Designating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a national security interest and asset.

Madam Speaker, tonight, my colleagues and I would like to share with you and the American people our deep concern with the effects of the President's budget on NASA.

By overwhelming concern with the decision to cancel the Constellation program, there are several reasons why this is bad for America, about which my colleagues and I will go into more detail over the next hour.

Madam Speaker, Constellation was and is the right path forward to maintain America's leadership in space.

Just this past week, the Constellation program successfully completed its preliminary design review. This is a milestone towards future development. This is a major programmatic milestone that should be noted and applauded by all of us in addition to the successful test launch of the Are's I-X rocket back in September.

Madam Speaker, I am going to talk tonight about a couple of issues: national priority; national security and how important NASA and human spaceflight is for that; inspiration for our youth; and our educational purposes, particularly in the discipline of STEM--science, technology, engineering, math--and the technological benefits that every American, every person in the world, has gotten from NASA and human spaceflight.

America's global dominance in space exploration has always been for so much more than just the race to be first. It has signaled a commitment from our Nation to forge a path. Previously unimaginable scientific and technological discoveries are born both from necessity and from risk-taking. They are born out of unexpected consequences. It has been said many times before that it is not just the destination but the journey.

The journey on which our space exploration program has taken the United States has given rise to our global leadership on many, many fronts. Our Nation's global dominance in human spaceflight has coincided with our status as the world's only superpower, which is not by accident. The national commitment to be the best in national security and in space exploration goes hand in hand. That is precisely why there is always such strong bipartisan support for NASA and for human spaceflight.

Abandoning the enterprise of space exploration is a striking decision because it violates something that makes us human--the desire to know new things through personal experience. As Americans, our heritage is about exploration. Our nature is to seek out the unknown and to explore. The administration's decision to kill the Constellation is an affront to that heritage.

America cannot escape the irrefutable fact that to fly regularly into space is the most difficult technological challenge that we know is possible under complicated and expensive scenarios. Even when done successfully, it is difficult and dangerous. In the half century we have been putting human beings into space, we have lost three brave crews. The support that is needed requires an overarching vision that requires political courage. As he stood on the football field at my alma mater, Rice University, President Kennedy had that political courage when he made the commitment to go to the Moon by the end of the decade.

A person either believes that expanding the range of human action is a noble undertaking, worthy of the cost and the risk, or a person does not. I fundamentally believe that this goal represents the heart of American entrepreneurialism. It is what sets our Nation apart from the rest of the world. It is why Russia, China, and India are making the investments necessary to catch up or to even surpass us.

Is human exploration worth the cost? If Americans question this, then we should ask why other nations are desperately ramping up their human space exploration.

What do China, India, Japan, and Russia know that we don't know? They clearly know what America has known for years, which is that the direct investment alone is worth the cost and that the indirect benefits have provided economic drivers and scientific discoveries that have far exceeded expectations.

Think about what human spaceflight has done for America. There is the Hubble space telescope, one of the greatest pieces of technological advancements in our society. Unfortunately, when it was launched, it was launched in a flawed vehicle. It had a flawed refractory mirror on it. It was basically a $2 billion piece of junk that we put into orbit.

Yet, because we had a human spaceflight capability and because we had men and women who were willing to take the risk to go into space, they went up and repaired the Hubble telescope four times. They brought it back, and made it one of the most incredible pieces of technology in our society. They brought back images from across the solar system and the universe. It wouldn't have happened without human spaceflight.

We risk losing this with the President's budget. The President's decision of NASA's role in human spaceflight is not only a step back for America; it is a calculated decision that says we aren't up to the challenge.

Yes, our Nation is in a fiscal situation that should force us to examine our spending priorities. We may disagree on how our limited resources should be spent, but there are fundamental national priorities that are worth the investment. Abandoning human space exploration isn't the tough decision that America needs.

We need leadership that clearly states we will not cede our leadership in human spaceflight to any other nation on Earth. We should not hand over space to the Russians, to the Chinese, or to India. If we stay on the path the President's budget lays out, the United States faces the very real and very humiliating prospect of paying billions of dollars to Russia for years to hitch rides to the international space station, which has been largely built by American taxpayer funds.

We used to pay the Russians just over $20 million to take one of our astronauts to the space station. They have learned capitalism very well; and now, this year, it is going to cost us $50 million, which is more than double the price that it was last year. That contract only extends through 2013. So, in all likelihood, we are going to have to renew another contract with them in the future. They have got a monopoly. They are going to charge us whatever

they want, and we are going to have to pay it if we want access to the space station, which, again, the American taxpayers have largely funded.

This is unacceptable. We need to stay the course with the Constellation to make sure that we minimize that gap and to make sure we get our astronauts delivering our people to the space station and beyond--to the Moon and beyond.

Even more unsettling is knowing, when we finally have the ability to get there on our own, we may find the Chinese are already there and working it. Their goal is to be to the Moon by 2023. The United States' goal: question mark. We don't know when we're going to be back to the Moon, if at any time in the near future. Americans have rightly grown accustomed to serving as the global leader in human space exploration. Sadly, we will be in for a huge shock when reality sets in that we no longer hold that title.

NASA has long been a cradle for innovation. Without human spaceflight, where is the incentive for future scientists and engineers to take up these careers?

Human spaceflight is so much more than the basis for an inspirational movie. It is the heart of American ingenuity; and in our pioneering nature as Americans, we say, Place our Nation at the forefront of technology and science. Madam Speaker, we must make the commitment that America will always stay number one.

I urge my colleagues to look closely at what our Nation has achieved through our leadership on human space exploration and to think about what is at stake if we walk away.

I have some of my colleagues here tonight whom I would like to recognize. One is my good colleague from Louisiana, Congressman Cao.

Thanks for coming tonight, Anh. I look forward to your comments.

Thank you for those very kind comments, and I couldn't agree with you more. One of the problems I have with this decision is how it was sprung upon all of us.

I am the ranking member on the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over NASA, and I found out, like probably all of you, everybody here in the Chamber, by reading the newspaper. No one ever gave me a heads-up that this was coming. Nobody ever gave our ranking member a heads-up this was coming. I don't think even the chairman of the committee had any knowledge that this was coming. It seemed to be a small little cabal in the White House that made this decision that has a tremendous impact on our society.

You mentioned the loss of jobs. There are going to be thousands and thousands and thousands of good-paying, high-tech jobs, the kind of jobs we want here in America, that are going to go away. As you alluded to, once those people walk out, they are gone.

