Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6063) to authorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for other purposes.

I want to thank Ranking Member Hall and Chairman Gordon and, as they pointed out, all of the staff on both sides that made possible a bipartisan bill that got unanimous support in the committee.

I also want to suggest that terrific staff work on both sides and transparency and openness in the process is sort of a model that this Congress ought to try to emulate more often, and I want to thank, again, Chairman Gordon and Chairman Udall for doing that.

By the way, this is likely to be, since he's not running for reelection, Chairman Udall's last reauthorization as a House Member. He has been a champion on space issues. He's been a great friend and a delight to work with, and I know that he will continue to be a champion for space and aeronautics. And so I really appreciated the chance to work with you.

And following me I think at some point will be Congressman Weldon, my neighbor to the south. We share the different assets of Kennedy Space Center, Patrick Air Force Base, and Congressman Weldon will not be running for office again anytime soon, at least not the House. We appreciate Dave Weldon's leadership. He's been a terrific advocate for space in general and Kennedy Space Center and human spaceflight in specific.

So it's been terrific to work with two great leaders that will not be working with us in all likelihood next year.

NASA was created in response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik in 1957. The space age had begun. Fifty years have now passed. America is still the world's preeminent spacefaring Nation. NASA helped lead us to that status.

Today, we build on that foundation. We have laid out a comprehensive blueprint for sustaining a healthy and vigorous NASA during the next administration, and as Chairman Gordon pointed out, we don't know who the next President will be. We don't know who their next NASA administrator will be, but the starting point for the next administration's space program has been designed right here in the House of Representatives, thanks to the leadership of the people that you are hearing from.

Considerable care has been devoted to all elements of NASA's portfolio, human spaceflight, earth and space sciences, and aeronautics. I look forward to continued success and excellence in all of these endeavors. Each success sustains America's technical prowess and brings enormous prestige to the American people.

Because I represent the Kennedy Space Center, I want to particularly note this bill's unambiguous endorsement of America's human spaceflight program. By the way, all of our human spaceflight program has an international component to it.

Five years ago, America was stunned by the loss of the Shuttle Columbia. We had to re-examine our objectives for human spaceflight and articulate a more sustainable vision for our future spacefaring. We have done so, and this bill continues that progress by providing much- needed stability, on a bipartisan basis, in our strategy and architecture for human spaceflight.

The shuttle has resumed flight. We are having a successful mission as we speak today. We will complete the International Space Station and then strive to utilize its enormous potential. And we will also set forth to explore beyond lower orbit, starting with the moon and then beyond, for the future of humankind.

These are ambitious goals, but Americans are a strong, optimistic people willing to take up and meet any challenge. And as this bill highlights, America invites others throughout the world to join us in this journey. It is done on behalf of all mankind.

NASA's human space exploration and satellite programs publicly demonstrate America's spacefaring prowess. Other Nations are striving to achieve what America has already accomplished.

In prior generations, mastery of the sea and air brought global power and prestige. Today, such power and respect accrues to those mastering space. This bill sustains America's prowess in space, and I urge its passage.

I thank Ranking Member Hall, and I thank Chairman Gordon for this amendment. I did want to take a moment or two to point out a very important aspect of this manager's amendment. It directs the White House Office of Science and Technology to establish an interagency committee to study issues related to locating a commercial space launch range in close proximity to a Federal launch range.

In order to have viable commercial launch operations in the United States, effective coordination and cooperation must exist between potential commercial ranges and existing Federal ranges. Federal agencies have to endeavor to assist and not choke off commercial space ranges. The interagency committee will focus on these agencies and the importance of this issue.

Let me say that for the last 50 years, space has been really a bipolar world. Either you were a part of the former Soviet orbit and space power, or you were part of the American-led free nations in space power.

Today it is a very different world. I just recently came back from the first ever global space summit in Beijing, China, where over 15 nations were represented, some six or seven major spacefaring powers. It is not just people that have to come ask the United States to get permission to get commercial opportunities in space today. There are some 50 different international agreements, many of which don't even involve the United States of America.

In some ways, our competitors are beating us to the punch in commercial launch opportunities. It is not just bad for business. Let me say, for example, the Chinese have launched over 33 satellites from other countries. They are doing this to help countries we would consider troublesome, for example, Venezuela or Nigeria. They are also using it to buy influence with our friends, like Japan or Brazil. America cannot shoot itself in the foot in developing and maintaining our historic leadership in commercial opportunities any more than we can give up predominance in the civilian side of human space exploration.

And so this manager's amendment contains a very important aspect. I sincerely applaud the chairman and others, including John Culberson, for advocating for this specific piece of the manager's amendment.

I am claiming time, without objection, for the minority side. We have no further speakers and would urge support and adoption of the manager's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment under the name of Mr. Rohrabacher at the desk.

Madam Chairman, on behalf of this amendment, as Congressman Rohrabacher explained earlier, this amendment is a sense of the Congress provision stating the U.S. should seek to obtain commitments for cooperation from other nations in the search for near- Earth objects.

Mr. Rohrabacher has been an ardent advocate in our committee for the potential threat posed by asteroids and comets having orbits that bring them close to Earth and the devastation they could create should one of them impact us.

By the way, I have sat through hearings, along with Congressman Udall and others, and we have incredibly sophisticated technology and capabilities one day to protect Earth if we know we are going to be targeted by an asteroid or comet, for example. In fact, the testimony was that some 99 percent of the resources today globally to prepare for this eventuality are American tax dollars. It seems seeking cooperation on behalf of all humankind only makes sense.

Our committee held a highly informative set of hearings on near-Earth objects late last fall. It is clear to me that the entire world community needs to be much more vigilant in finding, tracking and characterizing near-Earth objects and developing deflection capabilities and technologies.

I urge support for this amendment.

I will be glad to.

Reclaiming my time just to close on behalf of Mr. Rohrabacher's amendment, he is a great advocate, but I felt more comfortable after I heard from a bevy of the world's best astrophysicists that this is not only a real threat, but a real potential way to solve a threat to humankind.

With that, I would urge my colleagues to support the Rohrabacher amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I do not rise in opposition to the amendment. I should say I have no objection to the amendment. I have read it very carefully, and I appreciate the language ``when appropriate.'' Of course, it would be the United States that determined, in my view, when international confidence-building measures would be appropriate.

I should say there are times when, for example, sharing sensitive technologies with certain countries may be inappropriate, if we don't have confidence what they may use those technologies for or what their long-term intentions are. On the other hand, there are things we ought to clearly explore sharing with every spacefaring Nation; for example, a common docking device with the Shuttle, perhaps, so any nation in the event of emergency may be able to help rescue our astronauts.

