" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

111–576 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 5781 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

JULY 28, 2010.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

57–655 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2010

111–576 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 5781 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

JULY 28, 2010.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
57–655 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–576 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

JULY 28, 2010.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and 

Technology, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5781] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5781) to authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with 

an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Bill ................................................................................................................ 2 

II. Purpose ........................................................................................................ 31 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 31 

IV. Hearing Summaries .................................................................................... 31 

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 48 

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 48 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis ........................................................................ 48 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 60 

IX. Committee Cost Estimate ........................................................................... 70 

X. New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 70 

XI. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 .......................................................... 70 

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 70 

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 71 

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 71 

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 71 

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 71 

XVII. Earmark Identification ............................................................................... 71 

XVIII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 71 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
2 

XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported ....................... 71 

XX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 73 

XXI. Additional Views ......................................................................................... 74 

XXII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 82 

I. BILL

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Authorization 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. Definitions. 

TITLE I—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

Sec. 101. Fiscal year 2011. 

Sec. 102. Fiscal year 2012. 

Sec. 103. Fiscal year 2013. 

TITLE II—HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT 

Subtitle A—Exploration 

Sec. 201. Reaffirmation of exploration policy. 

Sec. 202. Restructured Exploration program. 

Sec. 203. Space radiation. 

Subtitle B—International Space Station 

Sec. 211. Extension of ISS operations. 

Sec. 212. ISS research management institution. 

Sec. 213. ISS research management plan. 

Sec. 214. Outreach plan for United States ISS research. 

Sec. 215. ISS cargo resupply requirements and contingency capacity through 2020. 

Sec. 216. Centrifuge. 

Sec. 217. Exploration technology development using the ISS. 

Sec. 218. Fundamental space life science and physical sciences and related technology research. 

Subtitle C—Space Shuttle 

Sec. 221. Contingent authorization of additional space shuttle mission. 

Sec. 222. Expanded scope of Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office. 

Sec. 223. Post-Shuttle workforce transition initiative grant program. 

Sec. 224. Disposition of orbiter vehicles. 

Subtitle D—Space and Flight Support 

Sec. 231. 21st Century Space Launch Complex Initiative. 

Subtitle E—Commercial Crew Transportation 

Sec. 241. Affirmation of policy. 

Sec. 242. Commercial crew and related commercial space initiatives. 

Sec. 243. Federal assistance for the development of commercial orbital human space transportation services. 

Subtitle F—General Provisions 

Sec. 251. Use of program funds. 

TITLE III—SCIENCE 

Subtitle A—Earth Science 

Sec. 301. Earth science applications. 

Sec. 302. Essential space-based Earth science and climate measurements. 

Sec. 303. Commercial remote sensing data purchases pilot project. 

Sec. 304. Report on temperature records. 

Subtitle B—Space Science 

Sec. 311. Suborbital programs. 

Sec. 312. Review of Explorer program. 

Sec. 313. Radioisotope thermoelectric generator material requirements and supply. 

TITLE IV—AERONAUTICS 

Sec. 401. Environmentally friendly aircraft research and development initiative. 

Sec. 402. Research on NextGen airspace management concepts and tools. 

Sec. 403. Research on aircraft cabin air quality. 

Sec. 404. Research on on-board volcanic ash sensor systems. 

Sec. 405. Aeronautics test facilities. 

Sec. 406. Expanded research program on composite materials used in aerospace. 

TITLE V—SPACE TECHNOLOGY 

Sec. 501. Space technology program. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
3 

TITLE VI—EDUCATION AND OUTREACH 

Sec. 601. STEM education and training. 

Sec. 602. Assessment of impediments to space science and engineering workforce development for minority and 

underrepresented groups at NASA. 

Sec. 603. Independent review of the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program. 

Sec. 604. Hands-on space science and engineering education and training. 

TITLE VII—INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITIES REVITALIZATION 

Sec. 701. Institutional management. 

Sec. 702. James E. Webb Cooperative Education Distinguished Scholar Program. 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT 

Sec. 801. Prohibition on expenditure of funds when 30 percent threshold is exceeded. 

Sec. 802. Project and program reserves. 

Sec. 803. Independent reviews. 

Sec. 804. Avoiding organizational conflicts of interest in major NASA acquisition programs. 

Sec. 805. Report to Congress. 

TITLE IX—OTHER PROVISIONS 

Sec. 901. Cloud computing. 

Sec. 902. Review of practices to detect and prevent the use of counterfeit parts. 

Sec. 903. Preservation and management of lunar sites. 

Sec. 904. Continuity of moderate resolution land imaging remote sensing data. 

Sec. 905. Space weather. 

Sec. 906. Use of operational commercial suborbital vehicles for research, development, and education. 

Sec. 907. Study on export control matters related to United States astronaut safety and NASA mission operations. Sec. 908. Amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. 

Sec. 909. Near-Earth objects. 

Sec. 910. Sense of Congress. 

Sec. 911. Ethics programs in the Office of General Counsel. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

The Congress finds the following: 

(1) NASA is and should remain a multimission agency with a balanced and 

robust set of core missions in science, aeronautics, and human space flight and 

exploration. 

(2) NASA’s programs have the potential to inspire our youth to pursue studies 

and careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and the agency should carry out its activities in a manner that enhances the educational and 

outreach potential of its programs. 

(3) NASA should begin to reinvest in sustained fashion in a long-term space 

technology research and development activity. Such investments are an important catalyst for innovation, and they represent the critically important ‘‘seed 

corn’’ on which NASA’s ability to carry out challenging and productive missions 

in the future will depend. 

(4) The Space Shuttle workforce, both civil servants and contractors, encompasses skills and experience that will be needed in the Nation’s future human 

space flight activities, and the transition of that workforce to a challenging 

human space flight and exploration program needs to be carried out in as expeditious and nondisruptive a manner as possible. 

(5) Human and robotic exploration of the solar system will be a significant 

undertaking of humanity in the 21st century and beyond, and it is in the national interest that the United States should assume a leadership role in a cooperative international exploration initiative. Continuity of exploration goals is 

critical if progress is to be maximized and costly inefficiencies are to be minimized. 

(6) Commercial activities have long contributed to the vitality and strength 

of the Nation’s space and aeronautics programs, and the growth of a healthy, 

self-sustaining United States commercial space and aeronautics sector should 

continue to be encouraged. 

(7) Congress agrees with the finding of the Review of United States Human 

Spaceflight Plans Committee that: ‘‘While there are many potential benefits of 

commercial services that transport crew to low-Earth orbit, there are simply too 

many risks at the present time not to have a viable fallback option for risk mitigation.’’. 

(8) It is in the national interest for the United States Government to develop 

a government system to serve as an independent means—whether primary or 

backup—of crewed access to low-Earth orbit and beyond so that it is not dependent on either non-United States or commercial systems for its crewed access to space. 

(9) Development of the next crewed space transportation system to low-Earth 

orbit should be guided by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board’s recommendation that ‘‘the design of the system should give overriding priority to 

crew safety, rather than trade safety against other performance criteria, such 

as low cost and reusability’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
4 

(10) In an environment of constrained budgets, responsible stewardship of 

taxpayer-provided resources makes it imperative that NASA’s exploration program be carried out in a manner that builds on the investments made to date 

in the Orion, Ares I, and heavy lift projects and other activities of the exploration program in existence prior to fiscal year 2011 rather than discarding 

them. A restructured exploration program should pursue the incremental development and demonstration of crewed and heavy-lift transportation systems in 

a manner that ensures that investments to provide assured access to low-Earth 

orbit also directly support the expeditious development of the heavy lift launch 

vehicle system, minimize the looming human space flight ‘‘gap’’, provide a very 

high level of crew safety, and enable challenging missions beyond low-Earth 

orbit in a timely manner. 

(11) NASA’s programs in astrophysics, heliophysics, planetary science, and 

Earth science and climate research have greatly increased our understanding 

of both our home planet and the rest of the universe, and they have also provided numerous benefits to our society. 

(12) NASA’s aeronautics program is undertaking research and development 

that benefits our economic development and competitiveness, enhances our 

quality of life and enables environmentally responsible aviation operations, and 

strengthens our national defense. 

(13) The ISS provides a unique research environment and capabilities for 

basic and applied research, as well as having the potential to serve as a testbed 

for human space flight technologies and operational concepts. It is critically important that NASA make needed investments to promote productive ISS utilization, including a meaningful program of grants in the life and physical sciences 

microgravity research disciplines. 

(14) It is in the national interest for the United States to have an export control policy that protects the national security while also enabling the United 

States aerospace industry to compete effectively in the global marketplace and 

the United States to undertake cooperative programs in science and human 

space flight in an effective manner. 

(15) A strong, robust NASA program is in the national interest. Ensuring that 

it can continue to pursue cutting-edge space and aeronautical research and development activities and push back the frontier of space exploration requires a 

sustained and adequate commitment in resources. However, NASA’s share of 

the Federal discretionary budgetary authority has declined significantly relative 

to its post-Apollo historical average share of 2.07 percent. It should be a national goal to restore NASA’s funding share to its post-Apollo historical average. 

(16) NASA should be vigilant in taking all necessary steps to control cost and 

schedule growth in mission projects, including the development of an integrated 

cost containment strategy, and adopt measures that improve the performance 

and transparency of its cost and acquisition management practices. NASA 

should approach cost and schedule management with the same level of innovation, rigor, and technical excellence that it applies to the execution of its mission projects. 

(17) NASA has been inconsistent in its treatment of termination liability costs 

for contracts issued by different mission directorates and across various agency 

programs relative to historical practice. This inconsistency has hampered 

NASA’s ability to effectively execute its Exploration programs. 

(18) NASA’s temperature records substantially overlap with the records of the 

Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of 

NASA. 

(2) ISS.—The term ‘‘ISS’’ means the International Space Station. 

(3) NASA.—The term ‘‘NASA’’ means the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

(4) NOAA.—The term ‘‘NOAA’’ means the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

(5) OSTP.—The term ‘‘OSTP’’ means the Office of Science and Technology Policy. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
5 

TITLE I—AUTHORIZATION OF 

APPROPRIATIONS 

SEC. 101. FISCAL YEAR 2011. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for fiscal year 2011 $19,000,000,000, to be allocated as follows: 

(1) For Science, $5,015,700,000, of which— 

(A) $1,801,800,000 shall be for Earth Science; 

(B) $1,485,700,000 shall be for Planetary Science; 

(C) $1,076,300,000 shall be for Astrophysics; 

(D) $646,900,000 shall be for Heliophysics, of which $5,000,000 shall be 

an augmentation to the Explorers program; and (E) $5,000,000 shall be an augmentation to the total amount provided 

under subparagraphs (C) and (D) for Astrophysics and Heliophysics in order 

to augment the funding for the Science Mission Directorate’s suborbital research programs, to be allocated between the Astrophysics and Heliophysics 

suborbital programs at the Administrator’s discretion. (2) For Aeronautics, $579,600,000. 

(3) For Space Technology, $572,200,000. 

(4) For Exploration, $4,535,300,000 of which— (A) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research; 

(B) $14,000,000 shall be for the Commercial Orbital Transportation System demonstration program; (C) $50,000,000 shall be for commercial crew transportation-related activities; (D) $4,156,300,000 shall be for the restructured exploration program described in section 202; and (E) $100,000,000 shall be for the loan and loan guarantee program described in section 243. 

(5) For Space Operations, $4,594,300,000, of which— (A) $989,100,000 shall be for the Space Shuttle program; 

(B) $2,804,800,000 shall be for the ISS, of which $75,000,000 shall be for 

fundamental space life science and physical sciences and related technology 

research using ground-based, free-flyer, and ISS facilities, including ISS 

National Laboratory research; (C) $60,000,000 shall be for the Post-Shuttle Workforce Transition Initiative grant program described in section 223; and (D) $740,400,000 shall be for Space and Flight Support, of which $50,000,000 shall be for the 21st Century Launch Complex Initiative. (6) For Education, $145,800,000. 

(7) For Cross-Agency Support Programs, $3,111,400,000. 

(8) For Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration, $407,300,000, of which $10,000,000 is an augmentation to the President’s requested funding level in order to support the NASA laboratory revitalization 

initiative described in section 701. 

(9) For Inspector General, $38,400,000. 

SEC. 102. FISCAL YEAR 2012. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for fiscal year 2012 $19,450,000,000, to be allocated as follows: 

(1) For Science, $5,278,600,000 of which— 

(A) $1,944,500,000 shall be for Earth Science; 

(B) $1,547,200,000 shall be for Planetary Science; 

(C) $1,109,300,000 shall be for Astrophysics; 

(D) $672,600,000 shall be for Heliophysics, of which $25,000,000 shall be 

an augmentation to the Explorers program; and 

(E) $5,000,000 shall be an augmentation to the total amount provided 

under subparagraphs (C) and (D) for Astrophysics and Heliophysics in order 

to augment the funding for the Science Mission Directorate’s suborbital research programs, to be allocated between the Astrophysics and Heliophysics 

suborbital programs at the Administrator’s discretion. 

(2) For Aeronautics, $598,700,000, of which $78,900,000 shall be for the Aviation Safety Program, $80,400,000 shall be for the Aeronautics Test Program, 

$83,900,000 shall be for the Airspace Systems Program, $233,500,000 shall be 

for Fundamental Aeronautics, and $122,000,000 shall be for Integrated Systems 

Research. 

(3) For Space Technology, $1,012,200,000. 

(4) For Exploration, $4,881,800,000 of which— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
6 

(A) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research; 

(B) $50,000,000 shall be for commercial crew transportation-related activities; 

(C) $4,516,800,000 shall be for the restructured exploration program described in section 202; and 

(D) $100,000,000 shall be for the loan and loan guarantee program described in section 243. 

(5) For Space Operations, $3,930,300,000, of which— 

(A) $86,100,000 shall be for the Space Shuttle program; 

(B) $3,033,600,000 shall be for the ISS, of which $100,000,000 shall be 

for fundamental space life science and physical sciences and related technology research using ground-based, free-flyer, and ISS facilities, including 

ISS National Laboratory research; 

(C) $40,000,000 shall be for the Post-Shuttle Workforce Transition Initiative grant program described in section 223; and 

(D) $770,600,000 shall be for Space and Flight Support, of which 

$50,000,000 shall be for the 21st Century Launch Complex Initiative. 

(6) For Education, $145,800,000. 

(7) For Cross-Agency Support Programs, $3,189,600,000. 

(8) For Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration, 

$373,800,000, of which $10,000,000 is an augmentation to the President’s requested level in order to support the NASA laboratory revitalization initiative 

described in section 701. 

(9) For Inspector General, $39,200,000. 

SEC. 103. FISCAL YEAR 2013. 

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for fiscal year 2013 

$19,960,000,000, to be allocated as follows: 

(1) For Science, $5,569,500,000, of which— 

(A) $2,089,500,000 shall be for Earth Science; 

(B) $1,591,200,000 shall be for Planetary Science; 

(C) $1,149,100,000 shall be for Astrophysics; 

(D) $734,700,000 shall be for Heliophysics, of which $55,000,000 shall be 

an augmentation to the Explorers program; and 

(E) $5,000,000 shall be an augmentation to the total amount provided 

under subparagraphs (C) and (D) for Astrophysics and Heliophysics in order 

to augment the funding for the Science Mission Directorate’s suborbital research programs, to be allocated between the Astrophysics and Heliophysics 

suborbital programs at the Administrator’s discretion. 

(2) For Aeronautics, $609,400,000, of which $81,200,000 shall be for the Aviation Safety Program, $79,600,000 shall be for the Aeronautics Test Program, 

$87,300,000 shall be for the Airspace Systems Program, $239,000,000 shall be 

for Fundamental Aeronautics, and $122,300,000 shall be for Integrated Systems 

Research. 

(3) For Space Technology, $1,059,700,000. 

(4) For Exploration, $4,888,500,000 of which— 

(A) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research; 

(B) $5,000,000, shall be for the Exploration Technology and Demonstration program; 

(C) $5,000,000 shall be for the Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions 

program; 

(D) $50,000,000 shall be for commercial crew transportation-related activities; 

(E) $4,513,500,000 shall be for the restructured exploration program described in section 202; and 

(F) $100,000,000 shall be for the loan and loan guarantee program described in section 243. 

(5) For Space Operations, $3,993,300,000, of which— 

(A) $3,179,400,000 shall be for the ISS, of which $100,000,000 shall be 

for fundamental space life science and physical sciences and related technology research using ground-based, free-flyer, and ISS facilities, including 

ISS National Laboratory research; 

(B) $40,000,000 shall be for the Post-Shuttle Workforce Transition Initiative grant program described in section 223; and 

(C) $773,900,000 shall be for Space and Flight Support, of which 

$50,000,000 shall be for the 21st Century Launch Complex Initiative. 

(6) For Education, $145,800,000. 

(7) For Cross-Agency Support Programs, $3,276,800,000. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
7 

(8) For Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration, $376,900,000, of which $10,000,000 is an augmentation to the President’s requested funding level in order to support the NASA laboratory revitalization 

initiative described in section 701. 

(9) For Inspector General, $40,100,000. 

TITLE II—HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT 

Subtitle A—Exploration 

SEC. 201. REAFFIRMATION OF EXPLORATION POLICY. 

Congress reaffirms its support for the exploration policy set forth in sections 401 

and 402 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act 

of 2008 (Public Law 110–422; 122 Stat. 4788-4789). 

SEC. 202. RESTRUCTURED EXPLORATION PROGRAM. 

(a) REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Administrator shall develop a plan to restructure the exploration program 

in existence prior to fiscal year 2011 in order to develop and demonstrate in an integrated manner and as expeditiously and efficiently as practicable a governmentally 

owned crew transportation system and heavy lift transportation system that satisfies the following requirements: 

(1) The plan shall make maximum practicable use of the design, development, 

and test work completed to date on the Orion crew exploration vehicle, Ares I 

crew launch vehicle, heavy lift launch vehicle system, and associated ground 

support and exploration enabling systems, including spacesuit development and 

related life support technology, and take best advantage of investments and 

contracts implemented to date. 

(2) The performance capabilities of the crew transportation system shall be 

phased in a manner that is consistent with available and anticipated resources, 

with the initial operational goal of having the crew transportation system developed under this section available to assure crewed access to low-Earth orbit and 

the ISS no later than December 31, 2015, in order to minimize the duration of 

the United States human space flight gap following the retirement of the Space 

Shuttle fleet. If one or more United States commercial entities are certified to 

provide ISS crew transportation and rescue services, the crew transportation 

system developed under this section shall be available as a backup ISS crew 

transportation and rescue service as needed but shall not be utilized as the primary means of ISS crew transportation and rescue or otherwise compete with 

the commercial system for ISS crew transportation and rescue services. 

(3) The crewed spacecraft element of the crew transportation system shall be 

evolvable on a continuous development path to support— 

(A) ISS crew transportation and rescue capability; 

(B) non-ISS missions to, from, and in low-Earth orbit; and 

(C) human missions beyond low-Earth orbit. 

(4) The crew transportation system shall be able to serve as a testbed for 

demonstrating operations concepts for exploration missions beyond low-Earth 

orbit, as well as for demonstrating technologies and carrying out risk reduction 

for the heavy lift launch vehicle development program. 

(5) The crew transportation system shall have predicted levels of safety during ascent to low-Earth orbit, transit, and descent from low-Earth orbit that are 

not less than those required of the Ares I/Orion configuration that has completed program preliminary design review. 

(6) In order to make the most cost-effective use of the funds available for the 

restructured exploration program, the Administrator shall pursue the expeditious and cost-efficient development of a heavy lift launch system that utilizes 

the systems and flight and ground test activities of the crew transportation system developed under this section to the maximum extent practicable. In developing the heavy lift launch vehicle— 

(A) the heavy lift launch vehicle shall be sized to enable challenging missions beyond low-Earth orbit and evolvable on a continuous development 

path to enable the efficient and cost-effective conduct of crewed missions to 

the full range of destinations envisioned in the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, namely Lagrangian points, 

the Moon, near-Earth objects, and Mars and its moons; 

(B) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Administrator shall carry out a review of the heavy lift launch vehicle reVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
8 

quirements needed to support crewed missions to the full range of destinations envisioned in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, and shall select an exploration launch vehicle architecture to meet those requirements; 

(C) the development of the heavy lift launch vehicle authorized in this 

paragraph shall be completed as expeditiously as possible within available 

resources and shall take maximum benefit from the prior investments made 

in the Orion, Ares I, and heavy lift projects and from investments made in 

the restructured program on the development, demonstration, and test of 

the crew transportation system; and 

(D) the Administrator shall strive to meet the goal of having the heavy 

lift launch vehicle authorized in this paragraph available for operational 

missions by the end of the current decade. 

(b) IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTRUCTURED PROGRAM.—The restructured exploration 

program shall be implemented in a manner that— 

(1) facilitates the planned transition of Space Shuttle program personnel to 

the restructured exploration program upon the retirement of the Space Shuttle 

fleet, while providing for cost effective management and vehicle development; 

(2) provides for a robust flight and ground test and demonstration program; 

(3) streamlines program management processes to the maximum extent practicable while ensuring that the Government’s ability to meet its responsibilities 

for cost discipline, safety, and mission assurance is maintained; 

(4) working with industry, eliminates unnecessary NASA and industry institutional infrastructure, other fixed costs, processes, and oversight, reducing exploration program fixed costs to the extent practicable and maximizing the program’s affordability; 

(5) incentivizes, through innovative management practices, NASA program 

and project managers and industry counterparts to establish and maintain realistic cost and schedule estimates, and take necessary steps to avoid cost and 

schedule growth; 

(6) seeks to minimize to the extent practicable the operating costs of the crew 

transportation system developed under the restructured exploration program; 

(7) enables the restructured exploration program to undertake in an incremental fashion increasingly challenging uncrewed and crewed demonstration 

flights in and beyond low-Earth orbit; 

(8) allows the systems developed under the restructured exploration program 

to serve as potential testbeds for the demonstration of key enabling exploration 

technologies and operational capabilities; and 

(9) prepares for and enables human missions to a variety of destinations in 

the inner solar system, including cislunar space, the Moon, Lagrangian points, 

near-Earth objects, and ultimately Mars and its moons. 

(c) SUPPORT SYSTEMS.—The restructured exploration program shall continue work 

on ground systems and other exploration-enabling technologies and capabilities 

needed to support the exploration program, including spacesuit development, as expeditiously as possible within available resources. 

(d) NASA LAUNCH SUPPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION PROGRAM FOR

THE RESTRUCTURED EXPLORATION PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall carry out a program to prepare infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center that is needed to enable processing 

and launch of the elements of the restructured exploration program, including 

simplifying vehicle interfaces and other ground processing and payload integration areas to minimize overall costs, enhance safety, and complement the purpose of this section. 

(2) ELEMENTS.—The program required by this section shall include— 

(A) investments in support of the restructured exploration program to— 

(i) improve processing and launch operations at the Kennedy Space 

Center; 

(ii) enhance the overall capabilities of the Eastern Range; and 

(iii) reduce the long-term cost of operations and maintenance; 

(B) measures in support of the restructured exploration program to provide multivehicle support and improvements in payload processing; and 

(C) such other measures in support of the restructured exploration program as the Administrator may consider appropriate. 

(e) REPORT ON NASA LAUNCH SUPPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION

PROGRAM FOR THE RESTRUCTURED EXPLORATION PROGRAM.—Not later than 180 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 

appropriate committees of the Congress a report on the plan for the implementation 

of the program authorized in subsection (d). 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
9 

(f) INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION.—The Administrator shall explore potential 

international collaborations that would enable more ambitious exploration missions 

in a timely manner and within available resources than would otherwise be possible, such as human lunar landings or the incremental establishment of a lunar 

research outpost. 

SEC. 203. SPACE RADIATION. 

(a) STRATEGY.—The Administrator shall develop a space radiation mitigation and 

management strategy and implementation plan that includes key milestones, a 

timetable, and estimation of budget requirements. The strategy shall include a 

mechanism to coordinate NASA research, technology, facilities, engineering, operations, and other functions required to support the strategy and plan. The Administrator shall transmit the strategy and plan to the Congress not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(b) SPACE RADIATION RESEARCH FACILITIES.—The Administrator, in consultation 

with the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, shall assess the national capabilities for carrying out critical ground-based research on space radiation biology, 

and shall identify any issues that could affect the ability to carry out that research. 

(c) RESEARCH ON SOLAR PARTICLE EVENTS.—The Administrator shall carry out research on solar particle events to improve the predictions and forecasts of solar particle events that could affect human missions beyond low-Earth orbit. 

(d) RADIATION RESEARCH ON NON-HUMAN PRIMATES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall transmit to the Congress not later 

than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act a report on prior radiation 

research on non-human primates and the justification and rationale for any additional research involving non-human primates. 

(2) CONSULTATION.—In preparing the report, the Administrator shall consult 

with other Government agencies that have previously conducted radiation research on non-human primates. 

Subtitle B—International Space Station 

SEC. 211. EXTENSION OF ISS OPERATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, in consultation with the ISS partners, 

take all necessary measures to support the operation and full utilization of the 

International Space Station through at least the year 2020, if it can continue to be 

operated safely over that period. The Administrator shall, in consultation with the 

ISS partners, seek to minimize to the extent practicable the operating costs of the 

ISS. 

(b) VEHICLE AND COMPONENT REVIEW.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Administrator shall— 

(A) 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 ISS, 

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; and 

(B) provide the completed assessment to the Congress within 90 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS OF ASSESSMENT.—The results of the required assessment 

shall include, at a 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 ISS. 

(C) The identification of spare or replacement parts existing or planned 

that due to size, weight, and launch configuration can only be carried to the 

ISS by the Space Shuttle. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
10 

(3) COMPTROLLER GENERAL.—The Administrator shall enable the Comptroller 

General to monitor and, as appropriate, participate in the assessment required 

by paragraph (1) in such a way as to enable the Comptroller General to provide 

to the Congress an independent review of the assessment. 

SEC. 212. ISS RESEARCH MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—Pursuant to section 507 of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16767), the Administrator shall 

designate an independent, nonprofit United States institution, based on the result 

of a competitive solicitation, for the management of fundamental space life science 

and physical sciences and related technology research to be conducted on the ISS, 

as well as all research, including United States commercial research, that is funded 

by non-NASA United States domestic entities and carried out on the ISS. 

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The research management institution designated under 

subsection (a) shall make recommendations to the Administrator for— 

(1) competitively selecting, prioritizing, and overseeing United States ISS research projects across all United States users, sponsors, and disciplines, including domestic entities other than NASA, seeking to carry out research on the 

ISS; 

(2) establishing a process for governance of United States ISS research users; 

(3) conducting outreach and education to enhance the utilization of the ISS; 

and 

(4) providing easily accessible information on the United States capabilities, 

research facilities, and resources associated with the United States research use 

of the ISS. 

(c) DEVIATIONS.—If the Administrator takes actions that deviate from the recommendations provided by the research management institution under subsection 

(b), the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a report explaining the reasons for such deviation. 

(d) OTHER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.—Other government agencies engaged in research and development are authorized to enter into contracts with the nonprofit 

organization designated under subsection (a) if it is determined by those agencies 

to be beneficial to meeting their mission requirements for use of the ISS. 

SEC. 213. ISS RESEARCH MANAGEMENT PLAN. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in coordination with the Associate Administrator for the Space Operations Mission Directorate, shall require that the institution designated under section 212(a) prepare for the Administrator a United States 

ISS research management plan that— 

(1) establishes a process for selecting United States ISS research; 

(2) identifies the expertise and support available to researchers selected to 

carry out research on the ISS; 

(3) establishes a process for determining allocation schedules for research to 

be carried out on the ISS; 

(4) establishes a process for accommodating logistical and transportation requirements for ISS research payloads; 

(5) prescribes flight schedules for research payloads to the ISS (and research 

materials to be returned to Earth, if necessary); and 

(6) addresses other factors associated with the selection, management, and 

oversight of United States ISS research. 

(b) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—The plan shall be transmitted to the Congress 

not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 214. OUTREACH PLAN FOR UNITED STATES ISS RESEARCH. 

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 

shall transmit to the Congress a plan prepared by the institution designated under 

section 212(a) for broadening and enhancing the outreach to potential United States 

Government, academic, and commercial users of the ISS. 

SEC. 215. ISS CARGO RESUPPLY REQUIREMENTS AND CONTINGENCY CAPACITY THROUGH 

2020. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall ensure the availability of ISS cargo resupply capacity to support the full and productive utilization and the extended operations of the ISS through the year 2020. 

(b) ASSESSMENT.—The Administrator shall conduct an assessment of the ISS 

cargo resupply capacity required to support the enhanced research utilization and 

extended operations of the ISS through 2020. The assessment shall describe the 

methodology and assumptions used to define the cargo requirements and provide a 

breakdown of the cargo resupply requirements (upmass and downmass) to support 

scientific research, other research and development, operations and maintenance, 

crew supplies, and other necessary activities. In addition, the assessment shall idenVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
11 

tify the systems to be used for ISS cargo resupply, the amount of cargo those systems will transport, and the timeline for cargo resupply services to the ISS. 

(c) ADDITIONAL RESUPPLY OPTIONS.—The Administrator shall explore with ISS 

partners options for ensuring the provision of needed upmass to and downmass from 

the ISS in the event that adequate commercial cargo resupply capabilities are not 

available during any extended period after the date that the Space Shuttle is retired. Before relying on ISS partners to upmass or downmass cargo, the Administrator must certify to the Congress that no United States or commercial cargo resupply capabilities are available. 

SEC. 216. CENTRIFUGE. 

(a) ASSESSMENT.—The Administrator shall carry out an assessment of innovative 

options for deploying a variable-gravity centrifuge on the ISS. The assessment shall 

identify the requirements for a variable-gravity centrifuge to support fundamental 

and applied research on the ISS, including research to help mitigate the risk of 

long-term spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit. The assessment shall also— 

(1) review the requirements for development, launch, and operation of the facility on the ISS; 

(2) provide an estimate of the potential cost and timeline for developing and 

deploying the centrifuge capabilities evaluated as part of the assessment; 

(3) evaluate the status of previous work on development of an in-flight centrifuge for the ISS and the cost and time that would be required to complete 

the work and launch the facility; and 

(4) identify the potential for international collaboration and other potential 

partnerships or innovative acquisition approaches that could facilitate the development and deployment of a centrifuge facility for the ISS. 

(b) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—The Administrator shall transmit the assessment described in subsection (a) to the Congress not later than 1 year after the date 

of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 217. EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT USING THE ISS. 

(a) PLAN.—The Administrator shall develop priorities for technology development, 

testing, and demonstration activities that enable and support NASA’s long-term 

plans for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and that require the capabilities of the 

ISS, and shall develop a plan, including milestones, a schedule, and an estimate of 

resource requirements, for carrying out the prioritized activities. The plan shall be 

developed for the period of fiscal years 2011 through 2020. 

(b) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—The Administrator shall transmit the plan developed under subsection (a) to the Congress not later than 270 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 218. FUNDAMENTAL SPACE LIFE SCIENCE AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND RELATED 

TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH. 

(a) STRATEGIC PLAN FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH.— 

(1) DEVELOPMENT.—The Administrator, in consultation with academia, other 

Federal agencies, and other potential stakeholders, shall develop a strategic 

plan for carrying out competitive, peer-reviewed fundamental space life science 

and physical sciences and related technology research, including research on 

phenomena such as the response of fluids and materials to reduced gravity environments that need to be understood in developing exploration-related technologies and systems. The plan shall— 

(A) address the facilities and instrumentation that would enable and facilitate such research; 

(B) be consistent with the priorities and recommendations established by 

the National Academies in its decadal survey of life and microgravity 

sciences; 

(C) provide a research timeline and identify the resource requirements for 

its implementation; 

(D) include an estimate of the number of students, including undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral students, and early-career researchers that would be supported in carrying out the plan; and 

(E) identify— 

(i) criteria for the proposed space research, including— 

(I) a justification for the research to be carried out in the space 

microgravity environment; 

(II) the use of model systems; 

(III) the testing of flight hardware to understand and ensure its 

functioning in the microgravity environment; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
12 

(IV) the use of controls to help distinguish among the direct and 

indirect effects of microgravity, among other effects of the flight or 

space environment; 

(V) approaches for facilitating data collection, analysis, and interpretation; 

(VI) procedures to ensure repetition of experiments as needed; 

and 

(VII) support for timely presentation of the peer-reviewed results 

of the research; 

(ii) instrumentation required to support the measurements and analysis of the research to be carried out under the strategic plan, including 

the potential use of instrumentation developed by other countries and 

the potential for a variable-gravity centrifuge to support the research; 

(iii) the capabilities needed to support direct, real-time communications between astronauts working on research experiments onboard the 

ISS and the principal investigator on the ground; and 

(iv) a process for involving the external user community in research 

planning, including planning for relevant flight hardware and instrumentation, and for utilization of the ISS, free flyers, or other research 

platforms. 

(2) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit the strategic plan developed 

under paragraph (1) to the Congress. 

(b) INTEGRATED RESEARCH MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION.— 

(1) RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall ensure that a responsible official is designated at NASA headquarters to lead a competitive, integrated 

basic and applied research program in fundamental space life science and 

physical sciences and related technology. 

(B) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The official designated under subparagraph (A) 

shall be responsible for— 

(i) leading near-term and long-term strategic planning pursuant to 

the research plan developed under subsection (a); 

(ii) ensuring the input of the external user community in science 

planning processes; 

(iii) ensuring the implementation of an integrated, multidisciplinary 

and interdisciplinary, competitive research program in fundamental 

space life and physical sciences and related technology; 

(iv) supporting the appropriate interaction of research investigators 

and agency managers and engineers in planning, designing, testing, 

and operations related to such research projects; 

(v) monitoring progress of the program in achieving the objectives 

and milestones identified in the strategic plan developed under subsection (a)(1); and 

(vi) other functions required to support the research program under 

this section. 

(C) COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATIONS.—The Administrator shall ensure that the responsible official coordinates and communicates the fundamental space life science and physical sciences and related technology research activities with relevant entities within NASA, with the ISS research 

management institution designated under section 212(a), and with other 

relevant agencies and organizations. 

(2) BUDGET REQUEST.—The Administrator shall, as part of the annual NASA 

fiscal year budget request— 

(A) identify and include a description of research being carried out pursuant to section 204 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16633); 

(B) identify the percentage of the total research budget for ISS research 

that the research described in subparagraph (A) represents; and 

(C) identify the programs proposed for carrying out research activities on 

the ISS and the proposed funding to support those research programs, including a breakdown for each of the programs identified of the funding requested for competitive grants. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
13 

Subtitle C—Space Shuttle 

SEC. 221. CONTINGENT AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION. 

(a) SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that it is very important, in view of the extension of the life of the ISS until at least 2020, for the 

Shuttle fleet to leave the ISS in the best possible configuration for the post-Shuttle 

era and that NASA should take all necessary steps to ensure the continued viability 

of the ISS in the event that there are delays in the delivery or the inability to deliver critical parts and supplies once the Shuttle is retired. 

(b) CONTINGENT AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL SHUTTLE MISSION BEYOND THE

PLANNED MANIFEST.—The Administrator is authorized to conduct 1 additional Space 

Shuttle mission to the ISS beyond the missions contained in the flight manifest as 

of February 1, 2010, if— 

(1) the Administrator determines that an additional Space Shuttle mission is 

a useful and necessary step to reduce risks to the operation and utilization of 

the ISS that are associated with the retirement of the Shuttle fleet; and 

(2) the conditions in subsection (c) have been met. 

(c) CONDITIONS.—In order to comply with subsection (b), the Administrator shall 

determine and certify that all of the following conditions have been met: 

(1) The importance of conducting the additional Space Shuttle mission to the 

ISS outweighs the risks associated with conducting a Shuttle mission without 

a backup Shuttle launch-on-need capability. 

(2) Any actions resulting from safety inspections and reviews required by 

NASA’s Orbiter Modification Down Period (OMDP) and other safety guidance 

have been successfully addressed. 

(3) Workarounds addressing mandatory OMDP requirements, if any, have 

been identified and the associated risks have been characterized. 

(4) The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has reviewed the safety issues associated with the additional Shuttle mission as well as NASA’s plans to mitigate 

any identified risks. 

(d) CONTINGENT AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In the event that the additional Shuttle flight to the ISS is authorized, funding for the incremental costs associated with the additional mission is authorized as follows from within funds authorized in title I: 

(1) For fiscal year 2011, $700,000,000, to be taken in the amounts specified 

below from within the funding for the following accounts and transferred to the 

Space Shuttle account: 

(A) $175,000,000 from the ISS, except that at least $50,000,000 shall remain available for fundamental space life and physical sciences and related 

technology research. 

(B) $525,000,000 from the restructured exploration program. 

(2) For Fiscal Year 2012, $200,000,000, to be taken from within the funding 

for the ISS and transferred to the Space Shuttle account, except that at least 

$50,000,000 shall remain available for fundamental space life and physical 

sciences and related technology research. 

SEC. 222. EXPANDED SCOPE OF SPACE SHUTTLE TRANSITION LIAISON OFFICE. 

Section 613(b) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17761(b)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Post-Shuttle Transition Liaison Office’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘2 years after the completion of the last 

Space Shuttle flight’’ and inserting ‘‘2 years after the award of the final grant 

under section 223 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 223. POST-SHUTTLE WORKFORCE TRANSITION INITIATIVE GRANT PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, acting through the Post-Shuttle Transition Liaison Office established under section 613(b) of the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17761(b)), as 

amended by section 222, is authorized to make grants for the establishment, operation, coordination, and implementation of aerospace workforce and community transition strategies. 

(2) TRANSFER.—The Administrator may transfer amounts made available 

under this section to other Federal agencies for the purpose of assisting in the 

transition of aerospace workers and communities adversely affected by the termination of the Space Shuttle program. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
14 

(b) USE OF FUNDS.—A recipient of a grant under subsection (a) shall use the funds 

made available through the grant to— 

(1) conduct community and business outreach; 

(2) develop and implement regional revitalization and facilities reuse strategies; 

(3) support entrepreneurship and new business development initiatives; and 

(4) support workforce retraining. 

SEC. 224. DISPOSITION OF ORBITER VEHICLES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon the termination of the Space Shuttle Program, the Administrator shall decommission any remaining Space Shuttle orbiter vehicles according 

to established safety and historic preservation procedures prior to their designation 

as surplus government property. The orbiter vehicles shall be made available and 

located for display and maintenance through a competitive procedure that takes into 

account geographical diversity, established pursuant to the disposition plan developed under section 613(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 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 display and maintenance of orbiters at locations with the best potential value to the public, including 

where the location of the orbiters can advance educational opportunities in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines, and with an historical relationship with the Space Shuttle orbiters. 

(b) SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION ORBITER.—Notwithstanding the procedures in subsection (a), the Smithsonian Institution shall be entitled to receive one of the remaining Space Shuttle orbiter vehicles. The Administrator shall collaborate with the 

Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to determine which orbiter the Smithsonian Institution shall receive, and otherwise determine the timing and procedures 

of transfer from NASA to the Smithsonian Institution. The Smithsonian Institution, 

which, as of the date of enactment of this Act, houses the Space Shuttle Enterprise, 

shall determine any new location for the Enterprise. 

(c) DISPLAY AND MAINTENANCE.—The orbiter vehicles made available under subsection (a) 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)). 

Subtitle D—Space and Flight Support 

SEC. 231. 21ST CENTURY SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX INITIATIVE. 

(a) PURPOSE.—Funding authorized in title I for the 21st Century Space Launch 

Complex Initiative shall be available to carry out the following activities: 

(1) Investments to improve civil and national security operations at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station to enhance the overall 

capabilities of the Eastern Range and to reduce the long-term cost of operations 

and maintenance. 

(2) Measures to provide multivehicle support, improvements in payload processing, and partnering at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air 

Force Station. 

(3) Measures to support the restructured exploration program. 

(4) Such other measures related to launch support and infrastructure modernization at the Kennedy Space Center as the Administrator may consider appropriate to carry out NASA’s launch operations. 

(b) REPORT ON THE 21ST CENTURY SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX INITIATIVE.— 

(1) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of the 

Congress a report on the plan for the implementation of the 21st Century Space 

Launch Complex Initiative. 

(2) ELEMENTS.—The report required by this subsection shall include— 

(A) a description of those initiatives tied to the restructured exploration 

program; 

(B) a description of proposed initiatives intended to be conducted jointly 

or in cooperation with Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, or other 

installations or components of the United States Government; and 

(C) a timetable for carrying out activities and initiatives planned for the 

21st Century Space Launch Complex Initiative. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
15 

Subtitle E—Commercial Crew Transportation 

SEC. 241. AFFIRMATION OF POLICY. 

The Congress affirms the policy of— 

(1) making use of United States commercially provided ISS crew transportation and crew rescue services to the maximum extent practicable; 

(2) limiting, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of the system developed under section 202 to non-ISS missions once commercial crew transportation and crew rescue services that meet safety requirements become operational; and 

(3) facilitating, to the maximum extent practicable, the transfer of NASA-developed technologies to United States commercial orbital human space transportation companies in order to help promote the development of commercially provided ISS crew transportation and crew rescue services. 

SEC. 242. COMMERCIAL CREW AND RELATED COMMERCIAL SPACE INITIATIVES. 

(a) COMMERCIAL SERVICES OPPORTUNITIES.—NASA shall seek, to the extent practicable, to make use of commercially available space services, including commercially available services to transport United States Government astronauts to and 

from the ISS, provided that— 

(1) those commercial services have demonstrated the capability to meet 

NASA-specified ascent, transit, entry, and ISS proximity operations safety requirements; 

(2) the services provider has completed, and NASA has verified, crewed flight 

demonstrations or operational flights that comply with NASA standards, policies, and procedures; and 

(3) the per-seat cost to the United States is not greater than the per-seat cost 

for the system developed under section 202. 

(b) HUMAN-RATING.—The Administrator shall establish requirements, standards, 

and processes for the human rating of space transportation systems that are equivalent to NASA safety processes and procedures. 

(c) TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER.—The Administrator shall make available, on a nonexclusive basis, NASA-developed technologies for transfer to potential United States 

commercial orbital human space transportation companies. NASA shall determine 

the appropriate means, through cost-reimbursable arrangements or other mechanisms, to transfer the technologies. 

(d) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND FACILITIES.—The Administrator shall make available, to the extent practicable, NASA facilities and equipment to assist in the testing and demonstration of commercial crew transportation systems, including those 

associated with NASA’s safety and mission assurance activities, such as NASA’s 

Independent Verification and Validation facility for software verification. The Administrator shall determine the appropriate means, through cost-reimbursable arrangements, agreements entered into under section 203(c)(5) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(5)), or other mechanisms, to provide technical assistance and access to facilities to the commercial space sector. 

(e) NASA INSIGHT AND OVERSIGHT PROCESSES.—Any company that seeks to provide commercial crew transportation services under contract to NASA shall enter 

into an arrangement with NASA that allows NASA to obtain ongoing insight into 

the design methodologies, processes, technologies, test data, and production and 

quality control practices employed in the development of the commercial crew transportation system throughout the development, test, demonstration, and production 

phases. NASA may offer early warning of conditions that could lead NASA to withhold certification of the crew transportation systems for the flight of United States 

Government personnel or to decline to enter into a contract for services. NASA may 

not require the company to make changes to its design, technologies, or processes 

during the development, test, demonstration, or production phases. 

(f) CONTRACTS FOR COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE ISS CREW TRANSPORTATION AND

CREW RESCUE SERVICES.— 

(1) CERTIFICATION OF SAFETY AND RELIABILITY.—Before entering into a contract for the use of commercially available commercial crew transportation or 

crew rescue services for United States Government astronauts, the Administrator shall certify that a commercial ISS crew transportation and crew rescue 

service provider with which a contract is planned has demonstrated the safety 

and reliability of its systems for crew transportation and crew rescue to be 

equivalent to NASA-promulgated safety and reliability policies, procedures, and 

standards for human spaceflight. Individual certifications made under this 

paragraph shall be provided to the Committee on Science and Technology of the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
16 

House of Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation of the Senate. 

(2) FLIGHT EXPERIENCE.—The Administrator shall not enter into any contract 

or commit any United States Government funds for a commercial ISS crew 

transportation or rescue service to a service provider until sufficient successful 

flight experience has been accrued by the service provider’s system to provide 

to NASA the safety-related and reliability-related data and information needed 

to determine whether to fly its astronauts on that system. The Administrator 

shall require an amount of demonstrated flight experience for a commercial 

crew transportation system that is at least as much as NASA requires under 

Alternative 1 as delineated in the NASA Policy Directive NPD 8610.7D, effective January 31, 2008, for common launch vehicle configurations before Class 

A (high cost and high priority) payloads can be flown on them. 

(3) ADMINISTRATOR’S ACTIONS.—To facilitate the ability of commercial crew 

transportation providers to comply with NASA human spaceflight safety and reliability requirements, the Administrator shall— 

(A) develop and communicate the human-rating requirements established 

under subsection (b) to commercial space companies; 

(B) establish minimum acceptable safety levels; 

(C) provide technical assistance, to the maximum extent practicable, to 

the commercial space sector in understanding and applying NASA humanrating requirements, standards, and processes to commercial crew transportation and crew rescue systems; 

(D) establish and communicate to the commercial sector the process 

NASA will apply for securing ongoing NASA insight into the design methodologies, processes, technologies, test data, and production and quality control practices employed in the development of the commercial crew transportation system throughout the development, test, demonstration, and production phases; 

(E) establish and communicate to the commercial sector NASA’s process 

for certifying that commercial human spaceflight systems (including mission control, operations, ground systems, and other supporting infrastructure) comply with NASA human-rating requirements and standards and related NASA policies and procedures for safety and reliability, which process 

shall be no less stringent than the NASA policies and procedural requirements established for launch of Class A (high cost and high priority) payloads; and 

(F) ensure that the certification established under subparagraph (E) includes independent verification and validation of compliance with NASA 

policies, procedures, and standards. 

(g) ASAP REVIEW OF NASA’S HUMAN-RATING REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS, AND

PROCESSES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel shall conduct a review 

to identify issues pertinent to the establishment of human-rating requirements, 

standards, and processes for commercial crew transportation and rescue systems that are proposed for transport of United States astronauts. 

(2) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Aerospace Safety and Advisory Panel shall transmit to the Congress a report describing— 

(A) the Panel’s assessment of NASA’s currently established human-rating 

specifications and guidance; 

(B) the Panel’s view of the mandatory safety requirements that must be 

met with regard to human rating; and 

(C) the steps NASA and the commercial space industry need to take to 

ensure that commercial crew transportation and rescue vehicles have 

human rating requirements, standards, and processes equivalent to those 

of NASA. 

(h) INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY.—The Administrator shall not proceed with a 

request for proposals, award any contract, or commit any United States Government 

funds for a commercial ISS crew transportation or rescue service to be provided by 

a commercial service provider until all indemnification and liability issues associated with the use of such systems by the United States Government shall have been 

addressed and the Administrator has provided to the Congress a report describing 

the indemnification and liability provisions that are planned to be included in such 

contracts. 

(i) PREDICTED LEVEL OF SAFETY.—The Administrator shall not award any contract 

or commit any United States Government funds for a commercial ISS crew transportation system service to a service provider unless that commercial crew transportation system has a predicted level of safety during ascent to low-Earth orbit, tranVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
17 

sit, and descent from low-Earth orbit that is not less than that specified for the Government system in section 202(a)(5). 

SEC. 243. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL ORBITAL HUMAN 

SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator shall establish a program to provide financial assistance in the form of direct loans or loan guarantees to commercial entities for the costs of development of orbital human space transportation systems. 

(b) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—A loan or loan guarantee may be made under such program only for a project in the United States to develop commercial orbital human 

space transportation systems that would be used to provide transportation services 

to and from low-earth orbit. 

(c) ELIGIBLE BORROWER.—A loan or loan guarantee may be made under such program only for a borrower who is determined by the Administrator to be eligible 

under the criteria established pursuant to subsection (i). 

(d) LIMITATIONS.—No loan or loan guarantee shall be made unless the Administrator determines that— 

(1) there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the principal and interest 

on the obligation by the borrower; 

(2) the amount of the obligation (when combined with amounts available to 

the borrower from other sources which shall be a minimum of 25 percent of the 

total expected project development cost) is sufficient to carry out the total development project. 

(e) SUPERIORITY OF RIGHTS.—The rights of the Administrator, with respect to any 

property acquired pursuant to a loan, shall be superior to the rights of any other 

person with respect to the property. 

(f) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a loan 

or loan guarantee made pursuant to this section shall— 

(1) bear interest at an annual rate, as determined by the Administrator, of— 

(A) in the case of a direct loan— 

(i) the cost of borrowing to the Department of the Treasury for obligations of comparable maturity; or 

(ii) 4 percent; and 

(B) in the case of a guaranteed loan, the current applicable market rate 

for a loan of comparable maturity; and 

(2) have a term not to exceed 30 years. 

(g) CONSULTATION.—In establishing the terms and conditions of a loan or loan 

guarantee under this section, the Administrator shall consult with the Secretary of 

the Treasury. 