Again, there is no reason why we should ever, ever, give up our leadership in human spaceflight. We have worked for it from the onset, over 50 years ago now, almost 50 years ago since NASA was formed.

Again, you referred to President Kennedy's speech. The ultimate called shot; we are going to be on the Moon by the end of this decade. And we were behind the Soviets, as you remember, at that time. We hadn't done anything. Yet because of American ingenuity, American persistence, and American innovation, on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong backed down that ladder, put

that foot on the lunar surface, and uttered the famous words that every American knows, ``one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.''

I agree with you, we cannot give that up. I think if you could talk to Astronaut Schmitt, Apollo 17, that was the last Moon mission, and if you could have talked to him when he got back home and said, Well, you know, sir, we are not going to be back for at least 40 years, he would have taken money and said, No, we are going to go back. We are going to be there over and over. We are going to be at Mars by 40 years from now.

Unfortunately, we are looking at cutting the program and continuing our domination of low-Earth orbit, which the Augustine Commission that the administration cites as sort of the bible for their action also here basically said, the front page of their summary, we are done with low-Earth orbit. There are no more challenges for our Nation in low- Earth orbit. We have got to fund a fantastic space station up there that is delivering science and discoveries to us every day, but we are not challenging ourselves from an exploration perspective going beyond low-Earth orbit.

We have to do that, and the Augustine Commission recognized that, and killing the Constellation just completely curtails that. There is no plan to get beyond low-Earth orbit. And, quite frankly, that is not what our country wants. That is not what we need. As you alluded to, we are number one, we have been number one throughout history, and we should never give that up.

Thank you for your comments.

Very briefly, I would like to talk about sort of the education perspective, some of the issues involved with promoting our youth and getting them involved again in the STEM disciplines, the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

When we think about the new competitive global economy, we know that China and India don't hesitate to encourage their top students to pursue science and math careers. They know that it is this expertise that will dictate their countries' futures. Unfortunately, these are the careers which America is losing ground on, calling into question our own future.

The problems with U.S. test scores and recruiting teachers in science, math, and engineering fields are well publicized. U.S. students lag well behind their Asian and Indian counterparts, and we risk losing the level of excellence in science, research, and innovation that is necessary to meet the needs of our future.

Harvard University and many others recruit top students from China to be educated here in America. Why? Because Chinese students are laser- focused on a top education, and their test scores reflect that. Unfortunately, after those students receive a top-tier degree at an American school, they go back home and return to their country and we will not benefit from that knowledge that they got here in America. And here at home we have some American students graduating from high school needing remedial math courses to begin college level math.

We have a shortage of teachers to inspire young minds and we have deemphasized the pursuit of solving difficult problems and seem to choose the path of least resistance. While the solutions to those problems may require a great national epiphany, we do see small but important steps taking place every day across America. The Johnson Space Center in the district I'm fortunate to represent in Houston hosts several programs in which employees volunteer their time to mentor students in math, science, and engineering.

Just recently, just this past Monday, I was pleased to be present when Hannah Gorse, a student at Pearland High School in the district I represent, won a slot at the prestigious NASA High School Aerospace Scholars Program. Hannah is a junior there at Pearland High School. She told me that all she wants to do when she grows up is become an astronaut or an aerospace engineer and work in human spaceflight exploration. As part of this program, she designs things. I was stunned. She designed a CEV--a crew exploration vehicle. A lunar rover, for those of you who have been following the space program. She's designed parts to a shuttle; she designed components for the international space station, all as part of this program.

Madam Speaker, Hannah is the kind of student we want to get the math or science degree and channel her intellect toward great achievements in human spaceflight. We cannot take that inspiration and opportunity away from our students. And we do exactly that by killing the Constellation Program.

The NASA High School Aerospace Scholars Program allows students to write essays, solve math problems, design upgrades for the international space station, like Hannah did, among other projects. It's coordinated, as I said, through the Johnson Space Center, and serves as a valuable tool for students like Hannah to encourage them to pursue the career degrees in math and science. These innovative initiatives encourage and inspire students to be the pathfinders we want when we show the way forward. These young leaders will scale greater heights in their critical careers that will help develop new technologies in science, engineering, and health care.

There's another opportunity for our Nation through the government to have a role in this solution, but to do so we must fully commit to our Nation's human spaceflight program. The Constellation Program is that program. A robust national program like Constellation maintains our global leadership in human space exploration and inspires generations of young minds like Hannah Gorse to create the next level of American superiority. As we speak, China and India are demonstrating their commitment to human space exploration, and they have the students graduating with the degrees to get the job done. Again, the Chinese plan to be back to the Moon between 2025 and 2030. The United States has no plans to go back to the Moon at this time.

Space exploration has always been a primary motivator for students to pursue careers in math, science, and engineering. Children stare up at the stars or watch grainy footage of the first man on the Moon or watch a shuttle blast off at nighttime, and a future scientist, astronaut, or engineer is born. As it stands now, the administration's budget is putting the U.S., the global leader in human spaceflight exploration, firmly into fourth place. Without a manned space program, again, we will be forced to pay Russia over $50 million per astronaut to give access to the international space station.

The United States has been a beacon of cutting-edge technology when it comes to pioneering the path in science and space exploration. We were the first to set foot on the Moon because we made a national commitment to being first and being the best. That's what America does. We must continue that investment so our next generation reaps the benefits of excellence in science, math, engineering. Human space exploration is part of that national plan. There's still time to correct our national decline in both education and space exploration. They go hand-in-hand.

Madam Speaker, a strong human space exploration program is a key motivator for America's students to pursue careers, again, in science, math, and engineering that we desperately need to compete globally. It requires a national commitment, both public and private. That is America at its best--and that's what we want to keep. We do that by maintaining the Constellation Program.

If my colleague from Utah would like to speak to some of these issues, I yield the floor to him.

If my colleague would yield for a quick question. So economic development, international global leadership and education?

Yes, sir.

Would my colleague yield for a question?

What kind of consultation went on with DOD, with NASA and this decision? I heard press reports that said there was little, if none. DOD, just like you and I, woke up and read the paper and saw what had happened had not had any opportunity to let the powers that be, the administration know that you are putting our national security at risk by cutting the Constellation program. I wonder if my colleague has heard anything along those lines.