I should also suggest, as I talked about earlier, that space is developing. It is no longer a bipolar world. Historically, people have out of habit and out of practicality had to rely on asking the U.S. if they wanted to send a satellite, for example, into orbit, to see whether or not that satellite would safely orbit the Earth without colliding into another country's satellite. That is not true because of any international treaty or convention. Anybody can send anything into space. The truth is, in terms of space law, we have really sort of an international anarchy, just as originally when we with had travel by navy or by commerce through the seas and ultimately international air travel.

There has to be some way to communicate ultimately in terms of maintaining space traffic. Stopping the creation of space junk or debris that would threaten all peacefaring uses of space would be another example of appropriate times the U.S. should lead in confidence-building measures to advance long-term initiatives for international cooperation.

With that, again, I have no objection to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in order to address the amendment, to claim the minority time.

For purposes of debate, I may well be opposed, yes.

Madam Chairman, I have carefully read the amendment, and while I may not press my objection, I will state that the amendment, in my view, is unnecessary, that NASA has a policy in place that goes to the very same points expressed in the amendment, and perhaps unintentionally this amendment implies that NASA cannot be trusted to factually in an unbiased manner publicize research results conducted by agency scientists.

Several years ago, NASA's Public Affairs Office was accused with inappropriately choosing which NASA scientists participated in specific interviews with the press. Once this interference was brought to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's attention, he quickly and forcefully intervened, assuring Congress, NASA researchers and employees, and the public that NASA will never seek to censor agency scientists.

In a letter dated March 30, 2006, and this issue has been addressed over and over again, addressed to former Science Committee Chairman Sherry Boehlert, Mr. Griffin stated, ``I will not tolerate any policy or action where any NASA employee may filter, alter or

censor scientific findings and facts, and I want to reaffirm that NASA has always been and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public.''

Mr. Griffin then formed a policy development team comprised of NASA employees with science, legal and public affairs backgrounds to review existing policies, identify ways to improve them, and develop agency practices to maintain NASA's commitment for full and open discourse on scientific, technical and safety issues. The result of their work was a series of revisions to 14 Code of Federal Regulations, section 1213, which guides the agency's public affairs policies, which all Americans can visit.

Mr. Griffin then formed a policy development team comprised of NASA employees with science, legal and public affairs backgrounds to review existing policies, identify ways to improve them, and develop agency practices to maintain NASA's commitment for full and open discourse on scientific, technical and safety issues. The results of their work was a series of revisions to 14 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), Section 1213, which guides the agency's public affairs policies.

More recently, the NASA Office of Inspector General concluded an investigation in response to a Congressional inquiry dating back to 2006, requesting a formal investigation about ``political interference'' by NASA public affairs officials.

The IG's investigation found that ``. . . during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public through those particular media over which the Office of Public Affairs had control. We also concluded that the climate change editorial decisions were localized within the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs; we found no credible evidence suggesting that senior NASA or Administration officials directed the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs to minimize information related to climate change. To the contrary, we found that once NASA leadership within the Office of the Administrator were made aware of the scope of the conflict between the Office of Public Affairs and scientists working on climate change, they aggressively implemented new policies with a view toward improved processes in editorial decision- making relating to scientific public affairs matters.''

The IG's report also stated: ``With respect to NASA's climate change research activities, we found no evidence indicating that NASA blocked or interfered with the actual research activities of its climate change scientists . . . (W)e found that NASA systematically distributed its technical climate change research throughout the scientific community and otherwise made it available through a variety of specialized forums, such as scientific journals, professional conferences, and public appearances by NASA scientists.''

Additionally, a May 2007 GAO report found ``that NASA policies are generally clear and should help facilitate the dissemination of research results. For example, NASA's recently revised media policy clearly defines the roles and responsibilities for managers, researchers, and public affairs staff; details steps in the process for dissemination via press releases and interviews; and describes a process to resolve disputes about agency decisions regarding press releases.''

In closing, while I have no objection to the gentleman's (Mr. Wu) amendment, I don't want Members to surmise that NASA science findings are being manipulated by agency management. That is not what the NASA IG, or GAO reports found.

Madam Chairman, I don't specifically object to the language of this amendment, because I think it is consistent with NASA policy and Michael Griffin's great efforts to explain to the public that he will insist and has insisted on this policy. But I will remind all of us that a May 2007 GAO report found ``NASA policies are generally clear and should help facilitate the dissemination of research results. For example, NASA's recently revised media policy clearly defines the roles and responsibilities for managers, researchers, and public affairs staff, details steps in the process for dissemination of press releases and interviews, and describes a process to resolve disputes about agency decisions regarding press releases.''

In closing, while I do not object to Mr. Wu's amendment, I don't want Members to surmise that NASA science findings are being manipulated by current agency management. That is not what NASA, IG, or GAO reports found.

Again, we have no objection to the language that Mr. Wu offers.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield for a question?

I don't know whether, candidly, I support or oppose the amendment, because it has some very technical effects in its interplay with other portions of Federal statutes and requirements and regulation.

Just one of the many questions I have would be that it seems, as I read the amendment, that it establishes different conditions on contracting fuel versus those established in section 526. So I guess one of my questions, maybe the most important, since we don't have a lot of time, do the conditions in your amendment supplant the greenhouse gas emission criteria found in 526, or do they remain in effect, and are these conditions in addition to the 526 regulations?

If the gentleman will yield.

If I have any. I don't know that we have any more time.

Could I ask unanimous consent that each side have an additional 2 minutes?

Actually if I could suggest, rather than taking up your 2 minutes, I would be grateful if you yielded, but I will yield back to you and claim my own 2 minutes so that you can use yours since you were gracious enough not to object.

I thank the gentleman.

This amendment may be very positive. The problem is that it conflicts with other statutes and regulations. It is very complicated as we read it.

What my friend says is a clarifying amendment actually creates a lot more ambiguity in our minds about the interplay of these different standards.

I talked about the interplay with 526, and I still don't know which set of rules will govern, the set of rules in the gentleman's amendment or section 526.

We also seem to cite a section of the Energy Independence and Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 17142. There is currently no section 526(a) nor a 42 U.S.C. 17142(a) in the law, and yet I believe the gentleman's amendment cites these sections, as I read it, that do not exist in current law.

I have a concern about the amendment's intention. Do you want to create an exemption under 526 for generally available fuel that is not predominantly produced from a nonconventional petroleum source, or does it create a broader exemption for all alternative or synthetic fuels as referenced in section 526?

So I guess I have a number of very complex questions. I wish this is something we might have dealt with in committee where we have a number of experts, both members and staff. While I don't know that I object, it is because I just don't understand all of the different regulations and statutes and the interplay, and this seems to be one more additional attempt at dealing with whether NASA can or can't do things, and I really have no idea whether this is in addition to, or whether it is consistent with, or whether it may be mutually exclusive with provisions in other portions of the law, and I wish we could spend some time with technical staff to iron out these difficulties.

With that, having expressed concern and not necessarily opposing the amendment because I don't really understand all of the ways it will be enforced given other statutes and regulations.