(h) FEES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall charge and collect fees for loans 

and loan guarantees in amounts the Administrator determines are sufficient to 

cover applicable administrative expenses. 

(2) AVAILABILITY.—Fees collected under this subsection shall— 

(A) be deposited by the Administrator into the Treasury of the United 

States; and 

(B) remain available until expended, subject to such other conditions as 

are contained in annual appropriations Acts. 

(3) LIMITATION.—In charging and collecting fees under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall take into consideration the amount of the obligation. 

(i) REGULATIONS.—The Administrator shall issue final regulations before making 

any loan or loan guarantee under the program. Such regulations shall include— 

(1) criteria that the Administrator shall use to determine eligibility for loans 

and loan guarantees under this section, including whether a borrower demonstrates that a non-governmental market exists for the orbital human space 

transportation service, as evidenced by written statements of interest from potential purchasers of the services; 

(2) criteria that the Administrator shall use to determine the amount of any 

fees charged under subsection (h), including criteria related to the amount of 

the obligation; and 

(3) any other policies, procedures, or information necessary to implement this 

section. 

(j) AUDIT.— 

(1) ANNUAL INDEPENDENT AUDITS.—The Administrator shall enter into an arrangement with an independent auditor for annual evaluations of the program 

under this section. 

(2) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW.—The Comptroller General of the United 

States shall conduct a biennial review of the Administrator’s execution of the 

program under this section. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
18 

(3) REPORT.—The results of the independent audit under paragraph (1) and 

the Comptroller General’s review under paragraph (2) shall be provided directly 

to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. 

(k) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Concurrent with the submission to the Congress of the 

President’s annual budget request in each year after the date of enactment of this 

section, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation of the Senate a report containing a summary of all activities 

carried out under this section. 

(l) MINIMIZING RISK.—The Administrator shall promulgate regulations and policies to carry out this section in accordance with Office of Management and Budget 

Circular No. A-129, entitled ‘‘Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables’’, as in effect on the date of enactment of this section. 

(m) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) COST.—The term ‘‘cost’’ has the meaning given such term under section 

502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a). 

(2) OBLIGATION.—The term ‘‘obligation’’ means the loan issued under this section or the loan or other debt obligation that is guaranteed under this section. 

(3) PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘program’’ means the program established in subsection (a). 

Subtitle F—General Provisions 

SEC. 251. USE OF PROGRAM FUNDS. 

For all programs authorized under this title, authorized funds may be obligated 

only for performance of the programs. 

TITLE III—SCIENCE 

Subtitle A—Earth Science 

SEC. 301. EARTH SCIENCE APPLICATIONS. 

The Administrator shall develop guidelines and procedures for entering into arrangements with State, local, regional, tribal, and other Federal Government agencies that seek to benefit from ongoing NASA technical information, capabilities, and 

support related to Earth science applications and decision support systems. The 

guidelines and procedures shall include a definition of the partnership, milestones, 

cost-sharing, and project-relevant criteria for the project. The guidelines and procedures shall define arrangements for reimbursement for Government services, as appropriate, including the use of NASA spacecraft and aircraft, sensors, equipment, 

facilities, and associated personnel for the purpose of aiding State, local, regional, 

tribal, and other Federal Government needs. 

SEC. 302. ESSENTIAL SPACE-BASED EARTH SCIENCE AND CLIMATE MEASUREMENTS. 

The Administrator, in cooperation with the Administrator of NOAA and other relevant Federal agencies, shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academies for a study, to be completed, and transmitted to the Congress not later than 

18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to provide a prioritized list and 

definition of essential Earth science and climate measurements that should be collected with space-based means, and maintained and archived by the Federal Government on a continuous basis. The study shall also identify which measurements 

could potentially be obtained through international partnerships, from data purchases or other arrangements with private or commercial entities, or from other relevant sources. 

SEC. 303. COMMERCIAL REMOTE SENSING DATA PURCHASES PILOT PROJECT. 

(a) WORKSHOP.—Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Administrator shall organize a workshop including relevant commercial remote 

sensing data providers, scientists, and remote sensing data users, among other relevant stakeholders, to identify the essential criteria for a pilot project for purchasing 

commercial remote sensing data to support research in Earth science and for applied uses of the data to address State, local, regional, and tribal needs. The workshop shall address lessons learned and recommendations related to past experience 

with commercial data purchases, including those outlined in the National Research 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
19 

Council report entitled ‘‘Toward New Partnerships in Remote Sensing: Government, 

the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research’’. 

(b) PILOT PROJECT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this 

Act, after consideration of the results of the workshop under subsection (a) and after 

obtaining relevant information from potential commercial remote sensing data providers and users of such data, the Administrator shall establish a pilot project for 

the provision, through competitive solicitations, of commercial remote sensing data 

to serve research and applied uses of the data to serve State, local, regional, and 

tribal needs. 

SEC. 304. REPORT ON TEMPERATURE RECORDS. 

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 

shall issue a report to the Congress detailing the extent and degree to which 

NASA’s temperature records overlap with the records at the Climatic Research Unit 

at the University of East Anglia, the reasons for and sources of that overlap, and 

the possibility that NASA’s temperature records have been compromised. 

Subtitle B—Space Science 

SEC. 311. SUBORBITAL PROGRAMS. 

(a) RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall ensure that an individual who shall 

report directly to the Associate Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate 

is designated to lead NASA’s suborbital and airborne program. 

(2) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The designated individual shall be responsible for— 

(A) leading near-term and long-term strategic planning for the suborbital 

and airborne program; 

(B) ensuring the implementation of strategic and other relevant plans; 

(C) integrating NASA’s suborbital and airborne programs; 

(D) ensuring the productivity of the suborbital facilities and assets as necessary to carry out the plans; 

(E) coordinating NASA’s suborbital activities with associated NASA offices and Centers, universities, and other external institutions; and 

(F) monitoring progress on meeting the strategic objectives for enhanced 

suborbital and airborne activities, NASA workforce development, and integration of suborbital activities within NASA’s overall plans and priorities. 

(b) STRATEGIC PLAN.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Administrator shall provide to the Congress a strategic plan to support the 

full and productive use of NASA’s suborbital and airborne assets as a foundation 

for meeting its scientific research, engineering, workforce development, and education goals and objectives across NASA centers and mission directorates and in 

partnership with universities and other relevant external institutions. The strategic 

plan shall— 

(1) be developed in consultation with relevant NASA offices and Centers and 

with input from universities, nonprofit research institutions, and private industry; 

(2) identify the needs and priorities for using NASA’s airborne and suborbital 

assets to support NASA’s scientific research, engineering, workforce development, and educational goals; 

(3) identify and prioritize the required infrastructure investments, including 

maintenance, upgrades, and any enhanced facility or equipment capabilities, 

that are required to carry out the needs and priorities described in paragraph 

(2); and 

(4) provide an estimate of the budget requirements and a schedule and 

timeline for implementing the plan. 

(c) TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.—The Administrator shall, to the 

extent practicable, expand the opportunities within NASA’s suborbital programs for 

training science and engineering students and for providing professional development for early career professionals. Training and development activities shall be expanded consistent with the goals and objectives of the strategic plan to be developed 

under subsection (b). 

SEC. 312. REVIEW OF EXPLORER PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Administrator shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academies to conduct a review of the Explorer Program and offer any recommendations 

as it considers necessary. 

(b) SCOPE.—Such review shall address at least the following: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
20 

(1) A review of existing or recent Explorer program elements such as NASA’s 

University Class Explorer (UNEX), Small Explorer (SMEX), Medium Class Explorer (MIDEX), Explorers (EX), and Missions of Opportunity to assess the degree of— 

(A) innovation in instrumentation, and other technology and space mission elements; 

(B) flexibility and new approaches in management and collaboration; 

(C) project implementation within the planned budget and schedule; and 

(D) training opportunities for space scientists and engineers. 

(2) The status, capability, and availability of launch vehicles and infrastructure to support the Explorer program elements. 

(3) Projected launch capabilities and facilities for Explorers, including private 

sector launch capabilities. 

(4) The frequency of Explorer missions. 

(5) The balance of Explorer missions among theme areas and between larger 

and smaller mission sizes. 

(6) The opportunities and challenges for partner participation in Explorer 

missions, including international and interagency collaborations. 

(7) The contributions of Explorers to a robust space science program, and the 

value of the Explorer Program for the Nation’s scientific research and engineering community, including its impact on training of younger researchers and engineers. 

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 16 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress the review and a plan for responding to the recommendations of the review. 

SEC. 313. RADIOISOTOPE THERMOELECTRIC GENERATOR MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS AND 

SUPPLY. 

(a) ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS AND RISKS.—The Administrator, in consultation 

with other Federal agencies, shall conduct an analysis of NASA requirements for 

radioisotope power system material which is needed to carry out planned, high priority robotic missions in the solar system and other surface exploration activities beyond low-Earth orbit, as well as the risks to NASA missions in meeting those requirements, or any additional requirements, due to a lack of adequate domestic production of radioisotope power system material. The analysis shall— 

(1) detail NASA’s current projected mission requirements for radioisotope 

power system material; 

(2) explain the assumptions used to determine NASA’s requirements for the 

material, including— 

(A) the planned use of Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator technology; 

(B) the status of and timeline for completing development and demonstration of the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator technology, including 

the development of flight readiness requirements; and 

(C) the risks, implications, and contingencies for NASA mission plans of 

any delays or unanticipated technical challenges related to the anticipated 

use of Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator technology; 

(3) assess the risk to NASA programs of any potential delays in achieving the 

schedule and milestones for planned domestic production of radioisotope power 

system material; 

(4) outline a process for meeting any additional NASA requirements for the 

material; and 

(5) estimate the incremental costs required to increase the amount of material 

produced each year, if such an increase is needed to support additional NASA 

requirements for the material. 

(b) TRANSMITTAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Administrator, in consultation with other Federal agencies, shall transmit 

the results of the analysis to the Congress. 

TITLE IV—AERONAUTICS 

SEC. 401. ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AIRCRAFT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE. 

Section 302 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization 

Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17721) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘The Administrator’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
21 

‘‘(b) PLAN.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall develop a plan and associated 

timetable for this initiative identifying key milestones, including projected flight 

demonstrations to validate vehicle and technology concepts in a relevant environment. 

‘‘(2) SUBMISSION.—Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, the 

Administrator shall transmit the plan to the Congress.’’. 

SEC. 402. RESEARCH ON NEXTGEN AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS AND TOOLS. 

The Administrator shall review at least annually the alignment and timing of 

NASA’s research and development activities in support of the NextGen airspace 

management modernization initiative and shall make any necessary adjustments by 

reprioritizing or retargeting NASA’s research and development activities in support 

of the NextGen initiative. 

SEC. 403. RESEARCH ON AIRCRAFT CABIN AIR QUALITY. 

The Administrator shall initiate research on aircraft cabin air quality that complements research conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration and its Center 

of Excellence on Research in the Intermodal Transport Environment, including research on innovative aircraft cabin air quality sensors operating during ground and 

flight operations and on innovative warning and mitigation technologies for poor air 

quality. 

SEC. 404. RESEARCH ON ON-BOARD VOLCANIC ASH SENSOR SYSTEMS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall conduct a study to assess the feasibility 

of establishing a project focused on the development of a low-cost on-board volcanic 

ash sensor system. 

(b) SPECIFICATIONS.— The study shall consider, at a minimum— 

(1) NASA’s unique capabilities; 

(2) opportunities for collaboration, both nationally and internationally; and 

(3) projected resource requirements, research milestones, and potential accomplishments. 

SEC. 405. AERONAUTICS TEST FACILITIES. 

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that— 

(1) NASA must reverse the deteriorating condition of its aeronautics ground 

test facilities and infrastructure, as this condition is hampering the effectiveness and efficiency of aeronautics research performed by both NASA and industry participants making use of NASA facilities, thus reducing the competitiveness of the United States aviation industry; 

(2) NASA has a role in providing test capabilities that are not economically 

viable as commercial entities and thus are not available elsewhere; and 

(3) to ensure continued access to reliable and efficient national-class test capabilities by researchers, NASA should seek to establish strategic partnerships 

with other Federal agencies, academic institutions, and industry. 

(b) PLAN.—The Administrator shall develop a plan to stabilize and, where possible, reverse the deterioration of NASA’s aeronautics ground test facilities. The Administrator shall transmit such plan to the Congress not later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 406. EXPANDED RESEARCH PROGRAM ON COMPOSITE MATERIALS USED IN AEROSPACE. 

The Administrator shall expand NASA’s research program on composite materials 

used in aerospace applications to address— 

(1) progressive damage analysis, aging, inspection techniques, and new manufacturing and repair techniques; and 

(2) ways to mitigate how the environment, operating fluids, and mechanical 

loads interact with composite materials over time. 

TITLE V—SPACE TECHNOLOGY 

SEC. 501. SPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator shall establish a space technology program to enable research and development on advanced space technologies and systems that are independent of specific space mission flight projects. The program 

shall support— 

(1) early-stage concepts and innovation; 

(2) development of innovative technologies in areas such as in-space propulsion, power generation and storage, liquid rocket propulsion, avionics, strucVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
22 

tures, and materials that may enable new approaches to human and robotic 

space missions; 

(3) flight demonstrations of technologies, including those that have the potential to benefit multiple NASA mission directorates, other Federal Government 

agencies, and the commercial space industry; and 

(4) research, development, and demonstration of enabling technologies in support of future exploration missions. 

(b) PROCEDURE.—In establishing the space technology program under this section, 

the Administrator shall— 

(1) to the maximum extent practicable, use a competitive process to select 

projects to be supported as part of the program; 

(2) support the development of an organization to investigate innovative concepts for technological approaches, systems, architectures, or mission strategies; 

(3) make use of small satellites and NASA suborbital platforms, to the extent 

practicable, to demonstrate space technology concepts and developments; and 

(4) undertake partnerships with other Federal agencies, universities, private 

industry, and other spacefaring nations, as appropriate. 

(c) DECADAL SURVEY.—The Administrator shall enter into an arrangement with 

the National Academies for a decadal survey study to make recommendations for 

research and development priorities for NASA’s space technology program over the 

next decade. Included in the decadal survey shall be an identification and 

prioritization of key technology research and development activities needed to enable a robust exploration technology program, from basic research and development 

through flight demonstrations. The Administrator shall transmit the results of the 

study to the Congress not later than 20 months after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

TITLE VI—EDUCATION AND OUTREACH 

SEC. 601. STEM EDUCATION AND TRAINING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to create the diverse, skilled scientific and technical 

workforce essential to meeting the challenges facing NASA and the Nation in the 

21st century, the Administrator shall develop, conduct, support, promote, and coordinate formal and informal educational and training activities that leverage 

NASA’s unique content expertise and facilities to— 

(1) contribute to improving science, technology, engineering and mathematics 

(STEM) education and training at all levels in the United States; and 

(2) enhance awareness and understanding of STEM, including space and 

Earth sciences, aeronautics, and engineering. 

(b) PROGRAMS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall carry out evidence-based programs 

designed to— 

(A) increase student interest and participation, including by women, 

underrepresented minority students, and students in rural schools; 

(B) improve public literacy and support; and 

(C) improve the teaching and learning of space and Earth sciences, aeronautics, engineering, and other STEM disciplines supported by NASA. 

(2) INCLUDED PROGRAMS.—Programs authorized under this subsection may include— 

(A) informal educational programming designed to excite and inspire students and the general public about space and Earth science, aeronautics, 

engineering, and other STEM disciplines supported by NASA while 

strengthening their content knowledge in these disciplines; 

(B) teacher training and professional development opportunities for preservice and in-service elementary and secondary school teachers designed 

to increase the content knowledge of teachers in space and Earth science, 

aeronautics, engineering, and other STEM disciplines supported by NASA, 

especially through hands-on research and technology experiences; 

(C) research opportunities for secondary school students, including internships at NASA and its field centers, that provide secondary school students 

with hands-on research and technology experiences as well as exposure to 

working scientists and engineers; 

(D) research opportunities at NASA and its field centers for undergraduate and graduate students pursuing degrees in space and Earth 

sciences, aeronautics, engineering, and other STEM disciplines supported 

by NASA; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
23 

(E) competitive scholarships, fellowships, and traineeships for undergraduate and graduate students in space and Earth sciences, aeronautics, 

engineering, and other STEM disciplines supported by NASA; and 

(F) competitive grants for institutions of higher education, with special 

consideration for minority serving institutions, including 2-year institutions 

of higher education, to establish or expand degree programs or courses in 

space and Earth sciences, aeronautics, engineering, and other STEM disciplines supported by NASA. 

(c) ORGANIZATION OF STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS.— 

(1) DIRECTOR OF STEM EDUCATION.—The Administrator shall appoint or designate a Director of STEM Education, who shall have the principal responsibility to oversee and coordinate all NASA programs and activities in support of 

STEM education and training, including space and Earth sciences, aeronautics, 

and engineering. 

(2) QUALIFICATIONS.—The Director shall be an individual who, by reason of 

professional background and experience, is specially qualified to advise the Administrator on all matters pertaining to STEM education and training, including space and Earth sciences, aeronautics, and engineering, at NASA. 

(3) DUTIES.—The Director shall— 

(A) oversee and coordinate all programs in support of STEM education 

and training, including space and Earth sciences, aeronautics, and engineering; 

(B) represent NASA as the principal interagency liaison for all STEM 

education and training programs, unless otherwise represented by the Administrator or the Associate Administrator for Education; 

(C) prepare the annual budget and advise the Associate Administrator for 

Education and the Administrator on all budgetary issues for STEM education and training relative to the programs of NASA; 

(D) establish, periodically update, and maintain a publicly accessible online inventory of STEM education and training programs and activities; 

(E) develop, implement, and update the STEM education and training 

strategic plan required under subsection (d); 

(F) increase, to the maximum extent practicable, the participation and 

advancement of women and underrepresented minorities at every level of 

STEM education and training; and 

(G) perform such other matters relating to STEM education and training 

as are required by the Administrator or the Associate Administrator for 

Education. 

(d) STRATEGIC PLAN.—The Director of STEM Education shall develop, implement, 

and update once every 3 years a STEM education and training strategic plan for 

NASA. The plan shall— 

(1) identify and prioritize annual and long-term STEM education and training 

goals and objectives for NASA; 

(2) describe the role of each NASA program or activity in contributing to the 

goals and objectives identified under paragraph (1); 

(3) specify the metrics that will be used to assess progress toward achieving 

those goals and objectives; and 

(4) describe the approaches that will be taken to assess the effectiveness of 

each STEM education program and activity supported by NASA. 

(e) OUTREACH TO STUDENTS FROM UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS.—The Administrator shall seek to ensure that program participants include minority and underrepresented groups, including students from a high-need local education agency as 

defined in section 2102(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(20 U.S.C. 6602(3)). 

(f) CONSULTATION AND PARTNERSHIP WITH OTHER AGENCIES.—In carrying out the 

programs and activities authorized under this section, the Administrator shall— 

(1) consult with the Secretary of Education and the Director of the National 

Science Foundation regarding activities designed to improve elementary and 

secondary STEM education and training, and recruit minorities that are underrepresented in STEM teaching; and 

(2) consult and partner with the Director of the National Science Foundation 

in carrying out programs under this section designed to build capacity in STEM 

education and training at the undergraduate and graduate level. 

SEC. 602. ASSESSMENT OF IMPEDIMENTS TO SPACE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR MINORITY AND UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS AT 

NASA. 

(a) ASSESSMENT.—The Administrator shall enter into an arrangement for an independent assessment of any impediments to space science and engineering workforce 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
24 

development for minority and underrepresented groups at NASA, including recommendations on— 

(1) measures to address such impediments; 

(2) opportunities for augmenting the impact of space science and engineering 

workforce development activities and for expanding proven, effective programs; 

and 

(3) best practices and lessons learned, as identified through the assessment, 

to help maximize the effectiveness of existing and future programs to increase 

the participation of minority and underrepresented groups in the space science 

and engineering workforce at NASA. 

(b) REPORT.—A report on the assessment carried out under subsection (a) shall 

be transmitted to the Congress not later than 15 months after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

(c) IMPLEMENTATION.—To the extent practicable, the Administrator shall take all 

necessary steps to address any impediments identified in the assessment. 

SEC. 603. INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL SPACE GRANT COLLEGE AND FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM. 

(a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that— 

(1) the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program, established in 

title II of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act 

of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 2486 et seq.), has been an important program through which 

the Federal Government has partnered with State and local governments, universities, private industry, and other organizations to enhance the understanding and use of space and aeronautics activities and their benefits through 

education, the fostering of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary space research and training, and supporting Federal funding for graduate fellowships 

in space-related fields; and 

(2) enhancing the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program’s effectiveness will support the program’s maximum contribution to NASA’s and 

the Nation’s goals for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) 

education and training. 

(b) REVIEW.—The Administrator shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academies for a review of the National Space Grant College and Fellowship 

Program, including its structure and capabilities for supporting STEM education 

and training, and recommendations on measures, if needed, to enhance the program’s effectiveness. 

(c) TRANSMITTAL.—The Administrator shall transmit the results of the review to 

the Congress not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 604. HANDS-ON SPACE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND TRAINING. 

(a) PILOT PROJECTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Administrator shall competitively select pilot projects that test and 

demonstrate new forms of collaborative and hands-on education and training 

projects related to aeronautics, exploration, science, space operations, and 

human spaceflight, that serve to stimulate and engage students in science and 

engineering, and that foster skills including engineering, teamwork, project 

management, and problem solving. In particular, the pilot projects shall emphasize engineering and technology-related education and training. The pilot 

projects shall include a breadth of activities that range in scope and complexity 

and shall also test and demonstrate selection, evaluation, mentoring, and related tools and services required to support the projects. The program shall be 

directed at serving undergraduates. The Administrator may include broader 

participation from pre-collegiate and graduate students, as appropriate. To the 

extent practicable, the initiative shall also be accessible to NASA’s young 

science, technical, and project management professionals. 

(2) PROJECTS.—Pursuant to subsection (b), the pilot projects shall be carried 

out through competitive solicitations. The duration of a project awarded under 

the pilot program shall be no more than 4 years. The pilot projects program 

shall— 

(A) include a range of projects of varying scope and complexity; 

(B) provide participants with experience in areas such as— 

(i) formulating, planning, designing, developing, testing and integrating, and operating mission or flight hardware; 

(ii) systems engineering; 

(iii) analyzing data from a mission or investigation; and 

(iv) documentation, reporting, and reviews; 

(C) include defined and measurable objectives; 

(D) provide mentoring for participants; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
25 

(E) provide for evaluation of the project and documentation of the outcomes of the project and its contribution to education and training; and 

(F) encourage outreach to and partnerships with universities, Federal 

agencies, private entities, and other institutions involved in student collaborations and hands-on training and education, including organizations that 

focus on engaging young girls in science and engineering hands-on education and training activities. 

(3) EMPHASIS ON PARTICIPATION OF INDIVIDUALS FROM UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY POPULATIONS.—The Administrator shall make it an emphasis of the 

pilot projects to seek the involvement of participants from underserved and 

underrepresented minority populations. 

(4) FLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES AND ACCESS TO SPACE.—The Administrator shall 

ensure, to the extent practicable, the availability and accessibility of platforms 

for flying and launching into space student’s collaborative and hands-on 

projects. 

(5) FORUM FOR PARTICIPANT PRESENTATIONS.—The Administrator shall organize a forum for students and other participants in the pilot projects to discuss 

and present their work, at an appropriate stage of the project, and to engage 

with other students and young professionals involved in ongoing collaborative 

and hands-on training activities related to space science and engineering, aeronautics, space exploration, and human spaceflight. 

(6) WORKSHOP.—The Administrator shall organize a workshop or workshops 

involving the competitively-selected pilot project teams for the purposes of collecting information on the results of the pilot projects (including on selection, 

evaluation tools, and mentoring services) and identifying lessons learned and 

best practices for NASA-supported collaborative and hands-on education and 

training projects. 

(7) REPORT AND STRATEGY.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on Science 

and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report— 

(A) on the outcomes of existing student collaborative and hands-on 

projects such as those being conducted as part of NASA’s science programs; 

(B) on the results of the pilot projects; and 

(C) on best practices of NASA’s student collaborations and hands-on education and training activities. 

The report shall define decision criteria, a strategy, and a process for extending 

successful projects or transitioning them into an ongoing, competitive program. 

(b) INFORMATION EXCHANGE.—The Administrator shall support mission directorates sponsoring student collaborative and hands-on education and training 

projects in exchanging information, sharing knowledge, and leveraging activities, as 

appropriate. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated 

to the Administrator such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2011, 2012, 

2013, and 2014 to carry out this section, to remain available until expended. 

TITLE VII—INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITIES 

REVITALIZATION 

SEC. 701. INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT. 

(a) MODERNIZATION OF LABORATORIES, FACILITIES, AND EQUIPMENT.— 

(1) STRATEGY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall develop a strategy for the 

maintenance, repair, upgrading, and modernization of NASA’s laboratories, 

facilities, and equipment. 

(B) CRITERIA.—The strategy shall include criteria for prioritizing deferred 

maintenance tasks and also for upgrading or modernizing laboratories, facilities, and equipment. 

(C) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.—The strategy shall also include an assessment of modifications needed to maximize usage of facilities that offer 

unique and highly specialized benefits to the aerospace industry and the 

American public. 

(2) PLAN.—The Administrator shall develop a plan for implementing the 

strategy in paragraph (1), including a timeline, milestones, and an estimate of 

resources required for carrying out the plan. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
26 

(3) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—The Administrator shall transmit to the 

Congress the strategy under paragraph (1) and the plan under paragraph (2) 

not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL FUND.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall establish a capital fund at each of 

NASA’s field centers for the modernization of facilities and laboratories. 

(2) SOURCE OF FUNDING.— The Administrator shall ensure to the maximum 

extent practicable that all financial savings achieved by closing outdated or surplus facilities at a NASA field center shall be made available to that center’s 

capital fund for the purpose of modernizing the field center’s facilities and laboratories and for upgrading the infrastructure at the field center. 

SEC. 702. JAMES E. WEBB COOPERATIVE EDUCATION DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR PROGRAM. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator is authorized to establish a national cooperative education program to complement existing NASA Center-administered cooperative education initiatives. 

(b) APPLICATION PROCESS.—The Administrator shall encourage and seek applications from the pool of American students pursuing science, technology, engineering, 

or mathematics degrees who wish to gain working experience in NASA. 

(c) SELECTION.—From the applications, the Administrator shall select 10 finalists 

annually as James E. Webb Cooperative Education Distinguished Scholars. 

(d) AWARD.—The James E. Webb Cooperative Education Distinguished Scholars 

shall be provided with— 

(1) learning experiences that will enhance their understanding of activities 

conducted in the various NASA Centers in furtherance of NASA’s missions and 

priorities; 

(2) exposure to NASA headquarters functions and activities; and 

(3) stipends for living expenses. 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT 

SEC. 801. PROHIBITION ON EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS WHEN 30 PERCENT THRESHOLD IS EXCEEDED. 

Section 103(e) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16613(e)) is amended by striking ‘‘beginning 18 months after 

the date the Administrator transmits a report under subsection (d)(1)’’ and inserting 

‘‘beginning 18 months after the Administrator makes such determination’’. 

SEC. 802. PROJECT AND PROGRAM RESERVES. 

To ensure that the establishment, maintenance, and allotment of project and program reserves contribute to prudent management, not later than 180 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a 

report describing NASA’s criteria for establishing the amount of reserves at the 

project and program levels and how such criteria complement NASA’s policy of 

budgeting at a 70 percent confidence level. 

SEC. 803. INDEPENDENT REVIEWS. 

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 

shall transmit to the Congress a report describing NASA’s procedures for conducting 

independent reviews of projects and programs at lifecycle milestones and how NASA 

ensures the independence of the individuals who conduct those reviews prior to 

their assignment. 

SEC. 804. AVOIDING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN MAJOR NASA ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) REVISED REGULATIONS REQUIRED.—Not later than 270 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall revise the NASA Supplement to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation to provide uniform guidance and tighten existing requirements for preventing organizational conflicts of interest by contractors in major 

acquisition programs. 

(b) ELEMENTS.—The revised regulations required by subsection (a) shall, at a minimum— 

(1) address organizational conflicts of interest that could potentially arise as 

a result of— 

(A) lead system integrator contracts on major acquisition programs and 

contracts that follow lead system integrator contracts on such programs, 

particularly contracts for production; 

(B) the ownership of business units performing systems engineering and 

technical assistance functions, professional services, or management supVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
27 

port services in relation to major acquisition programs by contractors who 

simultaneously own business units competing to perform as either the 

prime contractor or the supplier of a major subsystem or component for 

such programs; 

(C) the award of major subsystem contracts by a prime contractor for a 

major acquisition program to business units or other affiliates of the same 

parent corporate entity, and particularly the award of subcontracts for software integration or the development of a proprietary software system architecture; or 

(D) the performance by, or assistance of, contractors in technical evaluations on major acquisition programs; 

(2) ensure that NASA receives advice, when appropriate, on systems architecture and systems engineering matters with respect to major acquisition programs from federally funded research and development centers or other sources 

independent of the prime contractor; 

(3) require that a contract for the performance of systems engineering and 

technical assistance functions for a major acquisition program contains a provision prohibiting the contractor or any affiliate of the contractor from participating as a prime contractor or a major subcontractor in the development of a 

system under the program; and 

(4) establish such limited exceptions to the requirement in paragraphs (2) and 

(3) as may be necessary to ensure that NASA has continued access to advice 

on systems architecture and systems engineering matters from highly qualified 

contractors with domain experience and expertise, while ensuring that such advice comes from sources that are objective and unbiased. 

SEC. 805. REPORT TO CONGRESS. 

The Administrator shall transmit to the Congress, not later than April 30 of each 

year, an estimate of the total termination liability as of the end of the second fiscal 

quarter for all NASA contracts with a total value in excess of $200,000,000. 

TITLE IX—OTHER PROVISIONS 

SEC. 901. CLOUD COMPUTING. 

(a) DEFINITION.—As defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, for purposes of this section, the term ‘‘cloud computing’’ means a model for 

enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable 

computing resources that can be rapidly provisioned with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. 

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after NASA has entered into a contract for 

its first use of a non-Federal cloud computing facility, the Comptroller General shall 

transmit to the Congress a report detailing whether sensitive but unclassified and 

classified NASA information was processed on that facility and if so, how NASA ensured that data access and security requirements were in place to safeguard NASA’s 

scientific and technical information. 

SEC. 902. REVIEW OF PRACTICES TO DETECT AND PREVENT THE USE OF COUNTERFEIT 

PARTS. 

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 

General shall transmit to the Congress a review of NASA’s processes and controls 

to detect and prevent the use of counterfeit parts in NASA mission projects and related assets. The review shall examine— 

(1) the trends in known and identified counterfeit parts in NASA’s supply 

chain; 

(2) NASA’s processes and controls to detect counterfeit parts and prevent 

their incorporation into NASA mission projects, instruments, and other missionrelated assets; and 

(3) any gaps in NASA’s controls and processes for detecting counterfeit parts 

and preventing their incorporation into NASA missions and related assets. 

SEC. 903. PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF LUNAR SITES. 

(a) INTERNATIONAL DIALOGUE.—The Director of OSTP, in cooperation with the Administrator, other relevant Federal agencies, commercial entities, and international 

bodies, shall enter into a dialogue to identify the questions and research needed to 

understand— 

(1) the potential adverse impacts of various uses of the Moon on scientific research activities; 

(2) the potential adverse impacts of such uses on lunar areas of historical, cultural, or scientific value; and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
28 

(3) how to prevent or mitigate such impacts. 

(b) GRANTS PROGRAM.—The Administrator, in cooperation with other relevant 

Federal agencies and stakeholders, shall establish a grants program to conduct research for the purpose of identifying and characterizing potential impacts related to 

lunar activities and describing potential means for managing and mitigating the impacts. 

(c) INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK.—As a result of the dialogue under subsection (a), 

the Director of OSTP shall initiate an effort to establish an international framework 

for identifying, protecting, and preserving lunar areas determined to be of significant historical, cultural, or scientific value. 

(d) REPORT.—The Director of OSTP shall provide a report on the results of the 

international dialogue under subsection (a) and the establishment of an international framework under subsection (c), to be transmitted to the Congress not later 

than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 904. CONTINUITY OF MODERATE RESOLUTION LAND IMAGING REMOTE SENSING DATA. 

(a) REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY.—The Congress reaffirms the finding in section 2(1) 

of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 5601(1)) which states that 

‘‘The continuous collection and utilization of land remote sensing data from space 

are of major benefit in studying and understanding human impacts on the global 

environment, in managing the Earth’s natural resources, in carrying out national 

security functions, and in planning and conducting many other activities of scientific, economic, and social importance.’’. 

(b) CONTINUOUS LAND REMOTE SENSING DATA COLLECTION.—The Director of 

OSTP shall take steps in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, the continuous collection of space-based 

medium-resolution observations of the Earth’s land cover and to ensure that the 

data are made available in such ways as to facilitate the widest possible use. 

SEC. 905. SPACE WEATHER. 

(a) STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.—The Director of OSTP, in coordination 

with the Administrator and with other relevant Federal agencies, space weather coordinating bodies, industry, academia, and other stakeholders, shall prepare a longterm strategy for a sustainable space weather program and develop a plan to implement the strategy. The implementation plan shall— 

(1) define individual agency responsibilities for carrying out the strategy; 

(2) identify the milestones and schedule required for each agency’s contributions; 

(3) provide an estimate of the resources required for each agency to carry out 

its responsibilities; 

(4) establish a process for coordinating agency responsibilities, programs, and 

budgets required for implementing the plan; and 

(5) identify opportunities for private sector and international contributions to 

implementing the plan. 

(b) STUDY ON PREDICTION.—The Director of OSTP shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academies to assess the status of capabilities for space 

weather prediction and recommend the highest priority basic research, infrastructure, and operational needs required to improve the Nation’s ability to predict space 

weather events. The study should also address the benefits of space weather prediction. The Director shall transmit the results of the study to the Congress not 

later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 906. USE OF OPERATIONAL COMMERCIAL SUBORBITAL VEHICLES FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND EDUCATION. 

(a) PLAN.—The Administrator shall prepare a plan describing the processes required to support the use of commercial reusable suborbital flight vehicles for carrying out competitively selected scientific and engineering investigations and educational activities. The plan shall— 

(1) describe NASA, space flight operator, and supporting contractor responsibilities for developing standard payload interfaces and conducting payload 

safety analyses, payload integration and processing, payload operations, and 

safety assurance for NASA-sponsored space flight participants, among other 

functions required to fly NASA-sponsored payloads and space flight participants 

on commercial suborbital vehicles; 

(2) identify NASA-provided hardware, software, or services that may be provided to space flight operators on a cost-reimbursable basis, through agreements entered into under section 203(c)(5) of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(5)), or on a contractual basis; and 

(3) describe the United States Government and space flight operator responsibilities for liability and indemnification with respect to commercial suborbital 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
29 

vehicle flights that involve NASA-sponsored payloads or activities, NASA-supported space flight participants, or other NASA-related contributions. 

(b) COMMERCIAL REUSABLE SUBORBITAL CAPABILITIES AND RISKS.—The Administrator shall assess and characterize the potential capabilities and performance of 

commercial reusable suborbital vehicles for addressing scientific research, including 

research requiring access to low gravity and microgravity environments, for carrying 

out technology demonstrations related to science, exploration, or space operations 

requirements, and for providing opportunities for educating and training space scientists and engineers, once those vehicles become operational. The assessment shall 

also characterize the risks of using potential commercial reusable suborbital flights 

to NASA-sponsored researchers, investigators, and scientific investigations and 

flight hardware. The Administrator shall make a determination on the need to enter 

into arrangements with commercial reusable suborbital service providers for flights 

or flight services to acquire analytical data to inform the assessment. 

(c) TRANSMITTAL.—The plan and assessment described in subsections (a) and (b) 

shall be transmitted to the Congress not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

(d) IN GENERAL.—The report of the National Academy of Sciences entitled ‘‘Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation and 

Developing Workforce’’ found that suborbital science missions were critical to building an aerospace workforce capable of meeting the needs of current and future 

human and robotic space exploration. 

(e) MANAGEMENT.—The Administrator shall designate an officer or employee of 

the Space Technology Program to act as the responsible official for the Commercial 

Reusable Suborbital Research Program in the Space Technology Program. The designee shall be responsible for the development of short-term and long-term strategic 

plans related to the use of commercial reusable suborbital vehicles to support 

NASA’s requirements for competitively-selected science, technology demonstration, 

and educational activities. 

(f) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator shall establish a Commercial Reusable 

Suborbital Research Program within the Space Technology Program that shall fund 

the development of competitively selected payloads for scientific research, technology 

development, and education, and shall provide flight opportunities for those payloads to microgravity environments and suborbital altitudes that meet the requirements of such investigations. The Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Program may fund engineering and integration demonstrations, proofs of concept, or experiments for commercial reusable vehicle flights, once the vehicles have met the 

requirements consistent with subsection (h). The program shall coordinate with 

NASA’s Mission Directorates to help achieve NASA’s research, technology, and education goals. 

(g) REPORT.—The Administrator shall submit a report annually to the Congress 

describing progress in carrying out the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research 

program, including the number and type of suborbital missions planned in each fiscal year. The plan and assessment described in subsections (a) and (b) shall be 

transmitted to the Congress not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 

this Act, before the transmittal of which the Administrator shall not be constrained 

in the execution of this section. 

(h) INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY.—The Administrator shall not proceed with a 

request for proposals, award any contract, commit any United States Government 

funds, or enter into any other agreement for the provision of a commercial reusable 

suborbital vehicle launch service of a NASA-sponsored payload or spaceflight participant until all indemnification and liability issues associated with the use of such 

systems by the United States Government shall have been addressed and the Administrator has provided to the Congress a report describing the indemnification 

and liability provisions that are planned to be included in such contracts or agreements. 

SEC. 907. STUDY ON EXPORT CONTROL MATTERS RELATED TO UNITED STATES ASTRONAUT 

SAFETY AND NASA MISSION OPERATIONS. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Director of OSTP, in consultation with the Administrator and other relevant Federal agencies, shall conduct a study to examine the 

need for a process for granting real-time, limited waivers to export control license 

restrictions or regulations that are necessary for United States Government entities 

and contractors to enter into technical discussions and to share technical data with 

foreign government entities and contractors to resolve anomalies that may— 

(1) threaten the safety of United States astronauts aboard cooperative crewed 

spacecraft such as the ISS; or 

(2) impair the operations of international civil research and other spacecraft 

that involve the national interests of the United States. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
30 

(b) TRANSMITTAL.—The results of the study shall be transmitted to the Congress 

not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 908. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958. 

Section 202 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2472) 

is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(d) The Administrator and the Deputy Administrator may be retired commissioned military personnel.’’. 

SEC. 909. NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS. 

(a) RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL.—The Administrator shall designate a responsible official for coordinating NASA’s near-Earth object observation activities and NASA’s 

interactions with other Federal agencies and international entities on near-Earth 

object surveys, defense, and efforts related to addressing any threats to the United 

States posed by near-Earth objects. The responsible official shall report directly to 

the Administrator. 

(b) REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON NEAR-EARTH OBJECT SURVEY.—The Congress 

reaffirms the direction set forth in section 321(d)(1) of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16691(d)(1)) that directed the Administrator ‘‘to plan, develop, and implement a Near-Earth Object Survey program to detect, track, catalogue, and characterize the physical characteristics 

of near-Earth objects equal to or greater than 140 meters in diameter in order to 

assess the threat of such near-Earth objects to the Earth’’. 

(c) REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THREATS POSED BY NEAR-EARTH

OBJECTS.—The Congress reaffirms the direction set forth in section 804 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 

17794) that directed the Director of OSTP by October 15, 2010, to— 

(1) develop a policy for notifying Federal agencies and relevant emergency response institutions of an impending near-Earth object threat, if near-term public safety is at risk; and 

(2) recommend a Federal agency or agencies to be responsible for— 

(A) protecting the United States from a near-Earth object that is expected 

to collide with Earth; and 

(B) implementing a deflection campaign, in consultation with international bodies, should one be necessary. 

(d) ARECIBO OBSERVATORY.—Congress reiterates its support for the use of the Arecibo Observatory for NASA-funded near-Earth object-related activities. The Administrator shall coordinate with the Director of the National Science Foundation to ensure the availability of the Arecibo Observatory’s planetary radar to support these 

activities. 

(e) PLAN.—Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a plan for carrying out the direction 

reaffirmed by subsection (b). 

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—From the funds authorized for Planetary 

Science in title I, $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2012 and $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2013 

shall be for supporting competitively awarded grants for investigation of innovative 

approaches to carrying out the congressionally mandated survey of near-Earth objects equal to or greater than 140 meters in diameter. 

SEC. 910. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

It is the sense of Congress that NASA shall endeavor to carry out, to the extent 

feasible and technologically possible, the top recommendation from the decadal survey in each mission area. 

SEC. 911. ETHICS PROGRAMS IN THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. 

(a) REAFFIRMATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF COUNSEL.—The legal staff of the Office of General Counsel of NASA is reminded that as Government attorneys they 

have a special obligation to instruct NASA staff to comply with applicable Federal 

law and regulations. 

(b) BIENNIAL ETHICS TRAINING FOR COUNSEL.—All NASA counsel shall be required to receive ethics training in the legal obligations of Government attorneys 

on a biennial basis. 

(c) CERTIFICATION OF TRAINING.—Certification of participation in such a program 

shall be included in each counsel’s personnel record. 

(d) DESIGNATED ETHICS OFFICER.—The General Counsel of NASA may not serve 

as NASA’s designated ethics officer. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
31 

II. PURPOSE

The purpose of the bill is to reauthorize the science, aeronautics, 

and human space flight and exploration programs of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the fiscal years 

2011, 2012, and 2013, and address space and aeronautics policy 

and programmatic issues. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008 provided policy 

and programmatic guidance for NASA that made clear that NASA 

is and should remain a multi-mission agency with a balanced portfolio of programs in science, aeronautics, and human space flight, 

including human and robotic exploration beyond low Earth orbit. 

The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 reaffirms the basic principles 

espoused in the earlier NASA Authorizations while emphasizing 

the need to reinvigorate NASA’s capability to undertake innovative 

space technology R&D, replenish our Earth observations assets and 

capabilities, and restructure NASA’s existing exploration program 

so that it can be both executable and productive in spite of a very 

challenging budgetary environment. It also reaffirms the 2008 Authorization’s support for a healthy commercial space sector and includes provisions to foster its growth. The need for the legislation 

at this time is due to the expiration of the previous authorization 

and the fact that major changes to NASA’s programs have been 

proposed by the Administration and debated by Congress over the 

past year. Without a clear statement of congressional priorities and 

policies for NASA, the nation runs the risk of serious drift in our 

space program, with a resultant cost in time and resources and loss 

of critical capabilities. 

IV. HEARING SUMMARIES

The House Committee on Science and Technology and its Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics have held 18 hearings relevant to the issues covered in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 

during the 111th Congress. 

On Wednesday, February 25, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 

presiding, at 10:00 am in room 2318 Rayburn House Office Building, the Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing to 

review the impacts of current export control policies on U.S. science 

and technology activities and competitiveness and to examine the 

findings and recommendations of the National Academies study, 

Beyond ‘‘Fortress America’’: National Security Controls on Science 

and Technology in a Globalized World. There were five witnesses: 

(1) Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft, Co-chair of the National 

Academies Committee on Science, Security and Prosperity; (2) Mr. 

A. Thomas Young, Co-chair of the Strategic and International 

Studies Working Group on the Health of the U.S. Space Industrial 

Base and the Impact of Export Controls; (3) Dr. Claude R. 

Canizares, Vice President for Research and Associate Provost at 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (4) Maj. General Robert 

Dickman, Executive Director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 

Lieutenant General Scowcroft provided testimony on the National Academies report, ‘‘Beyond ‘Fortress America’: National SeVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
32 

curity Controls on Science and Technology in a Globalized World.’’ 

Lt. General Scowcroft pointed out that current export controls were 

outdated, and their regulations were more applicable to the Cold 

War era. Lt. General Scowcroft added that there was a better way 

to manage export controls and suggested that ‘‘we need to turn to 

an open mindset and export unless there is a reason not to.’’ Mr. 

Young agreed with Lt. General Scowcroft’s assessment of current 

export controls. He expanded in greater detail about their negative 

effects on the space commercialization industry, and specifically on 

the second and third tier space industrial base. Dr. Canizares discussed the diminishing effects that export controls levied on America’s once dominant scientific leadership. Major General Dickman 

agreed with much of what had been said by the previous panelist, 

but added a sobering statement that described the real effects of 

export controls on the state of America’s aerospace professionals: 

‘‘In a very real sense, we the American taxpayer, are subsidizing 

the development of the technical workforce that is building the systems that are taking business away from U.S. companies and 

threatening our security.’’ 

On Thursday, March 5, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords 

presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing to examine the status of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration’s (NASA) efforts to improve the cost management of 

its acquisitions and programs. The hearing focused on (1) the results of the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recently 

completed assessments of selected large-scale NASA projects and 

its designation of NASA acquisition management as a ‘‘high-risk’’ 

area, (2) the causes of cost growth and schedule delays in NASA 

acquisitions and (3) the agency’s progress in addressing them. 

There were three witnesses: (1) Christopher Scolese, Acting Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 

(2) Ms. Christina T. Chaplain, Director of Acquisition and Sourcing 

Management for the Government Accountability Office; (3) Gary P. 

Pulliam, Vice President of the Civil and Commercial Operations at 

The Aerospace Corporation. 

Acting Administrator Scolese testified about internal and external factors that affect NASA’s cost and schedule growth, and stated 

that some factors were outside of the administration’s control. 

However, he was pleased to report that NASA had made improvements in standards for project lifecycle milestones and accountability for their stakeholders. 

Ms. Chaplain testified that NASA had a history of failing to address and correct its poor cost estimating practices. However, Ms. 

Chaplain stated that in the most recent assessment of NASA’s 

large-scale projects, GAO found that ‘‘improvements have been 

made, but problems still exist.’’ Mr. Pulliam’s testimony described 

four main causes of NASA’s cost growth and schedule delays, and 

offered a rationale for why some of those problems still existed. 

On Thursday, March 26, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords 

presiding, the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics convened a hearing to review 

the status of federal and industry research and development (R&D) 

efforts to develop and demonstrate the safe and cost-effective use 

of biofuels in civil aviation. The hearing focused on (1) what research was needed to determine the optimal characteristics of both 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
33 

aircraft engine technologies and biofuels to minimize harmful emissions while maintaining aircraft safety and reliability and maximizing performance? (2) What were the most realistic aviation 

biofuel options over the long term, and what will be required to 

achieve widespread use of biofuels in aviation? (3) What steps, if 

any, was the federal government taking to assess the viability of 

biofuels for aviation or to facilitate their widespread use in aviation? (4) What were the results of the recently completed aviation 

biofuels demonstrations? 

There were three witnesses: (1) Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate Administrator of Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (2) Dr. Lourdes Q. 

Maurice, Chief Scientist of the Federal Aviation Administration 

and Environmental Lead for the Commercial Aviation Alternative 

Fuels Initiative; (3) Dr. Alan H. Epstein, Vice President of Technology and Environment at Pratt & Whitney, United Technologies 

Corporation; (4) Mr. Billy M. Glover, Managing Director of Environmental Strategy at Boeing Commercial Airplane Company; and 

(5) Mr. Holden E. Shannon, Senior Vice President of Global Real 

Estate and Security at Continental Airlines. 

Dr. Shin testified that ‘‘NASA has initiated a modest research effort in 2007 that builds upon the existing expertise in fuel chemistry and processing, combustion, and gas turbine engines to address some of the challenges associated with the application of 

these fuels for aviation.’’ Dr. Shin stated that it would take a concerted effort by multiple government agencies, aerospace industries, academia, and biofuel producers to successfully implement 

widespread use of biofuels in aviation. 

Dr. Maurice testified that the FAA had ‘‘identified a number of 

options that can replace petroleum jet fuel without the need to 

modify aircraft, often referred to as drop-in fuels.’’ However, she 

was quick to admit that biofuels in aviation still faced challenges 

in certification, quantification of environmental impacts, and infrastructure and deployment. 

Dr. Epstein testified that testing had shown ‘‘an engine can be 

designed to reduce fuel consumption if it can be assured that all 

aircraft fuel was largely bio-jet fuel.’’ In his conclusion, Dr. Epstein 

proclaimed that the remaining challenges were not in the realm of 

propulsion engineering but rather belonged to the business community, biological and chemical engineers, ecologists, and lawmakers. 

Mr. Glover testified that Boeing’s main goal was to facilitate 

rapid commercialization of the biofuel industry and capture the opportunities it offered the aviation industry. He voiced Boeing’s 

shared sentiment with the other witnesses that government played 

a role in supporting the commercialization and development of 

aviation biofuels in order to make a successful transition. 

Mr. Shannon testified on behalf of Continental that airlines have 

a strong economic incentive to reduce their fuel consumption and 

resulting greenhouse gas emissions. 