Yes, sir, I couldn't agree more with my colleague from Utah. And just to reinforce some of your things for my people back home, one of the things I heard being at the Johnson Space Center this past Monday, numerous people came up to me and said, What's our plan? I mean, what's our mission? This is an organization that has been focused on a mission for 40 years. And right now, they have no idea what they're working towards. Some nebulous stuff about global warming research, climate change research, developing the private sector doesn't do anything to inspire them.

Again, these are the best, most qualified engineers, propulsion people, defense, as well, in the world. And we are giving them no mission and possibly letting them walk out the door. Once they walk, they're gone.

My colleague, getting into the safety issue, which is a big issue, has NASA published any safety regulations or requirements for the commercial spaceflight operators? I have had many come in my office and say they are working towards that, and I have gotten information from other people who say, no, NASA has not published anything yet. Have you heard anything?

Yes, sir. And there was an issue with that as well. The administration put out, as I understand it, the test was supposed to be in your district. It was supposed to happen in April, and there was a notice to cease and desist, and we contacted the administration, a bipartisan letter, saying I'm sorry, Constellation is the law of the land. You don't have the ability to cut and choose programs that you don't think are going to be valuable or project into the future, because the President only has a voice in this. Congress is the final authority.

I thank my colleague for coming here late because you speak the truth. It is a battle that we can win. The American people get this. Thank you again for your time tonight.

Finally, I would like to finish up with talking about some of the technology issues associated with Constellation and its cancellation.

The administration's budget plan again cancels NASA's Constellation to develop vehicles that will ensure America has access to space and capabilities to go beyond low-Earth orbit. But what they have done, they have eliminated Constellation which does that in favor of undefined ``game-changing technology efforts'' without clearly defined goals and metrics.

This is exactly what my constituents back home are saying: What is our goal? What is our mission?

In my experience, whenever someone, whether it is a company or government agency, proposes that some new radical breakthrough is just around the corner and will provide the solutions to all of our problems, I want to immediately grab my wallet, button my back pocket, and hunker down. Spaceflight is governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, and there are very few game-changing technologies.

I want to say that I am an avid supporter of NASA, and I think technology development is an important part of what we have gotten from NASA. New technology is one of the many benefits we get from human spaceflight, but that technology development must be the result of a mission-driven pursuit with clearly defined goals and objectives. Like my colleague mentioned, the difficulty of the mission is what forces the development of technology. The proponents

are always ardent and sincere in their desire to make a difference, but history shows that it is not an effective way to manage programs.

I want to explain how the misguided quest for game-changing technologies and flexible paths similar to what is currently proposed have led to wasteful and ultimately futile spending efforts over the past 18 years.

This is a chart of NASA's human spaceflight development programs from 1992 to 2010. The red areas are cancelled programs; blue, completed programs; ongoing, yellow. As you can see, we only have two ongoing programs out there right now, and they are the commercial private programs. We have got the international space station still rolling strong, probably going to go beyond 2015 to 2020. We have completed a superlightweight tank, completed the X-43A, but then ran into the X-43B and cancelled that program. And then the only other thing we have was the DARPA program, which failed. This is one of the challenges of NASA. We have gone through all of these programs and changes with different administrations, and we are looking to do that right now, another change, a huge change in our human spaceflight path by shifting gears to the program of record, the Constellation Program, and going to some unknown, unproven technology from the private sector.

I support the private sector. I think they have a role in certainly some cargo resupply of the space station, but they need to prove that they have the capabilities, and they are not close. As my colleague from Utah alluded to earlier, they had a firing of an engine, and I believe some of the fire came out towards the side. Everybody here knows that rockets, it needs to come out the bottom and generate propulsion up. Coming out the side is not something that you want to see. That is what we are dealing with right now. That is what the administration has chosen to hang our future in human spaceflight on. I think it is an incredibly poor decision.

Congress, we have seen a number of game-changing proposals over the years. Again, this graph shows all of the different programs that have been ``game changers,'' and the blue ones are the only ones that actually came to fruition.

What this represents are billions of dollars being spent without anything to show for it. Again, the Constellation is on track. We have had a very successful test launch of the Ares I-X. We passed our PDR this week. This program is the program of record. It deserves to go forward. It is in America's best interest, and we need to stay the course, put Constellation, bring it up and put U.S. astronauts in space again, get rid of that gap with the space shuttle being retired, get our astronauts up there again, going to the space station and going to the Moon and going beyond.

It is up to Congress to remember the lessons of the past and ensure that the administration's ill-conceived proposals are thoroughly reviewed. We should not agree to open-ended, unproven, unconstrained technological demonstrations. Anything we agree to must be clearly defined. NASA must show us how and why it is included, and it should be part of an as yet to be defined broader goal for human spaceflight exploration.

Would my colleague like to add anything?

You raise some great points. Again, $51 million to put our astronauts on facilities to get up to the international space station. As I understand it, that contract has been signed through 2013, and it is highly unlikely given the current situation, and certainly a cancellation or with the attempted cancellation of the Constellation Program, that we will have the capability to get our astronauts up to the station by 2013. It will probably be 2015 or somewhere in that window.

The Russians were a communist country when I was born. They have moved over to capitalism. They have figured it out. They have it down. It was $20 million last year. Now that we are in the throes of this, getting rid of the Constellation and having this gap, it is up to $50 million, and who is to say what it is going to be after 2013 when the contract expires.

So we've got ourselves in a big pickle, and we need to stick with the program of record.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me here tonight, and I saw my colleague from Houston, my fellow Texan come here.

It's just stunning that this decision has been made, and again, the manner in which it was made. No one at the NASA centers--not the director of the Johnson Space Center, he was not consulted--had any input into this decision.

Across the center, again, Congress, no one that I'm aware of, had any inclination of what was going to happen until he got up and read the paper and saw that the Constellation Program had been canceled. And again, if it's allowed to stand--and we're going to do everything we can here in this Congress to ensure that it doesn't stand--but if it's allowed to stand, it condemns the United States to being an average country in terms of human spaceflight, giving up the leadership that we've had for almost 50 years now. It will ensure that we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs here in America, good paying high-tech jobs, the kind of jobs we are trying to generate particularly in this economy. And it will take away the inspiration--you can't put a dollar value on this, but the ability to inspire America's youth to get into science, technology, engineering, and math degrees.

The Constellation Program is the right program for our human spaceflight efforts at this time in our history. We can't cancel it. We need to go forward and do everything we can to minimize that gap.

