[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11241-11246]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
                           THE SPACE PROGRAM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate being recognized for this hour. 
I am real pleased to be joined by several of my colleagues.
  I want to raise an issue that is of real concern to the people of the 
State of Texas, the State of Alabama, the State of Florida, those who 
have, for now, generations almost, been invested in and proud of that 
great American accomplishment of our space program.
  We are an exceptional people, and there is an awful lot of people 
these days that seem to be ashamed of our exceptionalism. But one of 
the things that we have been exceptional in since its inception is our 
space program. I can remember, as a young teenager, when the Russians 
put Sputnik bleeping over the top of my house in Houston, Texas. And we 
all stood out in the backyard and watched that thing with its little 
flashing light going across and thought, Oh, my Lord, the Russians are 
in space and we are not there. What are we going to do?
  But being the exceptional people that Americans are, we put our nose 
to the grindstone and our brains to work, and in a very short time we 
met the pledge that President Kennedy made that we would put a man on 
the Moon in the next decade. So we went from behind the eight ball and 
watching the Russians have the first satellite in space to manned 
spaceflight and a trip to the Moon on multiple occasions. In fact, we 
have had a movie about one of the Moon trips that almost ended in 
disaster.
  We've been open and obvious that we have taken the greatest minds 
that we could put together in our space program. And at the Johnson 
Space Center in Houston, Texas, we all in Houston, Texas, and in the 
State of Texas have been proud of the fact of our space shuttles, of 
our space station that we, along with the new free enterprise Russians, 
have put together in outer space. Amazingly enough, we have just 
finally completed the space station the way it was conceived as it was 
started. It's all been done in small portions, putting it together. Now 
it's finished.
  And now we have a new administration who has decided that they are no 
longer interested in manned space travel. And they have basically 
started to say we are going to do away with manned space travel and the 
Constellation program, which was the next phase of manned space travel, 
and we are going to let some friends of ours start some new businesses 
and try to go and let private industry go out there and do the shuttle 
service and launch our satellites. And basically, they have turned over 
the funds that would go to NASA for the manned space program and they 
have plans to turn it over to a few private individuals, amazingly 
enough, most of whom have been fairly large campaign donors of the 
Democrats and the Obama administration.
  In fact, I think I can make an argument--we talk about earmarks in 
this Congress and all these terrible earmarks that people make--this 
has the potential, over the next few years, to be around 6 billion, 
with a B, dollars that the White House is going to earmark for certain 
individual companies, all of whom seem to have been involved in the 
success of that administration. Not that there is anything in a payoff 
in the way. Who knows?
  Just a coincidence, I suppose, but we are canning manned space under 
our NASA program. We are going to lay off thousands of NASA workers and 
those contractors that work with NASA, and we are taking a new position 
that we are going to let new start-up companies start over and build a 
space program. I'm a privatization guy. I believe in privatization in 
everything we do, but this smacks of some strangeness, and I think that 
strangeness is what we are going to talk about here tonight.
  I am joined by my friend Mr. Hall from Texas. I am joined by Judge 
Poe, and I am joined by my good friend Rob Bishop, who really informed 
me a lot about the immigration issue the last time we were together, 
and I am sure he has great insight.
  So I will first recognize Judge Poe for such time as he may wish to 
consume.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Thank you, Judge Carter. I appreciate you yielding 
a few moments on this very important issue.
  Of course being from the Houston area and growing up with NASA, I 
have seen the success of this wonderful program. And like you and many 
others, as a mere child in 1969, I watched Neil Armstrong set foot on 
the Moon. And, of course, the first word when man landed on the Moon 
was ``Houston,'' because that is where NASA was at the time and still 
is headquartered.
  A lot has come from space travel. A lot of our technology, our 
electronic technology, our computer technology, scientific knowledge, 
medical knowledge, all has come because America went to space. And as 
you mentioned, Judge Carter, we did so in just a few years with the 
challenge laid before us by President John F. Kennedy. Back in the 
sixties and the seventies and even in the eighties, and before that, 
Americans, when determined to do something, they could do it. And that 
is why we went to space, because nothing was going to get in the way of 
America going to space and landing people on the Moon.