On Tuesday, April 28, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords 

presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing to examine the challenges space traffic management and orbital 

debris posed to civil and commercial space users. The Subcommittee explored potential measures to improve information available to 

civil and commercial users to avoid in-space collisions as well as 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
34 

ways to minimize the growth of future space debris. The hearing 

focused on the following questions and issues: (1) What were the 

current and projected risks to civil and commercial space users 

posed by other spacecraft and space debris? (2) What information 

and services were available to civil and commercial space users in 

terms of real-time data and predictive analyses? (3) What could be 

done to minimize the growth of space debris? (4) What was the 

level of coordination among military, civil, and commercial space 

users in the sharing of space situational awareness information? (5) 

Have shortcomings been identified by civil and commercial space 

users with regards to the availability of situational awareness information they need? (6) How were these shortcomings being addressed? (7) Have civil and commercial space users identified their 

long-term situational awareness needs? What options were being 

considered to address them? 

There were four witnesses: (1) Lt. Gen. Larry D. James, Commander, 14th Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Space, U.S. 

Strategic Command; (2) Mr. Nicholas Johnson, Chief Scientist for 

Orbital Debris, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 

(3) Mr. Richard DalBello, Vice President of Government Relations 

Intelsat General Corporation; (4) Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the 

Space Policy Institute, George Washington University. 

During the opening testimonies, General James explained what 

the Joint Functional Component Command (JFCC) for Space was 

doing in terms of tracking orbital objects. He also stated that the 

Air Force Space Command ‘‘will continue to work closely with the 

commercial and foreign space communities to understand their 

evolving needs and desires for space situational awareness...’’ 

Mr. Johnson stated the U.S. needed to limit space debris because 

the debris remains in low-Earth orbit for long periods of time. He 

also spoke about NASA’s role in the matter. 

Mr. Dalbello talked about what the commercial satellite industry 

was doing in terms of tracking and the process of inter-company 

and government cooperation. 

Dr. Pace spoke about the need for international and industry cooperation and concerns about the need for improving tracking data 

accuracy. 

On Tuesday, May 19, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing on 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget Request, NASA’s proposed FY 2009 Operating Plan, and use of funds provided through the Recovery Act. 

There was one witness: (1) Mr. Christopher Scolese, Acting Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

Mr. Scolese began his testimony by noting the increase in 

NASA’s budget in the regular appropriation along with allocated 

funds from the Recovery Act. He commented on the status of currently planned missions related to science, including the James 

Webb Space Telescope. Mr. Scolese also gave the current plans and 

budget for NASA’s human space flight operations. He then discussed the independent review of the U.S. human space flight program and NASA’s role in the review. 

On Thursday, June 18, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords 

presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics heard from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
35 

advisory and other stakeholder bodies on issues relevant to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

There were six witnesses: (1) Mr. John C. Marshall, member of 

the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP); (2) Dr. Kenneth M. 

Ford, Chair of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC); (3) Mr. Robert 

M. Hanisee, Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee of NAC; 

(4) Dr. Raymond S. Colladay, Chair of the National Academies’ 

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB); (5) Dr. Berrien 

Moore III, member of the National Academies’ Space Studies Board 

(SSB); (6) Mr. J.P. Stevens, Vice-President for Space Systems at 

the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA). 

Mr. Marshall spoke first, and told the subcommittee that from 

the perspective of the ASAP, priority in the NASA budget ought to 

be given to making sure safety was not sacrificed due to reduced 

funding. In his view, allocating sufficient resources to extend the 

shuttle program without compromising safety would leave NASA 

with insufficient resources to fulfill its other directives, and endanger the future of the entire space program. Mr. Marshall also called 

for a redefinition of NASA’s exploration missions, since recent 

budget cuts made the current exploration program unsustainable. 

He announced that while ASAP was pleased with NASA’s compliance with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, there were still risks that could not be mitigated 

without extensive redesign of the shuttle. Mr. Marshall also discussed Commercial Orbital Transportation Services. He then listed 

a few areas ASAP believed NASA could pay more attention to in 

fostering a culture of safety. 

Dr. Ford focused on three areas critical to the future of America’s 

space program: developing new space transportation architecture, 

reestablishing a technology R&D program, and, most importantly, 

securing stable funding linked to a stable purpose. Dr. Ford saw 

the accelerated development of a heavy-lift launch vehicle as a crucial first step in modernizing space transportation, and ensuring 

access to the International Space Station (ISS), since commercial 

transport and the Ares I project would not be available for many 

years to come. 

Mr. Hanisee began his remarks with a discussion of NASA’s past 

managerial and financial tangles. He said that although problems 

like the anarchic accounting systems of ten autonomous centers 

have been reined in, the intractable issue of property accounting 

continued to muddy the fiscal waters. Legacy assets like the Space 

Shuttle, and the ISS were particularly problematic from an accounting point of view. One possible solution would be to write off 

the troublesome assets as Research and Development. 

Dr. Colladay focused his testimony on technology development. 

He thought that R&D programs at NASA were driven too much by 

the needs of the moment. While there have been significant advances from technology developed to fill known program needs, especially in environmentally responsible aviation, a long-term, research-driven technology development program would reinvigorate 

the agency’s capabilities. Moreover, such a program should be organized so as to support not just NASA, but also commercial space 

programs and other government agencies. However Dr. Colladay 

also expressed concern that NASA lacked sufficient funds to propVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
36 

erly pursue new technologies, or even to accomplish preexisting 

program goals. 

Dr. Moore spoke of the need to balance NASA’s disparate priorities. While he felt that the 2010 budget was a distinct improvement over 2009, Dr. Moore stated that NASA should still try to 

clamp down on costs, to do more with less, or simply try to do less. 

He reported that the Earth Science Decadal missions in particular 

were in dire financial straits. The agency ought to cut back on its 

programs, and be more careful about selecting programs in the first 

place, in order to avoid the excessively expensive and focus on the 

possible. Cutting back on the number of NASA Centers and National Labs would be a good start. 

Mr. Stevens expressed concern over the insufficient funding of 

the Ares V and the Lunar Lander in the current NASA budget, and 

the imminent loss of jobs associated with those projects. He also 

urged the Subcommittee to continue funding ISS without taking 

funds away from other critical programs. Mr. Stevens said that another great disappointment in the FY 2010 budget was the decrease in funding for NASA education initiatives, which he hoped 

the Subcommittee would correct in future budgets. Mr. Stevens 

also recommended that commercial space launch indemnification 

be extended for at least another 5 years, as its elimination would 

drive even more launch business overseas. 

The hearing was adjourned due to votes. 

On Thursday, July 16, 2009 the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing on enhancing the relevance of space activities to address national needs. The hearing (1) examined how recent reports by the National Research Council and The Space 

Foundation characterized the relevance of space-related activities, 

particularly their role in improving the health, economic wellbeing, and the quality of life of all Americans; (2) reviewed what 

should be done to maintain and enhance that relevance; and 

(3) analyzed whether enhanced awareness of the contributions 

from space-related activities would result in inspiring future generations of Americans. 

There were four witnesses: (1) General [U.S. Air Force, retired] 

Lester L. Lyles, Chair of the Committee on the Rationale and Goals 

of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Aeronautics & Space Engineering 

Board of the National Research Council; (2) Ms. Patti Grace Smith, 

Board of Directors of the Space Foundation; (3) Ms. Deborah Adler 

Myers, General Manager, Science Channel, Discovery Communications; and (4) Mr. Miles O’Brien, Journalist. 

General Lyles testified that the US still has the preeminent civil 

space program. He then mentioned that his team generated six 

goals, such as to sustain and expand our leadership in science. 

Ms. Smith followed and said that space was relevant in every 

American’s life and that the U.S. needed to acquire more civilian 

and national security space systems. She added that not taking the 

initiative will require the U.S. to be more reliant on foreign space 

systems. 

Ms. Myers indicated that the space community struggled against 

the cliche ́ that science was dry and boring. At the Science Channel, 

Ms. Myers noted that they developed television programming and 

reached out to their audience on Facebook and Twitter. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
37 

Mr. O’Brien testified that the engineers at NASA lack communication skills. He proposed that NASA missions should all have a 

public relations requirement where the message should be part of 

the mission, and not an afterthought. Mr. O’Brien also proposed 

that there needed to be money set aside for such operations. 

On Tuesday, September 15, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 

presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing to examine the summary report of the Review of U.S. Human 

Space Flight Plans Committee that was established by NASA 

under the direction of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

and to consider implications and related issues for NASA. 

There were two panels of witnesses: on the first panel was 

(1) Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Chair of the Review of U.S. Human 

Space Flight Plans Committee; on the second panel there were 

(2) Vice-Admiral Joseph W. Dyer USN (Ret.), Chair of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) at NASA; and (3) Dr. Michael 

D. Griffin, Eminent Scholar and Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. 

Mr. Augustine began by emphasizing that his panel was asked 

to offer opinions and alternatives, not to make recommendations. 

He announced that while many look to Mars as the ultimate destination of the Human Spaceflight Program, safety concerns made 

any trip to Mars in the near future improbable. Mr. Augustine included four alternatives to NASA’s baseline program in his written 

testimony. He told the Committee that the imbalance between 

tasks to be performed and funds available made it impossible to 

execute the current program of record. Moreover, the panel determined that NASA’s budget would need to linearly increase to $3 

billion above the FY 2010 budget guidance by FY 2014 and then 

increase by an estimated annual inflation rate of 2.4 percent to 

conduct any viable human space flight and exploration program. 

Mr. Augustine summed up his remarks by telling the Committee 

that the great risk involved in human space flight made it irresponsible to cut corners on funding. 

The Committee then granted Mr. Augustine’s request to be 

joined by another member of his panel, Dr. Edward F. Crawley, to 

help answer any questions the Committee might have. 

Vice-Admiral Dyer opened the second panel by focusing on safety 

and safety-related opportunities and issues. While he observed that 

canceling existing programs and starting over would only lengthen 

the period of time in which the U.S. would be incapable of transporting humans into space, he reiterated that ASAP did not support extending the Space Shuttle program. Vice-Admiral Dyer 

added to the previous critiques of commercial solutions to the gap, 

saying that the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Project 

(COTS) was not subject to the same human-ratings standards as 

NASA itself. He observed that NASA would do well to develop a 

better process for integrating manned and unmanned systems. 

Vice-Admiral Dyer also urged the Committee to undertake a broader and more transparent discussion of the great risks inherent in 

human spaceflight. 

In his opening statement, Dr. Griffin focused on the recent history of NASA’s budget. He said that the budget cuts of 1994 had 

obviously not worked out. Dr. Griffin pointed out that while $3 billion sounds like a lot of money, if NASA funding had been kept at 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
38 

the same level from 1993 to the present, there would be even more 

money in the NASA budget than that requested by the Augustine 

committee. He concluded that in order to follow through on the directives laid out in the 2005 and 2008 NASA Authorization acts, 

Congress must increase NASA’s budget. As President Kennedy 

said, better not to go to the Moon at all than to go halfway. 

On Thursday, October 22, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords 

presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing on NASA’s efforts to define advanced concepts and develop innovative technologies. The hearing examined (1) the opportunities, 

challenges, and issues identified in external reviews associated 

with NASA’s analysis of advanced concepts and long-term development of technology; (2) NASA’s progress in responding to the provisions in NASA Authorization Acts and recommendations from external reviews associated with technology development; and 

(3) NASA’s efforts to collaborate and coordinate with other federal 

agencies on technology development issues. 

There were three witnesses: (1) Dr. Robert D. Braun, Co-Chair 

of the National Research Council’s Space Engineering Board Committee to Review the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts; 

(2) Dr. Raymond S. Colladay, Vice-Chair of the National Research 

Council’s Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Committee on 

the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program; (3) Mr. 

Christopher Scolese, Associate Administrator of NASA. 

Dr. Braun began his testimony by asserting that the original organization of the NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts (NIAC) 

was effective. However Dr. Braun allowed that modifications to 

both NIAC and NASA would improve NIAC’s effectiveness, especially the reestablishment of aeronautics and space systems technology development enterprise within NASA. In his view, NASA 

ought to focus its efforts on short-term, mid-range missions and 

long-term, strategic technology investments. To this end, Dr. Braun 

recommended that NASA establish a formal program to direct the 

development of a selected set of technologies. 

Dr. Colladay started off by observing that long-term advanced research and development (R&D) did not happen in industry, because 

the pay-off was too distant, or in academia in the absence of sustained government funding. To revitalize NASA’s long-term technology development, Dr. Colladay recommended technology R&D be 

independent of NASA’s other major programs, with an organizational structure modeled along the lines of the Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This hypothetical technology 

mission area ought to reach outside NASA, to engage with commercial space companies as well as other government agencies and departments. Moreover, before embarking on this new program, there 

should be a comprehensive assessment of the current state of the 

art advanced space technology. Dr. Colladay concluded by asserting 

the importance of technology relevance and transition. 

Mr. Scolese began by reporting that recent National Academy reviews of NASA suggested that NASA ought to shift its emphasis 

from technologies for flight to the development of game-changing 

technology. The timeframe for such technology investment should 

be 10–20 years. An independent management structure would be 

best suited to the early stages of these projects. Mr. Scolese added 

that NASA did invest in technological development in a limited 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
39 

way through its partnership program, as well as through its mission and engineering programs, despite its lack of a long-term development program. He said that NASA has also increased its outreach efforts to outside groups, joining with other government organizations to fund life science research on the International Space 

Station. 

On Thursday, November 19, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords presiding, the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

held a hearing on the growth of global space capabilities, and why 

they matter. 

There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Marty Hauser, Vice President 

for Research and Analysis at the Washington Operations of the 

Space Foundation; (2) Mr. J.P. Stevens, Vice President for Space 

Systems at the Aerospace Industries Association; (3) Dr. Scott 

Pace, Director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington 

University; (4) Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Director of the European 

Space Policy Institute; (5) Dr. Ray A. Williamson, Executive Director of the Secure World Foundation. 

Mr. Hauser began his testimony by reporting that most spacefaring nations now had the same space capabilities as the U.S. He 

said that more than 60 countries had space agencies, and many of 

them were increasingly willing to share their expertise with countries not as far along. He added that America was losing its competitive position in launch, manufacturing, and service capabilities. 

He further noted that while there were commercial opportunities in 

the expansion of launch capabilities, there was also the threat of 

competition. Mr. Hauser told the Subcommittee that if America 

wished to retain its primacy in space, Congress would have to bite 

the financial bullet, and give NASA the funds it needs to succeed. 

Mr. Stevens identified three areas in which the U.S. was losing 

its leadership in space: satellites, human spaceflight, and launch 

systems. He was especially concerned that the U.S. commercial 

space launch industry only had 15% of the global market. Mr. Stevens reminded the Subcommittee that space capabilities, especially 

launch systems, could easily be translated into military capabilities; in other words, the loss of U.S. superiority in space was a 

threat to national security as well as to national pride. He agreed 

with the Chairwoman’s emphasis on international cooperation, but 

added that any such deals should avoid threatening America’s industrial base or national security. For Mr. Stevens, the International Space Station (ISS) was an example of a successful cooperation, and therefore should be extended through 2020. 

Dr. Pace used his opening statement to remind the Subcommittee that the geosynchronous arc gets more crowded every 

year. He laid out the Chinese government’s plans for the next decade, which culminated with a three-man space station in 2020. Dr. 

Pace said that if the U.S. did not make plans beyond the ISS, 

America would essentially be bowing out of the human spaceflight 

business. He explained that space tourism and commercial 

spaceflight, though valuable, could hardly sustain a major international cooperative human spaceflight effort. Dr. Pace believed 

that the NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008 still offered 

the clearest and most practical way forward for the U.S. space program. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
40 

Dr. Schrogl provided European perspectives on the expansion of 

space-faring capabilities around the world, and the implications of 

that expansion on trans-Atlantic relations. In his view, space-based 

security concerns were a promising area of trans-Atlantic cooperation. A similar cooperation was highly necessary in the regulation 

of space as a strategic economic area. Dr. Schrogl also hoped that 

future years would see more trans-Atlantic cooperation on the lessurgent but equally vital area of space exploration. 

Dr. Williamson shared the Secure World Foundation’s insights 

on the growth of world space capabilities, and why those changes 

were vital to U.S. interests. Like previous panelists, he noted the 

scientific and commercial opportunities created by the nascent 

space programs of other nations. Dr. Williamson added that an increasing amount of space debris made the lack of any effective governance of the global commons of outer space a more acute problem 

every day. In his view, the U.S. could best ensure its own orbital 

security by engaging with emerging space states regarding adherence to international best practices. Dr. Williamson said that assisting new space states was also an opportunity for the U.S. to 

flex its soft power, to use its technological and economic capabilities to influence foreign policymakers. He also added that working 

with states to build space capacity would create a larger market for 

U.S. goods as well as a long-term sustainable security climate in 

space based on cooperation rather than competition and that ITAR 

reform would go a long way in this regard as well. 

On December 2, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing 

focused on issues related to ensuring the safety of future human 

space flight in government and non-government space transportation systems. The hearing examined (1) the steps needed to establish confidence in a space transportation system’s ability to 

transport U.S. and partner astronauts to low Earth orbit and return them to Earth in a safe manner, (2) the issues associated with 

implementing safety standards and establishing processes for certifying that a space transportation vehicle is safe for human transport, and (3) the roles that training and experience play in enhancing the safety of human space missions. 

There were six witnesses: (1) Mr. Bryan D. O’Connor, Chief of 

Safety and Mission Assurance at the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA); (2) Mr. Jeff Hanley, Program Manager of the Constellation Program at NASA; (3) Mr. John C. Marshall, member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP); (4) 

Mr. Bretton Alexander, President of the Commercial Spaceflight 

Federation; (5) Dr. Joseph R. Fragola, Vice President of Valador, 

Inc; and (6) Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford, USAF (ret.). 

Mr. O’Connor began by explaining the mission of the Office of 

Safety and Mission Assurance. He said that many of the programs 

planned by his office were being implemented at the new NASA 

Safety Center in Cleveland. In his view, working with NASA’s Russian counter-parts on Apollo-Soyuz, Shuttle-Mir and the International Space Station (ISS) had been an invaluable learning experience on different safety procedures. Mr. O’Connor added that his 

office was also investing 2009 Recovery Act funds in supplementing 

activities related to technologies that enable commercial human 

spaceflight capabilities. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
41 

Mr. Hanley focused on outlining how the Constellation Program 

had sought to improve crew safety above and beyond the features 

of previous crewed aircraft. He said that the design goal of the program was a 10-fold increase in astronaut safety relative to the 

shuttle missions. He also reported that NASA was developing a 

new integrated test and verification plan as part of its design review process. 

Mr. Marshall criticized the Augustine Report for its oversimplified approach to safety issues. Mr. Marshall believed that because commercial providers had no reason to develop strong safety 

guidelines on their own, NASA had to lay down and police a set 

of guidelines on their behalf. He insisted that safety was the greatest weakness of the COTS program, and NASA would have to oversee construction carefully to ensure that companies did not take on 

undue risks in an effort to cut costs or speed up production. 

Mr. Alexander spoke for the 20 member organizations of the 

Commercial Spaceflight Federation. He regarded commercial crew 

transport as complementary, not competitive, with NASA’s mission. 

Mr. Alexander claimed that since low-Earth orbit was an easier 

and more focused destination than those intended for the Orion 

Crew Exploration Vehicle, the commercial program would be more 

cost-effective. He agreed with previous speakers that safety was 

the paramount concern of all those involved in spaceflight programs, commercial or otherwise. He suggested that the FAA should 

retain its licensing authority over aircraft, while NASA would have 

oversight in its capacity as customer. 

Dr. Fragola described his four laws for a safe space launcher design. To begin with, the design must be as inherently safe as possible. Secondly, the crew should be put at the top of the rocket, as 

far away from the source of failure as possible. There must also be 

a credible abort trigger set, and finally, the design should include 

a tested abort system that allows for a safe crew escape and recovery. Dr. Fragola said that under these criteria, the Ares I was the 

safest vehicle around, 2 to 3 times safer than the alternatives. This 

was because of its reliability and its benign abort conditions. 

General Stafford stated that while he strongly agreed with the 

majority of the findings of the Augustine Report, there were a few 

he objected to. His disagreements with the report began with its 

recommendation that the responsibility for transportation of crew 

and cargo to the ISS be given to commercial contractors exclusively. First of all, commercial cargo transport would require the 

construction of costly, time-consuming autonomous transfer vehicles. Secondly, safe delivery of a crew to the ISS required the successful combination of a human-rated launch vehicle, the spacecraft 

itself, and the launch abort system. The Augustine Report lacked 

an in-depth analysis of these vital safety issues. General Stafford 

did not see what entity other than NASA could credibly establish 

and verify appropriate standards for human spaceflight. 

On Thursday, December 3, 2009 the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, together with the Subcommittee on Space and 

Aeronautics, held a hearing on the independent audit of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Hon. 

Brad Miller, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and 

Oversight, presided. Each year, federal agencies are required to obtain an audit of their consolidated financial statements from indeVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
42 

pendent auditing firms. NASA received the report of Ernst &

Young evaluating the Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09) financial statements 

on November 13, 2009. Ernst & Young determined that ‘‘the scope 

of our work was not sufficient to enable us to express, and we do 

not express, an opinion on the consolidated balance sheets . . .’’ 

This constituted a ‘‘disclaimed opinion’’—one in which the auditing 

firm finds a material weakness in the accounting processes of the 

agency so severe that they cannot reliably verify the agency’s financial accounts. The Subcommittees met to determine what NASA 

needed to do to continue improving its financial control and accounting system. 

There were three witnesses: (1) Hon. Paul Martin, Inspector General of NASA, accompanied by the Deputy Inspector General, the 

Hon. Tom Howard; (2) Mr. Dan Murrin, Partner in Assurance and 

Advisory Business Services at Ernst & Young LLP; (3) Hon. Elizabeth Robinson, Chief Financial Officer of NASA. 

In his opening statement, Mr. Martin recalled that for most of 

the past decade, improving financial management was at the top 

of the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG’s) list of performance 

challenges. He told the Subcommittees that the 2009 audit identified three significant deficiencies in internal controls. To begin 

with, NASA’s inability to ensure that the value of legacy property, 

plants and equipment was fairly stated in financial disclosures was 

a serious material weakness. The other two deficiencies involved 

NASA’s process for estimating its environmental liabilities and its 

compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement 

Act of 1996. Mr. Martin concluded that NASA’s Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer was currently acting on suggestions from Ernst &

Young and the OIG to improve its monitoring and remediation efforts, and should be able to improve on its financial management 

process and systems during FY 2010. 

Mr. Murrin shared the results of the FY 2009 audit conducted 

by his firm, the sixth such audit for which he was the engagement 

partner. Together with the audit report, Ernst & Young issued a 

Report on Internal Controls listing specific weaknesses in NASA’s 

internal controls and a third report on compliance with the Federal 

Financial Management Improvement Act. Mr. Murrin reported that 

the main reason the auditors chose to disclaim was related to assets capitalized in previous years which were not susceptible to 

audit. In their second report, the auditors made two recommendations: first, that NASA should continue to implement the new 

standards, especially those regarding legacy assets; and secondly, 

that NASA should develop an overarching, key control activity. Mr. 

Murrin also acknowledged the significant progress made since 

Ernst & Young’s first audit of NASA in 2004. 

Ms. Robinson focused her remarks on three points. The first was 

the progress NASA had made. Ms. Robinson testified that it was 

the 2003 consolidation of the financial systems of its ten centers 

and headquarters that led to the first of the now seven disclaimed 

opinions. Since then, NASA had eliminated all but one material 

weakness, and Ms. Robinson assured the Subcommittees that 

NASA was now able to track and control its funds, account for the 

cost related to individual programs and projects, and manage the 

agency’s day-to-day operations. Her second point touched on explaining the material weakness. Ms. Robinson said that NASA’s 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
43 

processes and contracts were designed to comply with annual expense accounting requirements, and thus struggled to fulfill the 

new requirement for asset depreciation accounting. The agency 

began implementing significant reforms in 2002, but it could not 

recreate records that did not exist before that date. She added that 

the scheduled retirement of the shuttle and space station would 

make the net asset balances plummet to levels immaterial for financial purposes. Ms. Robinson’s third point was that the new 

standard published by the Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) on October 14th provided a clear way forward 

for NASA. 

On Thursday, December 10, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 

presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing on the future direction and funding for NASA, and what that 

future held for the U.S. aerospace workforce and industrial base. 

There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. David Thompson, President of 

the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA); (2) 

Ms. Marion C. Blakey, President and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA); (3) Mr. A. Thomas Young, retired Executive 

Vice-President of the Lockheed Martin Corporation; and (4) Dr. 

Richard Aubrecht, Vice-Chairman and Vice-President of Strategy 

and Technology at Moog Inc. 

Mr. Thompson spoke on behalf of the AIAA, representing more 

then 36,000 aerospace scientists and engineers. He explained that 

there were insufficient new aerospace engineers and scientists to 

take the places of the increasing number of retirees. He claimed 

that the aerospace sector would therefore experience a dramatic decline in its technical workforce over the next decade. Mr. Thompson 

also pointed out that although U.S. human spaceflight programs 

employed less than 20% of the country’s aerospace workers, they 

had an enormous influence on motivating young people to enter the 

field of aerospace science and engineering in the first place. He concluded from this that cuts to U.S. human spaceflight programs 

would stress an already weak sector of the economy. Cutbacks to 

human spaceflight programs could also weaken the industrial base 

of the entire space and national security sector. 

Ms. Blakey began by saying that aerospace talent and facilities 

lost to other industries would be irretrievable. Without the inspirational power of NASA programs, it would become even more difficult to attract students to the study of STEM fields. A commitment to a robust human spaceflight program could have an enormous influence in attracting and retaining new workers. Ms. 

Blakey added that the constantly fluctuating budgets that have 

been a staple of the last decade adversely affected the production 

and maintenance of a skilled workforce. Moreover, such interruptions or cancellations were catastrophic to small firms, whose expertise would then be lost forever. 

Mr. Young remarked that without significant experience and continuity of participation, intellectual capability was not enough by 

itself to maintain a successful spaceflight program. He thought that 

the attempt to move faster and go cheaper was punching holes in 

the safety net necessary to prevent human errors from warping 

into catastrophes. Mr. Young insisted that the kind of uncompromising discipline necessary for safe spaceflight required a permanent investment. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
44 

Dr. Aubrecht, an engineer for the precision motion control company Moog, spoke of his company’s work on fly-by-wire flight control technology. He told the Committee that NASA programs gave 

Moog the opportunity to develop the core technologies and core 

knowledge that it eventually transferred to commercial applications. Dr. Aubrecht explained it was common for NASA contracts 

that accounted for only a small percentage of a company’s sales to 

form a majority of its research and development. He concluded that 

consistent funding of the Constellation program was necessary to 

carry on this system. 

On February 3, 2010, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords presiding, 

the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing on the 

key issues and challenges facing the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) as seen by the agency’s ‘‘watchdogs’’—the NASA Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 

(ASAP). Leveraging the unique perspectives these organizations developed in the course of their work at NASA in the areas of management, mission execution, and security and safety oversight, the 

hearing examined (1) the critical issues and challenges facing 

NASA that warrant congressional attention and (2) the corresponding commitment, initiatives, and policies needed by NASA 

to successfully address these issues and challenges. Separate hearings would address NASA’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget request as 

well as the administration’s human space flight strategy after they 

are announced. 

There were three witnesses: (1) Hon. Paul K. Martin, Inspector 

General, NASA; (2) Ms. Cristina T. Chaplain, Director, Acquisition 

and Sourcing Management, GAO; (3) Vice-Admiral Joseph W. Dyer 

[U.S. Navy, Ret.], Chair, ASAP. 

Mr. Martin identified five critical challenges facing NASA: (1) 

transitioning from the Space Shuttle to a new generation of space 

vehicles; (2) enhancing risk management techniques; (3) improving 

the agency’s financial management; (4) addressing systemic weaknesses in acquisition and contracting processes; and (5) ensuring 

the security and integrity of NASA’s information technology (IT) 

systems. 

Ms. Chaplain concurred with Mr. Martin on the issues facing 

NASA, listing as NASA’s main challenges retiring the Space Shuttle, completing and operating the International Space Station (ISS), 

acquiring complex systems for research, improving financial management and protecting IT systems. She added that however broad 

the changes proposed in the President’s new budget, they did not 

alter these basic concerns. However, Ms. Chaplain also noted that 

previous commercial approaches did not succeed because they 

lacked sound government insight and oversight. 

Vice-Admiral Dyer quoted the conclusion of his panel’s 2009 report, emphasizing that the Ares I was designed with an emphasis 

on safety, and any new approach would have to guarantee an equal 

or greater safety level. He called on NASA to create clear Human 

Rating Requirements (HRR) for potential commercial contractors. 

Vice-Admiral Dyer added that managing the transition of the shuttle workforce would now be doubly important. 

On Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 10:00 am, the Committee on 

Science and Technology held a hearing on the National Aeronautics 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
45 

and Space Administration’s (NASA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget 

Request and Issues. 

There was one witness: Charles F. Bolden, Administrator of the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

Mr. Bolden began his testimony by explaining that NASA’s future exploration effort would focus not just on our Moon, but also 

on near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, Mars and its moonswith Mars as the ultimate destination. By investing in the right 

technology, NASA would be able to map out a more realistic path 

to that final goal. Mr. Bolden said that the budget’s renewed focus 

on R&D would produce new opportunities for U.S. industry and 

spur the creation of new businesses. He highlighted the sustainability and affordability of the new approach. Mr. Bolden said that 

the lessons NASA had learned in the course of the Constellation 

program would inform the Agency’s future flagship technology development and demonstration program. He further noted the presence of investments in heavy-lift R&D, climate change observations, 

aeronautics and education initiatives. 

On March 24, 2010 the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

held a hearing on the administration’s proposed changes to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) exploration 

program. 

There were two witnesses: (1) Mr. Douglas Cooke, Associate Administrator for the Explorations Systems Mission Directorate at 

NASA; and (2) Mr. A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin (Ret.). 

Mr. Cooke began by confirming that the ultimate destination in 

human spaceflight remained Mars. He said that to further this 

goal, the FY 2011 budget would fund three new programs aimed 

at expanding the capabilities of America’s human spaceflight program. While commending those who worked so diligently on the 

Constellation program, Mr. Cooke affirmed the need for commercial 

groups to take over transit to and from LEO, leaving NASA free 

to go beyond. 

In oral testimony, Mr. Young strongly condemned the proposed 

cancellation of the Constellation program. He said that neither 

Soyuz nor industry provided a long term solution to the problem 

of American access to LEO. While commercial industry should be 

encouraged, it was still a long way from being able to satisfy 

human space transportation needs. Therefore, the U.S. ought to 

commit instead to developing a heavy-lift capability along the lines 

of the Ares I. Mr. Young added that what NASA needed was a Plan 

A, such as could not be found in the budget proposal. If enacted, 

the proposed budget would lead to an irreversible deterioration of 

America’s aerospace workforce. 

On May 5, 2010, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords presiding, the 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing on the research needed to improve our understanding of the impact of volcanic ash clouds on aircraft and aircraft operations and what could 

be done to mitigate that impact. Last year, when the Mount Redoubt volcano erupted southwest of Anchorage, one of the operating 

airlines grounded its fleet, diverted flights and wrapped the engines of its parked planes in plastic sealant. More recently, the 

eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajo ̈kull volcano paralyzed air travel in 

Europe for six days, inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of pasVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
46 

sengers around the world and causing airline revenue losses of at 

least $1.7 billion. 

There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Tony Strazisar, Senior Technical Advisor for NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

[Substituting for Associate Administrator Jaiwon Shin]; (2) Dr. 

Jack A. Kaye, Earth Science Division at NASA; (3) Ms. Victoria 

Cox, Senior VP for NextGen and Operations Planning at the FAA’s 

Air Traffic Organization; (4) Captain Linda M. Orlady, Executive 

Air Safety Vice Chair of the Air Line Pilots Association, International; and (5) Mr. Roger Dinius, Flight Safety Director at GE 

Aviation. 

Dr. Strazisar testified regarding NASA’s past experience with the 

impact of volcanic ash on aircraft. He said that volcanic ash ingestion is rare because the established practice is to avoid flight in the 

vicinity of volcanic debris. Dr. Strazisar shared with the committee 

the experience of a NASA DC–8 research plane that in February 

of 2000 flew through the edge of an ash cloud produced by Iceland’s 

Heckla volcano. Even though that encounter only lasted seven minutes, disassembling the engines revealed significant damage invisible to the naked eye. Improving forecasts and operational procedures could go a long way towards providing a solution for air traffic management. 

Dr. Kaye said that NASA’s Earth Science program, through its 

13 earth-observing missions, fed critical information on volcanic debris to NOAA and other agencies. The new satellites the Earth 

Science division would be launching over the next year would further augment this data stream. Since volcanic eruptions are the 

only sources of sulfur dioxide large enough to be detected by satellite, NASA and NOAA could then provide accurate, near realtime information on the location of sulfur dioxide emissions, which 

can be particularly useful in the first few days after an eruption. 

Ms. Cox reiterated that accidents and incidents caused by encounters with volcanic ash are quite rare. She said the FAA treats 

volcanic ash much like a major weather event. According to Ms. 

Cox, the relatively constrained airspace over Europe limited the options available to the European Union (EU) in its response to the 

Eyjafjallajo ̈kull eruption. Since NextGen focuses on quality and delivery of information, it would aid operators and flight traffic controllers in getting the necessary data. 

Capt. Orlady observed that in addition to engine and windshield 

damage, volcanic gases also pose a serious threat to the health of 

crew and passengers alike. She said that a lack of standardization 

of available forecasts complicated European handling of the recent 

air travel disruption. She added that her organization, ALPA, advocated complete avoidance of volcanic ash until a deeper understanding of engine tolerance was achieved. Better detection mechanisms, more vigorous certification processes, and new procedural 

training exercises will also help. 

Mr. Dinius said that ash clouds had three significant effects on 

airplane engines: (1) corrosion of compressor blades; (2) plugging of 

cooling holes; and (3) accumulation on hot parts. He added that GE 

recommended avoiding flight into visible ash, but further research 

into ash clouds and their impact on commercial engines could reduce the risk of flying through one. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
47 

On May 26, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon presiding, the 

Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing on the proposed National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

Human Spaceflight Plan. The purpose of the hearing was to continue the examination of the proposed NASA human spaceflight 

plan and to review issues related to the budget, cost, schedule and 

potential impacts of the plan. 

The hearing examined: (1) the Administration’s proposed goals, 

strategies and plans for NASA’s human spaceflight and exploration 

programs, including the revisions announced by the president on 

April 15, 2010; (2) the assumptions, basis, feasibility and sustainability of those plans within the FY 2011 budget plan and outyear 

funding plan; (3) the key challenges and risks involved in implementing the proposed change of course for NASA; and (4) what outstanding questions and issues needed to be addressed, and what information was needed for Congress’ consideration of the proposed 

future direction for NASA’s human spaceflight and exploration programs. 

There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Charles Bolden, Administrator of NASA; (2) Mr. Neil Armstrong, Commander of Apollo 11; 

(3) Capt. Eugene Cernan, Commander of Apollo 17; and (4) Mr. 

Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin. 

Administrator Bolden testified that the new budget set the agency on a sustainable path, progressing step by step from a mission 

to an asteroid by 2025 to a mission to Mars orbit by the 2030s. He 

said that NASA would build on its work on the Orion to develop 

a Crew Rescue Vehicle which could in the future be leveraged into 

spacecraft for deep-space missions. Meanwhile in the present, the 

construction of a rescue vehicle would preserve critical high-techindustry jobs. 

Chairman Gordon then called in the second panel. In his testimony, Mr. Armstrong enumerated the reasons to return to the 

Moon. He said that the lunar vicinity was an exceptional location 

to learn about traveling to more distant and more difficult destinations. He also cited the many scientific challenges to address regarding Helium-3, platinum group metals and how to survive on 

the lunar surface. Mr. Armstrong added that his priorities for the 

human space program were maintaining American leadership, access to low-Earth orbit and capability to explore. 

Captain Cernan referred to a letter he wrote along with Mr. 

Armstrong and Mr. Lovell in which they expressed their concerns 

regarding the new plan. He said it would take the private sector 

as long as ten years to access low-Earth orbit safely and cost-effectively. Relying solely on the commercial sector could thus lead to 

abandoning American involvement in the ISS entirely. Constellation, on the other hand, had already been debated and vetted by 

Congress and federal agencies from OMB to DoD. He said that exploration was necessary to drive technology innovation, not the reverse. 

Mr. Young concluded that NASA’s success stemmed from its 

meld of institutional continuity and expertise with industry capability. He thought that the Administration’s proposal abandoned 

this model, leaving NASA with a purely advisory role. If implemented, this would be similar to the failed acquisition reform the 

Air Force undertook in the 1990s. Mr. Young also said that the proVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
48 

posed FY 2011 budget could not support both an adequate ISS program and exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. 

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On July 20, 2010, H.R. 5781, a bill to reauthorize the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011 

through 2015, was introduced by Chairman Gordon and referred to 

the Committee on Science and Technology. On July 22, 2010, the 

Full Committee met to consider H.R. 5781 and ordered the bill reported, as amended, by a voice vote. 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

Authorizes funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. Funding for fiscal year 2011 is $19.0 billion. Funding for fiscal year 2012 is $19.45 

billion. Funding for fiscal year 2013 is $19.96 billion. Provides for 

a balanced set of programs in human space flight and exploration, 

aeronautics research and development, and scientific research, including Earth observations and research. Provides a contingent authorization for an additional Space Shuttle mission if the NASA 

Administrator certifies it is needed and that all required safety reviews have been completed. Extends the operation and utilization 

of the International Space Station (ISS) through at least 2020 and 

includes provisions to enhance research utilization of the ISS, including establishment of an independent ISS research management 

institution and reinvigoration of NASA’s life and physical sciences 

microgravity research and technology program. Establishes a Space 

Technology program to pursue innovative technology research and 

development. Restructures NASA’s exploration program to provide 

for the development of low-Earth orbit crew transportation system 

for assured access to the ISS, as well as initiation of a heavy lift 

launch vehicle program to enable crewed missions beyond lowEarth orbit. Contains provisions related to institutional capabilities, education, commercial crew services, acquisition management, 

space weather, suborbital research, preservation and management 

of lunar sites, post-Shuttle workforce transition, and Shuttle orbiter disposition. Also establishes a number of reporting and study 

requirements. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 1. Short title 

The ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010’’. 

Sec. 2. Findings 

Congress finds that the agency is and should remain a multimission agency, and 16 other findings. 

Sec. 3. Definitions 

The terms ‘‘Administrator’’, ‘‘ISS’’, ‘‘NASA’’, ‘‘NOAA’’, and ‘‘OSTP’’ 

are defined. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
49 

TITLE I. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

Sec. 101. Fiscal Year 2011 

Authorizes NASA at $19,000,000,000 for FY 2011. That amount 

is the same as that in the President’s FY 2011 request. 

The authorization includes the following breakdown: Science: $5,015,700,000, of which 

$1,801,800,000 is for Earth Science 

$1,485,700,000 is for Planetary Science 

$1,076,300,000 is for Astrophysics 

$646,900,000 is for Heliophysics of which 

$5,000,000 is for the Explorers program augmentation, 

and 

$5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation Aeronautics: $579,600,000 

Space Technology: $572,200,000 

Exploration: $4,535,300,000 of which $215,000,000 is for Human Research 

$14,000,000 is for the commercial cargo COTS demonstration program $50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-related activities 

$4,156,300,000 is for the restructured exploration program $100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee program 

established in Sec. 243 

Space Operations: $4,594,300,000, of which $989,100,000 is for the Space Shuttle program 

$2,804,800,000 is for the International Space Station of 

which 

$75,000,000 is for fundamental space life science and 

physical sciences and related technology research $60,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce Transition 

Initiative 

$740,400,000 is for Space and Flight Support of which 

$50,000,000 is for the 21st Century Space Launch Complex Initiative Education, $145,800,000 

Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,111,400,000 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: $407,300,000 of which $10,000,000 is for the laboratory 

revitalization augmentation 

Inspector General: $38,400,000 

Sec. 102. Fiscal Year 2012 

Authorizes NASA at $19,450,000,000 for FY 2012. That is the 

same amount as is projected for FY 2012 in the President’s FY 

2011 budget request. The authorization includes the following 

breakdown: 

Science: $5,278,600,000 of which 

$1,944,500,000 is for Earth Science 

$1,547,200,000 is for Planetary Science 

$1,109,300,000 is for Astrophysics, 

$672,600,000 is for Heliophysics of which 

$25,000,000 is for the Explorer program augmentation 

$5,000,000 is for the Suborbital Augmentation 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
50 

Aeronautics: $598,700,000 of which 

$78,900,000 is for the aviation safety program 

$80,400,000 is for the aeronautics test program 

$83,900,000 is the airspace systems program 

$233,500,000 is for fundamental aeronautics research, 

and 

$122,000,000 is for integrated systems research Space Technology: $1,012,200,000 

Exploration: $4,881,800,000 of which $215,000,000 is for Human Research 

$50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-related activities 

$4,516,800,000 is for the restructured exploration program $100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee program 

established in Sec. 243 

Space Operations: $3,930,300,000, of which $86,100,000 is for the Space Shuttle program 

$3,033,600,000 is for the International Space Station of 

which 

$100,000,000 is for fundamental space life science and 

physical sciences and related technology research $40,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce Transition 

Initiative 

$770,600,000 is for Space and Flight Support of which 

$50,000,000 is for the 21st Century Space Launch Complex Initiative Education: $145,800,000 

Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,189,600,000 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restora- tion: $373,800,000 of which $10,000,000 is for the laboratory 

revitalization augmentation Inspector General: $39,200,000 

Sec. 103. Fiscal Year 2013 

Authorizes NASA at $19,960,000,000 for FY 2013. That is the 

same amount as is projected for FY 2013 in the President’s FY 

2011 budget request. The authorization includes the following 

breakdown: 

Science: $5,569,500,000, of which 

$2,089,500,000 is for Earth Science 

$1,591,200,000 is for Planetary Science 

$1,149,100,000 is for Astrophysics 

$734,700,000 is for Heliophysics of which 

$55,000,000 is for the Explorer program augmentation, 

and 

$5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation 

Aeronautics: $609,400,000 of which 

$81,200,000 is for the aviation safety program 

$79,600,000 is for the aeronautics test program 

$87,300,000 is for the airspace systems program 

$239,000,000 is for fundamental aeronautics, and 

$122,300,000 is for integrated systems research 

Space Technology: $1,059,700,000 

Exploration: $4,888,500,000 of which 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
51 

$215,000,000 is for Human Research 

$5,000,000 is for the Exploration Technology and Demonstration program 

$5,000,000 is for the Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions program 

$50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-related activities 

$4,513,500,000 is for the restructured exploration program 

$100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee program 

established in Sec. 243 

Space Operations: $3,993,300,000, of which 

$3,179,400,000 is for the International Space Station of 

which 

$100,000,000 is for fundamental space life science and 

physical sciences and related technology research 

$40,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce Transition 

Initiative 

$773,900,000 is for Space and Flight Support of which 

$50,000,000 is for the 21st Century Space Launch Complex Initiative 

Education: $145,800,000 

Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,276,800,000 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: $376,900,000 of which $10,000,000 is for the laboratory 

revitalization initiative 

Inspector General: $40,100,000 

TITLE II. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT 

SUBTITLE A. EXPLORATION

Sec. 201. Reaffirmation of Exploration Policy 

Reaffirms the support of the Congress for the exploration policy 

articulated in Secs. 401 and 402 of Public Law 110–422. 

Sec. 202. Restructured Exploration Program 

Directs the Administrator to develop a plan to restructure the 

current exploration program and develop, test, and demonstrate a 

government-owned crew transportation system and evolvable heavy 

lift transportation system in a manner that enables a challenging 

exploration program, minimizes the human space flight ‘‘gap’’, 

seeks efficiencies in program management and reductions in fixed 

and operating costs, requires a high level of crew safety, contains 

a robust flight and ground test program, facilitates the transition 

of shuttle personnel, invests in improvements in infrastructure and 

launch operations at Kennedy Space Center, makes maximum 

practicable use of the work completed to date on the Orion crew 

capsule and associated pad abort flight data; Ares I and Ares I–X 

flight data; heavy lift studies, analysis and design; ground support 

and exploration enabling projects, including space suit development 

and related life support technology among other projects; and all 

existing contracts, and is phased in a manner consistent with available and anticipated resources. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
52 

Sec. 203. Space radiation 

Directs the Administrator to develop a space radiation mitigation 

and management strategy and implementation plan, and to transmit the strategy and plan no later than 12 months after the date 

of enactment of the Act. Directs the Administrator to carry out a 

report on the usefulness of radiation research on non-human primates. 

SUBTITLE B. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

Sec. 211. Extension of ISS operations 

Directs the Administrator to take all necessary measures to support the operation and full utilization of the International Space 

Station (ISS) through at least the year 2020, to seek to reduce ISS 

operating costs and to conduct an assessment of essential components required for future utilization of the ISS. 

Sec. 212. ISS Research Management Institution 

Directs the Administrator to designate an independent, not-forprofit U.S. institution for the management of research carried out 

on the ISS. 

Sec. 213. ISS Research Management Plan 

Directs the Administrator to have the designated institution prepare a management plan and transmit the plan no later than 2 

years after the date of enactment of the Act. 

Sec. 214. Outreach plan for U.S. ISS research 

Directs the Administrator to have the institution prepare a plan 

for broadening and enhancing the outreach to potential U.S. government, academic, and commercial users of the ISS no later than 

2 years after the date of enactment of the Act. 

Sec. 215. ISS cargo resupply requirements and contingency capacity 

through 2020 

Directs the Administrator to conduct an assessment of the ISS 

Cargo Resupply capacity required to support extended operations of 

the ISS through 2020 and explore options with its partners for ensuring upmass and downmass needs are addressed in the event 

that adequate U.S. commercial cargo resupply capabilities are not 

available during any extended period after the Shuttle is retired 

and to certify that no United States or commercial capability can 

offer upmass or downmass services before relying on ISS partners 

for upmass or downmass services. 

Sec. 216. Centrifuge 

Directs the Administrator to assess innovative options, including 

international collaborations, for deploying a variable-gravity centrifuge and to transmit the assessment no later than one year after 

the date of enactment of the Act. 

Sec. 217. Exploration technology development using the ISS 

Directs the Administrator to develop a plan for carrying out 

prioritized activities that support NASA’s long-term plans for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit that require the capabilities of the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
53 

International Space Station and to transmit the plan no later than 

270 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 218. Fundamental space life science and physical sciences and 

related technology research 

Requires the Administrator to designate a responsible official 

and to develop a strategic plan for carrying out fundamental, i.e., 

basic and applied research in space life and physical sciences and 

technology consistent with the priorities and recommendations established by the National Academies in its decadal survey of life 

and microgravity sciences and to transmit the plan within one year 

of the enactment of the Act. 

SUBTITLE C. SPACE SHUTTLE

Sec. 221. Contingent authorization of additional Space Shuttle mission 

Authorizes the Administrator to conduct one additional Space 

Shuttle mission to the ISS if it is determined to be necessary to reduce risk for ISS operations and utilization, and if certain safety 

conditions are met and to offset the additional cost by taking funds 

from the ISS and Exploration accounts. 

Sec. 222. Expanded scope of Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office 

Renames Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office to Post-Shuttle 

Transition Liaison Office and extends life to 2 years after the last 

grant is awarded. 

Sec. 223. Post-shuttle workforce transition initiative grant program 

Authorizes the Administrator to make grants for the establishment, operation, coordination, and implementation of aerospace 

workforce and community transition strategies. 

Sec. 224. Disposition of orbiter vehicles 

Provides for the disposition of the remaining Space Shuttle orbiter vehicles upon the termination of the Space Shuttle program 

though a competitive procedure that takes into account geographical diversity and provides for priority consideration being 

given to eligible applicants to display the orbiters at locations with 

the best potential value to the public, including where the location 

can advance STEM disciplines. 

SUBTITLE D. SPACE AND FLIGHT SUPPORT

Sec. 231. 21st Century Space Launch Complex Initiative 

Directs that the Administrator, in carrying out the 21st Century 

Space Launch Initiative, give priority to activities supporting the 

restructured exploration program. Also calls out specific activities 

that can be undertaken as part of the Initiative. 

SUBTITLE E. COMMERCIAL CREW TRANSPORTATION

Sec. 241. Affirmation of policy 

Reaffirms the policy of making use of United States commercially 

provided International Space Station crew transport and crew rescue services; limiting the use of the government system to non-ISS 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
54 

missions once commercial crew transport and crew rescue services 

meeting safety requirements become operational; and facilitating 

the transfer of NASA-developed technologies to United States commercial orbital human space transportation companies. 

Sec. 242. Commercial crew and related commercial space initiatives 

Directs NASA to seek opportunities to make use of commercially 

available crew transportation services provided that service providers meet applicable NASA safety requirements, have completed 

crewed flight demonstrations, and per-seat cost is not greater than 

the crew transportation system of the restructured exploration program. 