To my colleague from Texas, from the 18th Congressional District of Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), thank you for coming out tonight, Congresswoman.

Very briefly, I would like to thank my colleague from Texas for all her support of the Johnson Space Center. True hero back home. And I couldn't agree with you more about every American has benefited from the human spaceflight.

I thank all my colleagues for coming here tonight.

I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding me some time on this significant issue. I have read some of the comments that have been made in the past, saying, You're a conservative. NASA is saying in this new budget that they want to commercialize and privatize the program. Why aren't you supporting that? I have to admit, I think it comes down to an issue of semantics. When I think of privatization, I make three assumptions: It will cost the taxpayer less money, there will be a smaller government force in use, and there will be a better product.

I think, as the gentleman from Texas would agree with me, this plan that NASA has put forward doesn't do any

of those. Indeed, it costs more for a NASA budget. It increases the cost that the taxpayer will be spending on NASA. There are no Federal jobs that will be eliminated, only private-sector jobs, to the tune of about 30,000 jobs nationwide of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, those kinds of jobs that we don't really want to lose and we're trying to encourage young students to go into, and there is not a better product.

As the gentleman from Texas said, it was ironic that the other day the Constellation Program passed their predesign review, which means after expensive engineering and technical checks, they passed everything. There is nothing technologically wrong with Constellation. It is ready to go forward. Ironically enough, on that very same day, one of the alternatives that the NASA administration would like us to fund was having a test on their engine, and it was a total failure. Ironically, NASA didn't publicize either of those events--the engine failure or the complete success in the predesign and review of Constellation.

So let me just spend a moment and talk about these commercial startup enterprises that NASA administrators are telling us they want to transfer all American taxpayer moneys into going into this direction. These are programs like Rocketplane Kistler, which after a 14-month review or alliance with NASA, was terminated because it failed to meet any of its goals. Or, SpaceX, which over 8 years working with NASA and being funded by taxpayer money, has had a 40 percent success rate. The Falcon 9 was supposed to be ready for flight in 2009. It's not there yet. It is now scheduled for sometime in 2010, but that was the engine failure that I talked about that happened this very week. They are behind. They have already received $158 million of tax money, but obligations of NASA run in the multibillions of dollars.

Orbital, another of those companies, is 7 months late on all of their assignments, which means if you actually look in the proposed budget, there is $312 million assigned to a category called: Additional incentives for commercial cargo providers. If you want to take the spin off of it, it's a bailout for these companies who are not meeting their deadlines, who are not providing the product.

After $600 million to these kind of companies, NASA can clearly say they have no hardware to show for it. They have no services that have been delivered with it. There are no intellectual property rights. And this is what certain administrators within NASA call the ``bold new direction for this country.'' It is ludicrous.

When the Columbia accident occurred--and was a tragic event all of us mourned--there was an intense study to find out what went wrong and how to prevent it. And they came up with two goals: that if there is an entity that's going to be successful, they have to first have a clear goal of what their mission is. And second, they have to have an ultimate emphasis on safety.

Let me talk about safety for just a moment, because the Bowman report, as much as we may not like it, clearly said the Federal Government's supervision in this area produces a safer project. But in that report as well there was a mandatory report given by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel after that Columbia accident. In the report in 2008, in which the current chairman--General Bolden was a member--as well as this year's report, at no time were they supportive of making entrepreneurial commercial options the primary means of U.S. human spaceflight.

So what were they supportive of? Well, Constellation. Time magazine this year--actually I'm sorry, the end of last year--came up with their 50 Great Inventions of the Year. And what was the invention they rated number one? Ares, the Ares rocket which is part of the Constellation program. That's what they did.

In the official report to NASA, it says, The simplicity of the Ares design makes the mature Ares 1 clearly superior to all other vehicles no matter what choice of qualification method. Even accounting for error bars on method and model inputs, Ares 1 is superior to all other options with more than a 90 percent confidence.

In short, results suggest that the Ares 1 launch vehicle is clearly the safest launch vehicle option and the only one that can meet the goal post-Columbia of having a launch vehicle that was 100 times safer than the space shuttle which it was designed to replace. What they are doing, simply, is Constellation is meeting the goals.

Now, once again, the goals are somewhat nebulous. If you don't have a goal, almost anything you appropriate can meet your goal. And I am suggesting that the NASA administrators right now do not have a clear goal.

Deputy Administrator Garver gave a speech today over in Maryland in which she said that the President's budget should be approved by Congress because it will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the Nation. And those priorities, these key national priorities that I am referring to are: economic development, ending poverty, hunger and creating jobs; international leadership in geopolitics, or world peace; education; and environment.

Now, I hate to say anything, but in 1958 when NASA was started, their goal was to--and I will quote, Provide for research into problems of flight within and outside Earth's atmosphere and to ensure that the United States conducts activities in space devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of humankind. Nearly 50 years later, NASA proudly pledges to redefine what is possible for the benefit of all humankind by using NASA's unique competencies in scientific and engineering systems to fulfill the agency's purpose, to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.

And environment. I think at some time, Ms. Garver needs to explain what she meant, as this is the priority of NASA now when, in reality, this should have been the priority of NASA. And once again, if you have those goals, I think it makes sense to take away the program that everyone who knows what they are talking about says is clearly the best innovation we have and the only way of supplanting the space shuttle with safe vehicle mechanisms for the future and for manned space flight. But once again, if your goals are to eliminate anything that deals with the traditional role of NASA, then perhaps those goals aren't significant whatsoever.

I have one last area, and if the gentleman from Texas has time, I would like to go into that or I could wait if you would like to.

Let me try one last thing. We talk a lot about the industrial base. It's a term that maybe not a lot of people understand. As I define the industrial base, I simply want to say that the kinds of people, the kinds of jobs that put a man on a rocket and shoot him to the Moon are the same kinds of people and the same kinds of jobs that build our missile defense against those who wish to attack this country. That is our industrial base.

Last year, this country engaged in some significant--and I think unwise--decreases in our military missile defense system, and it had the effect of putting our industrial base in disarray.

However, if now NASA goes through with this, I think, unwise and naive approach of canceling Constellation, it is going to destroy that industrial base, which means not only will you not have the ability of putting a man in space very quickly with a program that works. If, indeed, our projections of the threat of countries like North Korea and Iran are underestimated, we will have no capacity to ramp up for a missile defense future.