[[Page 11242]]

  But for some reason, and I think political reasons, we see the end of 
that wonderful glorious exploration, the last frontier. America has 
always led in the space program except, as you mentioned, when the 
Russians put the first Sputnik in space. And the benefits that have 
been received from NASA's spaceflight have been shared all over the 
world, from weather satellites on.
  But now, because of a change in philosophy, the administration wants 
to go a new direction. That direction, of course, is not to space, not 
to the Moon, not to using the shuttle, not to keeping manned spacecraft 
available for Americans to go to the space station, because when that 
last shuttle flight is over with, we are done. We are out of 
spacecraft. We have no way to go into space.
  So if we want to put an American in space after that last shuttle 
flight is over, we are going to have to hitchhike, and we are going to 
have to hitchhike with our good buddies the Russians. And right now the 
Russians charge us to fly with them as a passenger in one of their 
spacecraft. It started out at $45 million, and then $50 million, and 
then $55 million, and now it's $60 million to go into space with the 
Russians. But when they get the monopoly on spaceflight, when that last 
shuttle has finished its flight, who's to say what they'll charge us to 
go into space or if they'll let us even be a passenger in one of their 
spacecraft.
  And then you have got the Chinese over here, you know, the people we 
owe our lives to and our debt to. They are working on a space program 
as well. And now there's that little tyrant in the desert, Ahmadinejad. 
The Iranians are working on spaceflight. They have already sent a 
spacecraft into outer space. I think it carried a frog, a snake, and 
two turtles. But now they want to go into space.
  So while other countries, not really our buddies or our friends, are 
moving forward in space exploration because they understand the 
importance of it, we are backing off. America is just waving the white 
flag and giving up its leadership in space. That ought not to be. And 
we're going to lose technology. We're going to lose the education that 
our scientists have because it's going to disappear. And these jobs 
that are going to be lost, these are good jobs. These are scientists, 
engineers, and they've worked on the space program for years. And now 
the Federal Government's coming in and saying we're going to turn all 
of this over to private industry.
  Myself, like you, Judge Carter, I'm a capitalist. I believe in free 
enterprise. But the private space exploration is 10 to 20 years behind 
the United States NASA program. They have 10 to 20 years to catch up to 
right where we are now. Can we afford to give up the leadership? Some 
say, well, it's to save us money. It isn't going to save us any money. 
We're just transferring Americans' wealth to an unproven entity, and 
that being the private sector. Let the private sector compete, but 
don't subsidize those programs.
  And it's unfortunate that we're seeing the demise of NASA, a self-
inflicted wound by our own Federal Government. That's unfortunate, and 
we should not give up our space leadership to anybody for any reason. 
After all, it's also a national security issue.
  With that, I yield back to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, the administration proposes a $1 
billion cut in NASA's manned program. And at the same time, they are 
pushing $115 billion in new spending for ObamaCare after $700 billion 
in stimulus spending, which we are still looking for the stimulus.
  The taxpayers have already invested $9 billion in the Constellation 
program, which was supposed to be the next step in the space program. 
It will cost $2.5 billion to shut down the Constellation program. So we 
are talking about $11.5 billion is going to be spent just to trash the 
program that we've already spent $9 billion on.
  And, you know, space has always been a very glorious position for us 
to take. And we rose above the international bickering. We shared the 
space station with other nations. Recently, within the last couple of 
years, the Japanese on one of our shuttles took a major pod containment 
system up there, and they've got a piece of it. The Russians have some 
of it. Others have put technology on the space station to where now it 
is what we envisioned with all the various technologies and abilities 
to study long distances in space. And we've taken all that, and now, as 
my good friend from Texas says, to get to our space station that we put 
together, we're going to have to hitchhike with the Russians.
  Now, we all know, as we developed the space station, we also 
developed the rocket power and the use of rocketry, which became a 
great part of our national arsenal. And, in fact, we are concerned 
about the ability of the people in Iran who are trying to develop a 
nuclear weapon to get a midrange missile to deliver it in their 
promised attacks on Israel. The rockets that defend our Nation came 
from the rockets that propelled us into outer space on our great jaunt 
and exploration of outer space.
  So when you start hitting us in our technology, as I would argue the 
Obama administration is doing, and wasting $11.5 billion to shut down a 
program and putting us behind in the future development of these 
vehicles, where does this make sense? Are we just ceding the fact that 
now that the Obama administration is in charge of the country and they 
believe that American exceptionalism is a myth, they are going to prove 
it by taking away the things we are exceptional in? I have real issues 
with that. I think all of us do.
  I'd like to recognize my good friend Rob Bishop from Utah to talk to 
us a little bit about--he is on several committees that have looked 
into this. He's got a good insight into what's going on. So whatever 
time you wish to consume, my friend.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Let me start, if I could, for just a second about jobs, because we 
are talking both inside these Halls and outside about jobs. The 
President and the Vice President are going on, it's called his recovery 
summer tour in which he's going to talk about the creation of jobs. In 
the talking points sent out from the White House, they are talking 
about the 30,000 miles of new transportation, 80,000 new homes that 
will be weatherized, 800 programs in parks that are being increased, 
2,000 drinking water projects, all in the name of creating jobs.
  The President's also asking Congress for $20 billion in additional 
stimulus money to protect government jobs, in addition to the $135 
billion we did in the original stimulus bill to do that. And for only 
$2 billion--now think of that, less than a tenth of what the President 
wants in a new stimulus bill to create and protect jobs; a rounding 
error in either the TARP or the TARP 2 or Son of TARP or Stimulus I or 
Stimulus II--this administration could protect 25,000 to 30,000 jobs in 
the private sector.