Directs the Administrator to establish requirements for the 

human-rating of space transportation systems that are equivalent 

to NASA safety processes and procedures and requires the Administrator to make available NASA-developed technologies and NASA 

facilities and equipment to assist in the testing and demonstration 

of commercial crew transportation systems. 

Requires that any company seeking to provide commercial crew 

transport services to NASA enter into an arrangement with NASA 

that allows NASA to obtain ongoing insight into the design methodologies, processes, technologies, and other information employed 

in the development and production of a commercial crew transportation system. 

Requires the Administrator, before entering into any contracts 

for the use of commercially available commercial crew transport or 

crew rescue services, to certify that each commercial provider has 

demonstrated the safety and reliability of its systems. 

Prohibits the Administrator from proceeding with a procurement 

award for a commercial crew transport and rescue services until 

sufficient flight experience has been demonstrated and accrued; directs the Administrator to develop and communicate NASA’s 

human-rating requirements to commercial space companies; and 

directs the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel to conduct a review. 

Prohibits the Administrator from entering into any agreement 

for a U.S. commercial ISS crew transport or rescue service until all 

indemnification and liability issues associated with the use of such 

systems by the U.S. government have been addressed and the Administrator has provided a report describing the indemnification 

and liability provisions. 

Directs the Administrator not to proceed with a procurement 

award for a commercial ISS crew transport system service if the 

provider’s crew transportation system has a predicted level of safety that is less than that predicted for the restructured exploration 

program’s crew transportation system. 

Sec. 243. Federal assistance for the development of commercial orbital human space transportation services 

Directs the Administrator to establish a program to provide financial assistance in the form of loans or loan guarantees to commercial entities for the costs of development of orbital human space 

transportation systems. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
55 

SUBTITLE F. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 251. Use of program funds 

Directs that all funding for programs authorized under Title II, 

authorized funds may be obligated only for performance of the programs. 

TITLE III. SCIENCE 

SUBTITLE A. EARTH SCIENCE

Sec. 301. Earth science applications 

Directs the Administrator to develop a process for entering into 

arrangements with other government agencies that seek to benefit 

from ongoing NASA capabilities related to Earth science applications and decision support systems. 

Sec. 302. Essential space-based earth science and climate measurements 

Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with the 

National Academies for a study, to be completed within 18 months 

after the enactment of this Act, to develop a prioritized list of essential earth science and climate measurements that can be collected with space-based means. 

Sec. 303. Commercial remote sensing data purchases pilot project 

Directs the Administrator to initiate a pilot project for purchasing commercial remote sensing data to address state, local, regional, and tribal needs. 

Sec. 304. Report on temperature records 

Directs the Administrator to issue a report on the extent to 

which NASA’s temperature records overlap with the records of the 

Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. 

SUBTITLE B. SPACE SCIENCE

Sec. 311. Suborbital programs 

Directs the Administrator to designate an individual responsible 

for leading near-term and long-term strategic planning for the suborbital and airborne program; and provide, within one year after 

the date of enactment of this Act, a strategic plan to support the 

full and productive use of NASA’s suborbital and airborne assets. 

Sec. 312. Explorer program 

Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with the 

National Academies to conduct a review of the Explorer Program 

not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of the Act and 

to submit a plan for responding to the recommendations of the review no later than 16 months after the date of enactment of the 

Act. 

Sec. 313. Radioisotope thermoelectric generator material requirements and supply 

Directs the Administrator to conduct an analysis of NASA requirements for radioisotope power system material needed to carry 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
56 

out planned, high priority robotic missions in the solar system and 

other surface exploration activities beyond low-Earth orbit; and to 

transmit the results of the analysis no later than 180 days after 

the date of enactment of the Act. 

TITLE IV. AERONAUTICS 

Sec. 401. Environmentally friendly aircraft research and development initiative 

Amends Sec. 302 of P.L. 110–422 by directing the Administrator 

to develop a plan and associated timetable for this initiative, including projected flight test demonstrations, and to transmit the 

plan within 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 402. Research on NextGen airspace management concepts and 

tools 

Directs the Administrator to review at least annually the alignment and timing of NASA’s research and development activities in 

support of the NextGen airspace management modernization initiative. 

Sec. 403. Research on aircraft cabin air quality 

Directs the Administrator to initiate research on aircraft cabin 

air quality, including research on innovative aircraft cabin air quality sensors, that complements research conducted by FAA. 

Sec. 404. Research on on-board volcanic ash sensor systems 

Directs the Administrator to conduct a study to assess the feasibility of establishing a project focused on the development of a lowcost, on-board volcanic ash sensor system. 

Sec. 405. Aeronautics test facilities 

Directs the Administrator to develop an agency-wide plan to stabilize and where possible reverse the deterioration of the agency’s 

aeronautics ground test facilities. 

Sec. 406. Expanded research program on composite materials used 

in aerospace 

Directs the Administrator to expand NASA’s research program 

on composite materials used in aerospace applications to address 

such topics as progressive damage analysis and ways to mitigate 

how the environment interacts with composite materials over time. 

TITLE V. SPACE TECHNOLOGY 

Sec. 501. Space technology program 

Directs the Administrator to establish a space technology program to enable research and development on advanced space technologies and systems that are independent of specific space mission 

flight projects, including such areas as in-space propulsion, power 

generation and energy storage, liquid rocket propulsion, avionics, 

structures, and materials, and including research, development, 

and demonstration of enabling technologies in support of future exploration missions; enter into an arrangement with the National 

Academies for a ‘‘decadal survey’’ study to make recommendations 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
57 

on research and development priorities for NASA’s space technology program over the next decade; and transmit the results of 

the study no later than 20 months after the date of enactment of 

the Act. 

TITLE VI. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH 

Sec. 601. STEM education and training 

Directs the Administrator to develop, conduct, support, promote, 

and coordinate formal and informal educational and training activities that leverage NASA’s unique content expertise and facilities 

and enhance opportunities for minority and underrepresented 

groups, including rural students and students from a high need 

local education agency; consult with other officials regarding activities to improve STEM education and training and recruit minorities that are underrepresented in STEM teaching; and designate a 

Director to oversee and coordinate all NASA programs and activities in support of STEM education and training. 

Sec. 602. Assessment of impediments to space science and engineering workforce development for minority and underrepresented 

groups at NASA 

Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement for an 

independent assessment of impediments to space science and engineering workforce development for minority and underrepresented 

groups at NASA and transmit a report of the assessment not later 

than 15 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 603. Independent review of the National Space Grant College 

and Fellowship Program 

Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with the 

National Academies for a review of the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program and to transmit the results of the review no later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of 

the Act. 

Sec. 604. Hands-on space science and engineering education and 

training 

Directs the Administrator to establish a program of pilot projects 

for hands-on space science and engineering education and training. 

TITLE VII. INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITIES REVITALIZATION 

Sec. 701. Institutional management 

Directs the Administrator to develop a strategy for the maintenance, repair, upgrading, and modernization of the agency’s laboratories, facilities and equipment and to transmit the strategy and an 

implementation plan no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Act. 

Authorizes the Administrator to establish a capital fund at each 

of NASA’s Centers for modernization of facilities and laboratories. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
58 

Sec. 702. James E. Webb Cooperative Education Distinguished 

Scholar Program 

Authorizes the Administrator to establish a national Cooperative 

Education Program that will complement existing NASA Centeradministered cooperative education initiatives. As the ‘‘best of the 

brightest’’, ten finalists will be selected annually as James E. Webb 

Cooperative Education Distinguished Scholars. 

TITLE VIII. ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT 

Sec. 801. Prohibition on expenditure of funds when 30 percent 

threshold is exceeded 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization of 2005 is amended to clarify the starting point of the period 

at the end of which NASA is prohibited from expending further 

funds on a project. 

Sec. 802. Project and program reserves 

Directs the Administrator to transmit not later than 180 days 

after enactment of this Act a report describing NASA’s criteria for 

establishing the amount of reserves at the Project and Program 

levels. 

Sec. 803. Independent reviews 

Directs the Administrator to transmit not later than 270 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act a report describing internal 

entities that conduct independent reviews of projects and programs 

at life cycle milestones and how NASA ensures the independence 

of members prior to their assignment. 

Sec. 804. Avoiding organizational conflicts of interest in major 

NASA acquisition programs 

Directs the Administrator to revise the NASA Supplement to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation not later than 270 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act to provide uniform guidance and 

tighten existing requirements for organizational conflicts of interest 

by contractors in major acquisition programs. 

Sec. 805. Report to Congress 

Directs the Administrator to transmit a report to Congress on 

April 30th of each year that provides an estimate of the total termination liability as of the end of the second quarter of the fiscal year 

for all NASA contracts with a total value in excess of $200 million. 

TITLE IX. OTHER PROVISIONS 

Sec. 901. Cloud computing 

Directs the Comptroller General to transmit a report detailing 

whether sensitive but unclassified and classified NASA information 

was processed on a non-Federal cloud computing facility and if so, 

how NASA ensured the safeguarding of NASA’s scientific and technical information. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
59 

Sec. 902. Review of practices to detect and prevent the use of counterfeit parts 

Directs the Comptroller General to transmit the results of its review of NASA’s processes and controls to detect and prevent the 

use of counterfeit parts in NASA mission projects and related assets no later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 903. Preservation and management of lunar sites 

Directs the OSTP Director, in cooperation with the Administrator 

and others, to enter into an international dialogue to identify the 

questions and research needed to understand the potential adverse 

impacts of various uses of the Moon on scientific activities and on 

lunar areas of historical, cultural, or scientific value, and how to 

prevent or mitigate the impacts. Directs the Administrator, in cooperation with other relevant Federal agencies and stakeholders, to 

establish a grants program and to provide a report on the results 

of the international dialog and the establishment of an international framework within two years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 904. Continuity of moderate resolution land imaging remote 

sensing data 

Reaffirms the finding in Section 2 of the Land Remote Sensing 

Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102–555, regarding the continuous 

collection and utilization of land remote sensing data from space. 

Requires the Director of OSTP to take steps to ensure the continuous collection of space-based medium resolution observations of 

the Earth’s land cover and that data are made available to facilitate the widest possible use. 

Sec. 905. Space weather 

Directs the Director of OSTP to prepare a long-term strategy for 

a sustainable space weather program and develop a plan to implement the strategy, to enter into an arrangement with the National 

Academies to assess the status of capabilities for space weather 

prediction, and transmit the results of these activities no later than 

18 months after the date of enactment of the Act. 

Sec. 906. Use of operational commercial suborbital vehicles for research, development, and education 

Directs the Administrator to prepare a plan describing the use 

of commercial reusable suborbital flight vehicles for carrying out 

scientific and engineering investigations and educational activities; 

assess and characterize the potential capabilities and performance 

of commercial reusable suborbital vehicles for addressing scientific 

research; and transmit the plan and assessment within one year 

after the date of enactment of this Act. Prohibits the Administrator 

from proceeding with a procurement award for the provision of a 

commercial reusable suborbital vehicle launch service of a NASAsponsored payload or spaceflight participant until all indemnification and liability issues have been addressed and the Administrator has provided a report describing the indemnification and liability provisions that are planned to be included in such contract(s). 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
60 

Sec. 907. Study on export control matters related to U.S. astronaut 

safety and NASA mission operations 

Directs the Director of OSTP to conduct a study to examine the 

need for a process for granting real-time, limited waivers to export 

control license restrictions or regulations on matters related to U.S. 

astronaut safety and NASA mission operations and to transmit the 

results of the study no later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 908. Amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 

1958 

Amends section 202 to permit the Administrator and Deputy Administrator to be retired commissioned military personnel. 

Sec. 909. Near-Earth objects 

Reaffirms the direction codified in P.L. 110–422 and directs the 

Administrator to designate a responsible official for coordinating 

NASA’s near-Earth object observation activities; directs the Administrator to transmit a plan for carrying out the reaffirmed direction 

within 270 days after enactment; reiterates Congressional support 

for the use of Arecibo Observatory for near-Earth object activities; 

and authorizes funding for specific activities. 

Sec. 910. Sense of Congress 

Puts forth a Sense of Congress that NASA shall endeavor to 

carry out, to the extent feasible, the top recommendations from 

decadal surveys in each mission area. 

Sec. 911. Ethics programs in the Office of General Counsel 

Requires legal staff of the Office of General Council of NASA to 

receive ethics training and prohibits the General Counsel of NASA 

from serving as NASA’s designated ethics officer. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

Sec. 201. Reaffirmation of exploration policy 

The Committee believes that steadfastness of commitment is critical to the successful conduct of a meaningful program of human 

and robotic exploration of the solar system. Congress in the NASA 

Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008 expressed its commitment to 

a step-by-step program of exploration beyond low Earth orbit, including cislunar space, the Moon, Lagrangian points, Near Earth 

Objects, and ultimately Mars and its moons—a program that could 

be enhanced by international cooperation under U.S. leadership. 

The Committee expresses its continued support for such a commitment. 

Sec. 202. Restructured exploration program 

The Committee believes NASA’s human space flight program 

should have three main elements: (1) extension and enhanced utilization of the International Space Station (ISS), including the option 

for an additional Space Shuttle mission if the Administrator determines that it is needed and can be done safely; (2) development of 

the capability to provide assured access to low Earth orbit and the 

ISS at a pace that minimizes the human space flight ‘‘gap’’ that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
61 

will occur after the retirement of the Space Shuttle, as well as providing a testbed, including a robust flight test program for demonstrating technologies and operational concepts needed for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, as was done in the Gemini program 

prior to the Apollo missions; and (3) development and demonstration of capabilities for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit at as 

rapid a pace as funding will allow, including the expeditious development of an evolvable heavy lift launch vehicle that makes maximum practicable use of the systems, technologies, and test activities of the assured access crewed transportation system. While the 

Committee supports the growth of a self-sustaining commercial 

crew transportation industry, it is not willing to make U.S. access 

to low-Earth orbit (LEO) and the ISS dependent on the emergence 

by a date certain of certifiable and sustainable commercial crew 

transportation systems; the Committee believes it is in the national 

interest to maintain a government capability for crewed access to 

LEO and the ISS, whether it serves as primary or backup means 

of access. 

The assured access and heavy lift launch systems should be designed and implemented in a manner that seeks to reduce NASA 

and contractor fixed and operating costs and eliminate unnecessary 

infrastructure, supports the transition of shuttle workforce to the 

new program in a timely manner to minimize workforce disruption 

and ensure that essential human space flight skills are maintained, 

and can carry out the missions called out in the Act. It is critically 

important for NASA and the contractors to work together to get infrastructure and other fixed costs down so that scarce funds can be 

utilized to design, build, and fly systems, rather than to carry unnecessary overhead costs. With respect to operating costs, working 

to minimize them should be an important program goal, and should 

be given consideration early in the design phase, for the assured 

access crew transportation system to low Earth orbit. If NASA has 

more than one possible approach available to developing a government assured access crew transportation system that is consistent 

with NASA being able to make maximum practicable use of its systems, technologies, and test activities in the development of the 

heavy lift launch vehicle authorized in this Act, the Committee expects that NASA would adopt the approach that is best matched 

to ISS crew transfer requirements and that will have the lower 

marginal cost for operations to LEO and the ISS unless there is a 

compelling reason to do otherwise. 

With respect to the heavy lift launch vehicle development authorized in this Act, the Committee believes that NASA should pursue 

as efficient a development path as possible to the attainment of a 

heavy lift launch vehicle that can support the full complement of 

human exploration missions called for in this Act and the NASA 

Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008. The very constrained budgetary outlook NASA is facing leaves no room for dead-end design 

approaches—the design should be evolvable on a continuous development path to meet the full range of exploration mission requirements. In that regard, previous NASA analyses have indicated that 

the heavy lift vehicle should be sized to be consistent with a design 

goal of being able to launch on the order of 150 metric tons to low 

Earth orbit and have appropriate volumetric capacity in order to 

support missions ranging from missions to establish a sustained 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
62 

human presence on the Moon to missions to NEOs and Mars and 

its Moons. 

Finally, the Committee recognizes the negative impact of budgetary instability on NASA’s ability to execute its restructured exploration program in an efficient manner. The Committee has attempted to provide ‘‘stretch’’ goals for the desired availability of 

both the LEO system and the heavy lift launch vehicle in order to 

make clear that the Committee wants NASA to move expeditiously 

to carry out a meaningful and sustainable exploration program, 

while recognizing that available funding will necessarily determine 

the pace at which the program can proceed. 

Flagship technology demonstrations and Precursor Robotic Missions 

The Committee supports a robust advanced technology program 

that is separate from NASA’s mission projects, as authorized in the 

NASA Authorization Act of 2008. As discussed in the Committee 

view on the Space Technology Program, the Committee views that 

program as the highest priority at this time, because of its focus 

on innovative and early technology concepts that are shepherded 

through concept study, development, and demonstration phases, if 

they prove ready, are selected, and if users support their demonstration. Given the constraints of the fiscal environment, the 

Committee views a program requiring significant investments in 

flagship technology demonstration missions as premature until the 

requirements for those demonstrations and the priorities for the investments have been established. The Space Technology Program 

is an appropriate program in which to identify those technologies 

that may merit further investment as potential flagship demonstration missions. In addition, the Committee views the Robotic Precursor Missions program as a ‘‘nice-to-have’’ until the mission objectives to justify a robotic reconnaissance mission in advance of 

planned human exploration are established. Until such time, 

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate has mission expertise in sending robotic missions to near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, 

lunar orbit, among other sites and a body of data and knowledge 

about those sites that should be explored. Synergies with the 

Science Mission Directorate should also be considered before initiating and expending resources on a new program. With respect to 

the flagship demonstration, precursor robotic programs and other 

space technology activities, the Committee directs a Decadal Survey to establish priorities to guide the nation’s investments for the 

future. 

Subtitle B—International Space Station 

After decades of the nation’s investment in the development and 

assembly of the International Space Station, one of the most complex engineering endeavors ever achieved, NASA, the private sector, and universities can now turn to utilizing this on-orbit laboratory and seeking a return on the long-term investments made to 

date. In 2005, Congress designated the U.S. portion of the International Space Station as a national laboratory and directed the increased utilization of the station by non-NASA entities. National 

Academies reports have reiterated the need for ISS utilization 

plans and have also stressed the importance of cross-disciplinary 

priorities and well-defined programmatic goals to guide the deciVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
63 

sions and trade-offs related to ISS research activities. Along these 

lines, the Committee includes provisions directing the Administrator to develop a research strategy, to establish an ISS research 

management entity and plan, and to designate a responsible official 

to lead an ISS integrated research program. These steps need to 

be taken to guide the effective use of increases in resources for ISS 

utilization and to ensure the optimal research and development 

benefits of the ISS. 

Sec. 216. Centrifuge 

A variable-gravity centrifuge has long been cited by the scientific 

community as an important on-orbit research facility requirement 

for space life sciences research. Until its cancellation in 2005, such 

a centrifuge was included in the International Space Station (ISS) 

program. The Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) was tasked to provide the Centrifuge to NASA as part of the offset of NASA’s provision of the shuttle launch services for the launch of the Japanese 

Experimental Module (Kibo). The Centrifuge Accommodation Module (CAM) flight model and the engineering model of the centrifuge 

rotor were manufactured by JAXA at the time the project was cancelled by NASA in 2005. 

A centrifuge capability would significantly increase the utility of 

the ISS as an orbiting laboratory. In light of the extended utilization of the ISS until at least 2020, the Committee believes that an 

assessment of innovative options for deploying a variable-gravity 

centrifuge on the ISS is needed and should include provisions for 

its initiation, including an estimate of the potential cost and 

timeline for developing and deploying the centrifuge capabilities 

evaluated as part of the assessment, as well as the status of previous work on development of an in-flight centrifuge for the ISS. 

Sec. 218. Fundamental space life science and physical sciences and 

related technology research 

National Academies’ reports have reiterated the importance of 

basic and applied research on microgravity life and physical 

sciences and technology carried out on the ground, on free-flying 

spacecraft, and on the International Space Station to understand 

and overcome the fundamental challenges and issues related both 

to requirements-driven and strategic research for complex future 

exploration missions and to understanding of phenomena that may 

have important terrestrial applications. Over the last several years, 

the capacity for basic, applied, and exploration-related research 

and technology development has declined significantly as a result 

of budget cuts. The number of researchers performing active investigations in these disciplines has declined significantly as have opportunities to train the next generation of researchers prepared to 

address key challenges in space life and physical science and technology research and development. According to a recently released 

National Academies report on Life and Physical Science Research 

for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report, ‘‘The scientific community engaged in space exploration research has dwindled as a result of marked reductions in budget funding levels, 

from approximately $500 million shared equally between life and 

physical sciences in 2002 to the current level of about $180 million, 

and the concomitant reduction in the ISS research portfolio, from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
64 

966 investigations in 2002 to 285 in 2008.’’ The Committee is augmenting the investment in fundamental space life science and 

physical sciences and related technology research that would make 

use of ground-based, free-flyer, and ISS facilities to reinvigorate 

the capabilities and workforce in these disciplines and to ensure 

progress on the research needed to support the nation’s goals in 

human exploration of outer space as well as potentially provide terrestrial benefits. 

Sec. 221. Contingent authorization of additional Space Shuttle mission 

The Committee believes that it is very important, in view of the 

extension of the life of the ISS until at least 2020, for the Shuttle 

fleet to leave the ISS in the best possible configuration for the postShuttle era. Consequently, the Committee is providing contingent 

authorization for one additional Space Shuttle mission to the ISS, 

to be carried out if the NASA Administrator determines that such 

a mission is necessary to reduce risk for ISS operations and utilization, and if certain safety conditions are met. However, NASA will 

have to offset the incremental cost of such a mission, if it decides 

to undertake it, through corresponding cuts to funding for the ISS 

and for the restructured exploration program. 

Sec. 242. Commercial crew and related commercial space initiatives 

The Committee believes that NASA can assist the development 

of commercial space capabilities that could aid NASA in carrying 

out future missions. There are four main forms of useful assistance: 

(1) financial and technical support for the development and utilization of commercially-provided cargo services to support ISS operation and utilization; (2) conduct of a fundamental research and 

technology program in crewed space transportation and related 

fields as part of the NASA Space Technology program and the dissemination of the results of that research, along the lines of the 

program established under the National Advisory Committee for 

Aeronautics and later under NASA’s Aeronautics research program 

that has had such a significant impact on the development of commercial aviation; (3) an initiative in cooperation with would-be commercial providers to allow NASA to obtain insight into and familiarity with the design approaches, technologies, and production 

processes for planned commercial crew vehicles and to enable 

NASA to provide early warning to commercial providers of conditions that could impede certification of the vehicles for use by 

NASA astronauts, while prohibiting NASA from imposing design 

changes on the commercial providers during the development process; and (4) a program of federal loans and loan guarantees. NASA 

should provide information and technical assistance on NASA’s 

human-rating standards and processes and methods of compliance 

with those standards and processes at no cost to any developers of 

commercial orbital human space flight services that seek it. However, NASA should not enter into any contract or agreement for the 

transport of NASA astronauts on a commercially provided crew 

transport and rescue service until all indemnification and liability 

issues have been addressed and sufficient flight experience has 

been accrued by the service provider’s system to allow NASA to 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
65 

have the safety- and reliability-related data and information needed to fly its astronauts on that system. 

Sec. 243. Federal assistance for the development of commercial orbital human space transportation services 

The program in this bill provides federal assistance in the form 

of loans or loan guarantees. The Committee believes the program 

will enhance would-be commercial crew transportation providers’ 

abilities to secure financing. 

Even under normal economic conditions, companies can face obstacles in securing enough affordable financing to survive the ‘‘valley of death’’ between developing innovative technologies and commercializing them. Because the risks that lenders must assume to 

support new technologies can put private financing out of reach, 

companies may not be able to commercialize innovative technologies without government assistance. In this constrained economic environment, even companies that might ordinarily rely on 

private financing are turning to the federal government for assistance. 

Combined with technical assistance from NASA, the Committee 

believes that the loan and loan guarantee provisions in this bill 

provide significant resources to would-be commercial crew transportation providers. While allowing the amount of federal funding 

allocated for loans and loan guarantees to potentially leverage a 

significantly greater amount of loan money, the financial commercial crew provisions in this bill also expose the taxpayer to minimum risk and cost in contrast to the direct funding of about $5.8 

billion proposed by the Administration. 

With respect to loan guarantees, the program would help companies obtain affordable financing because the federal government 

would agree to reimburse lenders for the guaranteed amount if the 

borrowers default. This encourages lending by reducing the lenders’ 

financial risks. In addition, because the federal loan guarantee 

would signal confidence in a project, the loan guarantee program 

in this bill can help companies raise capital from other sources, for 

example by selling equity. 

The subsidy rate [i.e., the amount of leverage that a given 

amount of funds provided for loan guarantees can provide] for the 

loan guarantees will be established by OMB, which will have to assess the risk involved. However, since OMB is providing such large 

amounts to commercial providers in the president’s request and 

planning on the operational availability of commercial providers by 

2016, the Committee must assume that OMB considers the risk to 

be low. Therefore, OMB should be willing to provide a subsidy rate 

that allows a large amount of leverage from the available funding. 

The bill includes safeguards for the use of the loans and loan 

guarantees. Loans or loan guarantees will not be provided to any 

companies unless—among a whole series of conditions—the Administrator determines that there is a ‘‘reasonable prospect of repayment of the principle and interest by the borrower’’; and that the 

amount of the obligation, when combined with amounts available 

to the borrower from other sources is sufficient to carry out the 

total development cost. Furthermore, the Administrator will charge 

fees sufficient to cover the costs of administering the program. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
66 

Title III, Subtitle A—Earth Science 

NASA’s Earth science programs support the development of new 

knowledge of our Earth system, address societal needs, advance 

our understanding of climate change, adaptation, and mitigation, 

and help inform U.S. policy and responses on climate change. The 

data collected from NASA’s Earth observation systems are being 

applied to address societal challenges such as natural resource 

management, land use, and natural hazard events, and environmental monitoring. NASA’s Earth observing satellites have acquired imagery used to monitor the offshore oil spill in the Gulf 

Coast of the United States and to measure the plume from the recent eruption of an Icelandic volcano that spewed volcanic ash into 

the atmosphere and wreaked havoc on international air traffic. 

The National Academies has found that the nation’s environmental satellite system is at risk of collapse. Most of the satellites 

in NASA’s Earth observing fleet are all well beyond their intended 

lifetimes. Within the last year, NASA lost two Earth observing 

spacecraft. However, during the time in which the National Academies issued its warnings and recommended priorities for the next 

generation missions, the funding for NASA’s Earth Science Program was projected to decline. This decline in purchasing power 

has had a direct impact on NASA’s ability to develop the replacement satellites and carry out a robust and balanced program. The 

amounts authorized in this Act are intended to help restore that 

purchasing power and help mitigate the risk to the future viability 

of the nation’s space-based Earth observations system. 

Recognizing the broad impact that NASA’s Earth science and climate research activities have in addressing both scientific priorities 

and national and societal challenges, the Committee encourages 

NASA to increase its efforts to make the results of its science-based 

missions and research activities available to address societal needs. 

Sec. 302. Essential space-based earth science and climate measurements 

The Committee believes that the nation needs to make a commitment to sustaining key environmental and climate measurements 

on a continuous basis. There are several studies, both national and 

international, on priority environmental and climate measurements. In questions to hearing witnesses—leading climate and 

Earth science experts—there was some consensus but not universal 

consensus on climate and environmental measurements, and the 

list of measurements is quite long. The science community knows 

these studies, but the broader policy community needs a clear, concrete list that represents the national consensus going forward. 

This provision is intended to ensure that a consistent list is available to both researchers and policymakers. 

The Committee believes that the U.S. needs to explore opportunities for addressing some of the measurements through international or commercial partnerships. That said, the U.S. may not 

want to give up scientific, technological or other relevant capabilities and leadership on some of the critical measurements, and 

there may be measurements for which the government does not 

want to rely on partnerships to provide. The study directed in this 

provision should determine those essential environmental and climate measurements that should be obtained through U.S. Federal 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
67 

government assets and to which the U.S. Federal government 

should commit to obtain on a long-term, continuous basis and include in Federal government data archives. The intent of the provision is not to redo existing studies and priorities but to establish 

the list that is to be the basis of our Federal government’s commitment for long-term, continuous measurements of the Earth’s climate and environment. 

Sec. 303. Commercial remote sensing data purchases pilot project 

The Committee views the availability of commercial high resolution remote sensing data as an opportunity to enhance Earth 

science research and address research and application needs that 

may not be met with government-provided data. High resolution 

commercial remote sensing imagery provide information at the 

scales often needed for State, local, regional, and tribal government 

uses. NASA carried out a science data purchase project with commercial remote sensing imagery in the past. The Committee believes it is time to apply the lessons learned from those experiences 

and to again seek to leverage the capabilities of both government 

and private sector remote sensing assets through a new pilot 

project to facilitate and enhance the uses of the data for scientific 

research and applications that address State, regional, local and 

tribal needs. 

Sections 311 and 312. Space science—Suborbital and explorers 

Reports of the National Academies including, Revitalizing 

NASA’s Suborbital Program and A Performance Assessment of 

NASA’s Heliophysics Program have identified the importance of the 

suborbital and Explorer programs as part of a balanced and robust 

space science program. Both programs provide flexibility to focus 

on targeted or faster opportunities for scientific investigations, provide critical hands-on training for scientists and engineers, and 

build on scientific discoveries made with ‘‘flagship’’ science missions. The suborbital programs also offer a means to demonstrate 

new technologies or reduce technology risk for future space flight 

missions, and several instruments that have flown on space science 

missions trace their heritage to suborbital flight experiments. 

Building scientific instruments is an art as much as an engineering 

development process. Reducing and slowing Explorer and suborbital programs affects the industrial experience base in developing scientific instruments and can have implications for the capability to build future instrumentation within schedule and on budget in the future. Given the stresses that the fiscally constrained environment imposes on research and development programs, the 

Committee views additional investments in the suborbital and Explorer programs as prudent for enabling high-value science, technology demonstration and risk reduction, and workforce and development and for ensuring the foundational strength and success of 

the nation’s space science programs into the future. 

Sec. 401. Environmentally friendly aircraft research and development initiative 

Research associated with the Environmentally Friendly Aircraft 

R&D initiative explores and assesses technologies that will simultaneously reduce fuel burn, noise, and emissions and thus reduce 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
68 

the impact of aviation on the environment. As such, the Committee 

believes that accelerating this research through increased use of 

flight demonstrations will enable earlier receipt of these benefits. 

NASA needs to start planning and budgeting for flight test demonstrations and the platforms it will need to carry them out. 

Sec. 501. Space technology 

The Committee believes that a reinvigorated program of investments in space technology at NASA will provide the innovation and 

transformational technologies that will benefit NASA’s future space 

and Earth science and human space flight and exploration missions, as well as provide new capabilities that can benefit our economy as a whole. In addition, technology transfer is a critical aspect 

of NASA’s overall mission as an agency and one that Congress encourages NASA to continue to support. NASA’s ability to bring the 

technology it develops through all of its mission activities to the 

marketplace strengthens our economy and encourages economic development. The Committee believes that a space technology program to enable research and development on advanced space technologies and systems that are independent of specific space mission 

flight projects is a high priority, particularly in a constrained budgetary environment. To realize the ‘‘seed corn’’ potential of the space 

technology program, NASA should focus on developing innovative 

technologies in areas such as in-space propulsion, power generation 

and storage, liquid rocket propulsion, avionics, structures, and materials that may enable new approaches to human and robotic 

space missions, including exploration enabling research, development, and demonstration activities. 

While acknowledging the need for appropriately phased technology demonstrations to support the nation’s future exploration 

activities, the Committee believes it important to ensure that we 

first develop the most innovative approaches to meeting NASA’s future technology need and have a clear understanding of future exploration mission requirements before attempting expensive Flagship Demonstration missions and robotic precursor missions. 

Sec. 701. Institutional management 

Congress directed an assessment of NASA’s laboratory facilities 

in its NASA Authorization Act of 2008 [P.L. 110–422]. That assessment showed that NASA’s deferred maintenance has continued to 

grow. NASA needs to address the decline in its laboratory capabilities, including equipment, maintenance, and facilities, which have 

affected the ability of NASA’s scientific workforce to carry out the 

basic research and technology development needed to support 

NASA’s space and aeronautics programs, along with other programs of national importance. The agency’s annual spending on facilities maintenance, repairs, and upgrades falls short of comparable industry guidelines as a percentage of the current replacement value of active facilities. The augmentation above the President’s request and the establishment of a Capital Fund at each of 

the NASA Centers are intended to help address the deferred maintenance problem and the need to upgrade and modernize NASA’s 

research laboratories and facilities. Those actions, coupled with its 

authorization of augmented funding for aeronautics test facilities, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
69 

signals the Committee’s view that these assets are critical for sustaining the nation’s leadership in space and aeronautics. 

Sec. 903. Preservation and management of lunar sites 

The Committee believes that the United States, emerging 

spacefaring nations, and private and other non-governmental entities will seek to explore the Moon for scientific, commercial, and 

other purposes in the coming years. There are currently no clear 

guidelines establishing how a government, commercial, or private 

entity should treat lunar sites of high scientific or historical interest, such as the Apollo landing sites. This provision directs the government to take the initial steps, in cooperation with the international community, to consider the issues related to the preservation and management of significant lunar sites of high scientific, 

historical, and cultural interest and develop a path forward for 

dealing with those issues. 

Sec. 904. Continuity of moderate resolution land imaging remote 

sensing data 

NASA is developing the Landsat Data Continuity Mission 

(LDCM), which is slated for launch in late 2012 or 2013; however 

there is no long-term strategy for the collection of moderate resolution space-based land imagery. The Government Accountability Office, in a report on Environmental Satellites, found that ‘‘there is 

no commitment to ensure continuity after that mission [LDCM]. 

Without Landsat or a similar satellite program, there will be a significant gap in land cover images and other important global climate data ranging from water management to agriculture.’’ The 

Committee considers continuity of moderate resolution land imaging data, which have been collected since the 1970s to be critically 

important due to their use in measuring urban sprawl, studying 

deforestation, informing decisions related to agriculture, forestry, 

land change, water resource management, climate change, and geology, among other applications. The long data record established 

in the Landsat program enables multidecadal studies of changes to 

the Earth’s land cover. This provision directs the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy to take the steps, in consultation with other 

Federal agencies, to ensure the continuous collection of moderate 

resolution land imaging remote sensing data and ensure that they 

are made available in a manner that will ensure their widest possible use. 

Sec. 905. Space weather 

The Committee is aware of that the National Academies is preparing to undertake the next decadal survey in solar and space 

physics and that the research and missions considered and 

prioritized in the survey will contribute to our understanding of 

space weather and our capability to predict it. The Committee recognizes the serious implications that space weather events can 

have on our national infrastructure and believes that steps to improve our predictive capabilities are in the nation’s interest. The 

Committee fully expects that the study directed in this provision 

will be coordinated with the National Academies’ decadal survey in 

solar and space physics, but that a stand-alone study is needed 

that provides an in-depth assessment of our capability in space 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
70 

weather prediction and that recommends the priorities for basic research and infrastructure to help strengthen the nation’s space 

weather program and predictive capabilities. 

Sec. 906. Use of operational commercial suborbital vehicles for research, development, and education 

The Committee views the potential development of commercial 

reusable suborbital research and development platforms as an area 

to monitor, consistent with the recommendations of the National 

Academies report, published in 2010, on Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing a Workforce. The Committee believes that those systems 

may offer significant promise for selected research areas. In order 

for their potential research applications to be better understood 

and assessed, it will be important for such commercial systems to 

enter operational service so that their capabilities for meeting the 

requirements for suborbital scientific and technology research investigations can be demonstrated. In addition, issues related to 

risks and liability and indemnification associated with flying 

NASA-supported research payloads or spaceflight participants on 

the vehicles need to be defined and addressed before NASA supports their use for NASA-related research and other objectives, including for supporting NASA-sponsored tests and demonstration 

flights or for flying NASA-provided engineering test units or other 

payloads. 

IX. COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

With respect to requirements of clause 3(d) of House rule XIII, 

the Committee anticipates that a CBO cost estimate letter on H.R. 

5781 will address these issues when the bill proceeds to consideration on the House floor. 

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of House rule 

XIII and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 

and with respect to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of House rule 

XIII and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 

Committee anticipates that a CBO cost estimate letter on H.R. 

5781 will address these issues when the bill proceeds to consideration on the House floor. 

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

H.R. 5781 contains no unfunded mandates on State or local governments. The Committee anticipates that this issue will be further addressed in a CBO cost estimate letter for the bill when it 

proceeds to consideration on the House floor. 

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee 

on Science and Technology are reflected in the body of this report. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
71 

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of H.R. 5781 

are to reauthorize the activities of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, and provide direction for the future of 

human spaceflight. 

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 5781. 

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

H.R. 5781 does not establish nor authorize the establishment of 

any advisory committee, although the bill does provide additional 

direction to existing advisory committees. 

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 5781 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

XVII. EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 5781 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of Rule 

XXI. 

XVIII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL

LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 

XIX. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—AERONAUTICS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 302. ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AIRCRAFT RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE. 

øThe Administrator¿ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
72 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall establish an initiative 

involving NASA, universities, industry, and other research organizations as appropriate, of research, development, and demonstration, in a relevant environment, of technologies to enable the following commercial aircraft performance characteristics: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) PLAN.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall develop a plan 

and associated timetable for this initiative identifying key milestones, including projected flight demonstrations to validate vehicle and technology concepts in a relevant environment. 

(2) SUBMISSION.—Not later than 270 days after the date of 

enactment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, the Administrator shall transmit the plan to the Congress. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VI—SPACE OPERATIONS 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle B—Space Shuttle 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 613. SPACE SHUTTLE TRANSITION. 

(a) * * * 

(b) SPACE SHUTTLE TRANSITION LIAISON OFFICE.— 

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator shall develop a plan 

and establish a øSpace Shuttle Transition Liaison Office¿ PostShuttle Transition Liaison Office within the Office of Human 

Capital Management of NASA to assist local communities affected by the termination of the Space Shuttle program in mitigating the negative impacts on such communities caused by 

such termination. The plan shall define the size of the affected 

local community that would receive assistance described in 

paragraph (2). 

* * * * * * * 

(3) TERMINATION OF OFFICE.—The office established under 

paragraph (1) shall terminate ø2 years after the completion of 

the last Space Shuttle flight¿ 2 years after the award of the 

final grant under section 223 of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005 

* * * * * * * 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
73 

TITLE I—GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND 

REPORTS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 103. BASELINES AND COST CONTROLS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) THIRTY PERCENT THRESHOLD.—If the Administrator determines under subsection (d) that the development cost of a program 

will exceed the estimate provided in the Baseline Report of the program by more than 30 percent, then, øbeginning 18 months after 

the date the Administrator transmits a report under subsection 

(d)(1)¿ beginning 18 months after the Administrator makes such determination, the Administrator shall not expend any additional 

funds on the program, other than termination costs, unless the 

Congress has subsequently authorized continuation of the program 

by law. An appropriation for the specific program enacted subsequent to a report being transmitted shall be considered an authorization for purposes of this subsection. If the program is continued, 

the Administrator shall submit a new Baseline Report for the program no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Act 

under which Congress has authorized continuation of the program. 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE II—COORDINATION OF AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE 

ACTIVITIES 

* * * * * * * 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

SEC. 202. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) The Administrator and the Deputy Administrator may be retired commissioned military personnel. 

* * * * * * * 

XX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On July 22, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology by 

voice vote favorably reported the bill, H.R. 5781, as amended, to 

the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do 

pass. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
(74) 

XXI. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVES 

RALPH HALL, LAMAR SMITH, ROSCOE BARTLETT, FRANK 

LUCAS, TODD AKIN, MICHAEL MCCAUL, MARIO DIAZBALART, ADRIAN SMITH, PAUL BROUN AND PETE OLSON 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 strikes a good balance between space science, aeronautics, and human space flight. 

Clearly the greatest challenges addressed by this legislation fall 

within the realm of human space flight, and rightly so. Earlier this 

year the Administration proposed canceling the Constellation program. It did so without seemingly giving any consideration to past 

Congressional support for the program; without consulting with 

Congress prior to unveiling its plans; and without providing a credible follow-on system. 

Over five years and $10 million of effort has been expended on 

Constellation. Designs for the Ares 1 launch vehicle and the Orion 

crew exploration vehicle were well along, bolstered by several successful systems tests and flight demonstrations. The Ares-1X flight 

in October 2009 met virtually all performance goals, as did the 

PAD Abort Launch test flown late this spring in New Mexico. 

These were not insignificant achievements, and more importantly, 

they demonstrated the feasibility and safety of the Ares 1/Orion architecture. 

H.R. 5781 represents a bipartisan rejection of the Administration’s plan for human spaceflight. We are pleased that the bill 

builds on the existing Constellation system architecture, but allows 

for updates and modifications where needed. The bill directs NASA 

to use these proven designs and capabilities to the greatest extent 

practicable, in part because they’ve been demonstrated to be safe 

and effective, in part to maximize the benefits resulting from the 

investment of resources and intellectual capital, and because these 

technologies could be transferred to a follow-on heavy lift launch 

vehicle. 

The bill is very clear that once Shuttle is retired, NASA must 

give first priority to developing a government-owned crew launch 

system to assure crew access to the International Space Station 

(ISS) by 2015 because it has the smallest degree of technical risk, 

it can be developed sooner, and it will meet NASA’s rigorous safety 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
75 

and performance standards. Having said that, in several sections 

the bill makes clear that Congress desires and supports having 

commercial crew launch companies take on the task of ferrying astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit once they have proven their 

ability to routinely fly cargo missions to ISS. 

Since 2005, NASA has awarded $606 million to private launch 

companies through the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) and Cargo Resupply Services contracts to help in the 

design, development, and testing of their new vehicles to deliver 

cargo to the ISS beginning next year. The bill provides an additional $450 million in loan, loan guarantee and technical assistance 

funding to help these and other companies begin the hard work of 

building human rated launch systems. 

This bill fully funds the President’s request for the Space Technology Program at $2.64 billion to revitalize NASA’s long-term, 

high-risk research and development capability. This program will 

span the entire breadth of NASA’s enterprise, helping produce new 

sensors, materials, propulsion systems, and other cutting-edge 

technologies necessary to enable the next generation of missions. 

Much of the program’s funding will go to industry and academia 

in the form of competitive grants. It is vitally important Congress 

restore a strong R&D culture at our nation’s civil space agency. 

In the areas of Space Science and Aeronautics, H.R. 5781 continues Congress’ strong support for the agency’s programs. Much of 

the work they do directly supports the Federal Aviation Administration’s NextGen program to increase capacity in our national airspace system, as well as enabling quieter, more fuel efficient and 

safer aircraft. 

We are pleased that several amendments offered by Republicans 

were adopted with bipartisan support. One amendment reduced the 

authorization length from five to three years, thereby cutting the 

bill’s cost from $100 billion total outlay to $58.41 billion and increasing congressional oversight of the agency. We believe that this 

amendment, as well as others, strengthens the authorization. We 

look forward to working with the Majority to continue to improve 

the bill as it moves through the process. 

We believe this bill will allow NASA to accomplish many important national goals—it reaffirms Congress’ support for a balanced 

portfolio of agency programs, and it directs the agency to continue 

building a government-owned human space launch system as our 

near-term solution for developing a successor to Shuttle. It endorses a commercial crew system but chooses to wait until commercial cargo flights are demonstrated to be flown in a safe and routine manner. 

We do not support a commercial-only approach as proposed by 

the Administration, remaining unconvinced by the little evidence 

provided to us in hearings and briefings that the commercial 

launch industry is anywhere near ready to perform this vital role. 

While their PowerPoint presentations assert an ability to begin 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
76 

production, they cannot assure enough of a finished product to justify abandoning the 5 years of legislative cooperation by both Republicans and Democrats embodied in the Constellation program. 

That said, we do back the industry’s development both in policy 

and with taxpayer investment, and remain optimistic that commercial crew will one day be our primary source of ferrying astronauts 

to and from low Earth orbit. 

RALPH HALL. LAMAR SMITH. ROSCOE BARTLETT. FRANK LUCAS. TODD AKIN. MICHAEL MCCAUL. MARIO DIAZ-BALART. ADRIAN SMITH. PAUL BROUN. PETE OLSON. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
(77) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OFFERED BY HONORABLE DANA 

ROHRABACHER 

Although I agree with much of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, there are some 

specific areas on which I wish to state a different view. 

CHINA AND FOREIGN RELATIONS

It was recently revealed that NASA received, or thought it received, direction from the President to pursue a diplomacy strategy 

in the Middle East. Protections are necessary to make certain that 

NASA does not engage in foreign relations with China without the 

explicit authorization of Congress. Such foreign relations activities 

are potentially dangerous for our nation, because there is no difference between China’s military and space ambitions. 

While there may be arguable benefits of one kind or another to 

cooperation with the Chinese, it is clear that such benefits should 

not come at the expense of U.S. national security and human rights 

interests. In particular, such cooperation should not undermine the 

U.S. commitment to important nonproliferation, labor, environmental, trade, and safety standards. The history of cooperation 

with China on space issues has been a particularly one-sided benefit to China at the expense of America’s security. 

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Appropriate investments in research and development are critical to the future of every American, of our economy, and of our position of strength in the world. The President’s budget request for 

Fiscal Year 2011 for NASA called for increased research and technology development so that America could be more competitive and 

NASA could explore the solar system more affordably. While some 

of these R&D funds remain, this bill removes most of that funding, 

and abandons the efforts that can enable a new era of exploration 

in the solar system. 

Our research and development programs are critical, both to create long-term jobs and to enable NASA to continue to explore even 

as we work to control deficit spending. Some technological goals 

should be supported, such as on-orbit fueling depots, which can 

then be operated by private ventures once the development is done. 

These programs are our investment in the future, and by abandoning them, as this legislation does, we are risking our long-term 

prospects for the temporary appearance of leadership. 

CONSTELLATION

I applaud the courage in cancelling of the Constellation program. 

Constellation, according to our nation’s best experts, is unsustainable and would not have fulfilled the goal of putting America back 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
78 

on the Moon by 2020 or even 2025, and we must be better trustees 

of America’s public resources than continuing to spend funds on a 

program that cannot succeed. Instead, by choosing to invest in commercial launch options to low Earth orbit, an effort strongly supported in language, though not resources, throughout this legislation, our nation will invest in multiple projects to enable and stimulate access to Earth orbit, commercial human access to Earth 

orbit and more affordable NASA exploration beyond Earth orbit. I 

am strongly in support of these goals; I always have been. I therefore strongly support and endorse the key human spaceflight and 

technology elements outlined in the President’s budget for NASA 

and supported here. 

COMMERCIAL CARGO

This legislation praises the virtues of the Commercial Cargo efforts which have been supported time and again by Congress, while 

cutting more than 95% out of the NASA request for this program 

for FY11. The rationale for these cargo expenditures is two-fold: (1) 

to reduce risk through additional work performed by the COTS 

participant companies, and thereby improve the chance of mission 

success; (2) to accelerate agreed upon milestone tasks, including 

launch schedules. Ccritically, these payments would only be made 

for the successful completion of milestones or tasks not contemplated in the original agreements between the COTS providers 

and NASA. 

Through the COTS program, NASA invests financial and technical resources to stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate safe, reliable, and cost-effective space transportation capabilities. Under COTS, NASA is helping commercial 

industry develop and demonstrate its own cargo space transportation capabilities to serve the U.S. government and other potential 

customers. The companies lead and direct their own efforts, with 

NASA providing technical and financial assistance. A unique aspect of the COTS program is that the companies are paid incrementally as they reach certain milestones that are critical to their 

ability to meet the needs of NASA, thus leveraging private resources. This encourages steady progress toward their goals and accountability—payment for performance. This allows NASA greater 

control over the program and total program costs if a specific company fails to meet the necessary milestones and timelines. 

Beyond existing, previously agreed COTS milestones, NASA desired to further reduce risk and improve the chance of mission success by supporting additional milestones. Consistent with the 

COTS approach, private company expenditures would exceed the 

value of the payments made for the completion of particular milestones, thus further leveraging private resources for public needs. 

This program should have been funded at the full $312 million— 

a relatively small price to support the $100 billion that has been 

invested in the International Space Station. 

COMMERCIAL CREW

This legislation cuts more than 95% out of the NASA request for 

FY11 Commercial Crew efforts, while ‘‘restoring’’ less than oneVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
79 

tenth of that in a previously unheard of and wholly unexamined 

loan guarantee program. 

The reasoning and program structure for Commercial Crew follows closely with that of Commercial Cargo—it is the best way to 

achieve long-term safe, reliable, inexpensive transportation to low 

Earth orbit. By providing funding to meet certain milestones, and 

capabilities, NASA can make certain that these commercial companies are both reliable and up to the task. NASA would continue to 

be responsible for assuring astronaut safety. 

Without clear statements by NASA, with some funding to back 

the milestones up, the development of these systems to the standards required by NASA becomes much less market-friendly. By encouraging this development, we can create an American commercial 

human spaceflight industry that will lower costs while increasing 

safety and reliability. This will give NASA greater access to space, 

and ultimately, lead to greater opportunities for our nation to explore the solar system and beyond—NASA’s first and most critical 

function. 