Now, what that simply means is--and the Pentagon has recognized this--last year, three different reports came to us. In April of last year, the Defense Department report to Congress on the solid rocket motor industrial base said, If there was a delay in Constellation, it would have a negative impact on our defense system. Next month after that, there was another report. This time the solid rocket motor capabilities report to Congress in June which had a different conclusion. This report said, If there was a delay in Constellation, there would be a significant negative impact on the military capabilities of this country.

Later, the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Acquisitions sent us a letter in which he simply said that the technological base in the world is not a birthright which means several years ago the Air Force dropped all of its military missile plants to build these projects. We are relying on the private sector, and it's into the birthright. It's about certain kinds of jobs, very rare kinds of skills that are not easily replicated in the commercial world. And if we allow them to erode, it would be difficult to rebuild.

Please.

If you would yield, I will try to come up with that because, indeed, the deputy administrator of NASA said that she did have consultations. But one she said she consulted is the very same person who said that if it's allowed to erode, it would be difficult to rebuild.

I'm on the Armed Services Committee, and we had the opportunity to question Secretary Gates when he came in. I asked if there was any consultation. He said no. I asked the same thing of the Air Force chief, if they had had any consultation. His response was over this entire issue--and I added the Minuteman III issue as well--We recognize not just the Minuteman challenge going forth but a broader industrial base issue which we're going to have to wrestle with this year. So we do not right now have a long-term solution to that in hand, which means that the Defense Department was caught unaware.

There was no communication between NASA and Defense. If, indeed, there was, then clearly NASA was not listening to what was being told to them because we have had a year of comment from the Defense Department and from the Pentagon, saying that this is a significant issue, that if, indeed, North Korea and Iran have a greater capacity than we think, and you've destroy the industrial base, we do not have the capacity to react to it and defend this country.

Now, what we are simply doing in this program is not just dismantling our manned space mission. We're not just losing the ability to go up to the Moon and beyond. We are also destroying our defense capability at the same time, and that is a consequence of this rash and naive proposal that has to be fully explored, and this Congress needs to address because it is the future of this country.

This NASA opinion, in my estimation, is nothing more than managing America's decline in the world, and that is not the role we should be doing. That is not the purpose of this country. That's not the purpose of this Congress. This Congress needs to make the clear statement that NASA is going on the wrong approach. It has to have a proper goal for its mission. It has to properly fund its goal for its mission. This, the Constellation, is the solution to the space shuttle and beyond.

It is not wise for us to take our 30,000 best scientists and engineers and give them pink slips.

One thing you said as well, when John Kennedy gave us the challenge to go to the Moon, those people who started to study engineering, science, and math, it skyrocketed because there was a challenge. There was a mission there.

NASA is talking about all kinds of programs to encourage kids to get excited about space with their summer school programs. They instituted a new computer simulation game so students could pretend to go up to the space shuttle. I am contending to you, it is cruel to excite these kids about this future when you give them no realistic way of exercising that dream because we have stopped the mechanism of doing it.

Once again, as we should have learned out of Columbia, we have to put safety first. This program is not. And secondly, we have to have a clear goal. If we don't do those two things, we are courting another disaster. This plan of certain NASA administrators is courting another national disaster.

To my understanding, that has not taken place because those other commercial endeavors are not far enough along in their testing and their success pattern to be to that stage. Once again, it goes back to why we should keep Constellation. It was designed to have that factor of safety. That was the purpose for its design. That is its simplicity. For example, there has to be a way of escaping. That is the Orion capsule, where people will be kept. It has to have an escape process. None of the other commercial ventures have any kind of plan or design for that component yet, and it is a long, long way away.

I would just like to echo what you have said in all of these particular areas. It is important that we move forward. I think it is common sense that we do not cede space to the Russians and the Chinese. The United States has been a leader in this area. It has been very productive for us. We ought to ensure that our goal is to be number one and to continue to be a leader.

Having our astronauts standing on the edge of space trying to catch a Russian taxi where the meter will say $51 million as soon as they sit down is not the way America becomes a leader in this particular world. We have the ability to do the right thing. It is planned. We need to follow through with the original plan and not change courses right now to an experiment that is unproven and has a history of failure.

I appreciate the gentleman for allowing me to join him tonight. This is an important issue for all of us, and it is important for America's future.

Thank you very much, Congressman Olson, and to the colleagues that have joined you tonight and who recognize the importance of this hour, albeit how late it might be, to really emphasize the uniqueness of America's space program and the uniqueness of, if you will, the human space exploration.

As I was listening to the debate, I was very much convinced that we do have an opportunity to save this valuable asset. I think we know that the NASA budget actually, as I understand it, has seen an increase in 2011. And I think all of us would admit--and thank the President-- that's a good thing that the budget itself has increased, but we know that the program that deals with exploration to the Moon and Mars have suffered a blow.

So I would say that we have an easy fix, a reprogramming of the moneys to allow for a program that has now had a sufficient start to be able to redesign itself, to be able to focus on what's important about human space exploration. But the main thing is to save it, because when we save it, we not only save jobs of today--Johnson, Huntsville, Mississippi, Florida, and places around the Nation--but we save the jobs for 2020, 2030, 2040, and beyond.

I think it's important for our colleagues to know that we built the space station. I was on the Science Committee. That space station is barely a decade old--it is a decade-plus. We put it together piece by piece. And when our friends, the Russians, were delayed, they had bad economic times, we moved on.

The space station is the size of a football field. And the necessity of human space exploration is to be able to tend to that space station which has the possibilities of massive research that creates jobs.

Let me thank my friends on the floor. And Congressman Olson, let me thank you for your leadership--we have joined you in this bipartisan effort--for signing onto the legislation, H. Res. 1150, which establishes or, if you will, determines that NASA is a national security asset, and it is. Because involved in NASA is much of our military science, climatic science, and technology not yet discussed or discovered.

And so I would rise today to support the moving forward on the Constellation Program, but also the working with this administration. I think we all know that we have a leader at NASA who knows Houston, for example, but also knows the human space exploration program. General Bolden was an astronaut and a marine. That's good news for us. And the reason why it is good news is because that is a voice that can be part of this discussion.

I don't take the initial budget by the President as a statement that human space exploration is not good. And I think it is important tonight to take a stand for our continued effort and energy in working to bring about the right kind of response between the Congress and the administration, a budget that is right there in the President's budget, one that can be reprogrammed, reformed, enhanced, if you will, to emphasize the importance of saving the space exploration, this Constellation Program.