                              {time}  1945

  These are scientists and engineers, and these are the jobs that this 
administration's policy with NASA are going to let go and give their 
pink slips.
  But early on in the Bush administration, it was decided the space 
shuttle era had ended. After the problems and the catastrophes with 
Challenger and Columbia, a Presidential commission came through and 
decided we wanted to come up with a newer, safer way to go to the Moon, 
space station and beyond; and the result of that was Constellation.
  Constellation is a program that is designed to be safer than the 
space shuttle by a factor of 10. It's using solid rocket motors because 
those are the safest type of vehicles. It separates the cargo from the 
passengers so, if there is a problem, they can be safer. Time magazine 
called this the best invention of last year. This is the science that 
we have to come up with the best way of going into the future, and it's 
built by a free enterprise company. It consists of the Orion capsule 
where the passengers would be, as well as the Aries rocket that will 
power it at the same time.

[[Page 11243]]

  If this White House, if the administration, if NASA gets their way 
and decides to cancel this greatest invention of the last couple of 
years, there is no Constellation, there will, as has been said, still 
be astronauts who need to go up to the space station. As has been said, 
they will be going up on Russian craft, and in the next year's budget, 
this administration has already penciled in $75 million per astronaut 
visit. As has been mentioned by the good gentleman from Texas, Russians 
have learned the lessons of capitalism, and they realize when they have 
a monopoly they can play that game. But $75 million per astronaut trip 
so that we can subsidize the Russian rocket industry.
  So that, indeed, as we are looking at the future and we're coming up 
with this, this summer of recovery is not necessarily going to be about 
American jobs. The summer of recovery is how we will be spending 
American taxpayers' money to make sure that the Russian technicians are 
on the line building Russian missiles. Perhaps the Chinese are on the 
line starting to build new Chinese missiles so that we can keep their 
jobs and we will rely on Russian technology because we know how 
effective that has been in the past, Russian technology for our 
astronaut visits.
  We sometimes ask the question, where are the jobs? Well, in Russian, 
you also ask it. In their version of where are the jobs, with this 
policy of this administration, NASA, jobs aren't going to be here. Jobs 
are going to be in Russia. Jobs are going to be in China, eventually in 
India; and even Japan's getting in on the trick. That's where those 
jobs are going to go.
  We are firing 30,000 American citizens who have good jobs in science 
and engineering to build the Constellation program and for what? To 
lose our leadership in space? To subsidize the Russians and the Chinese 
industry? To put more Americans out of work in this summer of recovery? 
It simply does not make sense.
  I'd like to enter into an interchange with the gentleman. We've got a 
lot of things to talk about how this interfaces with our military 
commitment and what this administration is doing that is totally 
unusual in trying to push this program forward to destroy--we're not 
losing the space race this time. We're forfeiting the game.
  Mr. CARTER. Perfect statement, ``forfeiting the game.'' We were 
leading the game, we were winning the game until this administration 
came into the White House, and we just stepped up and decided to 
forfeit the game.
  Here's an article from Labor Magazine. It was published on April 15, 
2010: ``Obama is pushing the privatization of NASA and the turnover of 
the government agency to his financial supporters Elon Musk and Google 
owners Page and Brin.
  ``A full bore campaign is now being waged by the Obama administration 
to shut down the U.S. unionized space program and turn it over to `new 
age' speculators who want to build a new space program in a 
`regulation-free' zone in Florida.''
  And the plan is by billionaire and former owner of PayPal, Elon Musk. 
Musk has a company called Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, 
and the question is, ```Should the United States hire Elon Musk, at a 
cost of a few billion dollars, to run a taxi service for American 
astronauts?'
  ``In fact, the SpaceX operation like much that Musk and his backers 
from Google Larry Page and Sergey Brin want the U.S. to give him $6 
billion in the next 5 years to build'' this operation.
  Now, that's a very interesting thing. We take a program, we put $9 