EXPLORATION

While I applaud the cancellation of the Constellation program, I 

fear that it is a cancellation in name only, as the funding removed 

from R&D, Commercial Cargo, and Commercial Crew is being used 

to establish a ‘‘Restructured Exploration Program,’’ or, as it appears to be, Constellation Lite. This program has even less money 

than the unsustainable Constellation did, but the ultimate goals 

haven’t changed enough for this to be sustainable or successful. 

This bill calls for NASA to immediately start building towards a 

heavy-lift rocket, but heavy-lift as envisioned might not be needed 

if we can create and implement on-orbit fuel depots, other technologies, and proper design. By forcing NASA to begin an underfunded heavy-lift program now, we are undermining any opportunity to achieve the groundbreaking technologies that could enable long-term sustainable exploration and the ancillary spinoff 

benefits that have been a hallmark of NASA throughout its history. 

DANA ROHRABACHER. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
(80) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE PETE OLSON 

I am a proud original cosponsor of the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010. This bill reaffirms 

the commitment of Congress to maintain America’s leadership in 

human space flight. It builds upon the investments we have already made in development of the Orion spacecraft, Ares rocket 

system, spacesuit development, and enabling systems that are 

being designed to put us back on the course of exploration. 

The budget put forth by the President in February of this year 

was not only misguided, but ceded our hard earned leadership in 

space. This legislation corrects that course. I support the bill overall, but there are a couple of specific points I would like to reiterate. 

I’m very pleased that the Launch on Need (LON) flight has been 

authorized, contingent on the NASA Administrator determining 

such a flight would be safe and is needed to enable full utilization 

of the ISS. However, I am concerned that the funds for this flight, 

as amended by the full committee, will come out of the Space Operations and ISS accounts which are already stretched too thin. I had 

an alternate proposal that would have funded this flight in part 

from the proposed increase in earth science funds by redirecting 

$500 million. Earth Sciences received a robust increase in the 

President’s FY2011 budget proposal. Taking a small portion of this 

increase would be much more prudent than cutting into another 

portion of the human space flight account. 

My amendment to provide funding for the LON flight would have 

also stripped funds from workforce training efforts. I do not disparage the need to help the workforce transition upon completion of 

the shuttle program, but using limited NASA funds to do so seems 

counterintuitive to me. There are funds within other government 

agencies, unspent stimulus funds to be exact, at the Departments 

of Commerce and Labor that would be better suited for this purpose. 

Upon completion of the shuttle program, the question of where 

the orbiters should be housed was a topic of considerable debate 

during the markup. I strongly feel that Houston has earned the 

right to become the permanent home of an orbiter. The people of 

Houston have managed every mission and trained every crew 

throughout the life of the program, thus bringing an orbiter to a 

location near the Johnson Space Center seems a fitting testament 

to their efforts, dedication, and sacrifice. 

Finally, as we work toward ensuring the future of human space 

flight, it is imperative that the Administration stop forcing contractors to assess termination liability costs. To date, forcing companies 

to do so has led to the layoffs of thousands of workers, with many 

more to come. It is clear that this Congress, both in the House and 

Senate, will not approve of the President’s proposal to fully cancel 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
81 

Constellation. As such, we must not let a workforce go that will be 

needed going forward. These layoffs should be stopped immediately. 

It has been an honor to work with Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Member Ralph Hall, and Subcommittee Chairwoman Gabrielle 

Giffords on this bill and I look forward to its consideration and passage by the full House. 

PETE OLSON. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
(82) 

XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 5781, THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman GORDON. Good morning. The Committee will come to 

order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and Technology is here to consider the following measures, H.R. 5781, the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act 

of 2010. But before we get started, I would like to introduce one 

of our guests. Mr. Saggese is the president of the Italian Space 

Agency, here in the front row, and we welcome you here, Mr. 

Saggese. Italy has been an important partner with us in space in 

many other ways, and we look forward to continuing to work with 

you, and glad you are here to see sausage being made right up 

front. 

All right. We will now proceed with the markup. This has been 

a challenging road to get to today’s markup because the issues we 

are addressing go to the core of what we want from NASA and 

from nation’s space and aeronautics program. This committee, and 

in particular the Space and Aeronautic Subcommittee, under the 

able leadership of Chairwoman Giffords and Ranking Member 

Olson have tried to take the time needed to explain those issues 

and examine them carefully and to get as much information as we 

could from the administration about its proposed plans for NASA. 

As a result, the bill before us today reflects the constructive input 

of the many witnesses who testified at 19 hearings at the committee and subcommittee level and have held to date on this issue 

during the 111th Congress. We have also heard from a variety of 

experts and stakeholders from the government, commercial sector, 

the science community, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel and 

other advisory committees, and numerous organizations and individuals. We have benefited from all their views. And let me be 

clear, the bill before us today is not perfect. I believe that there are 

a number of amendments that will be offered today that will improve it. That is what the legislative process is all about. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
83 

However, I think it is a good bill that makes the hard choices 

that need to be made, and we are in tough economic times, and we 

could not do it all. While I believe it is important that NASA remain a multi-mission agency with challenging initiatives in science, 

aeronautics and human space flight and exploration, I also want to 

ensure that NASA’s missions are matched to the available resources. As a result, some of the nice-to-haves have had to be deferred, and worthy activities have been funded at lower levels than 

some of us would like. Nevertheless, I think the legislation before 

us sets a clear, sustainable and executable path for NASA, especially in the areas of human space flight. 

That has been a part of the lemon that we had been confronted 

with. For all of us, and for all of its accomplishments, the Constellation program was not executable as planned, given the budgetary outlook facing the agency. Unfortunately, it has become clear 

that the administration’s proposed human space flight program is 

not executable under that budgetary outlook either. As a result, we 

have had to craft an alternative approach that is executable, and 

that has taken some time, but I believe that the bill before us 

today provides the Nation with a productive future for its human 

space flight program, one that can be sustained even in the midst 

of budgetary uncertainty. It is in the interest of time that I will not 

re-state what is in the bill. Instead, I will simply say that this bill 

represents a balanced, fiscally responsible and bipartisan approach 

to authorizing NASA’s programs. 

I want to emphasize the fact that it is a bipartisan bill, and that 

in that regard I am gratified that Ranking Member Hall and Ranking Member Olson have joined Chairwoman Giffords and I as original co-sponsors of this legislation. They have made thoughtful and 

constructive contributions to the bill, and I thank them for that. I 

imagine that there will be amendments before us today on which 

of the four of us may disagree, but no one should construe that to 

mean that we are not united on the need for a strong, robust and 

innovative space and aeronautics program for the United States. 

The bipartisan nature of this bill sends an important message to 

Congress as a whole, as well as to the administration that NASA 

is a national resource worthy of our support. 

Let me just quickly conclude by saying that what—in all candor, 

the Constellation program was brought to us by people that had a 

very sincere interest. We found, though, that as it moved along 

that it resulted in a balloon mortgage that we could not afford now. 

Once again, the program that the administration put forth was 

done in all good faith, but once again we found that balloon mortgage. We really have to work within our means here. Even looking 

at the Senate bill, we are afraid that it is not within those budgetary guidelines. And I am afraid that the passion that we all have 

on this committee for NASA may not be shared across the board. 

And as we start getting into tough budgetary times, we really need 

to, I think, be responsible in coming in with a good budget. And 

the reason this is so important is that NASA really is, I think, the 

best brand in the world. It is the statement that the United States 

is a leader in technology and innovation. And so we have a responsibility on this committee, I think, to nurture it and to move it forward. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
84 

We all know that we are getting close to election time. We all 

know that peoples’ trigger finger gets a little bit itchy at that time, 

but I have been so impressed with the cooperation on the staff 

level, on the member level to try to pull these things together. 

Folks have parochial interests. I know that there are going to be 

some, you know, some tough issues today that will be very heartfelt, but we are going to, you know, we need to work through those. 

Working together we are going to come out with the kind of bill 

that we can all be proud of. 

And again, I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BART GORDON

Good morning. Today the Committee is meeting to mark up H.R. 5781, the NASA 

Authorization Act of 2010. It has been a challenging road to get to today’s markup, 

because the issues we are addressing go to the core of what we want from NASA 

and our nation’s space and aeronautics program. 

This Committee, and in particular the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee 

under the able leadership of Chairwoman Giffords, have tried to take the time needed to examine those issues carefully and to get as much information as we could 

from the Administration about its proposed plans for NASA. 

As a result, the bill before us today reflects the constructive input of the many 

witnesses who testified at the 19 hearings that the Committee and Subcommittee 

have held to date on those issues in the 111th Congress. 

We have also heard from a variety of experts and stakeholders from government, 

the commercial sector, the science community, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, 

other advisory committees, and numerous organizations and individuals. 

We have benefited from all of their views. 

Let me be clear. The bill before us is not perfect. 

I believe that there are a number of amendments that will be offered today that 

will improve it. That’s what the legislative process is all about. 

However, I think it is a good bill that makes the hard choices that need to be 

made. 

We are in tough economic times, and we cannot do it all. 

While I believe it is important that NASA remain a multi-mission agency with 

challenging initiatives in science, aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration, I also want to ensure that NASA’s missions are matched to available resources. 

As a result, some of the ‘‘nice-to-haves’’ have had to be deferred, and worthy activities have been funded at lower levels than some of us would like. 

Nevertheless, I think the legislation before us sets a clear, sustainable, and executable path for NASA, especially in the area of human space flight. 

That has been part of the dilemma that we have been confronting. 

For all of its accomplishments, the Constellation program was not executable as 

planned, given the budgetary outlook facing the agency. 

Unfortunately, it has become clear that the Administration’s proposed human 

space flight program is not executable under that budgetary outlook either. 

As a result, we have had to craft an alternative approach that is executable, and 

that’s taken some time, but I believe that the bill before us today provides the Nation with a productive future for its human space flight program—one that can be 

sustained even in the midst of budgetary uncertainty. 

In the interests of time, I will not restate what is in the bill; I know that Members 

are familiar with the provisions. 

Instead, I will simply say that this bill represents a balanced, fiscally responsible, 

and bipartisan approach to authorizing NASA’s programs. 

I want to emphasize the fact that it is a bipartisan bill, and in that regard I am 

gratified that Ranking Member Hall and Ranking Member Olson have joined Chairwoman Giffords and I as original cosponsors of this legislation. 

They have made thoughtful and constructive contributions to the bill, and I thank 

them for that. 

I imagine there will be amendments before us today on which four of us may disagree, but no one should construe that to mean that we are not united on the need 

for a strong, robust, and innovative space and aeronautics program for America. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
85 

The bipartisan nature of this bill sends an important message to Congress as a 

whole, as well as to the Administration, that NASA is a national resource worthy 

of our support. 

With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I now turn to Mr. Hall 

for his opening statement. 

Chairman GORDON. And I would like to then yield to Ms. Giffords, as Chairwoman of the Committee, for a brief statement. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hall. 

I appreciate this opportunity. Truly for the members who have 

been on my subcommittee and in the full committee, this really is 

at a point where we are at a crossroads. Our job here in this committee is to determine the future of America’s space flight program, 

and our job is to determine whether or not America will continue 

to have a human space flight program second to none or not. We 

will determine whether America will continue to push the forefront 

of space science and technology or not. We will determine whether 

America will continue to foster innovation and drive our 21st century economy or not, and today we will determine whether America 

will continue to inspire the youth of America or not. 

Of course, we didn’t arrive at this crossroads suddenly. Over the 

last year and a half my subcommittee held 15 oversight hearings 

on NASA, exploring these and the many issues facing today’s space 

flight program. And over the last year and a half we have had to 

face an unsettling reality after the Augustine Committee made 

clear our exploration program of record was unexecutable under 

the current budget. So, in response to this report, the President introduced his 2011 budget, which included a number of serious 

changes to NASA programs. We then had four hearings with witnesses from NASA, as well as outside experts, to delve into these 

proposals and to the effects on our space flight program. Unfortunately, many of our questions remained unanswered, so the leadership of the committee twice reached out to NASA to get a better 

justification of the President’s proposals, and twice we were 

rebuffed. Even to this day we have yet to receive a budget that reflects the changes to the new plan that the President announced 

on April 15. Our hope is in the future that we will be able to work 

closely with the administration and with NASA to make sure that 

we have the information so that we can move forward in a clearer 

manner. 

So when we set out our task to determine the future of America’s 

space flight program, our goal was paramount in our minds to develop a sustainable program that will guarantee America’s access 

to Low-Earth orbit [LEO], but more importantly a path to explore 

beyond LEO, something we have not done for 37 years. And the result is a bill that provides a pragmatic path forward. It gives NASA 

a clear sense of purpose and a direction in a way that will recognize these—the nation’s need for fiscal restraint. And I have said 

many times before the President’s requests contains very—a lot of 

good proposals, which this bill, in fact, has retained. 

And Mr. Chairman, of course, I know you will get into this, but 

our legislation authorizes NASA’s programs and activities for five 

years, with total annual funding of $19 billion in fiscal year 2011, 

rising modestly to $20.99 billion in fiscal year 2015. It extends 

through at least 2020 the life of the International Space Station, 

a premier laboratory that should be considered a modern wonder 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
86 

of the universe. And it continues, and in fact expands, our commitment to science and aeronautics. However, our approach differs 

from the President’s proposal on a number of levels, most notably 

on the development of human space flight programs. And the bill 

directs the NASA administrator to restructure the current exploration program to develop and demonstrate a governmentally 

owned crew transportation system to provide assured access to 

LEO, as well as heavy lift transportation systems to provide the 

backbone for exploration missions. As we have often stated, our 

role in Congress is not to pick winners and losers. We are not trying to design a rocket in this committee. We know that the best 

and brightest minds in the country are in the NASA centers 

around the country, and they should be designing the architecture. 

So this bill requires NASA to bring those minds to bear on this 

issue. 

NASA will tell us in the following months how they will fly to 

the ISS by 2016 in a crew vessel evolvable to one day explore the 

solar system. NASA will tell us how they will build a heavy lift vehicle that will begin flying by the end of this decade to prepare us 

to once again leave LEO. The restructured exploration program 

will ensure that America will continue to play a leadership role in 

human space flight and exploration, in spite of challenging economic times. The bill also recognizes the value of encouraging the 

growth of a healthy, self-sustaining U.S. commercial space sector 

by providing the nascent commercial crew industry with access to 

NASA technologies and facilities and assistance in the form of 

loans and loan guarantees. Additionally, this bill reinforces that 

NASA will turn over crew transportation to commercial providers 

when they have proven that they can accomplish the task successfully. The prize is out there. It is up for the American entrepreneurs to seize it. 

This bill also contains a number of great pieces I know that we 

are going to get into a little bit later today, but I want to again 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that you have worked very hard 

with Ranking Member Hall and Congressman Olson as well, and 

so many Members of this Committee who are directly involved with 

NASA’s human space flight programs and NASA centers around 

the country, or have constituents that are really interested in 

human space flight. The fact is that, as you said, Mr. Chairman, 

the clock is ticking. We don’t have a lot of time, and this is our opportunity for this committee to put its best foot forward. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Giffords follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

We stand now at a crossroads. What we decide today, and in this Congress, will 

determine the future of America’s space program. 

We will determine whether America will continue to have a human spaceflight 

program second to none, or not. 

We will determine whether America will continue to push the forefront of space 

science and technology, or not. 

We will determine whether America will continue to foster the innovation that 

will drive our 21st century economy, or not. 

And we will determine whether America will continue to inspire the youths of 

America and the citizens of the world, or not. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
87 

But we didn’t arrive at this crossroad suddenly. 

Over the last year and a half, this committee, and my subcommittee, have held 

15 oversight hearings on NASA, exploring these and the many other issues facing 

America’s space program today. 

And over this last year and a half, we have had to face an unsettling reality. 

As the Augustine Committee made clear, our exploration program of record was 

unexecutable within the current budget. 

In response to this report, the President introduced his 2011 budget, which included a number of serious changes to NASA programs. 

We have held four hearings with witnesses from NASA as well as outside experts 

to delve into these proposals and their effects on our spaceflight program. 

Unfortunately, many of our questions remained unanswered. 

So, the leadership of this committee twice reached out to NASA to get a better 

justification of the President’s proposals—and twice we were rebuffed. 

The unfortunate truth is that the administration did not provide this committee 

with the depth of information necessary to justify many of its proposals. 

To this day, we have yet to receive a budget that reflects the changes to the new 

plan that the President announced on April 15th. 

Nor have we received any technical assessment performed by NASA to support 

this plan. 

I find this most disappointing. 

I hope that in the future the administration will work more closely with this committee to better inform this very important process. 

When we set upon our task to determine the future of America’s human 

spaceflight program, one goal was paramount in our minds: develop a sustainable 

program that will guarantee American access to space and put us on a path to explore beyond low-earth orbit—something we have not done for 37 years. 

The result is a bill that provides a pragmatic path forward and gives NASA a 

clear sense of purpose and direction in a way that also recognizes the nation’s need 

for fiscal restraint. 

As I have said before, the President’s request contained many good proposals, 

which this bill has retained: 

• It authorizes NASA’s programs and activities for five years, with total annual 

funding of $19 billion in FY 2011, rising modestly to $20.99 billion in FY 

2015. 

• It extends, through at least 2020, the life of the International Space Station 

(ISS), a premier laboratory that should be considered a modern wonder of the 

universe. 

• And it continues, and in fact expands, our commitment to science and aeronautics. 

However, our approach differs from the President’s proposal on a number of 

issues—most notably on the development of human spaceflight systems. 

This bill directs the NASA Administrator to restructure the current exploration 

program to develop and demonstrate a government-owned crew transportation system to provide assured access to low-Earth orbit, as well as a heavy lift transportation system to provide the backbone for exploration missions. 

As I have often stated, our role in Congress is not to pick winners and losers. We 

aren’t trying to design a rocket in this committee. 

We know that the best and brightest minds in the country are in NASA centers 

around the country and they should be designing this architecture. 

So this bill requires NASA to bring those minds to bear on this issue. 

NASA will tell us in the following months how they will fly to the ISS by 2016 

with a crew vessel evolvable to one day explore the solar system. 

NASA will tell us how they will build a Heavy Lift Vehicle that will begin flying 

by the end of this decade and prepare us to once again leave low-earth orbit. 

The restructured exploration program will ensure that America will continue to 

play a leadership role in human space flight and exploration, in spite of challenging 

economic times. 

The bill also recognizes the value of encouraging the growth of a healthy, self-sustaining U.S. commercial space sector by providing the nascent commercial crew industry with access to NASA technologies and facilities as well as assistance in the 

form of loans and loan guarantees. 

Additionally, this bill reinforces that NASA will turn over crew transportation to 

commercial providers when they have proven they can accomplish the task safely. 

The prize is out there; it’s up to American entrepreneurs to seize it. 

This bill contains a number of other great pieces: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
88 

• Supporting the operation and full utilization of the ISS through at least 2020 

and establishing an ISS research management entity 

• Augmenting funding to revitalize fundamental space life and physical science 

research 

• Establishing a grants program to assist workers and communities affected by 

the end of the Shuttle Program 

• Providing a modest increase to smaller space science projects including suborbital science and scientist-led Explorer programs that demonstrate cuttingedge scientific concepts and technological approaches, and offer hands-on opportunities for students and young researchers to ensure that our nation’s 

space science program has a robust and vibrant foundation to continue these 

discoveries in the decades to come 

• Taking steps to ensure progress is being made on NASA’s environmentally 

friendly aircraft research and development 

• Reinvigorating NASA’s long-term space technology research and development 

activity 

So, we stand at a crossroad for America’s space program. 

We will create our own path with changes we make today and I know that what 

will emerge will produce an executable and sustainable program that will get us exploring the heavens again soon. 

The clock is ticking, and it is important that Congress complete its work on the 

NASA reauthorization so that the nation’s space program can once again have a 

clear direction. 

I want to thank you and Ranking Members Hall and Olson for all of your efforts 

as well as the rest of this committee. 

It is a pleasure to serve on a committee with such engaged members. The nation 

needs just such engagement at this critical time. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Giffords, and—for the work 

you and Mr. Olson did, and the many hearings that you had, and 

I now yield to Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I thank you—I think 

I thank you for scheduling this morning’s markup. I sit here thinking about the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take of first do no 

harm, and from the devastation we all felt when the President ran 

a line through the word Constellation, that has been our goal and 

my goal. I am on this bill as a co-sponsor in an effort to do less 

harm than I think the bill across the hall is going to do. But we 

need to get the best of both, and work together and try to work this 

thing through because a lot depends on our actions here, and I 

want to begin by commending your leadership, and that of your 

subcommittee, Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords, and Ranking Subcommittee Member Pete Olson—for the excellent oversight hearings conducted during this Congress on NASA’s management and 

execution of its programs, we heard from an impressive array of industry, government and academic witnesses, and I want to especially note the compelling testimony we heard from former astronauts Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, Tom Stafford. These extraordinary men bring a lifetime of experience and wisdom to the debate, and I appreciate the time and effort that they took to appear 

before the committee. The work for the Space Committee and full 

committee was very aggressive and very thorough and helped all 

members gain good insight into the agency’s science, aeronautics 

and human space flight programs. 

The hearings and briefings also revealed that NASA was unable 

to provide convincing reasoning for its decision to cancel Constellation. Despite a repeated request by this committee, NASA failed to 

provide credible schedules, cost estimates and a coherent rationale 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
89 

as to why it was necessary to wipe away $10 billion in taxpayer 

investment in Constellation to start anew with an ill-defined plan 

that risked taxpayers’ money on a commercial-only solution. NASA 

also failed to offer convincing evidence that its proposed $6 billion 

investment in a commercial crew initiative would have any reasonable chance of succeeding, or even that careful thought had been 

given to the basic assumptions about safety, marketability, liability, indemnification and intellectual property considerations. 

Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan bill before us today directs NASA 

to build on key components of Constellation to ensure a robust 

human space exploration program. It emphasizes that NASA 

should rely on their investments in the Aries One and Orion 

launch systems to the maximum extent practicable, and that work 

should be phased to begin a gradual buildup of a heavy lift launch 

vehicle. This bill also—the bill also includes important policy provisions directing NASA to transition low Earth orbit crew ferry 

flights to the commercial industry when it demonstrates a capability to NASA’s satisfaction. Until that day, however, the least 

risky path to minimize our reliance on the Russians is to continue 

to build a low Earth orbit launch system, such as was envisioned 

by the Constellation program. 

This bill before us takes the right approach for NASA’s other important missions. It sustains a strong and vibrant space science 

program, enabling new missions to help scientists better understand the evolution of our solar system and universe. It provides 

funding for important aeronautics research designed to increase 

the capability and the capacity of our national aerospace system to 

make aircraft quieter, safer and more fuel efficient. This bill also 

fully funds the administration’s request for NASA’s space technology program. This initiative is designed to revitalize NASA’s 

long term high risk research and development activity with the 

goal of enabling a broad set of new capabilities ranging from propulsion systems, material sensors and other technologies we will 

need to extend our reach into the deep space. 

Mr. Chairman, given that our members received a copy of the 

text just three days ago, I ask that we continue to work together 

between now and consideration on the House floor to improve the 

bill so that all of us can enthusiastically support it. I also want to 

recognize the hard work done by your staff in crafting this bill in 

the bipartisan manner by which they have worked with our staff 

throughout the course of the Congress, with special kudos extended 

to Dick Obermann. He has been very open with us, and he is—we 

are appreciative of all of his efforts. I also want to thank Ken Monroe and Ed Feddeman on my staff for their excellent work and 

guidance through this process. 

Given the budget constraints, as well as the turmoil surrounding 

the direction of our human space flight program, it is vitally important that this good piece of legislation be enacted as soon as possible. I support this bill. I urge all members to lend their support 

to it as well. And I thank the other members of my staff who have 

worked day and night to help me. It is important that we get this 

legislation through Congress, get a bill, and get it to the President. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
90 

And at that time—this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield what time I 

have left and what time he has to consume to Subcommittee Chairman Pete Olson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this morning’s markup of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. 

I want to begin by commending your leadership and that of Subcommittee Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords and Ranking Subcommittee Member Pete Olson for the 

excellent oversight hearings conducted during this Congress on NASA’s management and execution of its programs. We heard from an impressive array of industry, 

government and academic witnesses, and I want to especially note the compelling 

testimony we heard from former astronauts Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan and Tom 

Stafford. These extraordinary men bring a lifetime of experience and wisdom to the 

debate, and I appreciate the time and effort they took to appear before our Committee. 

The work of the Space Subcommittee and full Committee was aggressive and 

thorough, and helped all Members gain good insight into the agency’s science, aeronautics, and human space flight programs. 

The hearings and briefings also revealed that NASA was unable to provide convincing reasoning for its decision to cancel Constellation. In spite of repeated requests by this Committee, NASA failed to provide credible schedules, cost estimates, 

and a coherent rationale as to why it was necessary to wipe away $10 billion in taxpayer investment in Constellation and to start anew with an ill-defined plan that 

risks taxpayer money on a commercial-only solution. NASA also failed to offer convincing evidence that its proposed $6 billion investment in a commercial crew initiative would have any reasonable chance of succeeding, or even that careful thought 

had been given to basic assumptions about safety, marketability, liability, indemnification and intellectual property considerations. 

Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan bill before us today directs NASA to build on key 

components of Constellation to ensure a robust human space exploration program. 

It emphasizes that NASA should rely on our investments in the Ares 1 and Orion 

launch systems to the maximum extent practicable, and that work should be phased 

to begin a gradual build-up of a heavy lift launch vehicle. 

The bill also includes important policy provisions directing NASA to transition 

low-Earth orbit crew ferry flights to the commercial industry when it demonstrates 

the capability to NASA’s satisfaction. Until that day, however, the least risky path 

to minimize our reliance on the Russians is to continue developing a low-Earth orbit 

launch system such as was envisioned by the Constellation program. 

This bill before us takes the right approach for NASA’s other important missions. 

It sustains a strong and vibrant space science program, enabling new missions to 

help scientists better understand the evolution of our solar system and universe. It 

provides funding for important aeronautics research designed to increase the capacity of our national airspace system, to make aircraft quieter, safer and more fuel 

efficient. 

This bill also fully funds the Administration’s request for NASA’s Space Technology Program. This initiative is designed to revitalize NASA’s long-term, high-risk 

research and development activities with the goal of enabling a broad set of new 

capabilities ranging from propulsion systems, materials, sensors, and other technologies we’ll need to extend our reach into deep space. 

Mr. Chairman, given that our members received a copy of the text just three days 

ago, I ask that we continue to work together between now and consideration on the 

House floor to improve the bill so that all of us can enthusiastically support it. 

I also want to recognize the hard work done by your staff in crafting this bill and 

the bipartisan manner with which they have worked with our staff throughout the 

course of this Congress, with special kudos extended to Dick Obermann. He has 

been very open with us, and we appreciate all his efforts. I also want to thank Ken 

Monroe and Ed Feddeman on my staff for their excellent work and guidance 

throughout this process. 

Given the budget constraints as well as the turmoil surrounding the direction of 

our human space flight program, it is vitally important that this good piece of legislation be enacted as soon as possible. I support this bill and I urge all Members 

to lend their support as well. It’s important we get this legislation through Congress 

and to the President. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
91 

Mr. OLSON. Well, I want to thank my great friend and fellow 

Texan Mr. Hall for yielding to me a little time. 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010. We 

promised a NASA authorization bill this year, and I am proud to 

say we are delivering on that promise here today in committee. I 

want to extend a very special thanks to our Chairman, Mr. Gordon, 

and our Ranking Member, Mr. Hall, as well as the distinguished 

Chairwoman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Ms. Giffords, along with the very dedicated and hard working staff at the 

full committee. 

This authorization bill is very important to me personally. It is 

also important to the district I represent, Houston, Texas. But 

above all else, this authorization bill is important to our nation. 

And so I thank my colleagues again for bringing this to the committee and for exhibiting that, in the spirit of doing what is right 

for America, bipartisan solutions exist in Washington, D.C. 

I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PETE OLSON

I am very pleased that we are here today to discuss the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010. We promised a NASA Authorization this year, and I’m proud to be discussing this bill in committee today. 

I want to extend a very special thanks to our Chairman, Mr. Gordon, and Ranking Member, Mr. Hall, as well as the distinguished Chairwoman of our Space and 

Aeronautics Subcommittee, Ms. Giffords of Arizona, along with the very impressive 

and hardworking staff at the full and subcommittee. 

This Authorization is very important to me personally, as well as to the district 

I represent in Houston, Texas, but above all else, this authorization is important 

to our nation. And so I thank my colleagues again for bringing this to the committee 

and for exhibiting in word and deed, that in the spirit of doing what’s right for 

America, bipartisan solutions are possible. 

Thank you and I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Additional opening statements will be placed 

in the record at this time. I think we have something like 30 something amendments, so I believe everybody’s going to have a chance 

to have their say on this bill today. So I ask unanimous consent 

that the bill be considered as read, and open amendments at the— 

and open for amendment at any point, and that members proceed 

with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID WU

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to voice my strong support for the NASA reauthorization bill this 

committee is considering today. 

The space program inspires us to reach for the stars in both our dreams and our 

actions. More importantly, it helps drive our nation’s technological innovation. 

I am particularly glad to see that today’s NASA bill reflects the concerns that I 

and many of my colleagues voiced with the President’s proposal to cancel the human 

spaceflight program. 

I am deeply concerned with the idea of privatizing space exploration. While I believe we should do all that we can to foster and encourage a healthy, competitive 

commercial spaceflight industry, I believe the core functions should remain a public 

enterprise. 

Simply put, the President’s plan to privatize American human spaceflight heads 

in the wrong direction and has been poorly executed to boot. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
92 

The space program has inspired a generation of scientists and engineers, and I 

believe we ought to preserve this source of inspiration for future generations. 

The Constellation Program is not perfect. But putting all of our eggs in a privatesector basket is simply too risky a gamble. We would be jeopardizing our lead in 

space exploration, and we would be jeopardizing our nation’s future. 

I am pleased that this committee was able to craft a bill that balances our need 

to develop a robust commercial spaceflight sector with our responsibility to ensure 

the continued viability of the national human spaceflight program. 

The bill before us today restructures the existing exploration program to ensure 

a viable, public human spaceflight program which will build on existing expertise 

and keep our astronauts flying. 

America’s leadership in space exploration is a national treasure. We, as the stewards of that resource, have an obligation to maintain the commitment to space exploration that began with President Kennedy’s challenge to the American people 

that we land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth. 

I commend the chairman on bringing this legislation up for consideration today, 

and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure future generations are 

able to enjoy the innumerable benefits that only a public-sector human spaceflight 

program can provide. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your hard work on this vital legislation. I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. The first amendment on the roster is an 

amendment offered by the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. 

Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 039, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 

gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I and many of my colleagues here in the room have always maintained that a NASA led 

vehicle is essential in order for us to maintain, I would say, our 

U.S. leadership, and perhaps supremacy in space, and this bill 

strongly supports that premise. However, I think it is important 

that we consider other aspects. The development of commercial 

crew and cargo is an important component to our ensuring domestic access to the space station and to continuing to preserve our 

unique work force through commercial and public/private partnerships that spur job creation. The level of a commercial investment 

can be debated, whether it is Augustine’s recommendation of $4.5 

billion, the President’s request of $6 billion, or the Committee’s 

level of less than a billion. However, we do know that the Senate 

authorizers and the appropriators have both now approved a level 

of funding that will help to develop this essential service. 

This amendment proposes to match the levels already approved 

by Senate authorizers and appropriators and to continue the development method which is currently in place for the commercial industry, based on meeting milestone requirements. In addition, my 

amendment would replace provisions in the bill with language from 

the bill that I introduced in March with Senator Hutchison which 

was adopted in the Senate compromise bill. This language would 

ensure that, before allowing NASA to procure commercial crew 

services, we require that the agency meet a number of requirements, including human rating requirements, commercial market 

assessments, procurement system reviews, evaluation of governVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:34 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
93 

ment supplied capabilities, and infrastructure, flight demonstration 

and readiness requirements and commercial crew rescue capabilities. 

With this criteria in place, we recognize that public/private commercial space holds promise for the space coast and many other 

communities across the country. We must provide a level of support 

that will encourage the development of this creative industry. I 

urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Would anybody like to be heard on this 

amendment? 

Mr. HALL. I would like to be heard. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentlelady’s amendment. 

Her amendment would take roughly $2 billion out of the exploration program and redirect it to the commercial crew account. It 

would also zero out the loan and loan guarantee provisions in the 

bill. For the last several years we have heard witnesses and expert 

panels complain about NASA being starved for funds needed to 

build an assured launch system. And as it now stands, once the 

shuttle is retired, we will be relying on the Russians for at least 

four years to get astronauts to and from the space station. Stripping away two billion to invest in a commercial crew system is not 

the answer. 

NASA is being tasked in this bill to get us a low Earth orbit 

launch system as soon as is practicable. We are also directing 

NASA to begin design and development of a heavy lift launch system in a carefully planned concurrent approach. $2 billion will 

delay our ability to get a new system into place. Further, investing 

two billion with a commercial provider may or not be sufficient. No 

engineering and market studies have been done that conclusively 

demonstrate the viability of a commercial space tourist market. We 

have been working hard to direct all the funds we can to get the 

U.S. back into space. Expert witnesses have told us that the fastest, least risky and most assured path is to build a government system. Now, let us not start down the same path, draining funds 

from NASA’s best hope of assured launch. I oppose this amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Giffords is recognized. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like I said in my 

opening statements, we have some real issues being able to understand the development of the commercial systems that have been 

proposed by the administration, and I think that comes over into 

the, you know, the amendment here. The aerospace corporations, 

on analysis, raise some serious questions about the credibility of 

the administration’s funding plan for commercial crew development, and my concern is that this amendment would make some 

significant cuts to the restructured exploration program, ultimately 

weakening its viability. And I respectfully would oppose this 

amendment because we have crafted a pretty important balance for 

the funding of this bill, and this amendment would disrupt that 

balance. 

Chairman GORDON. Any further discussion? Oh, Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
94 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I move to strike the last words. They 

are—I guess that is what we need to say here, but I move to support the gentlelady’s amendment. Let us just take a look at what 

we are deciding here. I mean, you know, basically the gentlelady’s 

deciding to give—at least let us give commercial space a chance. 

Without her amendment what we are saying is we are going to put 

all of our eggs in the government run space transportation basket. 

We need to make sure that there is at least an alternative to having everybody who provides space transportation being a government employee and cutting out these—the entrepreneurial and 

commercial sector. The lady wants to at least give that a chance. 

Now, I have two amendments later on that actually go a lot further, and obviously if the lady’s amendment passes, I will be withdrawing my—or passes or fails I will probably be withdrawing my 

amendment, because if we—what she is proposing is a compromise 

position that permits us to move forward with commercial and 

doesn’t just cut the legs out from under those people in the commercial sector that would like to build an industry somewhat like, 

perhaps, the industry of the airline industry. We have breached the 

threshold. We are going to have to make a decision. Is space transportation going to be something that is nothing more than a government enterprise run by—paid for by the taxpayers and run by 

government employees. Or do we believe that the airline industry 

in the United States was a good idea, when we reach the threshold 

that the private sector could provide transportation to the public on 

jets and other type of vehicles? It is time for us to at least give the 

commercial enterprise a chance, and I would hope that all of us 

would support this position, because it is a compromise position. 

What she is talking about is not just fully accepting what the 

President had in mind. 

But let me just note, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why 

there is some confusion here, we haven’t had the hearings on this 

that we need to have, and I am—I have worked well with you and 

with the Democrat majority, but let us face it, we haven’t had one 

hearing that went to this idea which is—which the gentlelady is actually amending that would talk about the loan guarantee program. Now, where is loan guarantees—where does that fit in? How 

come we haven’t had any hearings on that? Do we know the loan 

guarantees are going to work better than what the program now 

is designed for, in terms of working with the development of commercial space alternative? We don’t know that. 

So I think the gentlelady’s amendment is a compromise, it is responsible, and people on both sides of this issue, whether it should 

just be a government run enterprise, or whether we should get the 

private sector involved, should be supporting this as a compromise 

position. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I would ask 

Mr. Olson or Ms. Giffords to correct me if I am wrong, but it is my 

understanding that you did have hearings, and there were witnesses from the commercial space industry, and that these things 

were discussed. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. On the loan guarantee issue, Mr. Chairman? 

Not—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
95 

Chairman GORDON. Not on the loan guarantee itself, but rather 

on the—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is an integral part of what we are talking about here. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, let me say that I am philosophically attuned with Mr. Kosmas and Mr. Rohrabacher, but I am not fiscally 

attuned to that. I would like to see us have alternatives. I think 

that we have left the options within this bill in other areas for a 

commercial option, which I hope that can move forward, but this 

is—this comes with a $2.3 billion price tag, and it is going to slow 

down, as Mr. Hall pointed out, other programs. So, again, as I say, 

I am philosophically but not fiscally attuned to this, and for that 

reason I will have to oppose the amendment. 

Are there any other—anyone else would like to be heard? If not, 

if there is no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. 

All in favor of the amendment say aye. Those opposed no. The no’s 

have it, the amendment is not agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is the amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Sensenbrenner, are you ready 

to proceed with—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 040, amendment to H.R. 5781, 

offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is kind of 

a truth in statistics and truth in data amendment. What it does 

is it refers to the overlap between the climate data at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom and the climate data 

that NASA has assembled. Climategate has been something that 

has been discussed extensively in the global warming climate 

change community since the November 19, 2009 release of more 

than 1,000 e-mails and 2,000 documents from climate scientists associated with the Climate Research Institute at the University of 

East Anglia. It revealed a pattern of suppression, manipulation and 

obstruction that pushed climate science toward pre-determined outcomes in order to promote hysteria, and, in my opinion, justify 

heavy-handed regulatory response. The scandal was not confined to 

one British university, as it is widely acknowledged that there is 

substantial overlap between the CRU’s temperature records and 

the temperature records at NASA. Therefore, if the Climate Research Unit’s records are suspect, NASA’s might very well be too. 

This amendment isn’t about whether climate change is real. It is 

about the integrity of the scientific process and the scientific 

records that we use to set life altering policies. This amendment 

would require NASA to investigate and report to Congress on the 

degree to which its temperature records overlap with the CRU’s in 

the potential that those records may be flawed. 

As we continue with the debate on climate science, I think it is 

important that we clear the air on whether NASA’s records ended 

up being polluted as a result of the scandal that arose in England. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
96 

And all I am asking for is a report to Congress about whether the 

records were intermingled, and the potential that the records may 

be flawed. And that way, when we deal with this issue in the next 

Congress, I think we can have more confidence in the records that 

are set before us. So that way, I urge the adoption of this amendment. All it does is require a report to Congress, which is a report 

that I think is necessary, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR. 

‘‘Climategate’’ refers to the November 19, 2009 release of more than 1,000 e-mails 

and 2,000 documents from climate scientists associated with the Climatic Research 

Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. It revealed a pattern of 

suppression, manipulation and obstruction that pushed climate science towards predetermined outcomes in order to promote hysteria and justify a heavy-handed regulatory response. 

The scandal was not confined to the one British university, as it is widely-acknowledged that there is substantial overlap between the CRU’s temperature 

records and the temperature records at NASA. Therefore, if CRU’s records are suspect, NASA’s might very well be too. 

This isn’t about whether climate change is real. It’s about the integrity of the scientific process and the scientific records that we use to set life-altering policies. This 

Amendment would require NASA to investigate and report to Congress on the degree to which its temperature records overlap with the CRU’s, and the potential 

that those records may be flawed. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Would anyone like to—Dr. Baird is recognized. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank the Chairman. As my colleagues know, I am 

often—consistently a strong advocate for openness in data, and I 

have read many of the reports on this over—since the issue first 

emerged. The—I have two concerns. First of all, I find that the 

scrutiny of data—if we are going to be open about analyzing data, 

we need to be—and critical of data sets, we need to be equally critical on both sides at the very least. I note that the—my colleagues 

in the majority have previously heard from a punitive scientist who 

claims to have been awarded a Nobel Prize, and he had no such 

thing, and there is very little scrutiny that comes from the other 

side on that. 

But on the matter at hand, the problem I have with the particular language, and I would ask the author of the amendment if 

he would willing—be willing to consider this, there is a somewhat 

conclusory statement that I am not comfortable putting into this 

legislation, and the conclusory statement begins on line three. ‘‘The 

integrity of the CRU’s data set was compromised by the 

Climategate e-mail scandal.’’ That is not an open objective request 

for information, that is a conclusory statement about the integrity 

of a data set, and—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BAIRD. I would be happy to. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman support this amendment if we strike the word ‘‘the’’ in lines three and all of lines four 

and five? That eliminates—— 

Mr. BAIRD. I would be—I personally would be. I can’t speak for 

my colleagues on that. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be thus modified. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
97 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman’s willingness to do that, but I want to underscore this point. I think we 

need to look at this, but I would hope that we show equal scrutiny 

to the so-called skeptics of climate change research. We have got 

abundant data, I believe, on ocean acidification and global overheating that suggests that the bulk of the data is solid, the phenomenon is real, and we need to take action. But I think actually 

adding a level of analysis of the data may help put this issue to 

bed, and we can get back to the true overall findings. And with 

that I yield back. I thank the gentleman for removal of that passage of concern. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I support the gentleman’s 

amendment, and I support all sound science on climate change. 

This amendment’s in line with a resolution that I introduced and 

we passed sometime last year. We introduced and we debated, I am 

just told. It didn’t pass. They didn’t see the good judgment in it, 

I guess. Use of sound science in the climate debate, but that is 

what the gentleman is suggesting here, and I certainly support 

that amendment and any other amendment along that line. I yield 

back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Ms. Woolsey is recognized. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Climate change clearly 

is one of the most serious threats that our nation and our planet 

is facing, and Mr. Sensenbrenner’s amendment would instruct 

NASA to conduct a report that it has already written. I really 

worry that—and would speculate this amendment might be mischievous in its motives, hoping to create a paper trail among NASA 

scientists that outside critics could get through FOIA and use selectively, like the CRU e-mails, to further inflame passion on climate 

science. 

I fear this would only further the burden already harassing 

NASA climate scientists. I oppose this amendment. I see it as putting a burden on NASA that is already transparent on its data and 

its methods. So I just think we are going nowhere with this but 

backwards. We ought to be going forward. We can’t continue to 

slow down what we need to be dealing with right now, and that 

is climate change and the effects of what it is having on our planet. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. Anyone else like 

to—I am sorry—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Argument—— 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Argument number three, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Without—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. That is all right. Mr. Chairman, let 

me just note that I remember the hearings that we had here in 

which investigated whether or not Mr. Hanson from NASA, who is 

the guru of global warming for NASA, had been censored, or in 

some way restricted in an objectionable way when the last administration required that he put at the bottom of his papers that had 

not been approved by other—by NASA as a whole that this was his 

opinion. And that was it, saying—just requiring a—that type of disVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:34 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
98 

claimer, that the—all of NASA did not endorse his findings. We 

had a hearing to determine whether that was an act of censorship, 

or if that was an act that undermined the honesty of scientific research. 

And, you know, okay, we heard that. We heard the hearing and 

heard what the charges were. That charge was nothing as compared to what we have seen from—about this whole crisis on information from East Anglia and the American researches that have 

been tied in to global warming, and the indication that—through 

these intercepted e-mails that there has been dramatic fraud that 

has taken place. There has been this suppression of information by 

these very same people, and we have not had one hearing on that 

that I remember. Has the Science Committee had a hearing on 

this? We didn’t have a hearing on whether or not there should be 

a loan guarantee that we are now relying upon, and now we are 

not—we didn’t have a hearing on this as well. 

Mr. Chairman, these are very significant issues, and to the degree that we paid any attention to Mr. Hanson’s complaint that he 

was required to have a disclaimer at the bottom of his documents, 

as compared to the information that we have now about the wholesale doctoring of information by global warming researches, people 

who were operating with government funds, this is a disgrace. We 

are not doing our job here if we haven’t had a hearing on this, and 

we haven’t. And that is why I think Mr. Sensenbrenner needs to 

have this passed, in order to emphasize that this is a major issue 

that should not just be—shrug our shoulders and say, well, we are 

going to move on now, even though there hasn’t been any real investigation of the issue. So I would support this amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I will recognize myself. Mr. Hall has volunteered to give you a hearing next 

year, if that—all things work out. Let me—just for the record, let 

me say this. NASA already makes all of its data and modeling 

available to the public. Anyone can go look at it via the Internet. 

NASA scientists already have a 37 page article that goes into careful detail about how they model climate data and discusses differences with the CRU. That article is in a draft form, and out for 

peer review, but it is available to anyone to read on the NASA 

website. 

Now, with that said, was have over 30 amendments today that 

deal with the core of NASA. We could talk a great deal about climate change. I think this is important, but a little off message 

here. And I think that Mr.—Dr. Baird has made a worthwhile suggestion to Mr. Sensenbrenner, who, in his normal jovial way, accepted, and so I think that we should take this rare moment and 

celebrate it and support the modified Sensenbrenner amendment. 

Is there further discussion? Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I did recognize that you invited me 

not to speak. The Oversight Subcommittee would gladly have held 

a hearing had any of us been within the United States. This is in 

East Anglia, which is beyond the subpoena power of subcommittee. 

We cannot require documents to be produced from East Anglia. We 

cannot require witnesses to attend hearings and give testimony 

from East Anglia. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
99 

But we have all seen in the last few days just what selective editing can do to the truth, how badly it could mangle it. If there had 

not been a complete videotape of Shirley Sherrod’s complete speech 

to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 

(NAACP) in Georgia, she would have been forever tarred, her character forever—her reputation forever ruined as a racist when, in 

fact, she was telling a story of racial reconciliation that I can tell 

you, as a Southerner, has happened on both sides, by whites and 

by African-Americans over the last generation or two. 

What happened with respect to the e-mails in East Anglia is that 

a group of e-mails that were intended to be private, that were unguarded, were stolen and selectively edited, and we have no idea 

what the total picture looked like, and it is beyond our subpoena 

power to find out, but there have been three inquiries in the 

United Kingdom, which is not exactly a developing—a Third World 

country. Our sister committee, the equivalent committee of this 

one, the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons, did a full investigation and concluded that all of the findings 

of the CRU are credible, that there was no subversion of the peer 

review process, and that there was no reason to doubt any of the 

findings of the CRU with respect to climate change. There was a 

second panel by the Royal Society, which is the equivalent of our 

National Academy of Sciences, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which 

reached the same conclusion, there was no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice or misrepresentation, that the findings 

of the CRU with respect to climate change were credible. And University of East Anglia itself conducted a review of all of the information, all of the e-mails, all of what was done by that unit, by 

that research unit, and concluded that the CRU had not, in fact, 

blocked access to any raw data or tampered with it in any way. 

They had not manipulated data to achieve a certain outcome. 

There was no reason to think that the work of the CRU could not 

be relied upon, was unreliable, that it was—that it couldn’t be 

trusted, and that any uncertainties with respect to the CRU’s work 

were probably applicable to any scientist doing any kind of research anywhere. 

So it does help this amendment substantially that it takes out 

a finding that—for which there is no evidence, no credible evidence. 

I still think that—I understand that the Committee will support 

this amendment, but it is redundant. It is better that it is just redundant rather than factually incorrect and redundant, but it is 

still redundant because NASA is already doing this, and doing it 

in a very public way, and NASA’s—and believe me, I am very critical of NASA. I am completely willing to be critical of NASA, as everyone on this committee knows. But with respect to their climate 

data, it has been open, it has been transparent. It is on the Internet. You can see it. You can subject it—it is subject to peer review. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for that clarification. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Oh, Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman GORDON. We go to—Dr. Bartlett. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
100 

Mr. BARTLETT. I would just like to note that Mr. Miller may indeed be right, but still there is a—there are a very large number 

of people out there who have some concerns about the credibility 

of these data. This amendment certainly does no harm. All we are 

doing is asking NASA to make sure of the validity of this data. I 

can’t see any downside to voting this—approving this amendment. 

I see a large upside in that it will confirm to those who believe that 

the data is not adulterated that it, in fact, is not adulterated. How 

can there be a downside to this? I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. If there are no further questions, or—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman GORDON. Let us see, I believe Mrs. Woolsey—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. —yield to me. 

Chairman GORDON. —had spoken earlier, but I think probably 

Ms. Johnson would like to yield to you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, I will yield. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. Thank you. I would just—thank you very 

much. Some of us would like to consider a vote on this, so could 

we have a vote? Could—roll the vote? 

Chairman GORDON. You want a roll call vote? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes. 

Chairman GORDON. Could we have a show of hands vote, since 

there is a lot of folks that would have to come in for that? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Oh, we are not going to have any roll call votes 

on anything? 