Now, let me say this, Constellation is Moon and Mars. And there are scientists who probably have different perspectives, but I don't think anyone can have a different perspective on the pushing of the human capacity and what it brings about in terms of our own enhancement, both in terms of the knowledge that we gain--and I remember when we were trying to gain votes, Congressman Olson, that we would say things which were really true--the kind of research on the space station had to do with heart disease, cancer, HIV/AIDS. And discoveries today are being utilized. Those discoveries are saving lives, but they also create jobs, medical jobs.

So I, one, want to continue to raise the question. I want to put in the Record that the potential of jobs lost at Johnson Space Center could be anywhere from 4,000 to 7,000 high-tech jobs. And each day jobs are being created more and more. And then of course the idea of the national security information--classified, climatic, as I've said, the weather research that's being done--and the need I think most of all-- let me not say most of all because we stand on our own merit here in the United States, we are inventors, we are world leaders, but there are other countries that have looked to our leadership, Russia, India, China, all competing to be part of space exploration.

Let me close and yield back to you by saying this: I want to see business involvement in this industry, but I believe it is important for NASA to, in essence, be part of the government and for the jobs we save all over this Nation on behalf of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of NASA programs across the country and to express my concerns about the Administration's proposal to cancel NASA's Constellation Program, which includes the Orion Crew Capsule, the Altair Lunar Lander, and the Ares I and Ares V rockets.

These programs, which together comprise our human spaceflight program, were authorized in both 2005 and 2008 by Republican and Democratic Congresses respectively. It is under the Constellation program, that NASA is currently developing new launch vehicles and spacecraft capable of travel to the moon, Mars and other destinations. Not only does cancelling the Constellation Program jeopardize America's leadership role in human space exploration, but it will have detrimental effects on our economy and national security.

Take, for example, the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. The Johnson Space Center has the lead to manage the Constellation Program and several of its major elements, including the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Altair Lunar Lander. Without Constellation, the Johnson Space Center could lose anywhere from 4,000 to 7,000 high-tech jobs. If the JSC loses 4,000 direct jobs, an additional 2,315 indirect jobs would be lost, totaling 6,315; loss of income and expenditures locally would be over $567 million. If the JSC loses 7,000 direct jobs, an additional 4,052 indirect jobs would be lost, totaling 11,052; loss of income and expenditures locally would total almost $1 billion.

When speaking of the decision to cancel the Constellation Program, Administrator Bolden stated that ``NASA intends to work with the Congress to make this transition smooth and effective, working responsibly on behalf of the Taxpayers.'' To the contrary, I believe that the best use of taxpayers' money is to continue the investment in NASA to build America's scientific future. That future will create jobs. Finally, I would like to reiterate that the present Administration's plan for the Constellation Program would cause drastic job loss across America and would place America in a behind the edge position as it relates to competitiveness in scientific research.

NASA and the space industry are critical to Houston's economic success in both the short and long term. According to the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, NASA accounts for nearly 16,800 direct federal jobs and serves as the engine for another 3,100 civilian jobs that together supply more than $2.5 billion in payroll into Houston's regional economy. As you are aware, the Johnson Space Center is the primary location for training Astronauts for spaceflights and this move; yet, the proposed budget will effectively cancel America's human spaceflight program.

In his statement announcing NASA's budget, Administrator Bolden stressed that changes in the FY 2011 budget would be ``good for NASA, great for the American workforce, and essential for our nation's future prosperity.'' While I seek the same objectives, I strongly disagree with the closing of this project and I believe it will hurt America's scientific progress.

Additionally, the aerospace industry would lose as many as 20,000- 30,000 jobs nationally in either of these scenarios.

Given our current economic downturn, we cannot take the possibility of these job losses lightly and the Johnson Space Center is just one example of what the cancellation of this program would do to other NASA centers nationally.

It will take years for the commercial spaceflight industry to get up to speed to reach the level of competence that exists at NASA today. Our government has already invested literally years and billions of dollars into this program. We should build upon these investments and not abandon them. Our country can support the commercial spaceflight industry, but not at the expense of our human spaceflight program, which for years has inspired future generations and driven technology that enhances our quality of life.

This technology is crucial to our national security. NASA conducts aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control, noise and, emissions reductions and fuel efficiency. NASA's contribution to our knowledge of air and water supports improved decision making for natural resource management and emergency response, thus enabling us to better respond to future homeland security threats.

Knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical first step in protecting our water supply; water flows over the Earth's surface in oceans, lakes, and streams, and is particularly vulnerable to attack.

NASA sensors provide a wealth of information about the water cycle; and contributes to improving our ability to monitor water resources and water quality from space; we must also protect the quality and safety of the air we breathe; airborne contaminants can pose danger to human health; and chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are plausible threats against which we can protect.

Thus, join me in my efforts to restore funding for the Constellation to the FY 2011 budget for the following reasons:

(1) Elimination of the Constellation program, will present Homeland security implications for Cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and Intelligence community of the United States;

(2) Elimination of the Constellation program will compromise the effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence;

(3) Continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial to improving national security, climate, and research in science and medicine.

It is my hope, Madam Speaker, that this Congress will continue to support NASA's Constellation Program and to support balanced energy policies that promote economic growth and will help us meet our clean energy goals.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 9, 2010.

Dear Colleague: I hope you will consider joining me as a

co-sponsor for the resolution I will introduce expressing the

sense of Congress that the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) is a national

security interest and asset, and that the elimination of

funding for the NASA Constellation program in the President's

proposed FY 2011 budget presents national security concerns.

The President's proposed FY2011 budget eliminates funding

for the Constellation Program which includes the Orion Crew

Capsule, the Altair Lunar Lander, and the Ares I and Ares V

rockets. These programs, which together comprise our human

spaceflight program, were authorized in both 2005 and 2008 by

Republican and Democratic Congresses respectively. It is

under the Constellation program, that NASA is currently

developing new launch vehicles and spacecraft capable of

travel to the moon, Mars and other destinations. Not only

does cancelling the Constellation Program jeopardize

America's leadership role in human space exploration, but it

will have detrimental effects on national security.