billion into it, it's cost us $2.5 billion to shut it down, we shut it 
down, and we come up with $6 billion more over the next 5 years that 
we're going to give to some good friends to come up with a brand new 
program and they are, as Judge Poe points out, way behind in developing 
the rocket to get them to anywhere we want to go in space.
  I yield back to my friend.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the way the gentleman from Texas has 
put this. Let's face it: two concepts this administration kept throwing 
at it: we're going to save money in this and we're going to privatize 
it, both of those concepts are flat out false.
  As has been said, this administration expects to spend $6 billion 
more on NASA than they are right now without doing any kind of manned 
space flight, $6 billion more for satellites to do climate control and 
feeding the hungry in the world. And in addition to that, the money 
that will now go to these new companies, these startup business 
companies, this is not free enterprise.
  The Constellation went out on a bid that was won by free enterprise 
companies. The people building right now are free market sector 
companies. What this administration wants to do is to take the money 
away from those who are already building Constellation, scrap the 
program, and then turn over to any other group to come up with a new 
plan, a new goal. We don't have a new plan or a new goal, but they're 
going to give it to new companies.
  This government is basically saying these private sector companies 
are now going to be the losers; our friends in this private sector 
group are now going to be the winners. But as the gentleman from Texas 
said, this group is not just simply a business free enterprise group. 
They're already being subsidized by NASA to the point of millions of 
dollars and have already told NASA they need more.
  This has nothing to do with free enterprise. This has everything to 
do with this administration picking winners and losers among the free 
enterprise and elements. So those who have the contracts now are going 
to lose them and lose their jobs, and that money is going to transfer 
over to another group that is also being subsidized by NASA. It's not 
free enterprise, this bit, and this is not saving the taxpayers money. 
This is simply mind-boggling that we are now going to simply say we 
have no plan for space.
  Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, so we're just basically saying, Obama 
just said I want to change this program from one free enterprise group 
to my guys that are on my side; and, unfortunately, they're a little 
behind, but we'll beef them up and we'll try to get them there by 
spending the American taxpayers' money. It is stimulus for a new group 
of private companies. It's amazing.
  But who else is going to be competing? This is interesting. Taxpayers 
have already invested $9 billion in the Constellation, which will be 
lost. This is sort of a comedy piece that my staff put together. 
Everyone there is Oriental, but it has to do with the recent 
announcement--you know, we had promised that with the new Constellation 
program, we were going to go back to the Moon just to do some 
additional research there.
  The Chinese had announced in February of 2004 that they've started 
their Moon exploration program. Phase I involves orbiting a satellite 
around the Moon. Phase II involves sending a lander to the Moon. Phase 
III involves collecting lunar soil samples. China plans to complete its 
space station and a manned mission to the Moon by 2020.
  So not only are we giving up the fact that we're exceptional, but 
those people who are trying to show how exceptional they are--and quite 
honestly, the Chinese have done pretty much a turnaround since they 
learned that capitalism really works, and now they're doing the Moon 
explorations. Now, I'm sure there are one world order folks that say it 
doesn't really matter as long as we all sing Kumbaya and go to the 
Moon.
  But the reality is, remember what technology and the defense world 
came out of, the technology that we developed in our space program; and 
that's something we can never forget. We can never forget to make sure 
that American exceptionalism allows us to stay on top of those things 
that keep us breathing free air in this country. If we ever concede 
that to those who maybe wouldn't like us as much as we might think they 
do--they may like our money but they maybe don't like us and our system 
of human beings having rights and freedoms and protections under our 
Constitution, and maybe those same people who don't feel so good about 
that part of American

[[Page 11244]]