I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

We appreciate that. Having said that, on a technical issue like this, it sure would have been great to take a more technical look at this at the subcommittee or committee level. Having said that, I appreciate the chairman's gracious offer to help clarify for those of us who think more ambiguity, not less, is being created by this amendment, and what the ultimate impact will be.

Madam Chairman, I rise, at least for purposes of debate, to be recognized in opposition.

I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I think it is very well-intentioned. I do not intend to object to the language. I do believe it is designed to help NASA distribute its space images and multimedia records to the public. I share that goal; but I should say that I think this amendment is superfluous. I think it is already contained in the bill language itself. Now superfluity is not necessarily an awful thing. Sometimes the best thing we do here is just to repeat what we have already done, and it probably does very little harm.

But I would point out that section 407 clearly instructs NASA to develop a plan, to identify opportunities to leverage the very same technologies Mr. Arcuri references in his amendment.

The gentleman's amendment seeks NASA to develop a plan and examine the feasibility to ``broadcast electronically, including via the Internet.'' The language in the bill talks about already ``rapidly delivering the content through extended high bandwidth communications networks.''

So I think Mr. Arcuri's concerns are already adequately addressed in the bill. I would simply argue that they are unnecessary. Having said that, I would not object to them being included.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate and I don't dispute the intentions that the gentleman has. I agree with that, and I believe that the current language in the bill requires NASA to rapidly deliver this content that you are talking about through high bandwidth communications networks, and I think that includes universities in the private sector, et cetera.

Having said that, because the intent of the language clearly is not something I object to, I will not oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I am not necessarily in opposition to the amendment.

I think all of us want to know the cost of every government project. That certainly includes Constellation.

As Mr. Wu pointed out, on behalf of Mr. DeFazio, the GAO just gave us a very comprehensive report. We had a full hearing on the matter of the progress of the Constellation program.

I can tell you that there are some 56 annual reports that NASA has to give to Congress, and dozens of others that it has to give to other agencies, regulatory agencies and other governmental agencies. This is not a request that NASA add to their 100 or 150 reports an additional report. It's asking CBO to take an outside look. And I'm never opposed to transparency in government, especially cost.

I should point out that the amendment singles out Project Constellation for particular scrutiny. Project Constellation is our follow up to the Space Shuttle Human Space Flight Program which is clearly a top priority for NASA, and has been established in this Congress as a top priority.

The shuttle will be retired roughly at the end of this decade. Without Constellation, NASA will have no choice but to buy assets from other nations if we intend to maintain access to our own international space station.

We're going to be dependent on the Russians right now under a very bad plan, but the only plan we have for 5 years. Without Constellation, all hopes of accessing, through American capabilities, the international space station or venturing the moon or other planets or asteroids will simply disappear.

Not all of our colleagues pay as much attention as those of us that are on the floor here today to space. I think one of our colleagues recently suggested that the first manned lunar outpost in space be named after Neil Armstrong, the great first American ever on the Moon.

My question, in response, was why would the Chinese, who are going to get back to the Moon before us, give us permission to name their lunar outpost after an American? We've got to remind our colleagues that this is now an internationally competitive environment in more ways than one.

Constellation is a technology-driven program that will achieve its initial operational capability roughly in the Year 2015, hopefully earlier. NASA has worked hard to maintain their schedule. They give us reports every day. We had a GAO report.

Having said that, if the gentleman feels compelled to support the DeFazio amendment, and we have one additional report on the budgetary status, I don't have any objection to transparency in government. But at some point you're doing so many reports that it's hard to send people back to the moon if you're doing 150 or 200 reports for Congress and other agencies and spending all your time filling out paperwork.

These are really bright engineers. I want to get into the business of flying rockets and not doing more paperwork.

With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, not only am I not in opposition, but I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse the Harman-Ehlers amendment. And I should point out as she mentions the trouble in getting new people into the workforce and an aging and retiring workforce. By the way, one of those young engineers that works in the space field is my wife, and she remains eternally young. But she's the exception.

I've talked extensively about the competition, both civilian and commercial, coming from China. I can tell you that I recently visited CASC, which is the Chinese Civilian and Commercial Space Agency. They have 160,000 employees. About half of those are dedicated to space. And we asked the question, what the average age, because we were startled by the engineering manager that addressed us on their program, what the average age of the managers were in the Engineering Department. The average age of the managers was 40. We were stunned.

We asked, what's the average age of your engineers that are doing space work. And the answer is 30.

Madam Chairman, nothing could be more important to science and technology.

And with that, I want to yield the balance of my time, to, as the gentlelady said, a great advocate for science and space and technology, and for young people getting into these fields, Mr. Ehlers.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I'm not necessarily opposed.

This really is an amendment that we're enthusiastic about. NASA currently conducts weather research in cooperation with NOAA, although through the U.S. Weather Research Program, the gentleman's amendment emphasizes the importance of this research as we cope with predicting and dealing with the aftermath of violent weather systems.

It's a terrific amendment, and with that, I would urge its support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for the time, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, next month we are set to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, in the beginning of its mission ``to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.''

Since then, NASA has sent men to the moon, established a permanent human presence in space aboard the International Space Station, sent robots to explore Mars for signs of life, and launched the Hubble Telescope that revolutionized astronomy by providing unprecedented deep and clear views of the universe. One can only imagine what NASA will accomplish in the next 50 years as we begin working building a permanent base on the moon and eventually sending astronauts to explore Mars and beyond.

Since the creation of the Kennedy Space Center in 1962, as my good friend Mr. Hastings has explained, Florida has played an integral role supporting NASA's mission through a partnership between Florida's academic and business sectors. Florida will continue to play an important role as the space flights to the moon and Mars begin their journey of exploration at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. I am pleased that the underlying legislation, H.R. 6063, will continue this successful partnership.

Three years ago, Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 which 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 space, aeronautics and human space flight, including human and robotic exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

Today's legislation reaffirms those basic principles, while emphasizing the importance of NASA leadership and Earth observations and research, aeronautics research and development to address critical national needs, and an exploration program strengthened by international cooperation under strong United States leadership.

The underlying legislation authorizes $20.21 billion in funding for fiscal year 2009. That is a 2.8 percent increase in investment from fiscal year 2008.

As we all know, NASA intends to retire the shuttle fleet in 2010. The shuttle will be replaced with a 21st century exploration system, the Constellation Program, that will be cost-effective, reliable, versatile, and, most importantly, safe for our brave and brilliant astronauts.

Until the Constellation Program is ready for lift off in 2015, we will be reliant upon Russia to ferry our crews and equipment to the International Space Station. NASA has agreements to pay Russia $760 million, and those costs could rise as high as $2.8 billion during the gap. To reduce our reliance on Russia, the bill authorizes an additional $1 billion to accelerate the development of the replacement Orion and Ares rockets and reduce the 5-year gap. Doing that will help retain thousands of well-paying aerospace, engineering and technician jobs and maintain American expertise in those areas.