NASA conducts aeronautics research to address aviation

safety, air traffic control, noise and, emissions reductions

and fuel efficiency. NASA's contribution to our knowledge of

air and water supports improved decision making for natural

resource management and emergency response, thus enabling us

to better respond to future homeland security threats.

Knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical first step

in protecting our water supply; water flows over the Earth's

surface in oceans, lakes, and streams, and is particularly

vulnerable to attack.

NASA sensors provide a wealth of information about the

water cycle; and contributes to improving our ability to

monitor water resources and water quality from space; we must

also protect the quality and safety of the air we breathe;

airborne contaminants can pose danger to human health; and

chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are

plausible threats against which we can protect.

Thus, join me in my efforts to restore funding for the

Constellation to the FY 2011 budget for the following

reasons:

(1) Elimination of the Constellation program, will present

Homeland security implications for Cyberspace, critical

infrastructure, and Intelligence community of the United

States;

(2) Elimination of the Constellation program will

compromise the effectiveness of the International Space

Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space

station research, and intelligence;

(3) Continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial

to improving national security, climate, and research in

science and medicine.

(4) The United States should maintain its funding of the

Constellation program and should begin funding commercial

space in five years and not sooner.

To join as a co-sponsor, please call my office for Mona K.

Floyd of my staff or email (Mona.FloydPmail.house.gov).

Very truly yours,

Sheila Jackson Lee,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will have an opportunity to do something we have not been able to do, and that is to debate the Afghan war and the direction that this war is taking and the impact on our men and women on the front lines. I particularly want to say to the families how much we appreciate the sacrifice that you've made as these men and women stand on the front lines of Afghanistan. But I think we're long overdue for a major debate that has to do with that direction.

I support this underlying rule for the purpose of allowing us to have this debate, but also that it provides, on the domestic spending, crucial issues.

Pell Grants will be provided for in $4.95 billion; border security that impacts the northern and southern border so that we can stand as we do comprehensive immigration reform and assure the American people that we will secure our boarders.

In the most catastrophic oil spill from the region that I come, the tsunami of oil spills, we are taking care of the people by providing $304 million for the gulf coast oil spill, including moneys for unemployment assistance.

Then, coming from the region I belong to, as well, we had a tragedy at Fort Hood, and we are now rebuilding the Fort Hood processing center that saw a terrible loss of life because of terrorism.

FEMA disaster. This is the most vigorous season that you could have ever imagined that is to be expected in hurricanes, and we know, among other disasters, we'll have the money here.

But we're also going to say to the youth of America when we vote on this, we're providing money for summer youth jobs, $1 billion in youth jobs that we in the Congressional Black Caucus--and many Members joined us--are fighting for. This is a crucial step forward. We're providing for black farmers who have been discriminated against over the years.

And then, as I have indicated, we will have an opportunity to question not the men and women in Afghanistan or Iraq, but to question whether or not it is wise to focus on insurgents versus terrorists so that we send men and

women into harm's way without a discerning goal.

I thank the gentleman.

I will tell you, ladies and gentlemen, when you begin to fight those who are classified as your neighbors--and I don't use that term loosely. The Taliban live in Afghanistan. And whenever you determine to fight those individuals, it makes it very difficult to win this war.

The gentleman has his own time. I appreciate it. I am concluding.

And finally, let me say that I offered an amendment to maintain NASA human space exploration and the funding as it was. I look forward to working with this Congress and the Democrats to make sure that happens.

I thank the gentleman.

And let me publicly apologize to the gentleman. I was rushing. I wanted to make sure I mentioned NASA. But let me say that, yes, I am aware, and I am enthusiastic about that language. And I thank the leadership for it because, in fact, it is celebrated and supported by 40-plus school districts in Texas to prevent the Governor of the State of Texas from misusing education dollars, as they have been misused before. This is money that will be effectively used for the schoolchildren of the State of Texas. And I thank the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, what I'm aware of is that this language is supported by at least 40 school districts that support the money being able to come directly to them or not being used if it is not used for education. Additionally, this language only includes education funding not stimulus dollars. So it will not artificially increase any costs to the taxpayers. The school districts will benefit from the Governor having to use federal education dollars for education.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before you today in support of H. Res. 1500, a rule providing for H.R. 4899, the ``Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010.''--a bill that will help create jobs for Americans and provide assistance in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti.

I want to thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for their leadership on this timely legislation. Clearly, this is an important bill and must be only amended with items that are essential to provide the necessary assistance this country so greatly needs.

H.R. 4899 will provide funding for the needs of the American people, from national security, housing, employment, health, to education. I fully support these efforts and want to stress that we must continue to provide policies and funding that ensure that the United States remains a global leader in science and technology, including space exploration, which not only results in knowledge-building, but also in hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the nation.

Mr. Speaker, this supplemental appropriation is quite different from any other supplemental appropriation that members of this body will ever consider. This supplemental appropriations bill provides over $37.47 billion to support our troops, over $24 billion to keep teachers, firefighters and law enforcement personnel on the job while states continue to recover from the recession; over $13 billion for Vietnam veterans and survivors exposed to Agent Orange; $5.7 billion for PELL; $2.8 billion for Haiti; $677 million border security; $275 million for the Gulf Coast oil spill including unemployment benefits program and unemployment assistance related to the oil spill and an oil spill relief employment program that are underway for the self-employed businessman and women who were greatly impacted by the Gulf Coast oil spill.

No price is too great to pay, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to doing what is necessary to aid our country. This bill must only be amended with key items that are critical to adequately address this nation's needs. I am therefore, offering several amendments to H.R. 4899.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 4899--``Supplemental Appropriations Act 2010.'' H.R. 4899 will provide funding for the needs of the American people, from national security, housing, employment, health, to education. I fully support these efforts and want to stress that we must continue to provide policies and funding that ensure that the United States remains a global leader in science and technology, including space exploration, which not only results in knowledge- building but also in hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the nation.

My amendment would ensure: all managed funding for the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) NASA Constellation programs will be maintained through fiscal year 2015 with the assumption that the Constellation program will continue: (2) U.S. human space flight systems shall be lead by the U.S. government to ensure crew safety and to ensure skill, capabilities and institutional knowledge attributable to NASA and ISS can be retained by the U.S. for the appropriate time; (3) strengthen partnerships between universities and NASA centers; and (4) ensure a protocol for commercial human space flight utilization shall be established.

The President's proposed FY2011 budget eliminates funding for a portion of the Constellation Program which includes the Orion Crew Capsule, the Altair Lunar Lander, and the Ares I and Ares V rockets.