exceptionalism would like to impose their will on us someday. Are we 
going to give up our jaunts into space and our learning from that?
  We're all walking around with cell phones in our pockets, some of us 
two or three of them up here in this crazy place we're in. All that 
technology developed out of the technology that started off with the 
space program. Simple things like Teflon and there's a million things 
out there in the world we don't even know about that came out of the 
space program, and yet industries have come out of the production of 
those products. I can't even remember them all, but I remember at one 
time we loved to talk about it when we talked about our space program. 
We've stopped talking about that.
  But the point is, we're taking people that have dedicated their lives 
to the exceptional job of exploring that great wondrous thing called 
space, and we've told those people, we're laying you off to the tune of 
20,000 to 30,000 of you in Texas and Alabama and Florida and other 
places so that we can start over with a bunch of our buddies in their 
backyards coming up with a new space program. I've got real issues with 
that.
  But not only is China looking at a space program; the Russians are 
planning a manned Moon mission by 2025 to 2030, a manned Mars mission 
by 2035 to 2040. My Lord, everybody else sees those frontiers that we 
used to see. Remember when President Kennedy talked about the new 
frontier, space? We watched programs on television as kids about that 
frontier of space that we were going at, and we did it.
  You know, recently we had hearings in this House where we heard from 
some of those pioneers, and we heard from the first man who walked on 
the Moon. Neil Armstrong, a man who basically stays out of the world of 
politics and lives a relatively quiet life for being such a national 
American hero, came up here and said we cannot afford to lose NASA. It 
will be a serious blow to the United States of America to lose NASA. In 
a minute, I'm going to ask my friend Ralph Hall who was at some of 
those hearings or heard some of these things that were said to tell us 
a little bit about that.
  Mr. Hall, would you like to talk to us about what some of these great 
American heroes talked about in the NASA program?
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank you, Judge, for this opportunity to 
discuss a stroke of the pen that affects all Americans, a stroke of the 
pen early in his administration, a stroke of the pen by the President 
of the United States that canceled out the Constellation, and that's 
what it's all about, and that's why we're here, and that's why we're 
fighting for NASA. That's why the great Neil Armstrong, first man on 
the Moon, stepped out, didn't know he, with his other two compatriots, 
had no idea when they left here that they'd ever come back alive. 
They're great patriots. They're great, those among us, and we've lost 
some. We've had some tragedy in NASA, but we we've had great successes. 
Those men came here and testified that it'd be outrageous to cancel 
Constellation.

                              {time}  2000

  Now I want to talk about that just a little bit. It's been nearly 5 
months since the administration proposed the very radical changes to 
NASA's human space flight and exploration programs by canceling the 
Constellation. Just took his pen and ran a line through it. Well, I 
don't understand that. And I don't understand the lack of sufficient 
details that Congress would need to determine if it was even close to a 
credible plan that he suggests. Yet, in spite of our very best efforts 
to obtain more information from NASA, the situation has not improved; 
indeed, the President's trip to Kennedy Space Center on April 15 only 
added to the confusion as he laid out more aspirational goals, but 
provided no clear idea of how they fit together or how we expect to pay 
for these new ventures. As such, I still have basic concerns about our 
ability to access and use the International Space Station after the 
shuttle is retired.
  I remain concerned with the ``gap'' in U.S. access to space, and I 
want to ensure that we can effectively use the enormous research 
capabilities of the International Space Station. In examining the 
President's plan, I still don't see any viable way to minimize the gap 
and provide for exciting research on the International Space Station.
  The President's most recent decision to send an unmanned ``lifeboat'' 
to the space station at a potential cost of $5 billion to $7 billion 
does absolutely nothing to solve this problem and largely duplicates 
existing services provided by the Russians. Although we've already 
spent nearly $10 billion on the Constellation system that has achieved 
significant milestones and is well on its way to providing continued 
U.S. access to space, the administration's decision to cancel 
Constellation has further stalled development and jeopardized our 
undisputed leadership in space, and that's what it's all about.
  As I've said many times before, as a member of the Space 
Subcommittee, I am concerned with the proposed commercial crew 
direction of this administration. While we have long supported the 
development of commercial cargo operations, I believe it's prudent that 
we first test cargo capabilities before risking the lives of our 
astronauts on newly developed systems.
  I have also not seen credible data to suggest that there is a viable 
market for commercial crew carriers, as they claim there is, with no 
backup, no information on it. In the absence of that data, I fear that 
we might be setting ourselves up for failure if or when the markets 
don't materialize.
  Anyone can claim to be able to take over commercial crew or to take 
over the space program, to take over the building of the next 
instruments of investigating space. Buzz Aldrin, who supports 
commercial crew--I've read his ideas, and I'm still looking for 
concrete data that they can finish what they started. It's easy to 
start these programs and take them over and then have the Federal 
Government have to step in at great loss of time, at great loss of 
international partners, at great loss of contractors, at great loss of 
employees, and great loss to the government for additional money to 
take over. I admire Mr. Aldrin and I will clearly inspect his 
suggestions.
  Finally, in examining options beyond low Earth orbit, I'm unclear of 
when we might see the development of a heavy lift system, or whether 
NASA still considers the Moon as a logical destination. We've been told 
that a new ``game changing'' technology development program will 
provide capabilities for accessing the far reaches of space, but we 
have very few specifics on mission, goals, and direction.
  In the absence of a defensible, credible plan, I and many of our 
Members continue to support the Constellation program as currently 
authorized and appropriated by successive Congresses. GAO will continue 
investigating whether NASA is improperly withholding funds and 
improperly applying the Anti-Deficiency Act as a means of slowing 
Constellation work. I believe that Congress--and when I say Congress, I 
mean both Democrats and Republicans--Congress has been clear that it 
supports the unhindered continuation of Constellation until it 
authorizes an alternative program.
  We can no longer wait for NASA to provide justification for its 
radical changes. Time is running out. Our space station and those who 
man it--our many NASA employees, our international partners, our 
astronauts--await an answer that we can live with and that we can lead 
with. I yield back my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Ralph.
  Mr. Hall is the dean of the Texas delegation. We are awfully proud to 
have him. He has been working long and hard for many, many years to 
make sure that every time we shoot a human being into outer space we 
plan to bring them back.
  It's easy to develop a space program where you can say, well, if the 
guy we shoot out there, if we lose him, it's no big deal, we at least 
have the technology to learn how it works. There are some that have 
developed space programs this way, but we've never developed it that 
way. Some people would say we're a great dinosaur, this NASA.

