believe the Congress must 
address. While the Space Shuttle will never be completely safe, just as 
with any vehicle that must carry humans into the harsh environment of 
space, it is currently flying as safely, if not more safely, than it 
ever has.
  The legislation I am introducing today would ensure that a final 
decision on the timing of the space shuttle retirement, or even the 
number of missions it might still be required to fly, would not be made 
until the issues involved are fully considered and resolved and we are 
fully convinced that the shuttle's capability is no longer needed. In 
particular, we must answer the question of how we support, maintain, 
and fully utilize the ISS, not just in 5 or more years, when any new 
commercially-developed vehicle might be available, but right now, as we 
are about to cut the ribbon on it as a finally completed research 
facility.
  I have already mentioned the lack of complete information regarding 
the ability to adequately ensure the availability and deliverability of 
spare and replacements parts needed between now and 2020 to keep the 
space station fully and safely functional. All this is to underscore 
that the issue of whether to continue flying the shuttle, and the 
number of additional shuttle flights that are needed, is not simply a 
matter of shortening the gap between shuttle retirement and the 
availability of its replacement, or protecting a vitally important 
workforce. This issue also requires policy makers to understand what 
the space shuttle can do--and possibly do exclusively in the case of 
large, heavy replacement systems and structures--to ensure that the 
promise to extend the ISS to 2020 can actually be fulfilled. We must be 
certain the ISS can be kept alive and fully functioning over the next 
10 years. Again, the administration's Budget Request offers no answers 
to how we will be able to deliver all the equipment necessary to extend 
the life of the ISS if the shuttle is not available.
  I am also very concerned about the proposal to simply cancel the 
Constellation programs of Ares 1, the low-earth orbit crew launch 
vehicle, the Ares V Heavy Lift vehicle for enabling flights beyond low-
Earth orbit, and the Orion Crew Exploration capsule to carry the crews 
for both of those missions. It is very clear that many of my colleagues 
are also deeply concerned about this part of the President's budget. I 
simply believe any decision to terminate those projects needs much more 
consideration than I believe it has gotten during the preparation of 
the Obama administration's proposal for NASA.
  The approach of the administration--their so-called ``bold new 
initiative''--is to turn to an entirely new approach based exclusively 
on the development of commercially-developed crew launch systems. There 
appears to have been little thought given to how we might leverage the 
$9 billion already spent on the Constellation vehicles in the 
identification of potential providers for those commercial systems. I 
believe that is wasteful and irresponsible and all but guarantees that 
commercial developments will start from scratch--and therefore take 
much longer to develop and be much more costly, in the long run, to the 
American taxpayers.
  Another concern with this new approach is that we do not yet have any 
details about how the $6 billion proposed in the Budget Request for 
commercial space flight over the next 5 years will be allocated and 
what it will be expected to support. We don't know whether this will be 
a collaborative program, creating incentives for matching funding from 
the private sector, or whether it will represent more of a government 
subsidy to develop systems for which there may not be a sustainable 
market for those services beyond what NASA would purchase. I am 
philosophically and fundamentally opposed to such government subsidies, 
particularly when it is not clear that taxpayer funding for an approach 
like this won't have to be followed by even more taxpayer dollars to 
keep the systems available to meet the needs of the space station, or 
other government space projects.
  The legislation I am proposing will address that issue by directing 
NASA to consider ``commercial'' options that include the possibility of 
agreements not only with the ``entrepreneurial'' start-up companies 
like SpaceX, which represent an exciting but still unproven set of 
vehicles designed to service a still non-existent commercial market, 
but also with other, longer-standing and experienced commercial 
companies. The key aerospace companies with whom NASA currently has 
development contracts might well be able to jointly develop a new 
launch system as a modification of their existing contracts under the 
Constellation program. They could combine their expertise and 
capability to transition their efforts toward developing a new launch 
capability based on existing shuttle main engines, external tank 
manufacturing capability, solid rocket motors, and the Orion crew 
vehicle. Something like that has been, I am