The legislation also fully authorizes the administration's request for the International Space Station to ensure

its safety and long-term viability and funds additional shuttle missions, including one to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. The spectrometer is designed to search for unusual matter by measuring cosmic rays. Its experiments will help researchers study and unlock the mysteries of the formation of the universe.

This legislation fully authorizes NASA's Education Program, which seeks to inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. I believe it is vital to keep the United States competitive in science, math and engineering. Our children are our future, and by seriously funding math and science programs we ensure that our future generations will continue to excel, explore and discover.

I would like to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall and Subcommittee Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Feeney for their bipartisan work in the Science Committee on this important reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that bipartisan spirit didn't make it past the doors of the Rules Committee, where the majority only allowed one Republican amendment, while allowing 10 Democratic amendments. It is a new ratio, 10 to 1. And that one Republican amendment is just a sense of Congress, while many of the Democratic amendments call for substantive changes in policy.

One example of how the majority consistently blocks Republicans but allows Democratic amendments is illustrated with the disparate treatment of the Lampson and Gingrey amendments. The majority on the Rules Committee made in order the Lampson amendment exempting NASA from section 526(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act, and yet when Representative Gingrey submitted two amendments to the Rules Committee regarding the same issue, they were both rejected.

So far this year, the majority on the Rules Committee has issued a record 54 closed rules, while only allowing one open rule. The majority had an opportunity yesterday to change their ways and provide an open rule for this legislation, thus doubling their amount of open rules, but instead they decided by a party-line vote that they are quite content blocking an open debate.

An open debate on the NASA reauthorization would be particularly helpful in getting this legislation signed into law. Prior to the hearing in the Rules Committee, the administration issued its Statement of Administrative Policy, or SAP, as it is known. The SAP stated that the administration has several areas of concern with the legislation. By allowing an open debate process, we could vet the areas of concern so we can produce a bill that can be signed into law. However, the majority decided against an open and fair debate, and now this important reauthorization may be delayed.

It didn't have to be like that. One of the central tenets of the Democrats' campaign in 2006 was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. On December 6, 2006, Speaker Pelosi reiterated her campaign promise. She said, and I quote, ``We promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will.''

Yet here we are, three-fourths of the way through the 110th Congress, and the majority has come forth with one open rule. What a shame that their promises were left on the campaign trail.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, June 10, 2008,

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 6063--National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization

Act of 2008

(Rep. Udall (D) Colorado and 7 cosponsors)

The Administration supports maintaining a strong national

civil space science and aeronautics enterprise and is

committed to advancing the quest for new knowledge,

discovery, and exploration that is embodied in NASA programs

and activities. However, the Administration strongly opposes

H.R. 6063 because it mandates specific Space Shuttle flights

that greatly threaten NASA's ability to retire the Shuttle in

2010, an action that is critical to implementing the

President's Vision for Space Exploration. In addition, the

Administration has other serious objections to several

provisions of H.R. 6063 that must be satisfactorily addressed

prior to final congressional action on reauthorization

legislation.

The bill contains provisions that mandate two contingency

logistics flights and an additional Shuttle flight for the

Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and require that these flights

take place before Shuttle retirement,

thus effectively superseding the 2010 Shuttle retirement date

that is a critical step to enabling successful development of

the Crew Exploration Vehicle as called for by the President's

Vision for Space Exploration. Consistent with the Vision, the

current Space Shuttle flight manifest is a measured and

carefully balanced plan to allow the completion of the

International Space Station (ISS), a safe and orderly

retirement of the Shuttle, and the smooth transition of

facilities and personnel to Exploration Systems programs by

September 2010. The direction in this section would almost

certainly result in several serious impacts and risks to

NASA's exploration programs and other activities, including:

(1) significantly increasing costs of the Shuttle program,

not including potential recertification activities; (2)

delaying the operational capability of the Orion CEV well

beyond its current projected dates; (3) exacerbating

transition challenges, including facilities and workforce;

and (4) exposing astronaut crews to increased risks. In

addition, statutorily mandating additional flights regardless

of safety assessments and costs sets a dangerous and unwise

precedent.

The Space Shuttle must be retired by the end of 2010, and

the NASA Administrator's authority to make the final

determination on Shuttle flights based on safety

considerations must be preserved. In addition, any increased

cost of an additional Shuttle flight must be satisfactorily

accommodated within the President's proposed discretionary

spending total.

The FY 2009 budget request of $17.6 billion is sufficient

to achieve NASA's goals, and the additional $2.6 billion

authorized in the bill above the President's request is

inconsistent with the Administration's fiscal policies.

Accordingly, the Administration opposes this increased

authorization level.

In addition, H.R. 6063 directs several specific activities

under the assumption that additional funding will be

appropriated, making it likely they will become unfunded

mandates. Directing activities in this manner would severely

disrupt the budgets for NASA's ongoing, carefully-balanced

programs and Centers linked to other high-priority goals and

activities. For this reason and in view of associated

problematic policy implications, the following requirements

should either be removed from the bill or appropriately

modified: (1) carrying out an additional procurement for

Commercial Orbital Transfer Services (COTS) crew

capabilities, and mandating that NASA purchase commercial

services regardless of cost; (2) establishing an Exploration-

related technology research and development program that

would draw funding away from the Orion CEV, delaying its

availability; (3) establishing a cross-cutting technology

development program within the Science Mission Directorate at

a level of five percent of the Directorate's budget; (4)

requiring the continued operation and utilization of the ISS

by the United States after 2016, without first mitigating

significant budget implications in the outyears; and (5)

prescribing specific roles and responsibilities regarding

NASA's work with various advisory and external review

committees and other Federal agencies that the Administration

believes would be problematic and duplicative of already

well-established roles and responsibilities.

The Administration also is concerned with the proposed

wording of certain provisions and strongly urges that these

provisions be modified before passage of the bill. For

example, the direction in the bill to limit NASA's ability to

dispose of Space Shuttle-related hardware is likely to

severely disrupt ongoing Shuttle retirement and transition

activities. Similarly, the specific wording of other

provisions in H.R. 6063, including requiring all space

observatories to be serviceable regardless of practicality;

overly-prescribed aeronautics research goals; and

unproductive astronaut health surveys could lead to serious

unintended consequences, including greatly increased costs to

carry out these mandates. The Administration calls on

Congress to modify these provisions to provide NASA

sufficient flexibility to make programmatic and management

decisions as necessary.

In addition, the bill directs NASA to initiate discussions

with foreign nations on ``space traffic management.'' This

provision directly infringes upon the President's authority

to conduct foreign affairs. The United States already

actively promotes international cooperation to enhance

spaceflight safety and supports consideration of voluntary

transparency and confidence building measures in appropriate

venues under the leadership of the Department of State, with

appropriate assistance from the Department of Defense. These

provisions accordingly should be removed. A similar

objectionable provision is contained in the bill's section

governing ``exploration crew rescue.''