Chairman GORDON. We may. I mean, if—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Later. I mean—— 

Chairman GORDON. We will have a roll call vote—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. —and—— 

Chairman GORDON. —anytime anybody wants to—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Oh, I am not calling for it now. I am calling for 

it when you—I am suggesting we are rolling the votes. I—— 

Chairman GORDON. No, we are going to take the amendments as 

we—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Oh, then I will—no, thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. We could have a—we—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I will lose on that one, so no. I—no use throwing 

myself on the—my sword on that one. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion on the 

amendment, then the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor 

say aye. No’s no. And no’s noted, but the ayes have it, and the 

amendment is not agreed to—agreed to, excuse me. Agreed to. All 

right. The third of 30 something amendments is—on the roster is 

offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. Are 

you ready to proceed? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Considering that I—considering the vote 

that—prior to this vote, I will withdraw my amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. The next 

amendment on the roster is also an amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher from California. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. This is a bit different because it—I have 

an amendment at the desk. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
101 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 046, amendment to H.R. 5781, 

offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and there is a difference between what NASA proposed and what the bill before us 

proposes, in terms of spending for the development of commercial 

cargo. And, again, I know that this may scientifically prove that 

there are snowballs in Hell, but I am supporting the administration’s request, and a champion of President Obama’s policy on development of commercial cargo alternatives. And I think that what 

we—again, what we have done in our efforts is an alternative to 

what NASA is officially requesting, and if we have, you know, if 

we are going to this loan guarantee program, which is—might be 

something I might support in—after we know more about it, I 

think that we should not go in that direction until at least we have 

had hearings on that and determined the efficacy of that approach. 

So what I am suggesting, then, is that we go with what the— 

what NASA and the President has recommended, which will ensure that, at least in the commercial cargo part of our space program, if we are not going to have a robust human space transportation system—using the system for the private sector, at least we 

could have the private sector system that is robust in terms of providing cargo transportation. 

Let me note that this proposal is not really something that we 

are destroying. The—we are just moving around some money here. 

The effort for Constellation and what your budget has—what we 

are voting on today will not give us full funding anyway for what 

we need in—to accomplish the goal that has been stated here of 

having a government run system. Well, at least if we do this we— 

this will provide the funds that are necessary to have a private sector alternative to that. And we have seen investment, and a great 

deal of success, in Falcon 9, and we also have the Delta system and 

the Atlas system available to us, and with some modifications, 

which this would help out, they could actually do more than cargo. 

They could actually start heading even in the direction of human 

transportation. 

But this amendment is focused on the commercial end. We 

should have—if we can’t have a robust human space flight endeavor for the private sector, and let the private sector do that, at least 

we could make sure the private sector could take care of some of 

the commercial cargo needs for our space program, and that is 

what my amendment would do. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Comrade Rohrabacher, and I 

have been informed that President Obama thanks you. Ms. Edwards is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I plan to oppose the 

gentleman’s amendment. Under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Demonstration project, NASA is helping industry 

develop and demonstrate cargo space transportation capabilities. 

$500 million was allocated to the multi-year COTS Demonstration 

program, and of that amount $14 million was to be provided in fisVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:34 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
102 

cal year 2011. However, the fiscal year 2011 budget request instead 

includes $312 million for commercial cargo development efforts. 

That amount represents an increase in the COTS program of over 

62 percent relative to the original COTS funding commitment, 

which is extraordinary in this time. 

During the Committee’s review of NASA’s budget request, Com- mittee staff asked the reason for the $312 million increase. Here 

is what NASA said. $288 million would be an augmentation to the 

current COTS agreements for additional milestones that NASA 

would like to add to the program to provide additional capabilities 

or tests. $14 million would be for currently negotiated milestones 

expected to be completed in fiscal year 2011, part of the original 

500 million COTS funding commitment. $10 million would be for 

program operations for the commercial crew and cargo office at 

Johnson Space Center in fiscal year 2011. NASA also confirmed 

that neither Space-X nor Orbital, the two COTS program participants, requested the additional funding of $288 million, and both 

they and NASA say that the increased funding is not required to 

meet planned demonstration flight milestones. The $14 million for currently negotiated milestones is expected 

to be completed in fiscal year 2011 and authorized in this bill for 

fiscal year 2011. We include funding for the commercial office as 

JSC as part of the $50 million for the commercial activities in the 

bill. With this environment of tight budgets, where we have to 

make tough choices, the bill chooses not to add significant additional funding to a program that has been progressing satisfactorily 

since 2006, and doesn’t need it to meet its milestones. 

As I know, and Mr. Rohrabacher understands, we can’t do it all, 

and when budgets are tight, some of the nice-to-haves and—need 

to be deferred in order to use scarce resources for other programs 

in greater need of resources. I urge colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I would say to Mr. Rohrabacher, you know, if I had had 

my way, we would have probably had zero in this program, and 

so—and the administration came out in one direction. We have 

struck what I think is an appropriate balance in—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentlelady—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. And with that, I yield. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —question? Would the gentlelady yield for a 

question? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The money that we are talking about, this 

$312 million, if it is not spent for the development of commercial— 

on a commercial alternative and providing that incentive, where do 

you think the money will be spent? And if the money is spent 

where it will go, will that provide us anything that will work? I am 

suggesting that the money being spent here will end up providing 

us with a commercial capability, but the money—if the $312 million isn’t spent here, will it not just go into a program that, even 

by the current plan, will not come to fruition and not provide us 

any added capability? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, if I could reclaim my time, we have a really 

balanced program and a balanced budget. I mean, the fact is that 

even the commercial enterprises that are identified here didn’t ask 

for the money. And so it seems to me, as we are trying to figure 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
103 

out ways in which we can create balance throughout the agency 

and the authorization and, you know, support this sort of emerging 

development of a commercial space flight cargo capacity, that this 

budget and the authorization herein I think really reflects that, 

and at the same time enables NASA to move forward in a way that 

is responsible. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I think you made 

a good point, that if we took a vote with all or none, we would have 

a very—there are strong feelings both ways, and this was an attempt to try to make that balance. If there is no further discussion, 

then the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, no. The no’s have it. The amendment is not agreed 

to. The next amendment on the roster is the amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Grayson, are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 081, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Grayson of Florida. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides for $500 million 

in government support to companies with no revenue, no profit, virtually no capital, no customers and no product. This is the epitome 

of socialism and corporate welfare. I—this amendment has one purpose and one purpose only, to strike the $500 million that we are 

seeking to give to people who haven’t even asked for it so that they 

can supposedly develop a capability that the government already 

has. Specifically, this is an amendment that eliminates the subsidy 

in this bill that provides for these commercial entities to get $500 

million. 

It raises the question of why we are trying in the first place to 

turn over an existing functioning—well functioning program that 

uses government entities and government resources to put men in 

space, and we are trying to turn that over to commercial entities 

for what? So that we can hand them $500 million? Almost every 

large NASA contract is a cost reimbursement contract. Presumably, 

if one of these entities ever does develop the ability to put men in 

space, NASA will give them a cost reimbursement contract. A cost 

reimbursement contract pays the contractor a fee, and then invites 

the contractor to submit invoices for its expenses. It is basically a 

huge expense account. 

So any one of these companies that actually does get to the point 

where they can put men in space will, in all likelihood, get a cost 

reimbursement contract from NASA. And then on top of that we 

are supposed to be giving them under this bill $500 million in 

loans. For what? Why are we doing this? I think that this is a terrible waste. I think that it—if anybody here is serious at all about 

the idea that we should be cutting the deficit, this is a good place 

to start. Why hand $500 million of Federal resources to companies 

that don’t need it, haven’t asked for it, don’t want it, and will provide, in all likelihood, nothing for it. That is why I propose this 

amendment. I yield back. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
104 

Chairman GORDON. Would anyone else like to be heard on the 

amendment? Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, again, we are at a real crossroads here, 

and let me just note I think America is a better country because 

we have United Airlines and American Airlines and private companies that actually provide transportation through the air, although 

100 years ago it seemed like that would be a totally impossible 

dream. We are on the, you know, we are basically—we reached a 

threshold now technologically where we can have commercial space 

endeavors. But all along, as we know, in the development of private industries and taking technologies and taking it in the private 

sector, and—there has never been a—you might say a pristine free 

enterprise approach, and there has been some government involvement, and the degree is whether or not some of us believe in some 

government involvement versus some people don’t believe there 

should be any private sector involvement at all. 

And I respect the notion that the government should run everything. I respect the notion that the businesses that are now run in 

the private sector that people should be out there—should be government employees. If people actually believe that that is the best 

approach to running enterprises, and they are—that is great. I 

don’t agree with that. I don’t think the American people agree with 

that as well. I think the American people are very supportive of efforts to try to get private individuals and entrepreneurs and commercial enterprise involved in what has basically been a government run operation, in terms of space transportation. And this— 

what this bill does is—and, again, I would agree with the gentleman on one thing. We haven’t had the hearings necessary to talk 

about the efficacy of the loan program. 

But that doesn’t mean that we are just basically now going to 

take the steps of—that would just totally undermine all of the different approaches to commercial space, because that is what we are 

hearing today. We are hearing today that it is not good just to have 

the grant—a grant program. It is not good to have—and so—and 

now it is not good to have a loan guarantee program. And what we 

are really saying here is—what we are really hearing here is that 

there—government should run all of the space business in the future. That we are—that is what, you know, we are making that determination. I would suggest that, by taking this money and providing it at least for loan guarantees, I would have had it even 

more direct than that, that it is a wise use of our money, and apparently NASA and the administration agreed with that, as compared by putting the same amount of money, this $312 million, into 

the exploration program, that we are going to be building a government system that the money that is being provided won’t even 

guarantee that we have that system, because—so we are taking it 

from a loan guarantee program for commercial enterprise and giving it to part of our budget that will produce probably nothing, no 

capabilities, because we are—it is underfunded to the point that we 

know we are not going to be able to accomplish our mission with 

it. 

So I would suggest that the gentleman’s amendment—I certainly 

appreciate people with different philosophical approaches to what 

government should do and what it shouldn’t do, but this will be the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
105 

coffin—the nail in the coffin for commercial space if we continue 

down the path that we seem to be going today. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Giffords is recognized. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also respectively—respectfully oppose the gentleman’s amendment. And again, you 

know, we have been talking a lot about the balance in this bill, and 

really trying to ensure that we have a national human space flight 

program that is NASA led, and that we are also trying to augment 

and promote the future of commercial space. And the way that this 

provision is written, the administrator is not going to provide loans 

or any loan guarantees to any companies unless a whole series of 

conditions are met. And they include the administrator determining that there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the 

principle and interest by the borrower, and also that the amount 

of the obligation, when combined with the amount available to the 

borrower from other sources is actually sufficient to carry out the 

total development cost, and finally that the administrator shall 

charge fees sufficient to cover the cost—administrating the program. 

In contrast to the direct funding that the administration takes in 

their tack, this bill exposes the taxpayer, I believe, to minimum 

cost and minimum risk, but allows the amount of Federal funding 

allocated for the loan guarantees—potentially leverage a significantly greater amount of money. How much more will be set by 

OMB, who will have the chance to assess the risk involved with the 

loan guarantee programs. And since OMB is providing such large 

amounts to commercial providers in the President’s request, I have 

to assume that they consider the risk to be low, so they should be 

willing to provide a rate that allows a large amount of leverage 

from the available funding. But, of course, that is for OMB to determine, not for us. 

I also would just like to note that the gentleman’s amendment 

actually cuts into NASA’s budget, and I don’t think that is the intent of the Committee. In fact, you know, if I had been the President, I would have doubled NASA’s budget, frankly. I mean, we 

don’t have that many resources. I want to make sure that we keep 

all the dollars on the table that we do—that we have. So, thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Not to my right. To my left, Mr. Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief 

with this. I support the amendment as proposed. I also note that 

the guarantee as written here would require that the private entrepreneur come up with 25 percent of the money, and 75 percent 

would be the Federal loan guarantee. I just think that we do have 

a program. I agree with all that Mr. Grayson said about duplication. We are talking about companies that have really no track 

record at all receiving up to half a billion dollars of Federal loan 

guarantee. Perhaps they can pay it back, but we are looking at 75 

percent of the money being the government’s share here, and I 

think we would just be better off saying no and moving on. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on this issue? I 

am sure there will be further discussion as we go through—down 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
106 

the—amendments, but in terms of this amendment? If no, then a 

vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed 

say no. The no’s have it. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman GORDON. A recorded vote has been asked. The clerk 

will record the vote—poll the vote. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. 

Mr. Costello? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. 

Mr. Wu? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes no. 

Mr. Miller? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. 

Ms. Edwards? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes no. 

Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. 

Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. 

Mr. Rothman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson? 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. 

Mr. Davis? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler? 

Mr. CHANDLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. 

Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. 

Mr. Hill? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
107 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Dahlkemper? 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Ms. Dahlkemper votes aye. 

Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes aye. 

Ms. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Kosmas votes no. 

Mr. Peters? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi votes aye. 

Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. 

Mr. Lamar Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. 

Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
108 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes no. 

Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. 

Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson votes no. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rothman. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as a 

no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. 

Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone else that has not voted? Is 

there anyone who would like to change their vote? Ms. Woolsey is 

recognized. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move from a no to 

a yes. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone else who has not—already 

voted aye—the clerk will—the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 6 members vote aye and 23 members 

vote no. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
109 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASArc1.eps
110 

Chairman GORDON. The ayes have it. The amendment is not— 

I mean the no’s have it, the amendment is not agreed to. And the 

next amendment on the roster is the amendment offered by the 

gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Ms. KOSMAS. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 040, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 

gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is fair to say 

that all the discussion around amendments for today’s bill focus on 

our attempts to find a balance in what we are proposing to do. 

That is to say we want to ensure that we maintain America’s leadership with a NASA led vehicle, but we are looking for opportunities to increase the use of innovation and entrepreneurship. And 

this amendment proposes to do just that by suggesting we authorize and fund from within the exploration budget a flagship technology demonstration program. This would be based at the Johnson 

Space Center and at the Kennedy Space Center. Demonstration 

missions would be launched from Kennedy Space Center and utilize the expertise and the work force there, which has been my 

number one priority in the 19 months that I have been serving 

here. 

The Augustine Commission, as well as many previous commissions and studies, have identified the need to develop these technologies, such as an on orbit refueling, in site resource utilization, 

life support systems, and new propulsion methods in order to enable human space flight below low Earth orbit—beyond low Earth 

orbit, excuse me, beyond low-Earth orbit. Technologies such as on 

orbit fueling has the potential to significantly improve the performance of heavy lift vehicles while achieving appreciably lower total 

life cycle costs. The ability to utilize the resources at the destinations we intend to visit is also essential to conducting successful 

long duration exploration missions. 

The need to develop and prove these types of technologies is fundamental to the successful execution of an exploration program. My 

amendment proposes to fund this program at the same levels already approved by the Senate authorizers and appropriators in 

order to spur the development of these critical technologies. I urge 

you to support my amendment, and I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Kosmas, and Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. We have 

worked very hard to ensure that there is a follow-up program to 

the space shuttle that would assure the U.S. has a vibrant space 

exploration program. Gentlelady’s amendment will likely take 

money away from the task of developing the next generation of 

launch vehicles so we can reduce the gap as soon as possible. I 

think some of her proposed technology demonstrations would be 

useful, but I don’t believe most of us are willing to take money 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
111 

from the development of exploration vehicles to do that at this 

time. We do oppose the amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. While I am glad to see that there are some 

people here who are looking to build the future, rather than trying 

to just get by with today’s capabilities, and what the lady from 

Florida is suggesting as a priority for this budget is, again, very future oriented, and—as compared to simply spending money on a 

system that will not—well, let us put it this way, it is based on old 

concepts. She is taking money from part of the budget based on old 

concepts and taking—and trying to put the—put that money into 

developing new technologies in new ways to approach space exploration and space transportation. And it is—I happen to believe— 

anyway, we have had to talk about commercial. Now I happen to 

believe commercial is the way to go, but certainly we should be 

talking about new technologies is the way to go. 

And one of the big problems with the Constellation program and 

the Aries system, and spending money simply in that program, was 

that it was not developing new technology. And the lady is—and 

the money that is being funded in this bill will not even lead to 

the completion of that program. So at least what the lady is proposing is that we take money that is being spent in a way that will 

not lead to the completion of any project, and at least let us start 

developing these new technologies that will give us new capabilities 

for better approaches to space transportation. 

And I would not be supporting it if it just added more money, 

but I believe this is—now we are actually shifting money away 

from something that is less creative and will give less benefit in 

the end to America than developing these new concepts of space 

transportation, like refueling, which I believe, and I agree with the 

lady, would—will open up a whole new world, or a whole new universe, of exploration for humankind, if we perfect that approach, 

rather than just relying on the old approach, which is just building 

bigger rockets, bigger behemoths to launch into the air. Well, this 

will give us perhaps the same capability as building some big Constellation rocket by putting money into developing a system of refueling and other type of technologies that will expand our capabilities in a new way, rather than relying on the old ways of approaching space transportation. So I would ask my colleagues to join me 

in supporting this amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me point 

out that this bill does provide $5 billion over the next five years 

for new technologies, because we, you know, and I certainly agree 

with you that we want to look at—for those new technologies. But 

I can’t agree that this does not add additional expense. It actually 

adds $2 billion to the program, or it will pretty much gut much of 

the exploration program, as Mr. Hall has pointed out. And so for 

that, even though I am sympathetic to it in, you know, in a world 

with additional resources, I am afraid that we can’t afford it now. 

Is there further discussion? If no further discussion, then the vote 

occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The 

no’s have it. The amendment is not agreed to. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
112 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 065, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Luja ́n of New Mexico. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The 

Commercial Reusable Sub-Orbital Research program at NASA, 

known as CRuSR, is designed to allow students, businesses and researchers to fly experiments on board commercial sub-orbital space 

vehicles. The goal of the program is to facilitate access to near 

space by NASA sponsored researchers, engineers, technologists and 

educators. These flights provide researchers access to microgravity 

environments, which is far less costly than sending experiments 

into the International Space Station. The President’s budget request for NASA includes $15 million a year for the CRuSR program 

for 2011 through 2015, however, the original text of this of this bill 

only authorizes $1 million a year for CRuSR from the space technology authorization for 2011 and 2012. My amendment would 

strike the $1 million annual authorization for the CRuSR program 

from 2011 to 2012, removing the one million limit and leaving allocation of funding for CRuSR to the direction of the NASA administrator. This is not a new authorization, nor does it take away funding from any other authorizations in the bill. My amendment also 

clarifies management and other requirements of the program 

which are consistent with critical sub-orbital science missions. 

My home state of New Mexico is currently reaping the economic 

benefits of commercial sub-orbital space flight through our Spaceport America facility near Las Cruces. About 500 New Mexicans 

are now on the job, creating the first commercial spaceport in the 

world. Another 300 new jobs are expected this year. New Mexico’s 

spaceport is inspiring students to study math and science and pursue careers in STEM fields which will develop our future economy. 

Investments in programs like CRuSR and in public/private partnerships within NASA to support and develop a sub-orbital space 

flight will ensure that America continues to be a global leader in 

the space technology for the 21st century. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 

amendment. Thank you for your consideration. I yield back my 

time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n, for another good 

amendment. Does Mr. Hall wish to be recognized? 

Mr. HALL. I do. I would like to be. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall—— 

Mr. HALL. I don’t have to be. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. I was going to whisper to you that I support his 

amendment. I do plan to support the gentleman’s amendment. I 

have some talented young guys in my hometown of Rockwall, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
113 

Texas. It is the smallest county in Texas out of 254 counties. I hate 

to admit that anything is small, but right there in that small county, operate out of a little place called Caddo Mills Airport [ph], they 

have a company called Armadillo Aerospace, and I attended a celebration for them and recognition for them here. Didn’t know where 

I was going, didn’t know what I was going to say when I got there, 

but NASA had a prize program, and they had won a part of the 

prize program, and received a half a million dollars. And I have 

seen a video of some of their work. I hope to get out there and see 

them in person one of these days. They are going some very interesting things, and have some good ideas for commercial and reusable sub-orbital flight vehicles. 

I have had some concerns with aspects of the program, but I 

think Mr. Luja ́n’s amendment has improved the program, and it is 

likely to get help—likely to help some of these bright young people 

make good contributions to scientific research. I make no recommendations for my colleagues. They can vote the way they see 

fit, they are going to anyway, but for me, I am going to support 

Mr. Luja ́n’s amendment. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

I plan to support the gentleman’s amendment. 

I have some talented young guys in my hometown of Rockwall that operate out 

of the Caddo Mills Airport. They have a company called Armadillo Aerospace, and 

I have seen video of some of their work. I hope to get out there and see them in 

person one of these days. But they are doing some very interesting things and have 

some good ideas for commercial reusable sub-orbital flight vehicles. I have had some 

concerns with aspects of this program, but I think Mr. Luja ́n’s amendment has improved the program, and it is likely to help some of these bright young guys make 

good contributions to scientific research. I make no recommendation for my colleagues, they can vote the way they see fit, but as for me I will support Mr. Luja ́n’s 

amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and I think Mr. Luja ́n 

probably thanks you. If there is no further discussion on the 

amendment—oh, Ms. Kosmas is recognized. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very quickly, I 

want to speak in support of this amendment. The suborbital 

CRuSR program obviously provides many opportunities for NASA, 

university or private researchers, tourists and other Federal agencies. The thing that I have identified as my number one priority 

almost might be affected here, as these opportunities can use the 

shuttle landing strip and other facilities at Kennedy Space Center, 

and therefore my work force and the expertise that they have may 

be put to good use through the support of this program. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Kosmas. Does anyone else 

wish to be heard? If not, then the vote occurs on the amendment. 

All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun. Are you 

ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Dr. BROUN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 001, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
114 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Dr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was excited to hear you, 

as you made your opening remarks, about being fiscally responsible. And I want to thank you, Ranking Member Hall, Chairman— 

Chairwoman Giffords, and Congressman Olson, along with the 

staff for all of you all’s hard work in producing this bipartisan bill 

that will allow NASA to refocus its core mission in a fiscally responsible way. 

I know this has not been an easy task, and many difficult decisions had to be made. While I believe this bill is a good faith effort 

towards a balanced approach and addresses the right priorities, I 

am still concerned with the heavy burden of debt and the huge 

deficits looming before us. Therefore, I offer my amendment today 

that would authorize these programs for three years instead of five 

years, as the current language does. 

Again, I appreciate the strong bipartisan effort in developing this 

bill, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PAUL C. BROUN

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you, Ranking Member Hall, Chairwoman Gifford and Congressman Olson, along with staff, for all of your hard work in producing a bipartisan bill that will allow NASA to refocus on its core mission in a fiscally responsible manner. I know this has not been an easy task and many difficult 

decisions had to be made. 

While I believe this bill is a good faith effort towards a balanced approach and 

addresses the right priorities, I am still concerned with the heavy burden of debt 

and huge deficits looming before us. Therefore, I offer my amendment today, which 

would authorize these programs for three years, instead five years, as the current 

language does. 

Again, I appreciate strong bipartisan effort in developing this bill and urge my 

colleagues to support my amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Broun. I want to excite you 

some more in that I support your amendment. But I also hope— 

and part of that is because I hope in three years that there will 

be more money available, that we will have a better economy, and 

that we will be able to carry out things that Ms. Kosmas, Mr. Rohrabacher, and other good amendments that have been before us. 

Dr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? 

Chairman GORDON. Certainly, Dr. Broun. 

Dr. BROUN. I am excited that you accept my amendment. I have 

been trying to be very quiet over here, let Mr. Rohrabacher do— 

talk, but thank you, and I agree with you, and I associate myself 

with your last remarks about—— 

Chairman GORDON. You are always—— 

Dr. BROUN. —thank you so much, sir. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If—the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. 

Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. The 

next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
115 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 003, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman for five minute to explain his amendment. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, conspicuously absent from 

this legislation is any mention of the Constellation program. While 

that might suit the prerogative of the administration, it is not consistent with the intent of this Congress or this Committee. Congress has repeatedly affirmed its support for the Constellation program through the previous authorization bills and by the sentiments expressed by members on both sides of the aisle. 

I am not here to defend NASA’s mismanagement of its resources. 

Without question, budgetary constraints force us to re-evaluate 

how each program has been managed, but the wholesale elimination of Constellation will have detrimental effects on our struggling economy, set back our space program several years, and result in significant termination costs, while surrendering the 

progress that has been made in recent years. This amendment 

makes it clear that this Committee and this Congress continue to 

support the Constellation program. 

Now, what I am here to say is that I am afraid that the omission 

of the word Constellation in the text of this bill will be interpreted 

by the administration as saying that we are going back on what 

we have previously stated in statements and in authorization legislation that has been previously passed. And all this amendment 

does is to insert the words ‘‘Constellation program’’ and ‘‘after support for’’. So this makes it clear that this is not a 180 by the Committee, it is not a 180 by the Congress, and what we should be 

doing here, if we need to redirect and reprogram money, is to do 

it in the context of legislation that has been around for more than 

20—or 48 hours and open for amendment for only 24 hours. This is a big program. We spent $10 billion on it, and we do need 

to spend a little bit more time before either withdrawing support 

for Constellation or allowing the administration to say, well, since 

Congress didn’t mention Constellation, as they have in the past, I 

guess they have drawn back on it. There is no fiscal effect on this. 

This basically transfers the burden to NASA to come up here and 

to be a little bit more detailed on why they are doing this. Given 

the previous support and previous comments by members of this 

Committee, I would strongly urge members to adopt this amendment, yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR. 

Conspicuously absent from this legislation is any mention of the Constellation 

Program. While that may suit the prerogative of the Obama Administration, it is 

not consistent with the intent of this Congress or this committee. 

Congress has repeatedly affirmed its support for the Constellation program 

through the previous authorization bill and by the sentiments expressed by Members on both sides of the aisle. 

I am not here to defend NASA’s mismanagement of its resources. Without question, budgetary constraints force us to reevaluate how each program has been manVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:34 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
116 

aged, but wholesale elimination of Constellation will have detrimental effects on our 

struggling economy, set back our space program several years, and result in significant termination costs while surrendering the progress that has been made in recent years. 

My amendment makes clear that this committee and this Congress continue to 

support the Constellation program. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Let me point 

out that there have been numerous hearings, I think 19 hearings, 

on this program. This is not the Constellation program that was 

envisioned some time back. Simply because we simply do not have 

the money, and as Dr. Broun has pointed out, we are trying to live 

within our budget, this is a new program. And let me also point 

out, to the best of my knowledge, this Committee has never named 

a program. That is up to NASA. And so I would say that we should 

continue with that, and it is up to NASA to name—I am more interested in the content. This is a content that has provided good— 

a good balance, and I would suggest that we continue and reject 

the gentleman’s amendment. Is there further discussion? If not—— 

Mr. HALL. Yes, I—— 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. I would like to yield to Mr. Sensenbrenner, if he wants 

to say a word. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are 

not naming this program. We are using the program that NASA 

named. I fully agree that NASA has the prerogative to name programs. You know, we shouldn’t be saying that this is the Jim Sensenbrenner program or the Bart Gordon program and making 

monuments to ourselves. I am just referring to NASA’s own terminology in this amendment. This is very clear. You know, are we 

going to go back on the support for this program, or are we not? 

And all this does is insert NASA’s name in the list of things that 

we support. I thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, let me take up my time, if I might? 

We do name things after people and after programs. There is a certain Chairman of Science Committee that—I am going to name the 

Bart Gordon ARPA–E Foundation, if I live, and if I am here next 

year. And I don’t think it hurts to address or tip our hat to the 

word Constellation because that has been the battle cry of all us, 

that—keep Constellation and build on it, change whatever changes 

we had to make on it, but make it a NASA program, rather than 

loaning some bunch of people some money, not knowing if they are 

going to pay it back, and then they are going to charge the heck 

out of us for flying in one of the seats, not ever knowing that we 

will ever get our money back. We could call it Constellation Light 

or anything else, but I support the gentleman’s amendment. It is 

a simple amendment that reaffirms Congress’s support for the Constellation program. 

Constellation program has been a rallying cry for thousands of 

aerospace workers and former astronauts. Former astronauts came 

here, used the word Constellation time and again, and—Cernan 

and Armstrong, Stafford. And it means a lot to those old heroes of 

the past who came here before this Committee to take on the striking of a line through the word Constellation, that brought us here, 

that spawned this hearing. While this bill makes some important 

updates to the original Constellation program, it retains the key 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
117 

elements and focus of that vision. And that is what it is, it is a vision. I think it is important that we recognize, as a Congress, the 

legacy of this program. I think that the gentleman’s amendment 

does precisely that. I urge the passage of it, and I think you are 

going to hear from a lot of the old astronauts if we don’t put Constellation back, at least, into this program somewhere. Yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

I support the gentleman’s amendment. It is a simple amendment that reaffirms 

Congress’ support for the Constellation program. The Constellation program has 

been a rallying cry for thousands of aerospace workers and former astronauts. 

While this bill makes some important updates to the original Constellation program, it retains the key elements and focus of that vision. I think that it is important that we recognize as a Congress the legacy of this program. I think that the 

gentleman’s amendment does precisely that, and I urge its passage. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Let me just sort of conclude. We have got votes going on. I would support Constellation, 

but if we are going to call it Constellation, we need to fund it like 

Constellation. This program is not being funded like Constellation. 

This is—when you read the bill, this clearly is a hybrid with a lot 

of the Constellation investments that have been made, but it is 

something different. Once again, I think this Committee has never 

named a program. It is up to NASA. I think that Mr. Hall has a 

good idea of changing that precedent next year, and I would welcome him to do that in the context of what he was talking about. 

But we are here today, and so if there is no further discussion, 

then those in favor of the motion, say aye. Opposed, no. I think 

the—well, we are—I want to do the right thing here. Let us see. 

Let us have a show of hands. Let us just . . . 

Mr. HALL. Sounded like the ayes had it. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, that is what—let us have a show of 

hands. If—those that are in favor, say aye. Opposed, raise your 

hand. The no’s have it. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. 

Chairman GORDON. You can get it. You are bringing them back. 

The clerk will record the vote. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. 

Mr. Costello? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. 

Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. 

Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes no. 

Mr. Miller? 

[No response.] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
118 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. 

Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. 

Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes no. 

Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. 

Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. 

Mr. Rothman? 

Mr. ROTHMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. 

Mr. Matheson? 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. 

Mr. Davis? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler? 

Mr. CHANDLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. 

Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. 

Mr. Hill? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper? 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no. 

Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes no. 

Mrs. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Kosmas votes no. 

Mr. Peters? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
119 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye. 

Mr. Lamar Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. 

Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. 

Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes aye. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye. 

Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye. 

Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. 

Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson votes aye. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone who has not been recorded? 

Mr. Miller? Votes no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Lipinski? 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone else—clerk—record the vote. 

As she is adding it up—— 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 10 members vote aye and 19 members vote no. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
120 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASArc5.eps
121 

Chairman GORDON. No’s have it, the amendment is not agreed 

to, and when we come back we will proceed to—as—when we come 

back we will proceed with Mr. Olson’s amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, Mr.—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Do you have a—— 

Chairman GORDON. —Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Do you have a time that we are—we will come 

back? Do you have a specific time? 

Chairman GORDON. We—okay. Let us do—no. I mean, I am sure 

people would like to go to their offices, but I would like to get started 10 minutes after the last vote. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman GORDON. The Committee will come back to order. The 

next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, Pete Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 

and ask for its immediate consideration. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 034, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Olson of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, one of the strengths of our bill is that 

it seeks to maximize development of current investments and technology, including the Orion crew capsule and the Ares I launch vehicle. Unrecognized in our bill is the great progress being made in 

the spacesuit technology as well. The process of producing a new 

spacesuit in accordance with strict NASA oversight for safety and 

compatibility is well under way. 

My amendment would recognize those efforts in spacesuit development and life support technology by including them in the restructured exploration program. I ask my colleagues to support the 

amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PETE OLSON

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. This bill seeks to maximize development of current investments and 

technology, including the Orion crew capsule and Ares 1 crew launch vehicle, among 

other things, but great progress is being made in spacesuit technology as well. 

The process of producing a spacesuit in accordance with strict NASA oversight for 

safety and compatibility is well underway. This amendment would recognize those 

efforts in spacesuit development and life support technology. 

Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Olson, for a good amendment. Is there any further discussion? 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HALL. I support his amendment with some minor clarification to Section 202, the restructured exploration program, and simply directs NASA to include spacesuit development and related life 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
122 

support technology among the systems that should attempt to 

bring forward to the new restructured exploration program. Section 

202 calls out Ares I and the Orion crew vehicle. This amendment 

simply adds another of the Constellation-related technologies to be 

applied to the new crew transportation system at no additional 

cost. There is no cost associated with this amendment. It is a good 

provision. I urge all members to support it. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion, the vote is 

on the amendment. All in favor say aye, opposed, no. The ayes 

have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 041, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The continued and expedited development of NASA led heavy lift vehicle is critical to us 

for maintaining America’s international leadership in space exploration, and I think it is safe to say in the opinion of the members 

of this Committee, it is also integral to this particular piece of legislation. 

What my amendment does is to support and hasten that development by utilizing the investments we have already made by both 

the Air Force and other government entities as well as by increasing the competition to ensure that the use of NASA funding is as 

efficient and effective as possible. 

As currently written, the bill before us blocks out the use of 

many technologies in which the Federal Government has already 

invested. This amendment would allow NASA to consider the joint 

use of propulsion systems across civil, military and commercial vehicles which would enable efficiencies in production and in cost. 

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in order to ensure robust competition that will maximize Federal investments in 

the development of a heavy lift vehicle. And I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion? Let me just point 

out that we share the same objective of getting to heavy lift as soon 

as possible. But once again, we want to do it within the resources 

of NASA. My concern is that providing this joint effort of civil, national security, commercial has never been done, at least in this 

area, and think it could slow us down. Where we have seen it being 

done is in the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental 

Satellite System (NPOESS) program that wound up being an enormous waste of money and I am afraid demonstrated that sometimes the one-size-fits-all approach does not work. 

Is there further discussion? 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
123 

Mr. HALL. —since you mentioned that, let me—I am sure the 

gentlelady has the best intentions with this amendment, but I am 

not sure I understand what she is trying to do. We want NASA to 

move forward with their design and development work. I guess I 

would have to ask the gentlelady to explain what she is trying to 

either promote or restrict and would she expect NASA to delay its 

design and development work until NASA completes a study on the 

joint use of propulsion systems with the Air Force, commercial 

cargo carriers and others before they could proceed with vehicle design? NASA studied exploration architecture for years. I just worry 

that this amendment could be an unnecessary step. Would you care 

to comment, Ms. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Hall. To the contrary, what this is 

intended to do is take advantage of the kinds of innovation that 

have already been developed and are being used by both the Air 

Force and other government entities and to ensure that there is a 

robust competition in order to support and hasten and expedite the 

development by using those technologies that have already been 

developed and are being developed for other Federal agencies. 

Mr. HALL. I haven’t seen the amendment. I should have looked 

at it before asking any questions, but do you have the word shall 

in there? 

Ms. KOSMAS. Yes. I am sorry, yes, it does. It says the administrator shall take appropriate actions to ensure the long-term affordability and sustainability of the heavy lift launch vehicle, including 

consideration of joint use of propulsion systems across civil, national security and commercial vehicles. 

Mr. HALL. And would you expect NASA to delay its design and 

development work until NASA completes a study on the use of propulsion systems the Air Force or cargo carriers have—— 

Ms. KOSMAS. That certainly wasn’t my intention. My intention 

was for them to assess what is already being done out there and 

to ensure that there is competition in the procurement process that 

takes advantage of those things that are being developed or have 

already been developed by other Federal agencies. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you. I withdraw my problems with it. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say 

aye. Opposed, no. I guess we need a show of hands. All those in 

favor of the amendment raise your hand. Those opposed raise your 

hand. The no’s have it. The amendment is not agreed to. 

First let me say this. I notice that Ms. Jackson Lee has been in 

our audience for much of the day. She is a former member of this 

Committee, a valuable member of this Committee, and a member 

of the Aviation and Space Subcommittee, and she is not able to directly participate because of the rules of the House that she is no 

longer on our Committee but has been a great resource as we put 

the bill together. And we thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee, and hope to 

have your continued advice. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson. He is not here now. He 

just came to tell me that he is in his other committee at a point 

where he is asking questions. Mr. Hall and I talked earlier about 

not wanting to encourage people to have to wait until the end, but 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
124 

we all know we serve on more than one committee. And so if we 

come to a point where somebody’s amendment is appropriate but 

they are not here, then with joint agreement with Mr. Hall and I, 

they will be able to bring that amendment forward at the end of 

the proceedings. So we will pass on Mr. Grayson at this time and, 

I should say, unless someone wants to introduce it for him. 

If not, then the next amendment on the roster is an amendment 

offered by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Wilson. Are you ready to 

proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 034, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Wilson of Ohio and Ms. Fudge of Ohio. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The authorization legislation before the Committee today seeks to reaffirm our commitment to NASA as well as ensure that America remains the world’s 

leader in space and aeronautics. 

As a proud Blue Dog Member of Congress, it is a priority of mine 

to ensure that NASA makes full use of its vast existing resources, 

and the path forward outlined in this mark restructures our exploration program in a fiscally responsible manner. 

Many NASA facilities have recently been updated to reflect the 

testing demands of the missions outlined within this markup. Furthermore, this markup includes substantial funding to renovate existing facilities. It is the intent of my amendment to ensure that 

NASA utilize existing resources either in their current or renovated 

form and ensure that duplicative testing facilities are not built. 

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Fudge, would you like to—is there any 

further discussion? Mr. Wilson is recognized again. 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to withdraw my 

motion. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Wilson, and thank you for 

bringing that information to our attention. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 043, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment seeks 

to provide guidance and authority for the use of funds as proposed 

by the President to upgrade the Kennedy Space Center [KSC] to 

create a 21st century launch complex capable of more efficient and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
125 

more versatile operations for NASA, commercial and military 

users. Many of the facilities and technologies at KSC and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station are literally vintage. For instance, while 

we all have GPS on our Blackberries, the Eastern Range still operates using radar. There are many long-overdue upgrades that are 

necessary to support NASA’s next vehicle and to enable multiple 

users such as the military, suborbital vehicles and commercial 

launches. 

Expanding the capabilities on the space coast will leverage existing infrastructure and expertise and will allow for more effective 

and flexible operations. The modernization and utilization of KSC’s 

workforce, facilities and infrastructure by other users could lessen 

the negative impacts of the gap between the end of the shuttle program and the initiation of exploration activities. 

Additionally, the success of commercial space and eventual 

NASA vehicle will help to ensure that the maintenance of our 

unique workforce continues. As you know, it is one of my highest 

priorities. But to enable this, we must bring KSC into the 21st century. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, 

and I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlelady’s amendment. 

It just directs NASA administrator to carry out a program preparing the infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center needed to 

support the exploration program authorized by this very bill. It 

also requires the administrator to provide a report to Congress 

within 180 days with an implementation plan, and the amendment 

also directs NASA to do a study on an implementation plan to 

make goals established under the 21st century space launch complex initiative. No direction is given to implement the plan. Rather, 

it calls for a report described in the initiative needed to meet the 

goals, a description of joint initiative with the U.S. Air Force and 

a timetable. 

I think this amendment is very worthwhile and urge members to 

support it. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I certainly agree. This 

is an excellent amendment. There is a unique workforce in that 

area. They are under a lot of stress now. I think this is an excellent 

amendment to help really maintain that workforce for NASA and 

our country. 

Is there further discussion? If there is no further discussion on 

the amendment, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have 

it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Peters. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? Well, Mr. Peters was here. So we will treat 

Mr. Peters as we mentioned earlier and move now to the next 

amendment on the roster, an amendment offered by the gentlelady 

from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. Are you ready to proceed? 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 038, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
126 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we all agree 

that the extension of the life of the International Space Station 

through 2020 is a very important initiative and it serves to maximize the $100 billion investment already made in the International 

Space Station. 

However, it is extremely important that we determine what 

parts and what components we might need to deliver to the International Space Station, especially in the case of large, heavy replacement systems and structures. This is to ensure that the promise to extend the International Space Station to 2020 is not just an 

empty gesture. 

It is important to remember that to this point, decisions about 

which instruments and equipment were delivered to the ISS were 

based on the assumption of the need to support the space station 

only through 2015, not through 2020. 

Right now we have no answers as to how we will get the equipment necessary to extend the life of the International Space Station 

without the shuttle. This amendment would direct the administrator to review and report to Congress on the components needed 

to fully service and support the extension of the space station. 

Right now 10 shuttle flights worth of flight-ready payloads averaging between 40,000 and 50,000 pounds per flight are sitting in 

storage warehouses ready to fly and ready to use, over 1,400 parts 

and pieces of equipment. We don’t 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 these items 

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. 

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and require 

NASA to quickly report back on what additional resources and 

equipment are needed to fully utilize the International Space Station through 2020, on how to deliver this equipment to the space 

station. I urge your support, and I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I originally opposed this amendment 

because it contained an unfunded provision to keep shuttle contracts open for the entire fiscal year 2011, but since the gentlelady 

has removed that provision, I think it would be helpful for NASA 

to thoroughly review the needs of the space station and report back 

to us. I support the amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I agree, this is a common sense, constructive amendment that will help make NASA 

more efficient, and I agree. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
127 

Is there further discussion? If there is no further discussion, the 

vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. 

The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster, number 17, is offered by the 

gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am withdrawing that amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Edwards, and thank you for 

the input and the information. 

The next amendment is number 18. It is offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 039, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I hope the members on 

both sides of the aisle listen to this argument very carefully. 

The adoption of this amendment is essential if this bill is to work 

because if we do not give a preference to either U.S. Governmentfunded or U.S. private-sector funded launch capability, the agreements that NASA may have in mind with the Russians will simply 

allow the Russians to underbid our private sector launch capability, 

and we will probably end up outsourcing more of our launch capability to the Russians. They don’t have to establish a market price 

for their launch capability, and we will continue going down a road 

that was started over 15 years ago during the reign of Administrator Dan Golden where much of our aerospace capabilities ended 

up not being funded because we had to fund the Russians to keep 

the International Space Station going. 

Now, I believe that we need a public and private partnership, 

and during my chairmanship of the Committee, former Congressman and Chairman Bob Walker’s commercial space bill was passed 

and signed into law by President Clinton. 

We need to avoid duplication of costs, but we also have to recognize that the 800-pound gorilla out there that does not have to 

charge for their services and a market-based price is Russia. And 

as a result, without this amendment giving preference to launch 

capability made in the USA, either by the government or by American-based private sector companies, we simply will not be able to 

compete. 

And all this amendment does is it says that if there is a capability on the part of American public sector or private contractors, 

they shall be given preference. And this is the only way that the 

loan guarantees that are contained in this bill will end up working. 

It is the only way that we will be able to develop a viable and 

healthy private launch capability not using government funds but 

using the inventiveness of the private sector. I think you could call 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
128 

this amendment the prevention of outsourcing launch capability to 

Russia and perhaps in the future to China, and I would strongly 

urge its adoption. Yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR. 

A $100 billion authorization may be commonplace for this Congress, but it still 

bothers me to be asked to vote on a triple-digit billion dollar budget that I received 

barely more than 48 hours ago. 

The Majority, following the President’s lead, is boldly going where our space program has never gone before and they’re doing it by giving many if not most Members of the Committee little over 24 hours to read the bill and draft amendments. 

Among the bill’s most blatant inefficiencies is that it places the primary responsibility for Space travel in the private sector, but mandates that the government 

maintain a separate but equally capable capacity for space travel. Further, it places 

reliance on Russia to handle space transport of U.S. personnel and cargo. 

Future space travel will require a public and private partnership as well as cooperation with international partners, but surely there is a way to share responsibilities rather than duplicate costs. I’m, disappointed that Members did not have more 

time with this legislative language to help strike a more appropriate and cost effective balance. 

My current amendment addresses only a small part of this problem by ensuring 

that U.S. pubic and commercial ventures take priority over international partners 

when transporting cargo to space. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for that constructive amendment. Is there further discussion? 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. This is almost a buy America deal. I support the gentleman’s amendment. It is sensible that we first promote and encourage our own United States companies, very capable companies 

and capabilities before relying on foreign partners. I urge its passage. 

Chairman GORDON. I agree. It is a sensible Sensenbrenner 

amendment. 

If there is no further discussion, all in favor of the amendment 

say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is passed. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 042, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you and the 

other Committee members are aware of the fact that I have worked 

very hard and I have articulated many times today that we are 

seeking solutions that minimize the human spaceflight gap. This is 

important not only to our workforce but to maintaining American’s 

leadership in human space exploration. And as I often say, maintaining that ability to inspire the next generation to engage in 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and that inspiVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:34 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
129 

ration has served us well for the last 50 years and I think will continue to do so. 

Last year I succeeded in eliminating the hard deadline for the 

shuttle retirement in order to ensure that all scheduled missions 

were flown. I have also been pushing to officially manifest what is 

currently designated STS–135, the Launch On Need mission. Providing for the launch of this mission, which will have already been 

processed and ready to go in support of STS–134, will have several 

benefits which I believe are essential and a worthwhile investment. 

As I have said, this mission will help to minimize the spaceflight 

gap by stretching out the human spaceflight capabilities into mid2011. This will ease the transition for the unique and highly skilled 

professional workforce, not just at the Kennedy Space Center in 

Florida but across the country. Many have expressed concerns 

about the difficult time we would have in reestablishing this valuable and critical workforce should it be disbanded. Maintaining a 

large portion of the workforce and the infrastructure into 2011 will 

provide a better transition and will allow us to be preparing the 

follow-on program which NASA will be working to define during 

this period. 

This Launch On Need flight will also help to ensure that the 

International Space Station is both serviced and utilized to its best 

potential. The extended life of the International Space Station enables us to fulfill our need to explore by serving as a test bed for 

exploration technology development, and it will help us to address 

the needs here on earth through physical and life sciences research. But we can only ensure its viability for a longer lifetime by 

using the shuttle, our only domestic capability to deliver large 

spare parts and replacement hardware that were cut from the 

manifest when the decision was made to arbitrarily cancel the 

shuttle program in 2010. 

A list of the hardware which is fully built and stored at Kennedy 

Space Center is not attached but here in my hands for your consideration. This additional launch provides the most risk-free 

logistical support in the next year. We should take this critical step 

to maximize the $100 billion investment given the recent decision 

to extend the life of the International Space Station to 2020. 

I urge you to support my amendment and to authorize this critical shuttle mission in order to preserve our workforce and maximize the investments we have made in the International Space 

Station, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kosmas follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
130 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SUZANNE M. KOSMAS


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTShr5781a.eps hr5781b.eps
131 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTShr5781c.eps hr5781d.eps
132 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTShr5781e.eps hr5781f.eps
133 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Kosmas, thank you very much. You have 

stated very well the need for this Launch On Need shuttle mission. 

It provides us a great deal of extra flexibility and again helps to 

maintain the good workforce that is in your area. 

Is there further discussion on this? If not, all in favor say aye. 

Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

Mr. Peters, as mentioned earlier, if someone is not there when 

their amendment comes that we will take in consideration that we 

all have a variety of different committees to attend. Yours was just 

a couple before, and so we want to move back to your amendment, 

if there is no objection. What amendment is that? Mr. Peters, are 

you prepared to proceed? 

Mr. PETERS. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 050, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Peters of Michigan. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we pursue human 

spaceflight beyond low earth orbit, the safety and well-being of our 

astronauts is of course paramount to all of us. 

However, I also remain concerned about the research recently 

proposed by NASA that seeks to determine the effects of deep space 

radiation in humans using a research method that has not been 

employed in decades, radiation testing on non-human primates. 

NASA already possesses the results of 40 years of radiation experiments performed on non-human primates by NASA, the Air Force 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTShr5781g.eps
134 

and other military agencies, and I have concerns that additional 

Federal funding of this research is duplicative, inhumane and will 

not yield significantly new results to advance the safety of our astronauts. 

Primates and specifically the squirrel monkeys proposed for this 

research differ significantly from humans in psychological and genetic traits, and the proposed studies on monkeys employ single 

doses of heavy ionizing radiation which may not effectively replicate the multiple doses and mix of radiation exposures that humans will encounter when they are in deep space. 

Certainly one of the best parts of NASA’s space exploration program is the way it has driven our technology forward, bringing us 

great innovations like microprocessors, Velcro and microwaves. We 

should also strive for equal technological advances in accompanying 

research programs instead of using technologies and methodologies 

that are over 40 years old. 

Historical and ongoing studies included those funded by NASA 

and the Department of Energy already use validated, non-animal 

methods to determine the effects of radiation on human tissues. 

These include vitro studies, computational science, space radiation 

modeling, exposure data and decades of follow-up on space programs. 

The European Space Agency has already rejected the use of primates in research experiments, and NASA aerospace engineer 

April Evans resigned her position on the International Space Station program in protest of this testing, calling it a step backwards 

for NASA’s animal testing record. 

We have an amendment before you. I have had some discussions, 

Mr. Chairman, with some other members of the Committee that 

had some concerns, and I do have a modification. Is it appropriate 

to talk about the modification at this time? 

Chairman GORDON. Well, Mr. Peters, since we have that modification and everyone hasn’t had a chance to see it, that needs to 

be copied, distributed to everyone and so with unanimous consent, 

I will ask you to temporarily withdraw your amendment until it 

can be shown to everyone, and then we will bring you back up at 

a later date. 

Mr. PETERS. That is fine. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. With no objection, so ordered. And now we 

will move onto the next amendment on the roster which is the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Mr. OLSON. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk and ask for its immediate consideration. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 031, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Olson of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This amendment has already been discussed during the previous amendment 

of my colleague from Florida, and so I will be very brief. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
135 

I strongly support the exploration space operations budget and as 

such wanted to offer alternative methods of paying for the Launch 

On Need flight. I support the Launch On Need flight if it is necessary, safe and paid for. 