[[Page 2460]]

told, a subject of informal conversations among those companies for 
some time. I believe we need to ensure through legislation that such an 
alternative will be fully evaluated and considered as one possible 
approach to the new ``commercial'' space systems development. We have 
not been given details of this possible approach, because those 
discussions are apparently still ongoing. But I believe we need to make 
sure there is a legislative underpinning that would at least allow the 
full consideration of that approach.
  I would not view such an approach as precluding the continued pursuit 
of the current COTS, Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems, 
activities being pursued with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation 
for cargo delivery services for the Space Station. I have consistently 
supported that development and believe we should continue to do so. My 
concern, one I know that of a number of my colleagues share, is to 
ensure we have redundant and alternative means of providing U.S. human 
spaceflight capability. If one of those can be more fully commercial in 
nature, and something that can stand on its own without the taxpayers 
being responsible for their success, so much the better.
  I will be working with my colleagues in the Senate, and reaching out 
to our counterparts in the House of Representatives, to ensure all of 
these issues are put on the table for discussion, using the vehicle of 
this legislation to provide an alternative view to that proposed by the 
Obama Administration.
  This legislation actually tracks closely with the President's 
request, in terms of the amounts authorized for NASA. It authorizes 
programs largely at funding levels already enacted for fiscal year 
2010, with some very minor exceptions, and at the same base account 
levels requested by the administration for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal 
year 2012.
  What my legislation adds is the authorization levels necessary to 
implement the potential continuation of space shuttle flights, at a 
greatly reduced annual level of flights and associated costs, as well 
as modest increases in the short-term for the establishment and support 
of an enterprise to be developed to manage and operate the U.S. 
National Laboratory.
  The greatest difference, as I have indicated, is that this 
legislation points the way to what I believe is a more measured and 
reasoned approach that ensures the best use of investments we have 
already made, provides the Congress and the administration with 
necessary information to inform our judgments on alternative launch 
vehicle developments, and provides a means of avoiding severe economic 
dislocations in the aerospace industry and the highly skilled and 
dedicated workforce that has provided the capability for this nation to 
be the world leader in space exploration.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3068

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

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

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States Human Space Flight program has, since 
     the first Mercury flight on May 5, 1961, has been a source of 
     pride and inspiration for the Nation.
       (2) The extraordinary challenges of achieving access to 
     space both motivated and accelerated the development of 
     technologies and industrial capabilities that have had 
     widespread applications which have contributed to the 
     technological excellence of the United States.
       (3) It is essential to the economic well-being of the 
     Nation that the aerospace industrial capacity, highly skilled 
     workforce, and embedded expertise remain engaged in 
     demanding, challenging, and exciting efforts that ensure 
     United States leadership in space exploration and related 
     activities.
       (4) The completion of the International Space Station, the 
     ability to sustain a crew of at least 6 members, and the 
     ability to conduct unique microgravity research that can only 
     be accomplished in the space environment, provides an 
     opportunity for scientific and technological advancement that 
     must be immediately and fully exploited.
       (5) The designation of the U.S. Segment of the 
     International Space Station as a National Laboratory, as 
     provided in section 507 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16767) 
     and as further provided in subtitle A of title VI of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization 
     Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17751 through 17753), provides an 
     opportunity for multiple United States government agencies, 
     University-based researchers, commercial research 
     organizations, and others to utilize the unique environment 
     of microgravity for fundamental scientific research and 
     potential commercial developments.
       (6) In order to assure the full and complete utilization of 
     the International Space Station, including the ability to 
     sustain the systems and physical infrastructure of the 
     vehicle, effective and timely transportation systems are 
     required, which must be able to deliver the full range of 
     logistics, support, and maintenance items which may be 
     necessary through the year 2020.
       (7) For some potential replacement elements necessary for 
     Space Station sustainability, the Space Shuttle represents 
     the only vehicle, existing or planned, capable of carrying 
     those elements to the International Space Station in the near 
     term.
       (8) In order to ensure effective utilization of Space 
     Station research facilities, the capability for returning 
     processed experiment samples and research-related equipment 
     to Earth is essential.
       (9) The maintenance of human exploration goals, such as a 
     return to the Moon, a voyage to Mars, or other celestial 
     bodies or locations is essential for providing the necessary 
     long-term focus and programmatic robustness of the United 
     States civilian space program.
       (10) The United States must develop, as rapidly as 
     possible, replacement vehicles capable of providing both 
     human and cargo launch capability to low-Earth orbit and, by 
     expansion or modification of core design features, capable of 
     delivering large payloads into low-earth orbit or to 
     destinations beyond low-Earth orbit.
       (11) While commercial transportation systems may contribute 
     valuable services, it is in the United States' national 
     interest to maintain a government-operated space 
     transportation system for crew and cargo delivery to low-
     Earth orbit and beyond.

     SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT POLICY.

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

     SEC. 4. SPACE SHUTTLE OPERATIONS.

       (a) Retention of Space Shuttle Operations Capability.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall take all necessary 
     steps to ensure that all Space Shuttle Program activities and 
     operations are able to continue, or to be resumed, including 
     flight operations and support, pending the completion of the 
     reviews, requirements, and reports of this section.
       (2) Current shutle manifest flight assurance.--The 
     Administrator shall take all steps necessary to ensure 
     shuttle launch capability through fiscal year 2011 to enable 
     launch, at a minimum, of all payloads manifested as of 
     February 28, 2010. In fulfillment of this requirement, the 
     Administrator is prohibited from terminating any contractor 
     support which will endanger or inhibit the launching of 
     shuttle payloads manifested as of February 28, 2010, should 
     launches be required after the first quarter of fiscal year 
     2011.

[[Page 2461]]

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

     SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION OPERATIONS.

       (a) Policy Statement.--It shall be the policy of the United 
     States, in consultation with its International Partners in 
     the International Space Station program, to support full and 
     complete utilization of the Space Station through at least 
     the year 2020.
       (b) Maintenance of U.S. Segment.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall take all steps 
     necessary to ensure the safe and effective operations, 
     maintenance, and maximum utilization of the United States 
     Segment of the International Space Station through fiscal 
     year 2020.
       (2) Vehicle and component review.--In carrying out 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall, immediately upon 
     enactment of this Act, conduct an in-depth assessment of all 
     essential modules, operational systems and components, 
     structural elements, and permanent scientific equipment on 
     board or planned for delivery and installation aboard the 
     International Space Station, including both United States and 
     international partner elements, to determine anticipated 
     spare or replacement requirements to ensure complete, 
     effective, and safe function and full scientific utilization 
     of the ISS. The Administrator shall enable the Comptroller 
     General to monitor and, as appropriate, participate in the 
     review required by this paragraph in such a way as to enable 
     the Comptroller General to provide an independent assessment 
     of the review to the committees of jurisdiction.
       (3) Reporting requirements.--No later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act the Administrator shall 
     provide the completed assessment to the committees of 
     jurisdiction. The results of the required assessment shall 
     include, at minimum, the following:
       (A) The identification of spare or replacement elements and 
     parts currently produced, in inventory, or on order, and the 
     state of readiness and schedule for delivery to the ISS, 
     including the planned transportation means for such delivery. 
     Each element identified shall include a description of its 
     location, function, criticality for system integrity, and 
     specifications regarding size, weight, and necessary 
     configuration for launch and delivery.
       (B) The identification of anticipated requirements for 
     spare or replacement elements not currently in inventory or 
     on order, a description of their location, function, 
     criticality for system integrity, the anticipated cost and 
     schedule for design, procurement, manufacture and delivery, 
     and specifications regarding size, weight, and necessary 
     configuration for launch and delivery, including available 
     launch vehicles capable of transportation of such items to 
     the International Space Station.
       (c) Research Facilities and Capabilities.--Utilization of 
     research facilities and capabilities aboard the International 
     Space Station other than exploration-related research and 
     technology development activities, and associated ground 
     support and logistics, shall be planned, managed, and 
     supported by the organizations described in section 6.

     SEC. 6. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION MANAGEMENT AND 
                   UTILIZATION.

       (a) Establishment of Office of Responsibility for United 
     States Space Station National Laboratory.--The Administrator 
     shall establish responsibility for the International Space 
     Station United States National Laboratory within the Space 
     Operations Mission Directorate, ISS Program Office at NASA 
     Headquarters, or any successor

[[Page 2462]]