Finally, in addition to the significant concerns

highlighted above that must be satisfactorily addressed prior

to final congressional action, the Administration has an

overarching concern about the highly prescriptive nature of

the bill and the significant number of reports and studies

that this legislation would require. The Administration

understands the need for timely information for Congress to

conduct its oversight responsibilities; however, the burden

that would be placed on various agencies of the Executive

Branch, including NASA, is of concern. The Administration

looks forward to working with Congress to modify these

aspects of the bill.

The President does not threaten to veto the legislation. He enumerates in this statement a number of concerns with the legislation and finalizes the statement by saying that the administration looks forward to working with Congress to modify these aspects of the bill.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished colleague from Michigan, whose father was an aeronautical engineer and always has demonstrated great leadership on the issue of NASA and cutting-edge space technology, Mrs. Miller.

I thank my good friend.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a great leader from the State of Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Madam Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, just over 2 years ago, now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement: ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubber-stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican Big Oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.''

Madam Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 a gallon today instead of over $4 a gallon.

Reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront the high price of gasoline, just over a month ago the newspaper Investor's Business Daily in an editorial said that this Congress ``is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.''

Madam Speaker, I include for the Congressional Record the editorial from the Investor's Business Daily.

[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008]

Congress Vs. You

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress

is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is

especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional

energy policy.

The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its

failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an

ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from

understanding how free markets and supply and demand really

work. Sad, but true.

So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling

out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-

ranging press conference Tuesday.

``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues

affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to

mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to

their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately,

on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''

Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just

generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of

congressional energy inaction, including:

Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted,

estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from

this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and

diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of

the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so

your representative can raise campaign cash.

Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one

since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique''

fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem

at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price

spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.

Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with

advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems

have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--

the same as a decade ago--producing just 19 percent of our

total energy. (Many European nations produce 40 percent or

more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power

plants are expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce

energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35

for natural gas.

Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic

understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and

needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity.

So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy

companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy

situation worse.

These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all

while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add

more than a million barrels of new demand each and every

year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand

growing 40 percent by 2030, including a 28 percent increase

in the U.S.

Americans who are worried about the direction of their

country, including runaway energy and food prices, should

keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing

a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.

The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker

who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two

years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and

irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

Today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act introduced by Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, which would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, before finishing my remarks, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, precisely. In order to be able to take up legislation to give a tax break to commuters for the expenses, their expenses, rising expenses, daily rising expenses of getting to and back from work, I am going to ask all of our distinguished colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can take a stand against these high fuel prices and begin to give commuters a break in this country. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, earlier this year, I introduced the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, a bill to reauthorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the fiscal year 2009. Today, I rise to urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this bill and send it on to the Senate.

The bill passed the Committee on Science and Technology and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics with unanimous support, as our chairman pointed out. It represents a strong, bipartisan effort to ensure our continued leadership in space and aeronautics and to ensure that NASA's programs contribute to our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education efforts, to our Nation's Innovation Agenda, and to practical benefits for our citizens.

I, too, want to thank Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Member Ralph Hall, and my fellow ranking member on the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Tom Feeney from Florida, for being original cosponsors, as well as providing thoughtful input into this bill.

I would also like to thank the excellent staff on both the majority and minority side for their outstanding work on this bill. On my staff, my dedicated and tireless staff member, Wendy Adams, Richard Obermann, Pam Whitney, Allen Li, and Devin Bryant, as well as John Piazza have all been instrumental in moving this bill forward.

I want to particularly point out the great contribution--I think the chairman would agree with me--of Dick Obermann. We benefit in the committee, the Nation benefits and this House of Representatives benefits from Dick's insights, his knowledge, and the relationships he's built. Anyone in the NASA orbit knows Dick Obermann's many, many contributions. So I want to particularly point out his great contributions to the committee and to NASA.

On the minority side, I want to thank Ed Feddeman, Ken Monroe, and Lee Arnold as well. They have been very helpful in the work on this piece of legislation.

Madam Chairman, the bill sets fiscally responsible policies and provisions for a balanced set of science, aeronautics, and human spaceflight programs.

The baseline funding level authorized for NASA in fiscal year 2009, $19.21 billion, represents simply an inflation increase of about 2.8 percent over the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, legislation that the President signed into law.

I don't want to go into great detail about the many provisions of the bill but will include my longer statement for the Record.

Madam Chairman, 2008 represents the 50th anniversary of the birth of the U.S. space program and the establishment of NASA. NASA has accomplished a great deal in both space and aeronautical R&D over these past five decades, and we can all take pride in what has been accomplished. However, we cannot become complacent.

The testimony and constructive input of countless hearings, witnesses, and outside experts and organizations that led to H.R. 6063 conveyed a consistent message: that NASA has not been given the funding it needs to successfully carry out all of the important tasks that the Nation has asked of it. If we fail to adequately invest in NASA now, it is unlikely that we will see a comparable record of accomplishment over the next five decades, at a great opportunity cost to the Nation.

I am gratified by the support that H.R. 6063 has garnered to date, including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Aerospace Industries Association, the Association of American Universities, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and the University Space Research Association.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 6063 to ensure that our Nation remains the leader in space and aeronautics programs.

Madam Chairman, on May 15, 2008 I introduced the ``NASA Authorization Act of 2008,'' H.R. 6063, a bill to reauthorize the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for Fiscal Year 2009.

Today I rise to urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this bill and send it on to the Senate.

This bill passed the Committee on Science and Technology and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics with unanimous support.

It represents a strong bipartisan effort to ensure our leadership in space and aeronautics and to ensure that NASA's programs contribute to our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education efforts, to the Nation's innovation agenda, and to practical benefits for our citizens.

I would like to thank Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member Ralph Hall, and Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Tom Feeney for being original cosponsors of this bill.

Madam Chairman, this bill sets fiscally-responsible policies and provisions for a balanced set of science, aeronautics, and human spaceflight programs.

The baseline funding level authorized for NASA in FY 2009--$19.21 billion-- represents simply an inflationary increase of about 2.8 percent over the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, legislation that the President signed into law.

H.R. 6063 also reflects the conviction that NASA is as much a contributor to the nation's innovation agenda as any of the other agencies included in the America COMPETES Act that was enacted into law last year.

Thus, includes provisions and funding directed at supporting opportunities for hands-on training of the next generation of scientists and engineers.

In addition to the baseline authorization, H.R. 6063 contains a directed funding augmentation intended to help accelerate the date when the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares Crew Launch Vehicle can attain operational status.

A series of policy failures over a number of years have brought us to the point where we will have an unavoidable gap in the United States' ability to get its astronauts into space independently.