For example, I am frustrated that funds continue to be budgeted 

for post-shuttle workforce transition from within NASA’s own 

budget, the workforce transition funds and other departments, the 

Department of Commerce, for example, in unspent stimulus funds 

that should be made available to assist the workforce. Forcing 

NASA to use their scarce financial resources this way seems 

counterintuitive to me. But I will withdraw my amendment, realizing that this issue has already been voted on. I just wanted to 

offer an alternative path to ensure we have a viable, fiscal responsible plan to execute a Launch On Need flight if necessary. 

I withdraw my amendment and yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PETE OLSON

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. There are two flights left of the space shuttle. When that last shuttle, 

STS–134, launches from the Kennedy Space Center, there will be another shuttle 

stack ready for launch in case a rescue. is needed. This amendment would authorize 

the flight of that final shuttle stack, upon the completion of STS–134. 

The first part of my amendment deals with the need for such a flight. It would 

authorize the NASA Administrator to determine if this flight is necessary and if it 

is safe. Although I have been informed that both are true, those are not the purview 

of Congress to decide. Paying for this flight, however, is. 

And in that regard I had a very difficult time determining how we can free up 

the resources. The exercise of scouring this budget for funds was a stark reminder 

of the extremely limited budgetary flexibility this agency has and it frankly saddens 

me that this agency that has achieved so much has such limited means to achieve 

its mission. 

My amendment would use funds from Earth Science. This bill calls for an increase above the President’s request of $500M. The agency’s earth science budget 

is already robust, and growing. Funds would also come from the 21st Century 

Launch Complex, an area that I feel can be absorbed in the increased Exploration 

budget, and defers the Loan Guarantee program for Commercial Crew of $100M for 

one year. 

One of the smaller pay-fors in this amendment to me is one of the most egregious. 

We have $40 million for post-shuttle workforce transition. Now make no mistake, 

I do not disparage these efforts, but I frankly feel it is offensive that this money 

is coming from the Agency’s budget. There are funds at the Department of Commerce, for example, and unspent stimulus funds at that, that should be made available to assist the workforce. Forcing the agency to use scarce resources this way is 

fiscally irresponsible. 

Make no mistake, I considered using funds from Exploration and Space Operations, but the Exploration funds are there to provide the follow on generation of 

vehicles for this workforce. And to take money from Space Operations to pay for this 

flight seemed counterintuitive when their budget is as tight as is. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m not trying to fall into the ‘‘take from science to pay for human 

space flight’’ conundrum. I’m asking that we recognize across the agency that authorizing this flight has benefits worthy of our consideration. I’m asking you to support this flight with the understanding that although it’s the last flight, it won’t be 

the final contribution to the International Space Station. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Olson, and thank you for 

your continued constructive role you are playing in this important 

bill. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. WU. I am, Mr. Chairman. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
136 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 051, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Wu of Oregon. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment makes a 

very simple but very important improvement to the bill, and it directs NASA to take into account geographic diversity when competing out where to locate retired space shuttles. 

The space program is a truly national treasure that belongs to 

each and every American. I believe that the process for selecting 

locations for the retired shuttle fleet should reflect this national interest in space and in our space shuttle. The shuttle has played a 

central role in our Nation’s aerospace history, and I know that 

there are deserving institutions across the country that have expressed strong interest in having one of these unique vehicles. 

I think that it is very, very important that NASA’s selection process be an even playing field for all institutions hoping to host a retired shuttle. My amendment is aimed at bringing the underlying 

bill closer to achieving that ideal. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that although some parts of the 

country do not have a substantial direct space connection and do 

not have personnel there or facilities there, that the support for our 

space program comes from the taxpayers of this country across the 

country, regardless of whether these facilities exist and that a fair 

competition for these vehicles, even without winning the award, 

but just a fair competition maintains that interest, maintains that 

support for American human spaceflight. And I think that that is 

absolutely crucial in this day and age of constrained resources. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. I support the gentleman’s amendment. It directs 

NASA to consider ‘‘geographic diversity’’ among other considerations as it seeks to find permanent homes from the retired orbiter 

fleet. This is a subject that is really discussed a lot. It has been 

within this Committee and on the streets. I agree with his premise 

that the orbiters needed to be located among different regions of 

the country. It would give our citizens some ease of access to visit 

these very marvelous machines. East Texas, West Texas, Northeast 

Texas, even the 4th District of Texas, even the panhandle would 

make excellent homes for the orbiter fleet. 

I believe his amendment makes good sense, and I urge members 

to support it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

I support the gentleman’s amendment. 

It directs NASA to consider ‘geographic diversity’ among other considerations as 

it seeks to find permanent homes for the retired Orbiter fleet. I agree with his 

premise that the Orbiters need to be located among different regions of the country 

to give our citizens some ease of access to visit these marvelous machines. East 

Texas, West Texas, even the Panhandle, would make excellent homes for the Orbiter fleet. I believe his amendment makes good sense, and I urge Members to support it. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
137 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, all in favor 

say aye. Oh, excuse me, Ms. Kosmas is recognized. 

Ms. KOSMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak only on 

behalf of the workforce in the Kennedy Space Center who have 

processed and launched every shuttle launch that has taken place, 

and I would like to say that they have the shuttle system in their 

DNA as they have been doing it for literally generations, and I 

think it is most appropriate that one of the orbiters stay in Central 

Florida. You can call it Central Florida, North Central Florida, 

West Central Florida, Kennedy Space Center, whatever suits Mr. 

Hall is fine by me. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Kosmas. As I understand it, 

this amendment would not rule out that likelihood. 

Is there further discussion? If no, all in favor of the amendment 

say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed 

to. 

Now we have here the 22nd amendment, the next amendment on 

the roster, is offered by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Wilson. Are 

you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is 

at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 033, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Ms. Fudge of Ohio and Mr. Wu of 

Oregon. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dayton in my home 

State of Ohio is known as the birthplace of aviation. I am very 

proud of the contributions that some of our state heroes have made 

to flight, including Wilbur and Orville Wright, John Glenn, Neil 

Armstrong. Given NASA Glenn’s significant contributions to space 

flight as well as the contributions of numerous Ohio companies, I 

think that Ohio strongly deserves consideration as the permanent 

location for one of the space shuttles once they are permanently retired. 

However, I am concerned that language contained in this mark 

would effectively eliminate any chance Ohio has of competing for 

one of the space shuttles. The language included at the end of Section 223 appears to give preference to locations with an historical 

relationship in either the launch, flight operations or processing of 

the space shuttle orbiters. 

I believe that the inclusion of some of this language would negatively impact states such as Ohio, California, Washington, Illinois, 

Oregon and New York, and the supposedly competitive process to 

obtain a space shuttle. Either this is a competitive procedure as 

said in line 17 and 18 of this mark or it is not. And I believe that 

inclusion of this language would unjustly penalize Ohio and many 

other states in efforts to bring a retired shuttle orbiter to their 

state. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
138 

Therefore, my amendment would remove the priority consideration language for organizations with a launch flight operations or 

processing role and once again level the playing field for this competition. I thank the Chair and yield back the remainder of my 

time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Olson is recognized. 

Mr. OLSON. I speak in opposition to the amendment. I admire 

and respect my colleague’s position, Congresswoman Fudge and 

Congressman Wilson, but I believe that striking this language is 

unnecessary. 

I don’t feel that it is unreasonable to consider the efforts of over 

30 years of launching, processing and managing the shuttle program to determine the final location of an orbiter once the flights 

are complete. It should come as no surprise to anyone that I believe 

that people of Houston in particular have earned the right to house 

one of these orbiters, and every member of the Texas congressional 

delegation agrees with me. And so do the students of the Clear 

Creek Independent School District, the school district that serves 

the Johnson Space Center. Every student from Kindergarten to 

12th grade was invited to draw a picture or write a letter to Administrator Bolden extolling the virtues of Houston as the home for 

an orbiter. 

Chairman GORDON. Would the gentleman yield for just a moment? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Chairman GORDON. I see that I have a bill across the hall. I am 

going to have to leave. Let me just say that reluctantly I have to 

oppose this amendment. I think it undermines a good balance that 

we have had in this bill, and the current language is not mandatory to go anyplace. But I think it is a good balance, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully disagree 

with him, and even though I grew up nearby, again I was struck 

how exploration is a part of their everyday lives. These people 

interact with their neighbors every day, and because they are their 

neighbors, they are coaches. And for many, they are moms and 

dads. They grew up with the program that began before each one 

of them were born, and I am not going to go on further because 

I know we can go down the line and every member can talk about 

the merits of an entity or school or museum in their district. I ask 

my colleagues to remember what the first word that has been said 

on every significant space mission we have had, Houston. 

And so with great respect for my colleagues from Ohio, I oppose 

this amendment. The original language does not restrict, it rewards. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. I yield back. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. The Chair recognizes Ms. Fudge. 

Mr. WILSON. I would just like to respond to the statement of the 

first word said, and you are right, it was Houston. But the guy who 

said it is from Ohio. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
139 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Ms. Fudge, please. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, would support this 

amendment because it does strike certain language in the competitive considerations for the disposition of the decommissioned orbiter vehicles. It amends the priority consideration given to locations with a historical relationship with the launch, with flight operations or processing of the orbiters to allow for priority consideration for all locations with a historical relationship with the orbiters. 

And with all due respect to my friends from Florida and Texas, 

I think the rest of us would like a fair opportunity to compete. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. The Chair will recognize 

Ranking Member Hall. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you, and I am willing for you to compete. I 

think under the language that is in the bill you certainly would get 

to compete, and you quote Wilbur and Orville. I knew both of them, 

and I really believe they want it in East Texas. 

But to help this Committee and to help us all stay together and 

to help us try to keep down so much talk on each of these amendments and so much red tape. I would report to you that Wilbur and 

Orville’s first contract with the government was one page handwritten, the tilt rotor, the tilt wing, that you don’t fly straight up 

and out. Just the paperwork alone weighs 22,000 pounds on that. 

So maybe we are letting it get away from us. Whether it is in East 

Texas, North Texas or wherever it is, I think we have a good program for it. This amendment strikes key language in the bill that 

is intended to give priority consideration for the disposition of the 

shuttle to eligible applicants who can demonstrate a historical relationship with either the launch, flight operations or processing of 

the orbiters. It only makes sense that in deciding the fate of the 

orbiters, the NASA administrator should give special consideration 

to those eligible communities whose livelihood has depended on the 

program for decades. While the shuttles are a national treasure, 

they hold special value for the people who built, operated and 

launched them into space. These are the men and women who 

work day and night to ensure that our astronauts were able to 

safely travel in space and assemble the incredible International 

Space Station. 

We honor them, their families and their efforts through this provision that is on the books. I join the Chairman and urge the members to vote no on this amendment. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Hall. The Chair recognizes Mr. 

Wu. 

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to express 

how strongly I feel about this amendment. I have been a strong 

proponent of American human spaceflight, and that is with no connection for the constituents that I serve, other than the vision of 

Americans going into space. It is important to our Nation as a 

whole, and the dream that it breathes in every child in America 

and for a lot of adults also. Those regions that have current facilities, that have a lot of employment, that have workers who have 

served America well, they have been well-rewarded for those efforts. Taxpayers across this entire country have paid for these efVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:34 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
140 

forts. The economic benefits have been concentrated in a few 

places. Surely the opponents of this amendment would not begrudge the rest of America some participation in the dream, and 

that is what it is about. 

A lot of development occurred in Huntington Beach, California. 

But are you going to deny Southern California a fair shot at having 

an orbiter? I don’t know how much taxes New York pays, but I suspect that it is substantial. But I think that denying folks in New 

York an opportunity to have an orbiter is unconscionable. And I 

admit that the chances of having an orbiter in Portland or Seattle 

or in Oregon are maybe a little bit slight, but I think my constituents would like to believe that they have a fair shot at this because 

they were denied an opportunity to work on the shuttle in the first 

place. This is a travesty. This is an absolute travesty. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Wu. 

Mr. HALL. Was he for it or against it? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. The Chair will recognize Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me identify myself with that last 

outburst. 

Mr. WU. If the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will. 

Mr. WU. I have learned from the best. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Let me just note that California did 

play a major role in the development of the orbiter and the space 

shuttle. I remember when I was a young reporter, one of the first 

stories I covered was going to Downy where they had the very first 

mock-up of the shuttle, and there it was, right there, in the heart 

of Southern California. I walked into this big facility, and there it 

was. And Senator John Tunney was having a press conference to 

announce his support of the shuttle program. And as my colleague 

noted, many of the components not only were from Southern California but to my hometown as well, Huntington Beach, very much 

involved with developing the technologies in parts of the shuttle. 

And for us to be, say, fenced off from having this honor of hosting 

what was left of this program, I mean, it is unconscionable. And 

I think that all states should have a say, and as my colleague stated, all the taxpayers participating in financing this. And I know 

that the people in California, a lot of people in California have 

played a role in actually building it and developing the technology. 

So I would be very much in favor of this amendment because I 

think it is fair to everybody and certainly it is unseemly to have 

certain states say no, we are going to have the leverage on saying 

who gets some of the credit or who gets to show their children the 

shuttle now that the program is over. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. The Chair will recognize Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I do not agree with the outburst. I recognize the sincere emotion, but I want to say that the 

space exploration has been some of the most important and productive research for this Nation. Every single living human being has 

gained from it. People move from all over the country in various 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
141 

places where all of this work was going on. All of it didn’t go on 

in the same place. 

So I don’t know why we are doing all this talking about where 

these unused pieces of metal will be. We all can read. We all know 

that we all had a hand in the development, and I think it is an 

unnecessary waste of time to be fussing over this. Thank you. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Is there any further discussion? 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Madam Chairwoman, one final comment 

please. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just want to—— 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Actually, Mr. Smith, would you consider yielding 

to Mr. Olson? Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you to my colleagues from Texas, Madam 

Chairwoman. I just want to point out, again, I really appreciate my 

colleagues’ comments in opposition to it, and I don’t want to be 

something where we are not being fair to other states, and I don’t 

think that is the case with the language that launch flight, operations and processing should be considered. 

I also ask you to consider the value of the shuttle being at a 

place like we have at Space Center Houston because you can see 

the entire history of human spaceflight right there. I mean you can 

take children, your grandchildren to the facility. You can see the 

Mercury Redstone. You can see the Gemini rocket. You can see a 

Saturn V in a hanger, an unbelievable sight. And to have a space 

shuttle there complementing that, it gives the American public just 

a complete appreciation for how far we have come in human 

spaceflight. You see that little, tiny Mercury rocket and realize that 

we actually flew our first astronauts in space on that thing and 

what we have evolved to with the shuttle, again, you can’t underestimate that. There is going to be a competition. We are just asking for consideration for the Johnson Center, the Kennedy Center, 

the Marshall Center, all the centers, California as well, what they 

have done. But I think it is important if you look at it in the big 

context. It really is something that matters to the American people. 

We can give to our youth a real understanding of how far we have 

come, and they can feel the pride we felt on July 20, 1969, when 

the man who testified here a couple of months ago, Neil Armstrong, 

put that foot on the moon and said, ‘‘One small step for man, one 

giant leap for mankind,’’ and I know where he was from. Thank 

you. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Olson. 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Olson. 

This Chair recognizes Mr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. I want to associate myself with remarks of Mr. Wu. 

You know, there has been a lot of talk in this institution about the 

need to do away with earmarks, the idea being that earmarks 

somehow prejudice spending in one direction or another and unduly restrict competition in favor of powerful individuals, be they 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
142 

in the House or Senate. This language as currently exists that 

would be corrected by the gentleman from Oregon’s amendment, 

the underlying language sounds sure an awful lot like an earmark 

to me. And I just would question how those who are opposed to earmarks can in good conscience support this. You know, there is a 

little place called Boeing up north that had a fair bit to do with 

the history of aviation. They have got a magnificent air and space 

museum. It is proximal to a whole lot of Americans, and there is 

a long history of flight there as well. 

And in contrast to the underlying language, the language Mr. 

Wu is offering is not an earmark. It is calling for fair competition. 

He is just saying we ought to have a real fair competition, not some 

very cleverly drafted language. He, Mr. Wu, to his credit, does not 

offer language saying it shall go to a particular aviation museum 

located in a Pacific Northwest state. He hasn’t done that. He has 

just said, let us have a fair and objective competition, and I think 

that is right and there are hosts of areas in this country. And I 

agree with geographical diversity. I want my kids to be able to go 

home somewhere and see a space shuttle nearby, and if the underlying language passes instead of this amendment, I think that is 

going to be improbable. And I respect the long and proud tradition 

of all my colleagues who represents districts where these were constructed, but I will tell you, with respect to the gentlelady from 

Texas, I don’t consider the space shuttle a hunk of metal. When I 

go to the Smithsonian Institution down the street here and I can 

look at the Mercury capsule and the Gemini capsule, it blows me 

away. It literally takes my breath away to think a human being got 

in that and went into space. 

I was just there two weeks ago with my family who flew out for 

the 4th of July celebration, and I took all my nephews and nieces 

and we walked there and we looked at that, and I told them the 

story. And I want to be able to do that at least somewhat more 

proximal. 

With that, I commend the gentleman from Oregon and urge the 

passage of his amendment. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Baird. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? No further discussion? The vote will 

occur on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed 

say no. The no’s appear to have it. 

Mr. WU. I ask for a recorded vote. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Okay. The Clerk will call a roll call vote. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. 

Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes aye. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes aye. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

The CLERK. I just want to be clear. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. No? Okay. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
143 

Ms. Woolsey? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes aye. 

Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes aye. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes aye. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes aye. 

Ms. Giffords? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. 

Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes aye. 

Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. 

Mr. Tonko? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson? 

Mr. MATHESON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes aye. 

Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes no. 

Mr. Chandler? 

Mr. CHANDLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. 

Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes aye. 

Mr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes aye. 

Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes aye. 

Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson votes aye. 

Ms. Dahlkemper? 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Dahlkemper votes aye. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
144 

Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes no. 

Ms. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Kosmas votes no. 

Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes aye. 

Mr. Garamendi? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Garamendi votes aye. 

Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF TEXAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith votes no. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. 

Mr. Ehlers? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert? 

Ms. BIGGERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. 

Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. 

Mr. Inglis? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes no. 

Mr. Broun? 

The CLERK. [No response.] 

Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson votes no. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
145 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rothman is not recorded. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes aye. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone else that would like to be recorded? If not, the Clerk will report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, I have 18 members voting aye and 

14 members voting no. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
146 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASArc2.eps
147 

Chairman GORDON. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed 

to. 

The next amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman 

from Florida, Mr. Grayson. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 079, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Grayson of Florida. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a continuing effort on my part to get a simple answer to a simple question which is where are these commercial entities that seek to supplant NASA in doing launches of human beings into space, where 

they will begin those launches from? I asked this question of the 

NASA administrator a few months ago. He told me that he had 

been assured by every single commercial launcher that the commercial launches that they would want to do would take place from 

the Kennedy Space Center in Central Florida. That makes perfect 

sense to me. The government has invested tens of billions of dollars 

in development manned space programs in Central Florida. There 

are thousands and thousands of people who devoted their working 

lives to the manned space program in Central Florida. So I think 

that is the logical answer, but when I pressed to get specifics or 

even some sort of written confirmation of that, the NASA administrator left me hanging. 

So this amendment is my effort to follow up on that. I see some 

hope, Mr. Chairman, that this may not need to come to a vote because I am still hoping that the NASA administrator will give me 

the specifics that I am looking for. 

So I intend to take this up later on in the legislative process, but 

for now I withdraw this amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Grayson, and you had given 

notice earlier that you had to—I think you were asking questions 

in your other committee. So if there is no objection, since you are 

here, we will go back to your earlier amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, would you refresh my time? 

Chairman GORDON. Does the gentleman have an amendment at 

the desk? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 080, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Grayson of Florida. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are now facing 

what has been referred to as the dual track, the two tracks, two 

different ways to go forward with manned spaceflight under 

NASA’s wing. One way is to continue what we have been doing for 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
148 

half-a-century which is to have government operations launch man 

into space. The other is to try to develop that capability through 

commercial entities. 

I think that both are possible, both are conceivable. Only one of 

those is actually proven and demonstrated, but I can imagine the 

possibility of it happening in the future that commercial entities 

will one day have that capability. 

What I don’t understand is why we should load the dice in favor 

of those commercial entities. The government frequently comes 

across this distinction. In the Defense Department it is known as 

the make or buy decision. Do you make something or do you buy 

it? For 50 years now, we have been making manned spaceflight at 

NASA, and now the possibility apparently is arising that we might 

conceivably one day be able to buy it. That is the decision that has 

been made over the years in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A–76 which basically says if it is better 

to make it, you make it. If it is better to buy it, you buy it. And 

that is the rule throughout the government, including the rule 

right now in NASA. 

As I read this bill, this bill would change that rule. It would put 

a thumb on the scale in favor of commercial entities which frankly 

don’t seem to deserve it. As I said before, they may or may not ever 

develop this capability. Why we should be biased in their favor is 

something I find hard to understand but I see in four different locations in this bill that is exactly what is happening. For instance, 

if you turn to page 25, you will see the language is follows. If one 

or more United States commercial entities are certified to provide 

ISS crew transportation and rescue services, the crew transportation system developed under this section shall be available as a 

backup ISS crew transportation rescue service as needed but shall 

not be utilized as the primary means of ISS crew transportation 

and rescue or otherwise compete with the commercial system for 

ISS crew transportation rescue services. 

So what this means in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, is that as soon 

as any commercial entity is simply certified to provide ISS crew 

transportation and rescue services, and the program that has stood 

us so well for the past half-century goes by the wayside permanently. I just don’t get it. I don’t understand why we would want 

to do that. We have all heard the phrase, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix 

it. It seems through this bill and these provisions that I have identified what we are really saying is if it ain’t broke, throw it away. 

And it just doesn’t make any sense to me. I am perfectly willing 

to see a level playing field, a fair competition between government 

program and commercial entities doing the same programming. 

That is fine. I don’t see any harm to that. But why we would say 

that the minute any particular commercial entity, merely is certified in order to provide ISS crew transportation, rescue services, 

and that in itself means the demise of the Government program. 

That I don’t understand at all. I have identified three other places 

in the bill that also tilt the playing field in favor of the commercial 

entitles that are entirely unproven. Again, as I said earlier today, 

these are entities that have no sales, they have no profit, they have 

very little capital. They have no experience, and in fact, they have 

no product. They don’t even have something that would launch 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
149 

human beings into space at this point. And we are saying that as 

soon as one of them is simply made qualified, then we throw out 

the entire manned space program as we know it and as we have 

developed it from the past century. If you turn to page 47 in the 

bill, you will see that Congress by this bill would be affirming the 

policy of making use of the United States commercially provided 

crew transportation and crew rescue services to the maximum extent practicable, which under this bill means limiting to the maximum extent, the use of the system developed under Section 202 

which in fact, a government alternative practicable to non-ISS missions, once commercial crew transportation and crew rescue services that meet safety requirements to become operational. 

I want to see a fair competition. We have been led astray many, 

many times by government contractors who overpromise and then 

don’t deliver. There is not a single country in this entire world with 

the manned space program that does this the way that this bill dictates. All I want to see is a fair, level playing field between whatever commercial alternatives develop and the program that has 

stood us so well for the past 50 years. 

Therefore, I respectfully ask people’s support for this amendment 

to level the playing field. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman’s amendment. 

I think the existing bill itself strikes a good playing ground, strikes 

a very good balance between ensuring that we can meet our obligations to the Nation, encouraging commercial development of our 

space in a measured and rational way. If commercial crew entities 

can deliver on their claims and do so to NASA safety standards, 

there is no reason why they should not be included in NASA’s mix 

of space transportation. This amendment takes that away. I oppose 

the amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Garamendi is recognized. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment 

does allow for commercial human spaceflight, but what it does is 

to change the prioritizations. I think Mr. Grayson is absolutely 

right in what he is proposing. I also asked staff a while ago a definition of a commercial company. Apparently in existing law, a commercial company can in fact be a foreign-owned company, that is, 

one that has more than 50 percent ownership. It can also be a company that has something less than 50 percent ownership by a foreign—the language in the current bill says United States commercial company, and I am quite curious as to which definition applies 

and exactly what United States commercial company is. It seems 

to me that we may in fact be opening a door to commercial companies that are not majority owned in the United States and not controlled by United States’ interests. And therefore not only is Mr. 

Grayson’s amendment appropriate, but it may be even supercharged by a question of who controls the commercial company. 

And I would recommend the passage of his proposal. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me just suggest that I don’t agree 

with the fundamental logic of what Mr. Grayson, who I respect his 

intelligence and I respect that he has a point of view, but I don’t 

think his argumentation actually is consistent. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
150 

The fact is, we are not loading the dice. If anything, the dice 

have been loaded in favor of having a government-run space transportation system. That is the way the dice have been loaded. All 

of the money goes through the government and through NASA and 

goes into this type of government approach, and that is one of the 

big debates around here. This is a, you know, Luke Skywalker 

versus Han Solo debate here, and I mean, there are two fundamentally different approaches to people in space. Do we want entrepreneurs in space? Do we want businessmen in space? Do we want 

government employees to be the only ones who get to go into space 

and have these activities? We are just laying the foundation so that 

the commercial sector can play a role. 

We did the same thing with the railroads. And let us just note. 

In the beginning of our country’s history, there was some people 

who wanted us to build all of the American ships. The ships would 

be built by the government, but instead, the people who founded 

our country had a very good understanding that no, we are going 

to leave this transportation across that great ocean to the private 

sector. We thus developed in the private sector the clipper ships 

which became the dominant force for commerce and the whole 

world, and America was playing that role and we were the ones 

who did this without government having to approve of everything 

and co-opt all of the funds that were necessary. 

And when we wanted to develop a railroad, yes, the government 

played a role. The government provided a certain amount of 

wealth, meaning land, on either side of the track to promote the 

commercial activity. I think we would have a far different country 

today had we decided early on in our country’s history simply to 

have the government running all the transportation systems, and 

all the people in the transportation systems working as government employees. It would be a different world, it would be a different country. 

I think we are better off by the direction that we took. What is 

going on here is an attempt to ease us away from what had been 

co-opted by a total government approach to now going into a more 

private sector approach. And there are companies in the private 

sector who, I disagree with Mr. Grayson, who have great track 

records in building space transportation technology. Boeing and 

Lockheed, you look at the Delta system and the Atlas system. 

These are very good systems, yes, and they were done in cooperation with government. But now, let us see if we can attract by definition more money from the private sector into this whole arena of 

space transportation. If we do not do that, it will be the government’s job and it will be only taxpayer money. And what is the 

problem with allowing the commercial people to come in and spend 

some of the money that we would otherwise be spending from the 

taxpayers? So I would oppose this amendment, and I would hope 

that we all agree that it would be a good thing to have commercial 

investment in space and to encourage that, and that would be a 

boon to the taxpayers. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, for number 

three. And Ms. Giffords is recognized. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
151 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have to speak 

in opposition, respectfully, of the amendment. When looking at the 

language, the bill actually does not require that the government 

system be shut down if a single commercial provider is qualified for 

launch. Whether the provisions just allow that the commercial provider can fly U.S. astronauts to the ISS, they actually don’t prohibit NASA from developing or flying its government program. And 

in fact, if the bill had, I wouldn’t support the language myself. 

What we are saying is that we don’t want the government unfairly competing with the private sector once they satisfy all of 

NASA’s requirements, and that said, as in the case with many 

other government make or buy decisions, the bill itself makes clear 

that the commercial systems can’t cost more than the government 

provided on a dollar-per-seat basis. And of course, as Mr. Grayson 

knows, OMB’s circular A–76 is actually not law. It is an executive 

branch directive. 

So be that as it may, we will not be giving an unearned and 

undeserved preference to commercial entities as was asserted in 

the Dear Colleague that he circulated. They are going to have to 

meet all their requirements laid out in the bill before they can be 

considered for contracts with the Federal Government. 

And again, as we have been saying, it is that balance between 

government, private sector and I think this strikes a fair balance. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Giffords. 

If there is no further discussion, then all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The no’s have it. The amendment is not agreed to. 

I think we have time for two more amendments, and so the next 

amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the 

gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Fudge. Are you ready to proceed with 

your amendment? 

Ms. FUDGE. Yes, I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 070, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Fudge of Ohio and Mr. Wilson of Ohio. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment directs 

the administrator to conduct a study with the National Academies 

on the feasibility of a commercial space market as we have yet to 

see a Federal study on this industry. 

We need to determine the market demands for commercial 

human spaceflight, both home and abroad. Additionally, though, 

this is only a five-year authorization. It is crucial that we have the 

financial data to determine whether a commercial spaceflight sector can sustain itself for the long term. 

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that you see value in conducting 

a study like this one described in my amendment. I look forward 

to working with you on the language and incorporating a commercial market study requirement before the Committee brings this 

bill to the Floor, and I withdraw my amendment at this time. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
152 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. Let me just remind 

members, we have one more amendment to go before we are going 

to go to vote, or maybe we might even have more. 

If we get this bill out today, as we are going to, then there is a 

reasonable chance that maybe next week, if there is a lull, that we 

could get this on the floor, which I think would be very beneficial 

for us in trying then to go to conference. 

So we are going to move forward, and the next amendment on 

the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah, 

Mr. Matheson. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. MATHESON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Oh, the Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 065, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Matheson of Utah. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thank you. I will take less than five minutes. 

Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment clarifies NASA’s obligation to the requirements 

that are in the bill. What my language would do is simply requires 

NASA to use the money that is authorized in this bill to perform 

work on the program spelled out in the bill. 

The underlying bill requires NASA to come up with a spaceflight 

plan within 180 days of enactment of the law. In the meantime, 

there is nothing to prevent NASA from continuing to fund the programs that are authorized. My amendment requires NASA to continue to fund programs and not use that money at a later date for 

terminating these same programs. 

Now, this is an amendment that is a result of bipartisan discussions within this Committee. I appreciate the help of both majority 

and minority staff to develop this amendment, and it is more a perfecting amendment than anything else in terms of the underlying 

bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides to support it. And Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Matheson. 

Is there further discussion on this amendment? If not, the vote 

is on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

Mr. Rohrabacher is up next, and since Mr. Rohrabacher is up 

next, we know this might take a while. So we will adjourn at this 

time to come back, this time five minutes after the last vote. Thank 

you. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman GORDON. The committee is called to order again, and 

I will put folks on notice. It seems we are going to have a vote in 

about an hour, and so I think we have an opportunity to complete 

this in an hour. It may be a contradiction of terms to say that at 

the same time to call on Mr. Rohrabacher, but the next amendment 

on the roster is an amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher from 

California. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
153 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 045, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain this amendment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This amendment requires NASA to provide 

reports to Congress on the current—in the current areas, that is 

the current laws prohibiting cooperation with the People’s Republic 

of China. We need a report on exactly what those laws are, what 

the restrictions are. We need a report from NASA on the level of 

transparency required by a nation in order to join the ISS Coalition. We need to see that in black and white, what would be required of any nation and this, of course, is aimed at China. If they 

don’t have a certain level of transparency, we need to know whether or not that will mean they can still become a member of the 

team and participate in the International Space Station. 

Number three, we need a report from NASA on the military uses 

of the Chinese Space Program. China supposedly has a civilian 

space program, but like all things look very closely in China you 

will find so much of it tied to the People’s Liberation Army, and 

we would like to see what military uses are being put to play by 

the Chinese and their space program. 

And last, we need a report on the danger that is posed to the 

International Space Station by a mission that the Chinese flew and 

what they did is they launched a very—a micro satellite near the 

International Space Station. It was on the path of the International 

Space Station, and we have never had an explanation of why this 

little satellite was launched, and we need to get a full report on 

that particular incident. And so far there has been no investigation, 

and I think that we need explanations of what that was all about 

and did that and has that put the Space Station in jeopardy? 

And as the Space Station goes around in its orbit, this Chinese 

little miniature satellite could well be a threat to the safety of the 

Station. We need to know whether that is the case or not, and I 

think it is fairly non-controversial. It is just asking for reports on 

those areas, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would yield, and I am not 

trying to be catty or anything here, you—later you have an amendment that says there can be no contact with China, so, I mean, how 

do we sort of, you know, how do we make those two fit together? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You mean how we can investigate without 

actually having a relationship with them? 

Chairman GORDON. It says you can’t even talk to them. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we are basically not talking to them. 

We are asking them questions. If the other one is passed, by the 

way, if the other amendment is passed, I will gladly withdraw this 

amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, again, if the gentleman will—I will 

claim my own time, I think this investigation is something that 

would better be left to CIA or some other agency. I am not sure 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
154 

that NASA has this ability, and so for that reason, and, again, and 

I am—maybe you can cure it later by saying you can talk to them, 

but this just doesn’t seem to be the right business for NASA. 

So is there further discussion? 

If there is no further discussion—— 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Yes. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. If Rohrabacher talked to them enough, then they 

would have a different opinion about us over here. I support his 

amendment. It simply asks for a report. Why not? 

Chairman GORDON. Well, why not would be because it would 

take resources from NASA that could be used for, you know, a 

number of other areas, as well as it just doesn’t seem like NASA— 

this is like, you know, asking the National Department or the Department of Defense to look into something with, you know, hogs 

in Texas. I just don’t think it is the right location. 

Is there further discussion on this amendment? 

Mr. MCCAUL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. McCaul is recognized. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you. I yield to the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, let me just note that there is a 

lot of movement going on now about furthering our cooperation 

with China, a lot of it, space cooperation. People are talking about 

bringing them into a space relationship perhaps like we are with 

Russia, and let me just note for everyone here there has been no 

reform in China as we have seen in Russia. You know, the churches are filled in Russia, there is opposition parties and newspapers. 

Obviously they have not reached the level that we would like, but 

in China they have actually retrogressed, and they are an incredibly repressive society, and I don’t like to see the idea that we can 

just nonchalantly sort of ease into a high-tech, space-related partnership with the Chinese. And this report by NASA, who knows 

this, you know, the people in NASA, you know, know what issues 

are involved here and how they would want to cooperate. 

It seems to me that that makes all the sense in the world for us 

to have an understanding on these particular issues about the level 

of transparency that we would require of the—of any member of 

the coalition running the International Space Station. Why is that 

not a report that we could expect, and what is it about the laws 

that are currently in place that prohibit certain cooperation with 

Communist China? NASA would know that, their legal counsel 

would know that, and what are the military uses of the Chinese 

Space Program? There is no reason why NASA cannot ask our Defense Department and the CIA and others to help them prepare 

that report. 

And, of course, the danger to the Space Station by that Chinese 

probe, that is something that NASA would actually be the lead 

agency in. So I think this is an important issue because we are easing into what I consider to be a very unhealthy relationship with 

the world’s worst human right abuser. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. 

McCaul. If there is no further discussion, then all in favor of the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
155 

amendment, say aye. Opposed, no. It looks like the no’s have it, 

and the amendment is not agreed to. 

Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 125, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry. I got so 

shook up over Mr. Wu trying to break the desk. I do have an 

amendment at the desk, and I want to thank you and the Ranking 

Member for considering it. 

This amendment is pretty straightforward. This really clarifies 

Section 405 of the bill. We need to ensure that NASA has a clear 

plan in place to put NASA on the aeronautical structure, infrastructure back on track to fill the U.S. and long-term aeronautics 

research needs. 

In order to ensure that NASA develops a plan to stabilize and 

reverse the deterioration of NASA’s aeronautics ground test facilities, my amendment specifies that this report be completed within 

one year after the enactment of this Act. NASA’s aeronautics test 

program ensures the capability, availability, and accessibility of 

testing facilities to meet the U.S. aeronautics needs for NASA, 

other government agencies, and commercial customers. These facilities provide vital testing and demonstrate new technologies, materials, structures, and flight concepts bringing understanding to 

the aeronautical behavior. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate your considering this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support 

it, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for that excellent 

amendment. 

Any further discussion? 

If there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on the 

amendment. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, no or opposed, no. 

The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. Thank you. 

Let us see. I think Mrs. Fudge might be—she—okay. Well, she 

has been pretty attending all today, so we will see if she is going 

to be coming back. And Mr. Wilson. 

So the next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 

by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Wilson. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 036, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Wilson of Ohio. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I am most 

pleased about with this mark is the inclusion of—— 

Chairman GORDON. Excuse me. If the gentleman will suspend, 

which amendment did you—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
156 

The CLERK. 036. 

Chairman GORDON. 036? Okay. Mr. Wilson’s. Okay. Excuse me. 

The CLERK. Are we okay? 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that 

I am most pleased about this mark is the inclusion of adequate 

funding for evidence-based programs to improve STEM education 

in our country. If America is to remain the world’s leader in the 

space and aeronautics industry, we need a brilliant workforce of 

scientists and engineers at NASA. 

I represent a rural part of Ohio. Not many people know that 

former astronaut and Senator John Glenn grew up in a rural part 

of Appalachia just west of my district in Ohio. 

I know that many of my constituents have been inspired by Senator Glenn’s many accomplishments, as well as while watching various NASA rocket or Shuttle launches on TV. 

Sadly, too many of our rural students are struggling to receive 

the adequate STEM education they need to become a NASA astronaut or engineer, and too many of our teachers lack the resources 

needed to provide the STEM education necessary for students to 

look to enter NASA, the NASA workforce. 

My amendment asks that NASA also consider students in rural 

schools as they look to increase awareness in NASA and improve 

STEM education at all levels of schooling. I urge my colleagues to 

support my amendment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. As the son of two 

farmers and someone who represents a large rural area also, I 

think this is an excellent amendment, and I think maybe the gentleman from the smallest county in Texas might have something to 

say about that also. 

Mr. HALL. I agree with the Chairman. Yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

If there is no objection, Ms. Fudge was the amendment before 

and so we will bring her up again at this time and so will report 

the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 071, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Fudge of Ohio and Mr. Wilson of Ohio. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this 

amendment is very simple. It will ensure that we perform not only 

research and development for the technologies of the current mission but also the research, development, and demonstration of the 

technologies needed for future missions. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
157 

It will be quite awhile before we put a human on Mars, but if 

we don’t start now, the technology R,D&D that will get us there, 

it may never happen. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. 

Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to support the 

gentlelady’s amendment. It establishes an enabling technologies development and demonstration program under the Space Technology 

Program, and it is unclear to me what the program contributes to 

the overall Space Technology Program, but I am told it will add 

technologies that are needed to support the exploration program. 

Will the gentlelady help me understand just a little what she expects this program will accomplish and how it helps our overall exploration effort for the record? 

Ms. FUDGE. For the record, Mr. Ranking Member, it is exactly 

what you said. 

Mr. HALL. It is what? Okay. In that case I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion, since Ms. 

Fudge has educated Mr. Hall, then we will ask for a vote. All in 

favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is 

agreed to. 

The next amendment is offered by the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Luja ́n. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 064, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Luja ́n of New Mexico. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now more than ever we 

must invest in educating the next generation of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and innovators. The continuing under-representation of Latinos and other minority students in mathematics, 

engineering, and science fields will only contribute to the shortage 

of professionals available to work in these important industries. 

My amendment amends the STEM education and training section of the bill to ensure that participants in NASA’s STEM education programs include minority and under-represented groups, 

including students from high-needs local school districts. We must 

make sure that NASA is participating in active outreach to these 

communities of students who for too long have suffered from a 

STEM achievement gap. 

My amendment also allows for a special consideration to be given 

to minority-serving institutions when NASA is establishing or expanding degree programs in space and earth sciences, aeronautics, 

engineering, and other STEM disciplines. 

My amendment will support the creation of leaders and 

innovators within our minority and under-represented communities 

who will be prepared to carry on NASA’s mission for many years 

to come. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
158 

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank 

you very much for your consideration. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Any further discussion on the amendment? 

Governor Garamendi. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Just a quick question. The—I think the present 

language is both for all levels of education? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, let me just finish my question. If that is 

the case, then typically minority-serving institutions are the higher 

level of education or the highest level. If that is a modification to 

only go to highest level, then I think we may not want to do that. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Sure. I will yield. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Well, if you look, Mr. Garamendi, at page 77 of the 

bill, there is within the section here we are targeting minority-serving institutions for higher education, but the subsequent amendment and the language that goes on to follow is outreach to students from under-represented groups as well to make sure that we 

are going out, and we are recruiting over and beyond, enabling legislation around the education section is reaching out to education 

of all levels, and I think it was purposely written that way, taking 

into consideration that NASA does have programs K through 12 

and post-secondary education. 

And this would only emphasize that we need to make sure that, 

again, as we are looking at some of the programs that do exist that 

we are paying attention to all parts of the country. There is backgrounds coming from the National Science Board, science and engineering indicators from NSF and from others that have compiled 

reports showing where degree programs, STEM bachelors degrees 

earned by minority students is 17 percent, much lower than representation from other minorities in the country. 

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am not debating that point. I just want to— 

thank you for yielding back. I am not debating that point. I agree 

entirely with it. I just want to make sure that we are not in this 

language inadvertently directing the money only to higher education, but apparently that is not the case. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. I have concerns about the amendment, and my disagreement or concerns don’t stem from the intent to reach out to 

minority students. Rather this amendment makes several wholesale revisions to statutory references contained in the bill, but my 

main question is when we first looked at the bill, it had a general 

definition of institution of higher education, and it goes one 

through five and that additional purposes. 

That is stricken from the bill. I was just wondering why. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. If the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hall, that was actually a recommendation from legislative counsel. That is something 

that could be added back. I asked that very question when we were 

giving the suggestion, looking at this provision, and I would be 

happy and I would be very supportive to ask unanimous consent 

that the language that was stricken which reads, ‘‘(as defined 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
159 

under Section 101A of the Higher Education Act from 1965 (20 

USC 1001)(A) and then closed triple time),’’ be added back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, first, let me say that we have in a 

number of hearings during the COMPETES reauthorization it became clear that minorities, women, underserved, were our best 

areas to bump up in those areas, and so that is what we are attempting to do. If there is some—so I support the gentleman’s 

amendment. If there are some improvements that can be made between now and the Floor or in conference, then we need to continue 

to work on that. 

So if there is no further discussion, all in favor say—— 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, sir. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. I would like to make another inquiry. If he is willing 

to put that A through 1001 A, the general definition of institutions 

of higher education, back in those five definitions there would be 

a lot easier for us to support it. Or if he would consider that from 

here until the time it goes either in report language or otherwise. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the 

Ranking Member and yourself to make sure that we are able to get 

language that was suggested by legislative counsel and see what is 

most appropriate to get back in. 

Chairman GORDON. I know there is a great deal of effort that has 

been put into this, and if there is more effort that needs to be put 

into it, then we need to do that. 

If there is no further discussion, all in favor, say aye. Opposed, 

no. The ayes have it. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentlelady from Texas. Are you ready to proceed with your 

amendment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I have an amendment at the desk. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 126, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

for considering this amendment. 

As you are aware, Section 601 of this bill focuses on improving 

STEM education and training at NASA. This section also instructs 

the NASA Administrator to consult with the Secretary of Education 

and the Director of the National Science Foundation to improve 

STEM education and training. 

My amendment includes the gross under-representation of minority teachers in the United States classrooms as part of its discussion. The best to improve elementary, secondary, and undergraduate and graduate level STEM education in our country is by 

addressing the absence of minority teachers who are well qualified. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
160 

The achievement gap for minorities is staggering, but I am convinced it can be mitigated through the interaction of minority role 

models and minority youth, with minority youth. If children see 

someone who looks like them succeeding and encouraging them to 

achieve, then the prospects of those children to believe in themselves and fulfill their own potential are far greater. 

Put simply, believing is seeing. The best way we can strengthen 

our Nation’s scientific enterprise is to strengthen diversity so all 

Americans can compete in the 21st century. According to the Secretary of Education 200,000 new teachers are hired each year nationally, and less than two percent or 4,500 are black males. This 

is unacceptable. 

To quote Secretary Duncan, ‘‘our graduation rates have gone up 

dramatically, and our dropout rates have gone—have to go down,’’ 

but to get there I am convinced we have to have more people of 

color teaching, being role models and mentors. 

In my State of Texas well over half of the student population is 

minority, but nearly 77 percent of the Texas teaching force is nonminority. The same diversity found among students is not found 

among teachers. This shortage of minority teachers is a serious 

problem. 

This is a serious problem, but my amendment to the section of 

this bill which tasks the NASA Administrator to consult with other 

agencies is a good place to start. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate your considering this amendment to ensure this discussion does not end here 

today, and I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment 

and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Once again I think 

all you said was very well documented in our hearings on the 

America COMPETES Act. Is there further discussion? 

If no, all in favor of the motion, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes 

have it. The motion is agreed to. 

And let me see. Ms. Edwards is next, and she put us on notice 

earlier that she—oh, are you going to do it? Okay. She will be back. 

She had a press conference. She has been very attended today. So 

I understand that Ms. Fudge will offer that for her, so the next 

amendment on the roster is an amendment by the gentlelady from 

Maryland, who will be offered by the gentlelady from Ohio. Are you 

ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Ms. FUDGE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 064, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Edwards of Maryland. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Edwards’ amendment adds a new section to 

Title VI of the bill establishing a pilot program for hands-on space 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
161 

science and engineering education and training related to aeronautics, exploration, science, space operations, and human 

spaceflight that serve to stimulate and engage students in science 

engineering and that foster skills including engineering, teamwork, 

project management, and problem solving. 

The emphasis of the pilot program will be on technology-related 

education and training. The whole point of this language and this 

pilot program is to get our young scientists engaged and active. 

The pilot program will have an emphasis on underserved and 

under-represented minority populations because we are losing our 

minority populations when it comes to math and science, and we 

have to aggressively make sure that we capture them and make 

sure they are included. 

I understand that there is an issue with the appropriations language in this amendment. I am fine with changing this language 

to, ‘‘such sums from within the funding authorized for NASA’s Education Program.’’ 

I encourage everyone to support this important amendment that 

will benefit our young folks by engaging them in science and technology and making our future stronger. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge support and yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. You did an excellent 

job as a stand-in for Ms. Edwards, and once again, this is a very 

good amendment as we would expect from her. 

Is there further discussion? 

If not, all—the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 

aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment in agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered in 

person by the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Fudge. Are you ready to 

proceed with your amendment? 

Ms. FUDGE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Oh, excuse me. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 072, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Fudge of Ohio and Mr. Wilson of Ohio. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentlelady has five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. This amendment adds a provision to the institutional management section that will ensure 

that our unique and state-of-the-art facilities receive proper consideration for modifications. 

In addition to maintenance repair, upgrading, and modernization, the Administrator will include an assessment of what structural modifications must be made to maximize the usage of our 

strongest assets and significant financial investments. 

I urge passage. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mrs. Fudge, for improving this 

bill. 

Is there further discussion? 

If no, the amendment occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 

aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
162 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you ready to 

proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 048, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This amendment reaffirms the policy that already exists basically with respect to near-earth objects as a threat 

to our Nation, and yes, to all of humanity. It restates the direction 

that we have given the Administration to recommend a Federal 

agency or agencies to be responsible for designating those agencies 

by October 15, and those agencies that be designated with the responsibility of how to cope with a near-earth object that is—that 

might be observed and then would be charted and would perhaps 

be colliding with the earth. 

And then also the Administration needs to designate what would 

be done and who would be responsible for the campaign and the 

efforts to deflect any major near-earth object that was seen and observed heading towards the earth. 

This is not a—this is actually reaffirming policy that already exists, and I think that it is very responsible, and we are just asking—making sure the Administration reaffirm that October 15 

deadline. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. You have been 

a champion in this area. 

Mr. Bartlett is recognized. 

Mr. BARTLETT. There is an old adage that says, ‘‘What is 

everybody’s business is nobody’s business,’’ and somebody has to 

have responsibility for this. It was a near-earth object that became 

a really near-earth object that spelled the end of the dinosaurs. 

Then you could do nothing about it. Today we might be able to do 

something about it. 

It is very obvious with the capabilities we have today that somebody ought to be watching out there to see what is out there and 

to avoid a catastrophe if it is possible. 

So I support the amendment. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. 

If there is no further discussion on the amendment, all in favor 

of the amendment, say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Thank 

you. The amendment is agreed to. 

And the next amendment on the roster is also from the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I am. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 049, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
163 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. This amendment, of course, is tied to 

the amendment that we just passed, and it reaffirms the policy in 

respect to the role of the Arecibo telescope and the part that it 

plays in the identification of threats of near-earth objects. 

Let us just note that without the Arecibo telescope, we will not 

be able to track a distant object that is headed toward the earth 

and chart its course in time for us to have a response. So the Arecibo telescope is essential if we are serious about the idea that if 

a near-earth object is observed and we would then be able to chart 

its course to see if it actually was a threat. 

So, again, this is reaffirming policy that exists. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Another good 

amendment. 

Is there further discussion? 

If not, all in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. They ayes have it. The 

amendment is agreed to. 