[[Page 11245]]

This great dinosaur comes from the basic premise, a part of what makes 
Americans great, that every human life is important. Therefore, you 
test and retest and retest again, and you take another path and you 
find a new direction until you are assured of one thing: That that 
precious human life you put upon that exploding bomb called a rocket, 
you're capable of putting that human life out into space and bringing 
that human being back alive.
  I would argue that we're the only space program where that has been a 
priority. What makes us so much more exceptional than others is because 
we've had accidents, but they were accidents. But our planned program 
didn't plan in expendability. We didn't plan for people to be 
expendable until we learned how to do it. We did it, we got through it, 
and we made it work.
  It's a shame to have that kind of history of a program that has 
dedicated itself to exploring space and still caring about that one 
small, little glimmer of spark called a human life, and we do it. We 
have no assurance that this new direction is even going to come close 
to having that same basic spirit that created NASA. We are threatening 
a great human institution.
  I want to yield some more time to my friend, Mr. Bishop.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Texas again as both he 
and Mr. Hall were very eloquent in pointing out the problems that we 
are facing with the cancellation of the Constellation program by NASA.
  I'd like to take one small detour from here to try and point out once 
again that the decision by this administration to cancel Constellation, 
by NASA, was done arbitrarily, capriciously, and actually without 
foresight of what the implications would be and their unintended 
consequences on our military side. For what this administration did not 
realize is that the people--the industrial base that builds the rockets 
to send a man to the moon--are the same people who build the rockets to 
shoot down North Korean and Iranian missiles that are coming at us. 
This industrial base is there with the expertise, and if you fire 
20,000 to 30,000 of that base, this is not a spigot you can turn on and 
off and add them back, if indeed by some miraculous idea you think you 
need to change direction and start over again. That is what we have 
found--that the impact on NASA has a unique, specific, and dangerous 
impact on the defense of this country because if we are having a 
missile defense system, the fact that we are going to fire 25,000 to 
30,000 people in this industrial base means that those people will not 
be working on our missile defense system.
  The Defense Authorization Act that passed this House and is now over 
in the Senate, in the report language it concluded that if indeed 
Constellation is canceled, the cost to our military for our missile 
defense program will increase 40 percent to 100 percent, that the 
increased cost to anything that is propulsion, any of our technical 
missiles--the HARM missile, the Sidewinder missile, anything that has 
that propulsion--it will increase the cost for us to build those 40 
percent to 100 percent. The Minuteman III cost will double. The Navy's 
missile program cost will double, and it's at a time when Secretary 
Gates over at Defense has said that they want the administration to 
find roughly $100 billion in cuts for next year's budget.
  Now, did we ever take the time to figure out the implications of this 
program? Not only are we firing 30,000 of our best and brightest, our 
scientists and engineers, not only are we ceding space to the Chinese 
and the Russians and eventually the Indians and the Japanese, no longer 
are we forfeiting the game, no longer are we no longer taking a part, 
we are putting our missile defense system at risk at the very same 
time. This administration has naively lurched into this program without 
considering the unintended consequences.
  If I could also say one thing in conclusion before I yield back to 
the gentleman from Texas. There are three things that NASA has done in 
trying to push this program of cutting Constellation that violate the 
obvious intent of Congress. Number one, Congress passed in the omnibus 
appropriations bill language that said the Constellation would not be 
cut until Congress approves those cuts. Nonetheless, first of all, they 
deferred the Constellation contracts, didn't terminate them--it was 
cute--they just deferred them so the money would not flow. Number two, 
they then moved the Constellation manager--didn't fire him, they just 
moved him--to disrupt the program. And number three, and a very novel, 
unique way--in fact, the spokesman said, well, these are unique 
circumstances--for the first time ever, ever in the history of NASA, 
they have said termination costs, the liability of termination costs 
must come from existing contracts. NASA has never done that when it 
terminated a program. When Congress told it to terminate a program on 
solid rocket motors, they always appropriated money for the closing 
costs. What this means is that the premarket private sector companies 
that are building Constellation right now have got to, from their 
current contracts, take money out to terminate, which means they fire 
their employees and they turn to their subcontractors and they break 
those contacts so they fire their employees. This is all a concentrated 
effort on the part of NASA and this administration to destroy this 
program before Congress has a chance to finalize our work and say 
whether we want it destroyed or not. I think it's very clear that this 
Congress has never at any time given the indication to NASA that we 
think Constellation should stop. But this is a program being done by 
the administration in violation of clearly the intent of Congress and, 
as the gentleman said, maybe even under the specifics of the rule of 
law of Congress, to force us into a fait accompli where Congress does 
not want to go and this Nation should not go.
  This is a sad situation, this is sad, this is unprecedented on the 
part of NASA, and it is not good for the country. I appreciate being 
able to be a part of this evening tonight because Constellation is 
very, very important to this country. This is our future. We should not 
lose that. I yield back to the gentleman from Texas and thank you for 
allowing me to be a part of this.
  Mr. CARTER. Recapturing my time, as the gentleman was pointing out 
something, it just popped into my head, the old civics course that 
everybody in this country at least used to take in high school about 
the three branches of government that were created by our Founders and 
what they did. The laws were written by the Congress, the legislative 
branch, administered and enforced by the executive branch--which is the 
White House--and interpreted and held to the standards of the 
Constitution by the judicial branch. And as the gentleman pointed out, 
this Congress has never taken the position that we were going to trash 
the Constellation. In fact, we wrote specific language that said the 
Constellation shall remain until Congress acts.