Providing the additional funding in FY 2009 can help narrow the gap while also putting in place the space transportation system that will help us carry out exciting and important exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit in the decades to come.

Madam Chairman, NASA's programs are strongly relevant to addressing the nation's needs.

In short, a properly balanced and focused NASA portfolio can pay large dividends to our society as well as to our standing in the world, and maximizing the value of the NASA portfolio to the nation is one of the main goals of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008.

To that end, H.R. 6063 establishes a role for NASA in leading a cooperative international effort on Earth observations research and applications, especially with respect to climate change-one of the major challenges facing our generation.

In addition, the bill includes a series of provisions to ensure that NASA's aeronautics program gets the resources it needs to remain one of the most relevant activities of the agency--one that impacts our quality of life, public safety, the vitality of the economy, and our national security.

H.R. 6063 also includes provisions to ensure that the International Space Station--a unique orbiting R&D facility that represents a significant investment of resources by both American citizens and those of a host of other nations--will be utilized in as productive a manner as possible.

The ISS is also a compelling example of the value of undertaking a cooperative approach to space exploration. To that end, H.R. 6063 makes clear that any human exploration initiative to return to the Moon and venture to other destinations in the solar system should be undertaken as a cooperative international undertaking under strong U.S. leadership.

Madam Chairman, 2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the birth of the U.S. space program and the establishment of NASA.

NASA has accomplished a great deal in both space and aeronautical R&D over those past five decades, and we can all take pride in what has been accomplished. However, we cannot become complacent.

The testimony and constructive input of countless hearing witnesses, outside experts,

and organizations that led to H.R. 6063 conveyed a consistent message: that NASA has not been given the funding it needs to successfully carry out all of the important tasks that the nation has asked of it.

If we fail to invest adequately in NASA now, it is unlikely that we will see a comparable record of accomplishment over the next five decades--at a great opportunity cost to the nation.

I am gratified by the support that H.R. 6063 has garnered to date, including the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Aerospace Industries Association, the American Astronautical Society the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the Association of American Universities, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, the Information Technology Association of America, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers-USA, the National Business Aviation Association, the National Space Society, the Personal Spaceflight Federation, the Planetary Society, the Universities Space Research Association, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives support H.R. 6063 to ensure that our Nation remains the leader in space and aeronautics programs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of the manager's amendment. We have all worked together to fashion a constructive amendment. And I believe it includes a number of useful provisions that enhance the bill. Chairman Gordon already described them. So I am not going to restate them. But I want to note in particular that the workforce provisions included in the amendment have been under consideration for some time. We wanted to make sure however that we had the concurrence of all the stakeholders before we added any of these provisions. That has been done. The provisions will strengthen and protect the NASA workforce. I would ask the Members to support this amendment. It is a good amendment. It deserves the support of the body.

I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding and thank him for his leadership on the committee.

I rise in support of this amendment on scientific integrity and openness at NASA. I want to commend the gentleman from Oregon for his action that we stay vigilant on this matter.

A few years ago, concerns were raised about political interference in the discussion of scientific research and results by NASA scientists. These concerns about scientific openness were and are serious, and we need to ensure that all measures are in place to prevent such interference.

It is true that the NASA Administrator, Dr. Griffin, took swift action in response to the reports of political interference and NASA revised the agency policy on the release of information of news and media, and I want to commend Dr. Griffin on his clear commitment to scientific openness. That said, we need to continue, Madam Chairman, our oversight on scientific integrity to ensure that Americans continue to have confidence in the important scientific research results that NASA provides to all of us and to our Nation.

So I again want to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his initiative, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to support this amendment.

This amendment is similar to the Boren amendment offered to the defense authorization package recently. That amendment passed with a voice vote on the floor.

This amendment as well seeks to clarify requirements of section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to allow NASA to procure conventional fuels that contain incidental amounts of unconventional fuels.

Section 526, Madam Chairman, is important because it establishes a positive benchmark for future alternative fuels, that their lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions be less than or equal to those emissions from conventional fuels.

The amendment clarifies section 526 while retaining the standard it sets for greenhouse gas emissions.

I want to thank the Member from Texas for bringing this important amendment and urge all Members to support the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I strongly support this amendment.

Tornadoes cause an average of 54 fatalities and 1,500 injuries in the United States each year. Just last month in my home State of Colorado, tornadoes devastated the town of Windsor in Colorado destroying more than 100 homes and causing one death. Predicting tornado intensity and location is critical to protecting lives and property, and we must do all we can to improve our knowledge in this important area.

I'm proud to say that the research at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in my district, the Second District in Colorado, contributes to this better understanding and improved forecasts of tornadoes. This amendment will further involve NASA scientists and data in this important process.

I would urge Members to support this amendment just like the chairman did.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, let me thank the committee, both the ranking member, Mr. Hall, and the chairman of the full committee, as well as the subcommittee chairs and ranking members.

It is a pleasure to have had the honor and privilege of serving on the Science Committee for a number of years and to congratulate them for its very important work. I believe the Science Committee, as I've indicated, creates the work of the 21st century: science and technology and research.

My amendment has a very simple premise, and it is an amendment to the program of which Mr. Lampson of Texas has created that is part of the Innovative Partnerships Program that NASA's had for a very long time.

The amendment clarifies that the NASA Outreach and Technology Assistance Program will include small, minority-owned and women-owned businesses. But as well, it specifically focuses on small business concerns owned and controlled, which is part of the existing law, by service-disabled veterans and HUBZone small business concerns. So this will be added to small businesses. What better way to ensure diversity than to ensure that our returning veterans, service-disabled, have the further opportunity of participating in this program.

And Madam Chairman, let me share with you how vital small businesses are, no matter where they are. First of all, small firms represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. They employ about half of all private sector employees. They pay more than 45 percent of the total U.S. payroll, and in 2006, we believe there were 26.8 million businesses.

When you speak to veterans, it seems that it's their cup of tea. They're independent, they're resilient, and yes, they've fought a war. And so, there's given emphasis in selection of the businesses to participate in this technology and outreach program to socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns, and as I indicated, to service-disabled veterans and HUBZone small businesses.

The interesting part of this effort, of course, is the very backbone of our economy will get the opportunity to benefit from the strength of this great NASA program.

And the full committee has been very fair in the dollars that they've put in science and research and the space exploration program, and this, of course, would provide an opportunity for our small businesses to be right in the middle.

I believe that science and technology creates the work of the 21st century, and for that reason, this program and its ability to reach out to these small businesses is a plus for us. They will include the opportunity to hire people who have that technology training. They will reach out to various universities, Hispanic-serving and historically black colleges and other colleges around the Nation, to get the employees that will work in these small firms, and they'll have the technological training that is so important.

I hope my colleagues will support this and continue to support the opportunity for outreach, particularly as it creates jobs and interests and commitment to the NASA mentality and the NASA technology, and it puts America on the cutting edge.

I reserve my time.