And the next amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you ready to proceed 

with your amendment? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 044, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. This is an issue that I am very serious 

about, and it is one we all need to consider very seriously because 

it goes to the heart of the world that we are going to create in the 

future. I happen to believe there are major threats to our national 

security and to the future of the world. The one that is on us right 

now is radical Islam, but the other is very close by, and that is 

within a few years we will see the emergence of an incredibly powerful China that has had no, and I say zero political reform. 

We were told over the years that if we just engage China and 

are more active with them in various ways economically and exchange programs and things like space programs and such that 

they would evolve into a more democratic country because of the 

contact that they had with the west. 

This has been proven to be a horrendous mistake. This theory of 

getting close to an evil force, and that is going to make it—some 

of your goodness is going to rub off has not worked out. I call that 

the hug a Nazi, make a liberal theory, and it has not worked. 

The bottom line is what we have got now is we have had these 

exchanges with China, and it has led to nothing but a stronger, 

more aggressive, more threatening, and yes, at home, more totaliVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:34 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
164 

tarian government that threatens the rest of us as well as its own 

people. 

Let us note that believers in God who are being thrown into jail 

today, most of them, the majority of them are in China. China is 

the world’s worst human rights abuser, throwing Falun Gong members, people who refuse to file and to register with the government 

as a church under their direction are persecuted in that country 

still. No opposition parties, no freedom of speech, no unions, et 

cetera. Well, the last time we decided to cooperative with China in 

terms of lifting, letting them lift, for example, our satellites on Chinese rockets, there was an incredible transfer of technology that 

has done nothing but weaken us and strengthen this horrible dictatorship. 

So this amendment prohibits any exchange or contact between 

NASA programs or personnel, including contractors, with the People’s Republic of China or any entity that is headquartered in the 

People’s Republic of China. 

As I say, China continues to be aggressive in their stance on 

space issues, and they have already laid down their marker. They 

have, as I mentioned earlier, they launched a—some sort of a probe 

near the International Space Station which actually threatens the 

safety of that station, and we have never had any explanation of 

it. 

Well, we shouldn’t be cooperating with a country that has such 

belligerent, you know, and provocative actions as that, and they recently shot down another satellite, spreading debris over an already dangerous environment. One of the things I would like to see 

is cooperation on an international scale on debris, but are we going 

to let the worst offender of all become part of that partnership? I 

don’t think so. So there are no existing treaties or trade agreements between the United States and China that would be affected 

by this amendment. 

NASA has one agreement with the Chinese Academy of Sciences 

involving geo-dynamics, some sort of research that is going on 

there, and NASA and China have had several unofficial information exchanges, particularly on lunar data. 

But I would—this amendment would basically prohibit us and 

prohibiting NASA from expanding a relationship with this vicious 

dictatorship. I think that it will do nothing but—and every time we 

have had this, as they say, it has resulted in a transfer of knowledge not from them to us but from us to them in a way that 

strengthened the government of—this is repulsive to the values 

that we hold dear as Americans. 

So I would ask—I know this is rather controversial or whatever, 

but I would ask my colleagues to join me in making this declaration that we are not going to enter into a partnership with the 

Communist Chinese, at least until we see some reform on their 

end, and then we can resend this restriction on NASA. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. —for your consistency. I think the amendment goes more than says that we can enter in an agreement. It 

says that we can’t even discuss agreements with them. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
165 

I remember—or anything else. I remember former Secretary of 

State Jim Baker on one occasion was asked about not having any 

kind of discussion with a particular country, and his response was 

we should not be afraid to talk with anyone. If we are concerned 

about their debris, we got to talk to them about, you know, about 

that. So I think that you have some legitimate concerns, but I am 

afraid that this amendment goes too far. 

Is there—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr.—Dr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of staff, if 

we pass this amendment, would it trigger sequential referral to 

international relations? 

Chairman GORDON. Counsel would answer the question, please. 

The COUNSEL. I don’t believe so. No. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. So that is a definitive maybe? Okay. Or 

maybe not, I guess was more like it. 

Is there further discussion? 

Dr. Bartlett, did you have anything else you—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. I was just concerned that talking to other countries is really the—that whether you do or not generally resides in 

International Relations Committee, not in other committees, and I 

was just concerned that if we pass this, would it trigger a sequential referral. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BARTLETT. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman is making a very good point 

because this is only restricting NASA from talking about specific 

programs of cooperation. We are not talking about approaching 

them. The State Department has every right to approach them and 

talk to them as to whether or not they are willing to move forward. 

It just—and so if you want to open doors, that is the way to do it. 

NASA’s response, that is not our job to open doors like this, so 

we are actually just saying NASA shouldn’t be leading the way to 

a new relationship with China if there is that type of problem with 

communicating. It could be done by the state department. 

Chairman GORDON. Once again, as I read, it says that adds a 

section to the bill prohibiting NASA personnel or contractors from 

any exchange or contact with the People’s Republic or any identity 

who is headquartered in the People’s Republic of China. 

So this is more than just entering into a contract. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. As up to the State Department. 

Chairman GORDON. No, but, I mean, but your amendment goes 

further. It says there can’t be any contact. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct. 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. I just want to be sure we knew. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would hope that we didn’t do it with Herman Goring as well, you know. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Wu is recognized. 

Mr. WU. Well, I have deeply appreciated, I do deeply appreciate 

the gentleman’s strong, passionate, consistent commitment to 

human rights regardless of location, regardless of the size of the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
166 

entity that the gentleman is taking on, and I have worked with the 

gentleman on many of those human rights issues. 

I part company with the gentleman on this particular amendment. I think that there may be some limited opportunity for 

bringing the Chinese into a broader family of space-faring nations, 

but, you know, even short of that potential future, I think that it 

is worth pointing out that we began our work with the Russians 

when they were the Soviet Union, and as I recall that process 

started in the early to mid ’70s when the Russians and we had 

thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other, and there was 

very, very limited technology transfer per se, but we did as I recall 

have an Apollo-Soyuz docking in space, and there was some controversy about that, and you know, whether it should have been 

done, but it led to several decades of in my view worthwhile space 

cooperation and sometimes the international relationship has been 

testy, and the Soviet Union was not an exemplar of respect for 

human rights nor did we share a lot of foreign policy interests. 

I want to note also that—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WU. Well, let me finish this point, which is that I was—I believe there was a foreign affairs hearing where Secretary Gates I 

think at that time as Defense Secretary for the Bush Administration came in and testified that he favored sharing some space activities with the Chinese, substantially to enhance our security interests because that better understanding both their intention and 

their capabilities was inherently in our interest and having some 

confidence building so that we could put pressure on them to not 

target satellites as most countries have done so that we don’t put 

a bunch of particles, debris into earth orbit that, you know, that 

is one thing to be avoided and the confidence building and determination of capability and intent in Secretary Gates’ view was well 

worth the risks of contact with the Chinese. 

And with that I would be happy to yield to the gentleman for a 

moment. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, for a few points let us just note this, 

that when we had that space cooperation with the Soviet Union, 

I was opposed to that then, and so—and let me just note that that 

did not make the world safer. That, in fact, was coincided with a 

massive buildup of Soviet weaponry in which they put a huge number of new missiles in Europe. And so that, while it made people 

feel good, it was just the opposite impact in terms of the potential 

that it had for peace on this planet and what eventually—— 

Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time. I would like to ask the gentleman—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Mr. WU. —if he thinks that those early efforts at space cooperation made any contribution to subsequent cooperation with respect 

to the International Space Station? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. In cooperation with the International Space 

Station, let me think about that because it is a specific question as 

to that end, and by the way, I have been supportive of International Space Station cooperation since the reform has taken 

place in what was the Soviet Union, which is now a reforming and 

potentially democratic Russia. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
167 

But what changed the Soviet Union, what brought down the 

Communist dictatorship had nothing to do with the cooperation 

that made people feel good at the time. 

Mr. WU. As my time is expiring, let me reclaim, that I think that 

confidence building is very, very important, and that is certainly a 

worthy goal for our defense as well as for our space—— 

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman’s time has expired. If there is 

no further discussion—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman give me, indulge me 

with one more minute? 

Chairman GORDON. Of course. With unanimous consent. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. About this—because this is something 

I have lived, and look. At the time when we were most cooperating 

with the Soviet Union and hoping that would have a beneficial affect, it had a negative affect, and at that very time that we were 

cooperating with these type of programs, they were pumping 

money into various countries of the world to create revolution. 

They were dramatically expanding their military capabilities. 

That is what has happened with China as well, let me note. 

When we were cooperating with them in the Space Program, what 

has—what was the result then? No. We have given them technology now that threatens the United States. What brought down 

the Soviet Union and made it a more peaceful world. What brought 

us to the point where Ronald Reagan reached an agreement to dramatically reduce the nuclear weapons in our arsenals, and by the 

way, I am supportive of the current efforts to reduce our nuclear 

arsenals. 

But what brought us to that point was when we supported those 

elements who were in opposition to the Soviet dictatorship, whether it was Afghanistan or Nicaragua or wherever or Poland. That is 

what eventually brought about a more peaceful world, not these 

very symbolic things, cooperation into space—— 

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

All opposed, say no. The no’s have it, the—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am sorry to have to call for a roll call vote. 

Chairman GORDON. You want a roll call vote or show of hands? 

You want everybody to come back? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I want a roll call vote. 

Chairman GORDON. All right. We will have a roll call vote. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. This is going to mean a lot to the people in 

their districts. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will record the vote. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. 

Mr. Costello? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
168 

Ms. Woolsey? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu? 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. 

Mr. Baird? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. 

Ms. Edwards? 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes no. 

Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes no. 

Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes no. 

Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. 

Mr. Rothman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson? 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes no. 

Mr. Davis? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes no. 

Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes no. 

Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson votes no. 

Mrs. Dahlkemper? 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no. 

Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes no. 

Mrs. Kosmas? 

Ms. KOSMAS. No. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
169 

The CLERK. Mrs. Kosmas votes no. 

Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes no. 

Mr. Garamendi? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. 

Mr. Ehlers? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. I support—— 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray? 

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Bilbray votes aye before—— 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray votes aye. 

Mr. Adrian Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson votes aye. 

Mr. Rothman is not recorded. 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as no, 

please. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman votes no. 

Mr. Baird is not recorded. 

Mr. BAIRD. If I knew how to say no in Chinese, that would be 

my answer. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
170 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone that has not had a chance 

to vote? 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Mr. Chairman, am I recorded? 

Chairman GORDON. You are not recorded. Would you like to be? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Yes, I would like to be. 

Chairman GORDON. And so would you like to tell us what that 

would be? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone else that has not been recorded? If not, please report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, I have 6 members voting aye and 20 

members voting no. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
171 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASArc3.eps
172 

Chairman GORDON. The ayes have it. The amendment—excuse 

me. The no’s have it. Pardon me. Brainwashed by those folks. The 

no’s have it. The amendment is not agreed to. 

The next amendment on the roster is the amendment offered by 

the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 063, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Ms. Edwards of Maryland. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also thank you to 

Ranking Member Hall because I think sometimes we hear about 

how, you know, horrible it is around here and Members can’t work 

together across the aisles, and I always think that this committee 

really disproves that little rumor, and I appreciate what we are 

trying to do here to make sure that we cover a lot of different bases 

and concerns with the NASA Reauthorization. 

My amendment concerns retaining highly-skilled and talented 

NASA workers for the new NASA future. As you know, in my service on this committee I have always raised the question about what 

I believe is the need to retain the internal capacity at NASA so 

they have the ability to oversee, to manage, to direct, and influence 

the many talented contractors who do so much of the work for the 

agency, and I believe that sustaining and building upon that talented reserve should be our first priority as we move forward with 

this authorization because nothing in this bill can happen really 

without our skilled workforce. 

We should recognize that the new authorization is itself a transition. It lays the groundwork for the future, and it is about the expertise and oversight that we could potentially lose, and so what 

my amendment does is merely extend the current moratorium 

against reductions in force that has received unanimous, really 

nearly unanimous bipartisan support since 2004. 

This policy was embraced in 2005, and 2008, reauthorization acts 

controlled by both parties, and given the looming retirement of the 

Shuttle this language is particularly important for upwards of 

thousands of NASA employees, particularly at Johnson Space Center and at Kennedy Spaceflight Center that will be caught up in 

the transition over the next few years of this new reauthorization. 

The language is also important for all NASA employees, however, those who are at Goddard Spaceflight Center in the county 

that is my home would be impacted, and I know that some have 

suggested that the moratorium keeps workers and jobs that 

shouldn’t exist with a changing mission, but I think it is really to 

the contrary. The NASA workforce is very fluid and adaptable, and 

it is skilled, and in this important transition filling those functions 

the way that the agency needs to will help the agency transition 

now during this authorization period. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
173 

The key point here is that we need internal capacity for technical 

oversight of the agency, and I think also the psychological impact 

already of what we are doing in this period has been really tremendous on all of the NASA workforce. In fact, you know, pretty demoralizing sometimes from what I can hear. Everyone feels targeted. 

So we need to make sure that our workers know that they are 

supported, that we value what they are doing, that they have 

something important to contribute, and continue a policy that we 

have had for the last several years, and obviously the amendment 

is endorsed by a number of the representatives of workers at all 

of these NASA facilities. 

I encourage my colleagues to support the continued moratorium 

through this authorization period and to support our workforce. 

And with that I would yield. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to support the 

gentlelady’s amendment. I don’t like to protect only civil service 

employees while thousands of contractor’s jobs are being eliminated, but we do need to do everything we can to ensure our talented workforce remains intact. 

For that reason I support the amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Let me, first of all, I 

would agree with Ms. Edwards that we have a very talented NASA 

workforce, and I would certainly like to see that maintained at full 

strength and expanded, but let us be realistic here. This is a fiveyear moratorium on past moratoriums. 

We simply have to give the agency more flexibility than that. 

Clearly if there—we are looking at a change in direction in many 

ways for NASA. If there is someone in NASA that can do another 

job, it makes no sense that they are going to fire them and hire 

somebody else. Of course NASA’s going to move all the employees 

that they can into these new jobs. 

I just think that we need to provide more flexibility to the agency. Otherwise, we could have a workforce that then does not allow 

you to hire new people that have these new skills, or it just is not 

in my opinion on top of all the others it doesn’t give adequate flexibility for NASA. So I would reluctantly have to oppose this amendment. 

Is there further discussion? 

If not, all in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Could we do it by hand? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I would ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman GORDON. We will do a recorded vote. The clerk will 

call the vote or, I mean, will call, and I hope the clerk will move 

along with good rhythm because we have just a few minutes. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon? 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. 

Mr. Costello? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson? 

[Inaudible.] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
174 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes aye. 

Mr. Wu? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird? 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes no. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Miller votes no. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords? 

Ms. GIFFORDS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes no. 

Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Edwards votes aye. 

Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Fudge votes aye. 

Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Luja ́n votes aye. 

Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes aye. 

Mr. Rothman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill? 

Mr. HILL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes no. 

Mr. Mitchell? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes aye. 

Mr. Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson votes aye. 

Mrs. Dahlkemper? 

Ms. DAHLKEMPER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no. 

Mr. Grayson? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Grayson votes aye. 

Mrs. Kosmas? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
175 

Ms. KOSMAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Kosmas votes aye. 

Mr. Peters? 

Mr. PETERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Peters votes no. 

Mr. Garamendi? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall? 

Mr. HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lamar Smith? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Bartlett? 

Mr. BARTLETT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. 

Mr. Ehlers? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert? 

Ms. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes no. 

Mr. Akin? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no. 

Mr. McCaul? 

Mr. MCCAUL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes no. 

Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray? 

Mr. BILBRAY. Bilbray votes no. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bilbray votes no. 

Mr. Adrian Smith? 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Adrian Smith votes no. 

Mr. Broun? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson? 

Mr. OLSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Olson votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. How does Mr. Rothman vote? 

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as an 

aye, please. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there—Mr. Matheson. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
176 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Matheson votes no. 

Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. Aye. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Wu votes aye. 

Anyone else? 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson, how are you recorded? 

Mr. MATHESON. I would like to be recorded as no. 

The CLERK. No. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Who was after Mr. Matheson? 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Wu. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu. He votes aye? 

Chairman GORDON. Did you get Ms. Johnson? 

The CLERK. No. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Johnson, how would you like to be recorded? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Aye. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there—oh, Mr. Lipinski. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski is not recorded. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. We have 2 minutes and 44 seconds to the 

next vote, so the clerk will report the vote. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, I have 12 members voting aye, and 

18 members voting no. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
177 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASArc4.eps
178 

Chairman GORDON. The no’s prevail. The amendment is—does 

not pass, and let me announce that we have two more amendments, and I would appreciate—three amendments? Oh, we have 

three amendments, so we will come back immediately after this 

vote to finish the bill. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman GORDON. Back to order. Let us see. The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. McCaul, the patient gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. MCCAUL. I am, and I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 002, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. McCaul. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me—I don’t 

think this has been said enough today. Let me commend you and 

the Ranking Member and Ms. Giffords and Mr. Olson for a fine job 

in a bipartisan piece of legislation that not only reauthorizes the 

Human Spaceflight Program but saves, restores, and advances 

human spaceflight, and I want to thank you personally for that and 

with that my amendment basically provides for a sense of the Congress that NASA should attempt to carry out the top recommendations of the decadal survey where possible. 

The decadal survey puts forth recommendations for NASA research which is developed by the top scientists in their fields, and 

in the past years NASA experienced dramatic funding shortfalls 

when the budget and appropriations did not adequately fund the 

agency. The NASA Administrator had the authority and exercised 

his authority to move large funding amounts from the science missions, including the top recommendations of the decadal survey 

mission areas in order to cover the budget shortfalls in other areas. 

As a result this hurt the progress of emissions and put them behind schedule. At a minimum NASA should be given priority to 

planning, designing, funding, and executing the top recommendations from the decadal survey in each mission area. 

And while the current amendment language is a sense of Congress, I would like to be able to work with the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member to strengthen this language as the bill moves to 

the Floor. 

And with that I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCaul follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL T. MCCAUL

• In past years, NASA experienced dramatic funding shortfalls when the budget and appropriations did not adequately fund the agency. 

• The NASA administrator had the authority, and exercised his authority, to 

move large funding amounts from the Science missions—including the top 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
179 

recommendations of the Decadal survey mission areas—in order to cover the 

budget shortfalls in other areas. 

• This hurt the progress of the missions and put them behind schedule. 

• At a minimum, NASA should give priority to planning, designing, funding 

and executing the top recommendation from the Decadal survey in each mission area. 

Chairman GORDON. I thank you, Mr. McCaul, and thank you for 

your endurance today. You have a good amendment, and I think 

the committee should support it. 

Mr. Hall is recognized. 

Mr. HALL. Commonsense amendment, and I support it. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no further discussion, the vote is 

on the amendment from the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul. 

All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is passed. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment by Mr. Sensenbrenner and Mr. Miller, a bipartisan amendment, and I think 

Mr. Miller is going to carry that. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 041, amendment to H.R. 5781 

offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Mr. Miller of North 

Carolina. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sensenbrenner and 

I disagreed about an amendment earlier today, but this amendment restores the happy harmony that usually exists between Mr. 

Sensenbrenner and me. 

In our work on the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee 

we have been, Mr. Sensenbrenner and I have been disappointed in 

the role of the NASA Counsel, Office of General Counsel. What I 

think we want a general counsel to do is advise government agencies to follow both the letter and the spirit of the law. 

It appeared with respect to two instances that we know of that 

instead of doing that the General Counsel’s Office or the General 

Counsel determined that what management wanted to do was 

something other than what the letter and spirit of the law allowed 

or required, and instead of telling them to do what the law required it seemed to help them think through a strategy for to do 

something different and get away with it. 

This amendment requires ethics training for the members of the 

counsel’s office, the licensed attorneys in that office, and it moves 

the position of ethics officer away from the counsel. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR. 

NASA’s General Counsel’s Office has behaved like a defense lawyer for the mob— 

more intent on enabling and even covering up misconduct than on ensuring lawful 

actions. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
180 

NASA’s general counsel publicly testified that he destroyed video records from a 

meeting between NASA’s Administrator and the staff of NASA’s Office of the Inspector General because he wanted to prevent the recordings from becoming agency 

records that would be subject to FOIA and Congressional requests. He was aware 

at the time that the recorded meeting pertained to a matter that this Committee 

was actively investigating. He destroyed the recordings by breaking the compact 

discs over his knees and discarding the pieces in the trash. 

This amendment attempts to instill greater accountability in NASA’s General 

Counsel’s office by clarifying that counsel’s role is to ensure that staff behaves lawfully—not to help them avoid repercussions when they break the law. urge my colleagues to support it. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Miller, and thank you, Mr. 

Sensenbrenner, for bringing this excellent amendment. 

Is there further discussion? 

If no, all in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed, no. The 

ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The—I think the last amendment is a modified amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Peters. Are you ready 

to proceed with your amendment? 

Mr. PETERS. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman GORDON. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number 050 to H.R. 5781 offered by Mr. 

Peters of Michigan. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. PETERS. I will be very brief because I explained it beforehand, Mr. Chairman. Basically this amendment requests that the 

Administrator conduct a study on the use of radiation research on 

non-human primates. It was mentioned in my initial comments. 

This is research that has been done for 40 years, and there are now 

other ways of conducting the same sort of radiation experiments 

without using non-human primates. The European Space Agency, 

for example, no longer uses non-human primates. The U.S. Air 

Force has put out a fairly detailed report as to why they have 

moved away from this as well. 

This will also—this amendment simply asks NASA to present a 

report before any additional research. If they have anything that 

they are doing now, they can continue, but they need to provide 

justification and rationale for any additional research, and I would 

urge adoption. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Dr. Bartlett is recognized. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I was part of the research 

team that put the first primates in space. It was more than half 

a century ago. I was a school physiologist at Pensacola Florida. We 

had an Army monkey and a Navy monkey—their monkey was a 

rhesus monkey, ours was a spider monkey, the ones they are anticipating using here, and it was a suborbital flight, so I am not 

apriority opposed to appropriately using animals. 

But I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think that 

the—if they did this research they are talking about, it would be 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
181 

duplicative, and as a scientist I have some real concern about the 

validity of this kind of research. 

Radiation is a stressor, but these animals are already enormously stressed. These are not the affectionate spider monkeys 

that the organ grinder uses, although they are the same spider 

monkeys. These are monkeys that have forced incarceration which 

they keenly resent, and they are enormously stressed. I don’t know 

how you pretend that you are going to measure the effects of an 

additional stress radiation when you already have animals that are 

enormously stressed. 

And as Mr. Peters mentioned, we now have pretty much moved 

beyond this. We don’t need whole body exposures anymore because 

we know the target organs. We do a lot of tissue culture research, 

and so I think not only would these experiments be duplicative, 

they are needed because today we have moved beyond that, and we 

are doing tissue culture studies and so forth. 

I rise in strong support of this amendment. I hope that it can be 

passed. I think it sends the right message. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Wu is recognized. 

Mr. WU. I do agree that a study is in order, and I support the 

amendment. Mr. Garamendi, would you—I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say—on 

the modified amendment. All members say aye. Vote, nay. The 

ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments? 

If no, then the vote is on the bill as amended. All those in favor 

say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The—let me make sure 

that I was just saying no as an option for someone. I was not voting no. I was voting aye so there will be no misunderstanding. 

I now recognize Mr. Hall for a motion. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee favorably 

report H.R. 5781 as amended to the House with the recommendation that the bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. The question is on the motion to report the 

bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying 

aye. Those opposed. The ayes have it. The bill is reported favorably. 

Without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

Members will have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the measure. 

Let me say to Mr. Hall, Ms. Giffords, Mr. Olson, job well done. 

Let me particularly say to the staff that has put so much time into 

this, we thank you for that. I will be the first to say this is not a 

perfect bill because we did not have the perfect amount of money, 

but we are going to move forward to a conference to the Floor, and 

we welcome additional improvements to the bill as we go long, and 

again, thank you all. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
182 

And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
(183) 

Appendix: 

H.R. 5781, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT ROSTER


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
184 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA1.eps
185 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA2.eps
186 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA3.eps
187 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA4.eps
188 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA5.eps
189 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA6.eps
190 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA7.eps
191 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA8.eps
192 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA9.eps
193 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA10.eps
194 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA11.eps
195 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA12.eps
196 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA13.eps
197 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA14.eps
198 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA15.eps
199 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA16.eps
200 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA17.eps
201 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA18.eps
202 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA19.eps
203 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA20.eps
204 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA21.eps
205 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA22.eps
206 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA23.eps
207 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA24.eps
208 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA25.eps
209 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA26.eps
210 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA27.eps
211 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA28.eps
212 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA29.eps
213 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA30.eps
214 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA31.eps
215 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA32.eps
216 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA33.eps
217 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA34.eps
218 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA35.eps
219 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA36.eps
220 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA37.eps
221 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA38.eps
222 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA39.eps
223 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA40.eps
224 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA41.eps
225 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA42.eps
226 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA43.eps
227 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA44.eps
228 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA45.eps
229 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA46.eps
230 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA47.eps
231 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA48.eps
232 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA49.eps
233 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA50.eps
234 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA51.eps
235 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA52.eps
236 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA53.eps
237 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA54.eps
238 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA55.eps
239 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA56.eps
240 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA57.eps
241 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA58.eps
242 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA59.eps
243 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA60.eps
244 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA61.eps
245 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA62.eps
246 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA63.eps
247 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA64.eps
248 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA65.eps
249 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA66.eps
250 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA67.eps
251 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA68.eps
252 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA69.eps
253 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA70.eps
254 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA71.eps
255 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA72.eps
256 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA73.eps
257 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA74.eps
258 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA75.eps
259 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA76.eps
260 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA77.eps
261 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA78.eps
262 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA79.eps
263 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA80.eps
264 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA81.eps
265 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA82.eps
266 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA83.eps
267 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA84.eps
268 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA85.eps
269 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA86.eps
270 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA87.eps
271 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA88.eps
272 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA89.eps
273 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA90.eps
274 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA91.eps
275 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA92.eps
276 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA93.eps
277 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA94.eps
278 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA95.eps
279 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA96.eps
280 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA97.eps
281 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA98.eps
282 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASA99.eps
283 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 5781, 

THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 

Sec. 1. Short Title 

The ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010’’. 

Sec. 2. Findings 

Congress finds that the agency is and should remain a multimission agency, and 

16 other findings. 

Sec. 3. Definitions 

The terms ‘‘Administrator’’, ‘‘ISS’’, ‘‘NASA’’, ‘‘NOAA’’, and ‘‘OSTP’’ are defined. 

TITLE I. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

Sec. 101. Fiscal Year 2011 

Authorizes NASA at $19,000,000,000 for FY 2011. That amount is the same as 

that in the President’s FY 2011 request. 

The authorization includes the following breakdown: 

Science: $5,015,700,000, of which 

$1,801,800,000 is for Earth Science 

$1,485,700,000 is for Planetary Science 

$1,076,300,000 is for Astrophysics 

$646,900,000 is for Heliophysics 

$5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation 

Aeronautics: $579,600,000 

Space Technology: $572,200,000 

Exploration: $4,535,300,000 of which 

$215,000,000 is for Human Research 

$14,000,000 is for the commercial cargo COTS demonstration program 

$50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-related activities 

$4,156,300,000 is for the restructured exploration program 

$100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee program 

Space Operations: $4,594,300,000, of which 

$989,100,000 is for the Space Shuttle program 

$2,804,800,000 is for the International Space Station 

$60,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce Transition Initiative 

$740,400,000 is for Space and Flight Support 

Education: $145,800,000 

Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,111,400,000 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: $407,300,000 

Inspector General: $38,400,000 

Sec. 102. Fiscal Year 2012 

Authorizes NASA at $19,450,000,000 for FY 2012. That is the same amount as 

is projected for FY 2012 in the President’s FY 2011 budget request. The authorization includes the following breakdown: 

Science: $5,278,600,000 of which 

$1,944,500,000 is for Earth Science 

$1,547,200,000 is for Planetary Science 

$1,109,300,000 is for Astrophysics 

$672,600,000 is for Heliophysics 

$5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
284 

Aeronautics: $598,700,000 

Space Technology: $1,012,200,000 

Exploration: $4,881,800,000 of which 

$215,000,000 is for Human Research 

$50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-related activities 

$4,516,800,000 is for the restructured exploration program 

$100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee program 

Space Operations: $3,930,300,000, of which 

$86,100,000 is for the Space Shuttle program 

$3,033,600,000 is for the International Space Station 

$40,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce Transition Initiative 

$770,600,000 is for Space and Flight Support 

Education: $145,800,000 

Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,189,600,000 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: $373,800,000 

Inspector General: $39,200,000 

Sec. 103. Fiscal Year 2013 

Authorizes NASA at $19,960,000,000 for FY 2013. That is the same amount as 

is projected for FY 2013 in the President’s FY 2011 budget request. The authorization includes the following breakdown: 

Science: $5,569,500,000, of which 

$2,089,500,000 is for Earth Science 

$1,591,200,000 is for Planetary Science 

$1,149,100,000 is for Astrophysics 

$734,700,000 is for Heliophysics 

$5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation 

Aeronautics: $609,400,000 

Space Technology: $1,059,700,000 

Exploration: $4,888,500,000 of which 

$215,000,000 is for Human Research 

$5,000,000 is for the Exploration Technology and Demonstration program 

$5,000,000 is for the Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions program 

$50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-related activities 

$4,513,500,000 is for the restructured exploration program 

$100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee program 

Space Operations: $3,993,300,000, of which 

$3,179,400,000 is for the International Space Station 

$40,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce Transition Initiative 

$773,900,000 is for Space and Flight Support 

Education: $145,800,000 

Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,276,800,000 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: $376,900,000 

Inspector General: $40,100,000 

Sec. 104. Fiscal Year 2014 

Authorizes NASA at $20,600,000,000 for FY 2014. That is the same amount as 

is projected for FY 2014 in the President’s FY 2011 budget request. The authorization includes the following breakdown: 

Science: $5,794,800,000, of which 

$2,216,600,000 is for Earth Science 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
285 

$1,635,100,000 is for Planetary Science 

$1,158,700,000 is for Astrophysics 

$779,400,000 is for Heliophysics 

$5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation 

Aeronautics: $615,100,000 

Space Technology: $1,063,900,000 

Exploration: $5,106,800,000 of which 

$215,000,000 is for Human Research 

$10,000,000 is for the Exploration Technology and Demonstration program 

$10,000,000 is for the Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions program 

$50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-related activities 

$4,721,800,000 is for the restructured exploration program 

$100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee program 

Space Operations: $4,062,600,000, of which 

$3,271,900,000 is for the International Space Station 

$790,700,000 is for Space and Flight Support 

Education: $145,800,000 

Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,366,500,000 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: $403,500,000 

Inspector General: $41,000,000 

Sec. 105. Fiscal Year 2015 

Authorizes NASA at $20,990,000,000 for FY 2015. That is the same amount as 

is projected for FY 2015 in the President’s FY 2011 budget request. The authorization includes the following breakdown: 

Science: $5,899,000,000, of which 

$2,282,200,000 is for Earth Science 

$1,654,400,000 is for Planetary Science 

$1,131,600,000 is for Astrophysics 

$825,800,000 is for Heliophysics 

$5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation 

Aeronautics: $625,300,000 

Space Technology: $1,217,900,000 

Exploration: $5,157,900,000 of which 

$215,000,000 is for Human Research 

$30,000,000 is for the Exploration Technology and Demonstration program 

$30,000,000 is for the Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions program 

$50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-related activities 

$4,732,900,000 is for the restructured exploration program 

$100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee program 

Space Operations: $4,030,500,000, of which 

$3,232,800,000 is for the International Space Station 

$797,700,000 is for Space and Flight Support 

Education: $146,800,000 

Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,462,200,000 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: $408,500,000 

Inspector General: $41,900,000 

TITLE II. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT 

Subtitle A. Exploration 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
286 

Sec. 201. Reaffirmation of Exploration Policy 

Reaffirms the support of the Congress for the exploration policy articulated in 

Secs. 401 and 402 of Public Law 110–422. 

Sec. 202. Restructured Exploration Program 

Directs the Administrator to develop a plan to restructure the current exploration 

program and develop, test, and demonstrate a government-owned crew transportation system and evolvable heavy lift transportation system in a manner that enables a challenging exploration program, minimizes the human space flight ‘‘gap’’, 

seeks efficiencies in program management and reductions in fixed and operating 

costs, requires a high level of crew safety, contains a robust flight and ground test 

program, facilitates the transition of Shuttle personnel, makes maximum practicable 

use of the work completed to date on the Orion, Ares I, heavy lift, and ground support and exploration enabling projects and contracts, and is phased in a manner 

consistent with available and anticipated resources. 

Sec. 203. Space Radiation 

Directs the Administrator to develop a space radiation mitigation and management strategy and implementation plan, and to transmit the strategy and plan no 

later than 12 months after the date of enactment of the Act. 

Subtitle B. International Space Station 

Sec. 211. Extension of ISS Operations 

Directs the Administrator to take all necessary measures to support the operation 

and full utilization of the International Space Station (ISS) through at least the 

year 2020 and to seek to reduce ISS operating costs. 

Sec. 212. ISS Research Management Institution 

Directs the Administrator to designate an independent, not-for-profit U.S. institution for the management of research carried out on the ISS. 

Sec. 213. ISS Research Management Plan. 

Directs the Administrator to have the designated institution prepare a management plan and transmit the plan no later than two years after the date of enactment of the Act. 

Sec. 214. Outreach Plan for U.S. ISS Research 

Directs the Administrator to have the institution prepare a plan for broadening 

and enhancing the outreach to potential U.S. government, academic, and commercial users of the ISS no later than two years after the date of enactment of the Act. 

Sec. 215. ISS Cargo Resupply Requirements and Contingency Capacity 

Through 2020 

Directs the Administrator to conduct an assessment of the ISS Cargo Resupply 

capacity required to support extended operations of the ISS through 2020 and explore options with its partners for ensuring upmass and downmass needs are addressed in the event that adequate U.S. commercial cargo resupply capabilities are 

not available during any extended period after the Shuttle is retired. 

Sec. 216. Centrifuge 

Directs the Administrator to assess innovative options for deploying a variablegravity centrifuge and to transmit the assessment no later than one year after the 

date of enactment of the Act. 

Sec. 217. Exploration Technology Development Using the ISS 

Directs the Administrator to develop a plan for carrying out prioritized activities 

that support NASA’s long-term plans for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit that require the capabilities of the International Space Station and to transmit the plan 

no later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 218. Fundamental Space Life Science and Physical Sciences and Related Technology Research 

Requires the Administrator to designate a responsible official and to develop a 

strategic plan for carrying out research in space life and physical sciences and techVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:34 Aug 01, 2010 Jkt 057655 PO 00000 Frm 00290 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR576.XXX HR576

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
287 

nology consistent with the priorities and recommendations established by the National Academies in its decadal survey of life and microgravity sciences and to transmit the plan within one year of the enactment of the Act. 

Subtitle C. Space Shuttle 

Sec. 221. Expanded Scope of Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office 

Renames Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office to Post-Shuttle Transition Liaison Office and extends life to two years after the last grant is awarded. 

Sec. 222. Post-Shuttle Workforce Transition Initiative Grant Program 

Authorizes the Administrator to make grants for the establishment, operation, coordination, and implementation of aerospace workforce and community transition 

strategies. 

Sec. 223. Disposition of Orbiter Vehicles 

Provides for the disposition of the remaining Space Shuttle orbiter vehicles upon 

the termination of the Space Shuttle program and provides for priority consideration 

being given to eligible applicants to display the orbiters at locations with the best 

potential value to the public, including where the location can advance STEM disciplines, and with an historical relationship with either the launch, flight operations, or processing of the Space Shuttle orbiters. 

Subtitle D. Space and Flight Support 

Sec. 231. 21st Century Space Launch Complex Initiative 

Directs that the Administrator, in carrying out the 21st Century Space Launch 

Initiative, give priority to activities supporting the restructured exploration program. 

Subtitle E. Commercial Crew Transportation 

Sec. 241. Affirmation of Policy 

Reaffirms the policy of making use of United States commercially provided International Space Station crew transport and crew rescue services; limiting the use of 

the government system to non-ISS missions once commercial crew transport and 

crew rescue services meeting safety requirements become operational; and facilitating the transfer of NASA-developed technologies to United States commercial orbital human space transportation companies. 

Sec. 242. Commercial Crew and Related Commercial Space Initiatives 

Directs NASA to seek opportunities to make use of commercially available crew 

transportation services provided that service providers meet applicable NASA safety 

requirements, have completed crewed flight demonstrations, and per-seat cost is not 

greater than the crew transportation system of the restructured exploration program. 

Directs the Administrator to establish requirements for the human-rating of space 

transportation systems that are equivalent to NASA safety processes and procedures and requires the Administrator to make available NASA-developed technologies and NASA facilities and equipment to assist in the testing and demonstration of commercial crew transportation systems. 

Requires that any company seeking to provide commercial crew transport services 

to NASA enter into an arrangement with NASA that allows NASA to obtain ongoing 

insight into the design methodologies, processes, technologies, and other information 

employed in the development and production of a commercial crew transportation 

system. 

Requires the Administrator, before entering into any contracts for the use of commercially available commercial crew transport or crew rescue services, to certify 

that each commercial provider has demonstrated the safety and reliability of its systems. 

Prohibits the Administrator from proceeding with a procurement award for a commercial crew transport and rescue services until sufficient flight experience has 

been demonstrated and accrued; directs the Administrator to develop and communicate NASA’s human-rating requirements to commercial space companies; and directs the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel to conduct a review. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
288 

Prohibits the Administrator from entering into any agreement for a U.S. commercial ISS crew transport or rescue service until all indemnification and liability 

issues associated with the use of such systems by the U.S. government have been 

addressed and the Administrator has provided a report describing the indemnification and liability provisions. 

Directs the Administrator not to proceed with a procurement award for a commercial ISS crew transport system service if the provider’s crew transportation system 

has a predicted level of safety that is less than that predicted for the restructured 

exploration program’s crew transportation system. 

Sec. 243. Federal Assistance for the Development of Commercial Orbital 

Human Space Transportation Services 

Directs the Administrator to establish a program to provide financial assistance 

in the form of loans or loan guarantees to commercial entities for the costs of development of orbital human space transportation systems. 

TITLE III. SCIENCE 

Subtitle A. Earth Science 

Sec. 301. Earth Science Applications 

Directs the Administrator to develop a process for entering into arrangements 

with other government agencies that seek to benefit from ongoing NASA capabilities 

related to Earth science applications and decision support systems. 

Sec. 302. Essential Space-Based Earth Science and Climate Measurements 

Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with the National Academies for a study, to be completed within 18 months after the enactment of this Act, 

to develop a prioritized list of essential earth science and climate measurements 

that can be collected with space-based means. 

Sec. 303. Commercial Remote Sensing Data Purchases Pilot Project 

Directs the Administrator to initiate a pilot project for purchasing commercial remote sensing data to address state, local, regional, and tribal needs. 

Subtitle B. Space Science 

Sec. 311. Suborbital Programs 

Directs the Administrator to designate an individual responsible for leading nearterm and long-term strategic planning for the suborbital and airborne program; and 

provide, within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, a strategic plan 

to support the full and productive use of NASA’s suborbital and airborne assets. 

Sec. 312. Explorer Program 

Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with the National Academies to conduct a review of the Explorer Program not later than 120 days after 

the date of enactment of the Act and to submit a plan for responding to the recommendations of the review no later than 16 months after the date of enactment 

of the Act. 

Sec. 313. Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator Material Requirements 

and Supply 

Directs the Administrator to conduct an analysis of NASA requirements for radioisotope power system material needed to carry out planned, high priority robotic 

missions in the solar system and other surface exploration activities beyond lowEarth orbit; and to transmit the results of the analysis no later than 180 days after 

the date of enactment of the Act. 

TITLE IV. AERONAUTICS 

Sec. 401. Environmentally Friendly Aircraft Research and Development Initiative 

Amends Sec. 302 of P.L. 110–422 by directing the Administrator to develop a plan 

and associated timetable for this initiative, including projected flight test demonstrations, and to transmit the plan within 270 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
289 

Sec. 402. Research on NextGen Airspace Management Concepts and Tools 

Directs the Administrator to review at least annually the alignment and timing 

of NASA’s research and development activities in support of the NextGen airspace 

management modernization initiative. 

Sec. 403. Research on Aircraft Cabin Air Quality 

Directs the Administrator to initiate research on aircraft cabin air quality, including research on innovative aircraft cabin air quality sensors, that complements research conducted by FAA. 

Sec. 404 Research on On-board Volcanic Ash Sensor Systems 

Directs the Administrator to conduct a study to assess the feasibility of establishing a project focused on the development of a low-cost, on-board volcanic ash 

sensor system. 

Sec. 405. Aeronautics Test Facilities 

Directs the Administrator to develop an agency-wide plan to stabilize and where 

possible reverse the deterioration of the agency’s aeronautics ground test facilities. 

Sec. 406. Expanded Research Program on Composite Materials Used in 

Aerospace 

Directs the Administrator to expand NASA’s research program on composite materials used in aerospace applications to address such topics as progressive damage 

analysis and ways to mitigate how the environment interacts with composite materials over time. 

TITLE V. SPACE TECHNOLOGY 

Sec. 501. Space Technology Program 

Directs the Administrator to establish a space technology program to enable research and development on advanced space technologies and systems that are independent of specific space mission flight projects, including such areas as in-space 

propulsion, power generation and storage, liquid rocket propulsion, avionics, structures, and materials; enter into an arrangement with the National Academies for 

a ‘‘decadal survey’’ study to make recommendations on research and development 

priorities for NASA’s space technology program over the next decade; and transmit 

the results of the study no later than 20 months after the date of enactment of the 

Act. 

TITLE VI. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH 

Sec. 601. STEM Education and Training 

Directs the Administrator to develop, conduct, support, promote, and coordinate 

formal and informal educational and training activities that leverage NASA’s unique 

content expertise and facilities; and designate a Director to oversee and coordinate 

all NASA programs and activities in support of STEM education and training. 

Sec. 602. Assessment of Impediments to Space Science and Engineering 

Workforce Development for Minority and Underrepresented 

Groups at NASA 

Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement for an independent assessment of impediments to space science and engineering workforce development 

for minority and underrepresented groups at NASA and transmit a report of the assessment not later than 15 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 603. Independent Review of the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program 

Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with the National Academies for a review of the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program and 

to transmit the results of the review no later than 18 months after the date of the 

enactment of the Act. 

TITLE VII. INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITIES REVITALIZATION 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
290 

Sec. 701. Institutional Management 

Directs the Administrator to develop a strategy for the maintenance, repair, upgrading, and modernization of the agency’s laboratories, facilities and equipment 

and to transmit the strategy and an implementation plan no later than 180 days 

after the date of enactment of the Act. 

Authorizes the Administrator to establish a capital fund at each of NASA’s Centers for modernization of facilities and laboratories. 

Sec. 702. James E. Webb Cooperative Education Distinguished Scholar Program 

Authorizes the Administrator to establish a national Cooperative Education Program that will complement existing NASA Center-administered cooperative education initiatives. As the ‘‘best of the brightest’’, ten finalists will be selected annually as James E. Webb Cooperative Education Distinguished Scholars. 

TITLE VIII. ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT 

Sec. 801. Prohibition on Expenditure of Funds When 30 Percent Threshold 

Is Exceeded 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization of 2005 is 

amended to clarify the starting point of the period at the end of which NASA is prohibited from expending further funds on a project. 

Sec. 802. Project and Program Reserves 

Directs the Administrator to transmit not later than 180 days after enactment of 

this Act a report describing NASA’s criteria for establishing the amount of reserves 

at the Project and Program levels. 

Sec. 803. Independent Reviews 

Directs the Administrator to transmit not later than 270 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act a report describing internal entities that conduct independent 

reviews of projects and programs at life cycle milestones and how NASA ensures 

the independence of members prior to their assignment. 

Sec. 804. Avoiding Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Major NASA Acquisition Programs 

Directs the Administrator to revise the NASA Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act 

to provide uniform guidance and tighten existing requirements for organizational 

conflicts of interest by contractors in major acquisition programs. 

Sec. 805. Report to Congress 

Directs the Administrator to transmit a report to Congress on April 30th of each 

year that provides an estimate of the total termination liability as of the end of the 

second quarter of the fiscal year for all NASA contracts with a total value in excess 

of $200 million. 

TITLE IX. OTHER PROVISIONS 

Sec. 901. Cloud Computing 

Directs the Comptroller General to transmit a report detailing whether sensitive 

but unclassified and classified NASA information was processed on a non-Federal 

cloud computing facility and if so, how NASA ensured the safeguarding of NASA’s 

scientific and technical information. 

Sec. 902. Review of Practices to Detect and Prevent the Use of Counterfeit 

Parts 

Directs the Comptroller General to transmit the results of its review of NASA’s 

processes and controls to detect and prevent the use of counterfeit parts in NASA 

mission projects and related assets no later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 903. Preservation and Management of Lunar Sites 

Directs the OSTP Director, in cooperation with the Administrator and others, to 

enter into an international dialogue to identify the questions and research needed 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
291 

to understand the potential adverse impacts of various uses of the Moon on scientific activities and on lunar areas of historical, cultural, or scientific value, and 

how to prevent or mitigate the impacts. Directs the Administrator, in cooperation 

with other relevant Federal agencies and stakeholders, to establish a grants program and to provide a report on the results of the international dialog and the establishment of an international framework within two years after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 904. Continuity of Moderate Resolution Land Imaging Remote Sensing 

Data 

Reaffirms the finding in Section 2 of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, 

Public Law 102–555, regarding the continuous collection and utilization of land remote sensing data from space. 

Requires the Director of OSTP to take steps to ensure the continuous collection 

of space-based medium resolution observations of the Earth’s land cover and that 

data are made available to facilitate the widest possible use. 

Sec. 905. Space Weather 

Directs the Director of OSTP to prepare a long-term strategy for a sustainable 

space weather program and develop a plan to implement the strategy, to enter into 

an arrangement with the National Academies to assess the status of capabilities for 

space weather prediction, and transmit the results of these activities no later than 

18 months after the date of enactment of the Act. 

Sec. 906. Use of Operational Commercial Suborbital Vehicles for Research, 

Development, and Education 

Directs the Administrator to prepare a plan describing the processes required to 

support the potential use of commercial reusable suborbital flight vehicles for carrying out scientific and engineering investigations and educational activities; assess 

and characterize the potential capabilities and performance of commercial reusable 

suborbital vehicles for addressing scientific research; and transmit the plan and assessment within one year after the date of enactment of this Act. Prohibits the Administrator from proceeding with a procurement award for the provision of a commercial reusable suborbital vehicle launch service until all indemnification and liability issues have been addressed and the Administrator has provided a report describing the indemnification and liability provisions that are planned to be included 

in such contract(s). 

Sec. 907. Study on Export Control Matters Related to U.S. Astronaut Safety 

and NASA Mission Operations 

Directs the Director of OSTP to conduct a study to examine the need for a process 

for granting real-time, limited waivers to export control license restrictions or regulations on matters related to U.S. astronaut safety and NASA mission operations 

and to transmit the results of the study no later than one year after the date of 

enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 908. Amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 

Amends section 202 to permit the Administrator and Deputy Administrator to be 

retired commissioned military personnel. 

Sec. 909. Near-Earth Objects 

Reaffirms the direction codified in P.L. 110–422 and directs the Administrator to 

designate a responsible official for coordinating NASA’s near-Earth object observation activities; directs the Administrator to transmit a plan for carrying out the reaffirmed direction within 270 days after enactment; and authorizes funding for specific activities. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTS
292 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAros1.eps
293 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAros2.eps
294 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAros3.eps
295 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAros4.eps
296 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAros5.eps
297 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAros6.eps
298 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa1.eps
299 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa2.eps
300 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa3.eps
301 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa4.eps
302 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa5.eps
303 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa6.eps
304 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa7.eps
305 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa8.eps
306 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa9.eps
307 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa10.eps
308 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa11.eps
309 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa12.eps
310 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa13.eps
311 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa14.eps
312 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa15.eps
313 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa16.eps
314 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa17.eps
315 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa18.eps
316 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa19.eps
317 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa20.eps
318 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa21.eps
319 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa22.eps
320 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa23.eps
321 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa24.eps
322 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa25.eps
323 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa26.eps
324 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa27.eps
325 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa29.eps
326 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa30.eps
327 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa31.eps
328 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa32.eps
329 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa33.eps
330 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa35.eps
331 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa36.eps
332 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa37.eps
333 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa38.eps
334 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa39.eps
335 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa40.eps
336 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa41.eps
337 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa42.eps
338 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa43.eps
339 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa44.eps
340 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa45.eps
341 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa46.eps
342 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa47.eps
343 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa48.eps
344 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa28.eps
345 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa49.eps
346 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa50.eps
347 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa51.eps
348 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa52.eps
349 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa54.eps
350 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa53.eps
351 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa55.eps
352 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa56.eps
353 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa57.eps
354 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa58.eps
355 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa59.eps
356 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa60.eps
357 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa61.eps
358 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa62.eps
359 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa63.eps
360 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa64.eps
361 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa65.eps
362 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa66.eps
363 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa67.eps
364 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa68.eps
365 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa69.eps
366 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with REPORTSNASAa34.eps