                              {time}  2015

  Now, the President, without a law or a direction by this Congress, 
has decided to use magic tricks that have never been used before to 
delay to the point of disaster and to destroy the Constellation.
  We just heard today, when Judge Poe got up here and talked, that at 
least a court of this land has pointed out that the closing down of the 
gulf to offshore drilling was arbitrary and capricious, and it has 
granted the extraordinary relief that is very seldom done in the court 
system by granting an injunction against the President of the United 
States and the White House to prevent them, by one of the whims that 
they came up with, from closing down drilling in the gulf. This court 
has said, Sorry, boys. You can't do that.
  Well, now we've got a Constitution, and we've got a Congress that has 
got a provision and a law that has been passed as the law of this land 
to be enforced by the executive branch of this government that says 
that we will not destroy the Constellation program until the Congress 
decides to do so, but the President, who, I guess, didn't take

[[Page 11246]]

civics in high school, has decided it doesn't really matter whether 
Congress acts or not. He is going to destroy the program. I don't think 
that's the way it works. I don't think that's the way it's supposed to 
work.
  We like to say this, and we recite this in a lot of places: We are a 
country of laws, not of men.
  It is not what man runs the White House or what man runs some 
position in this country. It is what the law is. The law is passed by 
this Congress and by other legislative bodies around the 50 States in 
this Union. Our executive branch is to enforce those laws and to uphold 
them. Our judiciary is to remind them when they don't, and they have 
done so as recently as yesterday.
  What is kind of strange is that the Carter administration decided to 
cede the Panama Canal. America would no longer manage the Panama Canal. 
It was going to save us money to get rid of the Panama Canal. Now, it's 
kind of funny. There is a Chinese flag imposed on this picture because 
now the Chinese manage the Panama Canal. That's kind of outsourcing 
American exceptionalism. We built that canal. Now we're outsourcing the 
Moon, potentially, to the Chinese under the Obama administration, and 
we are outsourcing the space program and the missiles that go along 
with that space program, and we're outsourcing the rocketry, which 
makes us exceptional.
  You know, this administration has been very critical about the 
outsourcing of jobs outside the country. It has been pointing fingers 
at lots of people, saying they're destroying American jobs by 
outsourcing. What in the world do you think you're doing with these 
20,000 to 30,000 high-paying, technical jobs--the great brain trust of 
America? You're outsourcing them to the Chinese, to the Indians, to the 
Russians--and maybe to the Japanese.
  Why shouldn't we be concerned about this, Mr. President? I think 
that's a question we've got to ask ourselves. I think we've got to 
start asking, With how much are we willing to say we're no longer 
exceptional and that we're just going to outsource everything to 
everyone else?
  I really believe the American people want to say to us here in 
Congress, Hey, wake up. Give us jobs like you've always given us jobs, 
and we as Americans will do those jobs, and we'll do them better than 
anybody else in the world. We always have and we always will. I'm not 
ready to give up on us, and I don't think my colleagues are ready to 
give up on us or on the American people.
  We are still the exceptional people who put a man on the Moon in a 
decade like the President of the United States John F. Kennedy said. We 
are still the people who created the first, basically, aircraft that 
you could fly out into outer space--the shuttle program--a phenomenon 
that we used, and we landed them there on the runway just like an 
ordinary airplane rather than parachuting them into the ocean like the 
first programs we did. We have done wonders with NASA.
  I hope and I pray--and I think everybody else hopes and prays--that 
the President will reconsider and will allow Congress to discuss this 
and will allow Congress to make decisions as to whether or not we're 
going to make these kinds of radical changes to the future of man's 
exploration of space and whether, when we do, if we change, we are 
protecting the sanctity of human life. All of these things are 
important. All of these things are things we ought to be concerned 