I'm glad the gentleman asked the question, and the gentleman is right in terms of the positive and not the negative. It is ``and,'' it is including. It is to indicate that if these businesses are around, reach out to them.

And again, this does not impact any contracts of NASA. It only impacts the access to this outreach program, and to have small businesses, if a small business is there, they're there. But to ensure that others are aware of the program and can participate in it.

And of course, it just adds that those who will be part of the outreach will be women-owned, will be HUBZone businesses, and will also be disabled veterans, many of whom are returning back to the country.

I want to again reaffirm to the gentleman that this does not impact contracts. This only impacts the ability to participate in getting technical assistance and accessing the wisdom and the expertise of NASA.

In addition, the language is small, comma, and then it goes on. So no one is replaced. It is simply adding a list and saying, don't forget this list as well. It will not replace anyone, and it will not replace anyone or require a small contractor to replace or be replaced, if you will. It is all about technical training and assistance.

If I might simply close and thank the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Feeney, for his inquiries and, as well, his clarification.

And with that, I would indicate that this is a reemphasis of how important small businesses are, accessing technical assistance, and I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson-Lee amendment dealing with expanding opportunities to socially and disadvantaged businesses and, of course, returning veterans and other HUBZones.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment for technical assistance.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008. My amendment modifies section 1108, and it states:

(1) in subsection (a), strike ``small businesses'' and

insert ``small, minority-owned, and women-owned businesses'';

and

(2) in subsection (b)(2), insert ``, giving preference to

socially and economically disadvantaged small business

concerns, small business concerns owned and controlled by

service-disabled veterans, and HUBZone small business

concerns'' after ``to small businesses.''

My amendment clarifies that the NASA Outreach and Technology Assistance Program will include small, minority-owned, and women-owned businesses. It would also give preference, in selection of businesses to participate in the program, to socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns, small business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans, and HUBZone small business concerns.

Madam Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague and fellow Texan, Congressman Lampson, for his leadership in authoring the important section describing the NASA Outreach and Technology Assistance Program. As set forth in this legislation, this program is intended to support the mission of NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program to provide technical assistance through joint partnerships with industry, academia, government agencies, and national laboratories. It will facilitate technology transfer to the private sector, create a network of academic institutions, aerospace contractors, and NASA centers that will commit to donating technical assistance to small businesses, and create a network of economic development organizations to increase the awareness and enhance the effectiveness of the program nationwide.

My amendment would clarify that the NASA Outreach and Technology Assistance Program will include small, minority-owned, and women-owned businesses. It would also give preference, in the selection of businesses to participate in this program, to socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns, small business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans, and HUBZone small business concerns.

Small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country. Minority businesses are also crucial to our communities and our country. Black entrepreneurs owned 9.7 percent of all such businesses in the United States. Statistics gathered between 1997 and 2002 show substantial increases in the number of black-owned firms with receipts of $1 million or more, as well as the number of black-owned firms with 100 employees or more. Black-owned firms accounted for 5 percent of all non-farm business in the United States in 2002.

In my home city of Houston, small businesses are vital to our economy. In 2002, Harris County ranked 6th in the nation for counties with the largest number of black-owned firms, with 27,770 firms with receipts totaling $1,817 million. I have worked to introduce minority, women, and small business owners to contracting officials at NASA to help promote and develop Houston small businesses.

Madam Chairman, the NASA Office of Small Business Programs sets forth, as its mission, ``to promote and integrate all small businesses into the competitive base of contractors that pioneer the future of space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research.'' Today's legislation makes important strides toward working to realize this important goal, and I believe that my amendment would strengthen this objective. The legislation we are considering today reinforces the fundamental fact that the benefits of NASA's programming and innovation are felt far beyond scientific and academic spheres. Space technologies provide practical, tangible benefits to society, and NASA provides valuable opportunities to businesses in our community.

My amendment would help to ensure that the important program authorized by this legislation to develop technical partnerships with private industry will be readily accessible to these vital, but disadvantaged, enterprises. I would like to thank Congressman Lampson for his support of my amendment. I ask that my amendment be ruled in order, and that my colleagues join me in working to bring the benefits of this important legislation to all members of our community.

Madam Chairman, I would also like to thank my colleague Congressman Udall for introducing this important legislation. After the Columbia disaster, NASA stands at a pivotal moment in its history. It is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future of NASA is one of continued progress. Space exploration remains a part of our national destiny. It inspires our children to look to the stars and dream of what they too, one day, may achieve. Space exploration allows us to push the bounds of our scientific knowledge, as we carry out research projects not possible within the constraints of the planet Earth.

Support STEM Diversity Related Amendments to H.R. 6063

Diversity and Innovation Caucus,

June 11, 2008.

Dear Colleague: We write to bring your attention to several

amendments that may be offered during consideration of H.R.

6063, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Authorization Act of 2008. Amendments presented by

Representatives Hodes and Jackson-Lee are aimed at creating

greater diversity in the science, technology, engineering,

and math (STEM) workforce through opportunity and access. As

Co-chairs of the Diversity and Innovation Caucus, we have

worked to expand the participation of under-represented

groups in the STEM fields to help bolster U.S.

competitiveness. The amendments that will help us accomplish

this goal in H.R. 6063 include:

Hodes (NH)--VOTE YES: Establishes a scholarship program in

honor of Christa McAulliffe, a teacher from Concord, New

Hampshire who died in the 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle

disaster. The scholarship would go to women pursuing degrees

in mathematics, science, and engineering.

Jackson-Lee (TX)--VOTE YES: Clarifies that the NASA

Outreach and Technology Assistance Program includes small,

minority-owned, and women-owned businesses. It would also

give preference, in selection for the program, to socially

and economically disadvantaged small business concerns, small

business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled

veterans, and HUBZone small business concerns.

If America is to achieve its strategic objectives in STEM,

then the enormous potential of groups that are currently

under-represented in the STEM fields must be utilized. STEM

policies which encourage diversity help strengthen American

innovation and competitiveness by expanding the STEM

pipeline. We strongly urge you to support the amendments to

HR 6063 listed above.

Thank you for our careful consideration of these important

amendments.

I yield back my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. GORDON of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, today I am asking my colleagues in the House to ensure this country's leadership in space and aeronautics program by passing H.R. 6063, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008.

First, I want to thank and commend Chairman Udall of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics on his leadership in introducing this bill and for taking a clear bipartisan approach to the development of H.R. 6063. I was pleased to be original cosponsor, but I was even more pleased that ranking minority member of our Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Hall of Texas, and ranking minority member of our Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Mr. Feeney of Florida, were also original cosponsors.

Madam Chairman, their actions show that the importance of NASA's future in space and aeronautics is truly a bipartisan concern. And I want to thank them for their full support.