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

     SEC. 7. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall take steps to 
     ensure that the development of space transportation vehicles, 
     systems, and infrastructure shall occur in such a way as to 
     ensure the availability of complementary and, where 
     necessary, redundant transportation systems capable of 
     delivering crew and cargo to low-Earth orbit, in particular 
     to the International Space Station, and to destinations 
     beyond low-Earth orbit. Systems developed and operated by the 
     United States Government shall be the primary means for 
     delivering crew and cargo to destinations in low-Earth orbit 
     until such time as commercial entities demonstrate, through a 
     successful flight regime, as determined by established 
     milestones within current Space Act Agreements, that they 
     have the capability to deliver cargo to destinations in low-
     Earth orbit, including the International Space Station. 
     Systems developed and operated by the United States 
     government shall be the primary means for delivering crew and 
     cargo to destinations beyond low earth orbit. Commercially 
     developed launch systems, such as those being developed under 
     NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation System, for which 
     the United States government will serve primarily as a 
     customer, shall be the primary means for delivering cargo to 
     the International Space Stations once they have successfully 
     demonstrated that capability, as required by this subsection.
       (b) National Space Transportation System.--The 
     Administrator is directed to develop a plan, no later than 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, for the 
     establishment of a National Space Transportation System. The 
     National Space Transportation System shall include--
       (1) an architecture of government developed and operated 
     space transportation systems, including one or more launch 
     vehicles and associated crew and cargo carriers;
       (2) a streamlined approach to development and acquisition 
     of such systems funded and overseen by the United States 
     Government, including possible adoption or modification of 
     effective acquisition practices utilized by the Department of 
     Defense, where appropriate, to more effectively meet civil 
     space transportation requirements;
       (3) an operational concept that utilizes existing 
     government and industry personnel and infrastructure in an 
     efficient and cost effective manner;
       (4) continuation or modification of ongoing programs, 
     associated contracts, and testing and evaluation plans 
     initiated under the Constellation Program, including the 
     Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Ares-1 Crew Launch 
     Vehicle, to the extent that such elements are determined to 
     be cost effective and operationally effective;
       (5) a plan for incrementally upgrading initially developed 
     and deployed systems so that such systems can be made 
     operational with existing technology at the earliest possible 
     opportunity and then upgraded over time to fulfill more 
     demanding missions and incorporate new technology as it 
     becomes available; and
       (6) a United States Government managed approach for 
     overseeing and ensuring crew safety, including oversight of 
     human ratings requirements established under subsection 
     (f)1)(C) of this section.
       (c) Technology Development to Support National Space 
     Transportation Systems Evolution.--The Administrator shall 
     develop and keep up to date a technology development plan to 
     support the evolving requirements of the National Space 
     Transportation System, both for low-Earth orbit requirements 
     and for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. Technology funding 
     provided pursuant to this subsection shall be determined 
     based on the specific mission benefits

[[Page 2463]]

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

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of NASA.
       (2) Commercial entity.--The term ``commercial entity'' 
     means a for-profit entity operating in such a way that--
       (A) private capital is at risk in the provision of a 
     product, activity, or service;
       (B) there are existing or potential nongovernmental 
     customers for the product, activity, or service conducted or 
     provided by the entity;
       (C) the commercial market ultimately determines the 
     viability of such product, activity, or service; and
       (D) primary responsibility and management initiative for 
     the entity resides with the private sector.
       (3) Committees of jurisdiction.--The term ``committees of 
     jurisdiction'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (4) Down-mass.--The term ``down-mass'' means physical 
     elements, such as equipment removed for repair, replacement 
     or analysis, experiment products, samples and devices, tools, 
     personal crew items, manufactured goods, or other non-
     disposable items, including historically significant 
     materials or items, whether the property of the United States 
     or an international partner, or a non-government or 
     commercial entity.
       (5) ISS.--The term ``ISS'' means the International Space 
     Station.
       (6) ISS national laboratory.--The term ``ISS National 
     Laboratory'' means the International Space Station United 
     States National Laboratory Enterprise.
       (7) Legislative day.--The term ``legislative day'' means 
     any calendar day on which the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives are in session.

[[Page 2464]]

       (8) NASA.--The term ``NASA'' means the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration.
       (9) Space Act.--The term ``Space Act'' means the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.).
       (10) United States segment of the International Space 
     Station.--The term ``United States Segment of the 
     International Space Station'' includes all structural 
     elements, supporting equipment, external attachment 
     locations, pressurized modules, and associated contents, 
     purchased or manufactured by or for the United States, and 
     partner-supplied facilities allocated for utilization as 
     determined through bilateral and multilateral agreements.
       (11) Up-mass.--The term ``up-mass'' means physical 
     elements, such as equipment, spare parts, replacement parts, 
     experimental facilities, and associated materials, and 
     various supplies necessary for the operation and maintenance 
     of the space station vehicle, modules, hardware, and crew 
     support.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

     SEC. 10. APPLICATION WITH OTHER LAWS.

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

                          ____________________