about. Right now, we've just got to be concerned about why this 
administration is giving up on American exceptionalism and why it is 
outsourcing our space program to foreign countries.
  I'll yield whatever time Mr. Bishop would like so he can make a 
comment on that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has approximately 
10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I have only one last insight to give, and I 
appreciate, once again, the gentleman from Texas taking this time to 
point out how significant this issue is that, indeed, the Constellation 
program was the way forward into the future. It was to replace the 
space shuttle. It went through the science. It is our future. It is 
being built by the private sector. Yet, we are deciding to cancel it 
with no other goal in mind. We don't have a plan. We don't have a 
program. We don't even have a name. We don't have an idea for what the 
future may bring.
  There was a study that was done after the last space shuttle 
catastrophe, and it said there are two things that will destroy manned 
spaceflight, the mission to manned spaceflight and NASA. Those are, 
number one, not to consider human safety, as the gentleman has said. 
Then number two is not to have an organized plan.
  I just have, in a note of irony, a flyer that went to all of our 
offices that came from NASA that tomorrow, in the Rayburn foyer, there 
will be the new era of innovation and discovery, which means that there 
will be an interactive, all-day event highlighting NASA's robust Earth 
and space science portion, cutting-edge aeronautics, and continued 
leadership in human flight.
  I am so grateful that there will be an interactive game that we in 
Congress can play about spaceflight, because, if the decisions of NASA 
and of this administration are allowed, there won't be a real manned 
spaceflight for us to see. At least we'll have a game so that we will 
remember what we used to do and what might have been.
  I yield back.
  Mr. CARTER. In reclaiming my time, that is ironic because one of the 
things you hear from parents is, When am I going to be able to get my 
kids to have their own imaginations and to not play somebody else's 
video games? To me, it sounds like this is somebody else's video game.
  You know, you'll remember when we diverted satellites from protecting 
our troops in Iraq to over the poles to check on global warming. From 
what I'm hearing from this administration, their plans for NASA are 
that we're going to have low-orbit satellite programs to check on 
global warming. Oh, I forgot. We don't call it ``global warming'' 
anymore. It's called ``climate change.'' I apologize. It turns out we 
may not be warming. Well, that's just a whole other debate. Yet it 
seems like all of the resources seem to be going towards desperately 
trying to confirm that debate.
  I want to thank the gentleman for coming down, my distinguished 
friend from Utah, Rob Bishop, who is one of the smartest guys in 
Congress, who is a good friend of mine, and who is a classmate of mine. 
We came into this august body together. We share an awful lot of 
concerns about the future of what we are doing. I'm really happy to 
have Rob Bishop looking at the scientific side of our world, because he 
has got great insight into it. I want to thank him for sharing that 
insight with us tonight.
  I want to thank the Speaker for allowing us to take this time to talk 
about something that we are very proud of. We in Texas have a lot to be 
proud of. One of the things we point out that we are proud of is the 
manned space center in Houston, Texas. When you look on the Texas map, 
which tells you all the great things to come see in Texas, we highly 
recommend that people visit the manned space center, because we know 
great things were done by great men and women at that place, and great 
things continue to be done there.
  To drive a stake in the heart of the manned space program is a 
tragedy, not only for the State of Texas but for the whole United 
States and, I think I can effectively argue, the world. Let's not 
outsource another of our industries. Let's not give up on American 
exceptionalism. Let's go back and reconsider the Obama administration's 
desire to trash this program. Let's go back to putting us on a path 
with a plan, as Mr. Bishop pointed out, to go out and explore those new 
frontiers we have left to explore.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

                          ____________________