In that regard, I also would like to thank Ed Feddeman, Ken Monroe, Katy Crooks, and Lee Arnold of the minority staff for their help on this legislation. I also want to thank and acknowledge the hard work of our majority staff involved in the development of the bill, Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee staff director Dick Obermann, Allen Li, Pam Whitney, Devin Bryant, and John Piazza.

This bill passed the subcommittee and the full committee unanimously. And I think that record is in no small part due to the hard work that both sides of the aisle put into this legislation.

Madam Chairman, as we look to the transition to the new administration next year, it's important that Congress send a strong message on the best future course for our Nation's space and aeronautics program. The bipartisan consensus we have reached on H.R. 6063 signals that Congress believes a balanced NASA program of science, aeronautics, and human spaceflight, and exploration is important and worthy of the Nation's support. Yet I want to emphasize that H.R. 6063 takes a fiscally-responsible approach to providing this support.

The baseline authorization represents a 2.8 percent increase, which is inflationary at best, over the level of the authorization of fiscal year 2008. The bill also includes a special funding augmentation to accelerate the development of the crew exploration vehicle and thus minimize the human spaceflight gap that will make us dependent on the Russians to get our astronauts to and from the International Space Station until the CEV is operational.

I don't think any of us wants to or looks forward to the day when we must rely on another Nation to launch U.S. astronauts into space, but that is what we face. I want to minimize that dependency as much as possible.

However, even including that augmentation, the total funding authorization will only get us back to NASA's fiscal year 1992 funding level in terms of purchasing power.

H.R. 6063's baseline authorization also reflects the importance of NASA to the Nation's innovation agenda. NASA science and technology activities contribute much to our national competitiveness initiative, and I think we need to recognize NASA's role in that regard. NASA was included in last year's America COMPETES Act, but we didn't include an authorization then since we knew we would be reauthorizing NASA this year.

H.R. 6063 does that providing by providing a baseline authorization for NASA that includes a rate of increase over the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level that is consistent with the rate of increase proposed for agencies included under the America COMPETES Act.

Madam Chairman, this bill includes many provisions that are critical to ensuring the future strength of our Nation, including both the future health of our aviation system and our ability to better understand and respond to climate change and other challenges facing the earth's system.

It isn't always recognized that NASA counts for some three-fifths of the Nation's climate research funding. And it's a critical part of the Nation's climate research efforts. In addition, H.R. 6063 demonstrates that a properly structured human spaceflight and exploration program can provide benefits of technological, scientific, and geopolitical significance that are worthy of our Nation's investment.

This bill also includes provisions that will ensure a productive return on the Nation's investment in developing and

assembling an international space station and encourages the use of the commercial services to transport cargo and eventually crew to the station. We need to ensure that NASA has sufficient resources for all of these and other important tasks that the Nation has asked to carry out, and I believe this bill does that.

Madam Chairman, the United States has been a global leader in technology and innovation for decades. However, an esteemed committee of the National Academies raised a deep concern in its groundbreaking report, Rise Above the Gathering Storm, stating ``that the scientific and technical building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength.''

With China, India, and other global players committed to building robust aeronautics and space programs, that it is incumbent upon the United States to rise to the challenge.

This year is the fiftieth anniversary of the dawn of the space age and the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of NASA. NASA has been one of the crown jewels of the Nation's R&D enterprise over the past 50 years. I want to ensure that it remains so for the next 50, and I believe this bill will help turn that into a reality.

Madam Chairman, this bill has been endorsed by a host of organizations ranging from the American Association of Universities to the National Association of Manufacturers. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6063 to ensure America's continued leadership and accomplishments in space and aeronautics over the next 50 years.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, first let me say very sincerely say that there is no Member of Congress that has had greater interest than Mr. Hall in NASA. As a Texan and a proud American, he has taken particular interest in the safety of the astronauts, as well as trying to reap the maximum amount of health benefits from the investment that we've made. He has played just an enormously constructive role, and I thank him for that.

We also thank Mr. Udall, the chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, for working in a bipartisan way. He had a number of really thoughtful hearings. He's put together a bill that came out of his subcommittee unanimously, and because he did such a good job there, it was unanimous out of the full committee. So I thank my friend from Colorado.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) 5 minutes.

(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I recognize the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for 3 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to another friend and champion of the space program from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Technology Innovation Subcommittee, Mr. Wu of Oregon.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, a great supporter of NASA, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

In conclusion, Madam Chairman, let me once again thank my partner and friend from Texas (Mr. Hall) for his help and leadership in putting this bill together. Ralph, this is the 36th bill that we have brought to this floor, all of which have been bipartisan. All but one has been unanimous. Thank you for your help.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Yes, I do, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman this is a bipartisan manager's amendment that has been developed in close collaboration with the Science and Technology Committee minority leadership.

It provides several aeronautics-related provisions in the bill to conform them to provisions that were included in last year's House- passed FAA reauthorization bill.

It also includes a provision in section 303 related to coordination with the FAA on sonic boom research, which will help ensure that NASA's research results can help inform any future FAA rulemaking.

The amendment also encourages the potential scientific utility of emerging commercial, reusable launch vehicles by citing them as potential options for suborbital scientific research once they become available.

The amendment also includes language provisions by Mr. Lampson on the value of NASA's EarthKAM and robotics competitions for aspiring students.

Both of these activities were great ways to inspire students to learn about math, science and technology by providing exciting learning experiences. And I want to commend Mr. Lampson for his initiative in this area.

The amendment also expands section 901 to include a sense of Congress urging NASA's use of entrepreneurial companies to conduct corporate

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado, the chairman of the subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Will the gentleman yield?

Let me just quickly add that our colleague and friend to both of us, Mr. Rohrabacher, has long been an advocate for the detection and monitoring of near-Earth objects. I don't know that anybody has done any more on that. I certainly commend this constructive amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

Let me just suggest that this is one more process in getting a law enacted. The Senate will pass a bill, and we will go to conference. I am sure Mr. Lampson can answer very well here, but this can be a continuing dialogue as we move forward.

Madam Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley) who was required to return to his district.

Madam Chairman, I also support this amendment, and I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for his attention to the important issue of tornado research.

Tornadoes and tornado-force winds present serious hazards to life and property in the United States. We've already had ample and tragic evidence in recent days of the devastation that can be wreaked by these terrible storms. We need to do all that we can to improve our understanding of tornadoes and learn how to better predict them.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has the lead responsibilities for addressing tornado-prediction issues. However, NASA has existing cooperative activities with NOAA that may contribute to greater progress in this effort. NASA's existing cooperative activities with NOAA on facilitating research and data sharing are important to improving our understanding of tornadoes. I agree with Mr. Braley that the work that NOAA and NASA are doing related to tornadoes needs to be given a high priority.

That is the objective of this amendment. It is just common sense that we ensure that any relevant work that NASA and NOAA are collaborating on is given the attention and priority it needs to improve our Nation's ability to predict tornado events.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa for his initiative for this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.