Earlier this year, I introduced H. Res. 1150, ``Designating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a national security Interest and Asset,'' and stating findings that the elimination of funding for the NASA Constellation program in the President's proposed FY 2011 budget presents national security concerns.

It is critical that managed funding for the NASA Constellation programs is maintained through fiscal year 2015 as:

1. Elimination of the Constellation programs will present Homeland Security implications for Cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and Intelligence community of the United States;

2. Elimination of the Constellation programs will compromise the effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence; and

3. Continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial to maintaining thousands of American jobs and the U.S.'s leadership role and technological edge as well as securing valuable knowledge that improves national security, climate, and research in science and medicine.

International Leadership and Technological Competitive Edge

Eliminating the Constellation upon retirement of the Space Shuttle will diminish the nation's international leadership role and efforts to advance scientific research in space. The United States will for the first time, since its space program began, be without a human space flight program.

Additionally, transferring funds from the Constellation program to the development of commercial space programs to carry a human crew into space is taking a chance on an unproven quantity and is an unnecessary and unreasonable risk this country must not take at this time. It is more prudent to establish a protocol for commercial human space flight utilization at this time.

It will take years for the commercial spaceflight industry to get up to speed to reach the level of competence that exists at NASA today. Our government has already invested literally years and billions of dollars into this program. We should build upon these investments and not abandon them. Our country can support the commercial spaceflight industry, but not at the expense of our human spaceflight program, which for years has inspired future generations and driven technology that enhances our quality of life.

The retirement of the Space Shuttles this year will leave the United States vulnerable and dependent upon Russia to put U.S. astronauts in orbit without the Constellation program. In May of last year when it became clear the U.S. had no one else to turn to, Russia raised its prices from $48 to $51 million per launch for each astronaut.

In addition, it is important for us to remember that the Constellation program is not just about going to the moon, as the U.S. has a commitment to the International Space Station (ISS). With the Space Shuttles being retired this September, the Constellation is the only system under development that will give NASA the future capability to launch crews to and retrieve them from the ISS. Decreasing the use of the International Space Station would impact the ability to sustain its systems and physical infrastructure.

National Security and Homeland Security

The Congress should recognize the policy outlined in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential element of national security and the ability to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration of space.

The human space flight program should be funded to continue use of the International Space Station to support the agency and other Federal, commercial, and academic research and technology testing needs. NASA conducts aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control, noise and, emissions reductions and fuel efficiency.

NASA's contribution to our knowledge of air and water supports has improved decision making for natural resource management and

emergency response, thus enabling us to better respond to future homeland security threats.

Knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical first step in protecting our water supply; water flows over the Earth's surface in oceans, lakes, and streams, and is particularly vulnerable to attack.

NASA sensors provide a wealth of information about the water cycle, and contribute to improving our ability to monitor water resources and water quality from space. We must also protect the quality and safety of the air we breathe; airborne contaminants can pose danger to human health; and chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are plausible threats against which we can better protect the United States through NASA's research.

Elimination of the Constellation program will present homeland security implications for cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and the intelligence community of the United States. Elimination of the Constellation program will also compromise the effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence.

Continuation of NASA's human space flight program is crucial to improving national security, studying climate change and its effects, and research in science and medicine.

Conclusion

For all of the above reasons, it is my hope that this committee will join me in supporting efforts to maintain NASA's Constellation Program. It is through balanced policies that promote economic growth that we will continue to maintain our international leadership and technological competitive edge, and gain valuable knowledge relating to the national security of our nation. I look forward to working with all of you to ensure that we preserve a robust human space flight program in the United States.

Amendment to H.R. 4899

Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in strong support of NASA programs across the country, and I share their concerns regarding the administration's proposal to cancel NASA's Constellation Program, which includes the Orion Crew Capsule, the Altair Lunar Lander, and the Ares I and Ares V rockets.

These programs, which together comprise our human spaceflight program, were authorized in both 2005 and 2008 by Republican and Democratic Congresses respectively. It is under the Constellation program that NASA is currently developing new launch vehicles and spacecraft capable of travel to the moon, Mars and other destinations. Not only does cancelling the Constellation Program jeopardize America's leadership role in human space exploration, but it will have detrimental effects on our economy and national security.

Take, for example, the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. The Johnson Space Center has the lead to manage the Constellation Program and several of its major elements, including the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Altair Lunar Lander. Without Constellation, the Johnson Space Center could lose anywhere from 4,000 to 7,000 high-tech jobs. If the JSC loses 4,000 direct jobs, an additional 2,315 indirect jobs would be lost, totaling 6,315; loss of income and expenditures locally would be over $567 million. If the JSC loses 7,000 direct jobs, an additional 4,052 indirect jobs would be lost, totaling 11,052; loss of income and expenditures locally would total almost $1 billion.

When speaking of the decision to cancel the Constellation Program, Administrator Bolden stated that ``NASA intends to work with the Congress to make this transition smooth and effective, working responsibly on behalf of the taxpayers.'' To the contrary, I believe that the best use of taxpayers' money is to continue the investment in NASA to build America's scientific future. That future will create jobs.

The present administration's plan for the Constellation Program would cause drastic job loss across America and would place America in a behind the edge position as it relates to competitiveness in scientific research. NASA and the space industry are critical to Houston's economic success in both the short and long term. According to the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, NASA accounts for nearly 16,800 direct federal jobs and serves as the engine for another 3,100 civilian jobs that together supply more than $2.5 billion in payroll into Houston's regional economy. The Johnson Space Center is the primary location

for training astronauts for spaceflights and this move; yet, the proposed budget will effectively cancel America's human spaceflight program.

In his statement announcing NASA's budget, Administrator Bolden stressed that changes in the FY 2011 budget would be ``good for NASA, great for the American workforce, and essential for our nation's future prosperity.'' Madame Speaker, while I seek the same objectives, I strongly disagree with the closing of this project and I believe it will hurt America's scientific progress. Additionally, the aerospace industry would lose as many as 20,000-30,000 jobs nationally in either of these scenarios.

Given our current economic downturn, we cannot take the possibility of these job losses lightly and the Johnson Space Center is just one example of what the cancellation of this program would do to other NASA centers nationally. It will take years for the commercial spaceflight industry to get up to speed to reach the level of competence that exists at NASA today.

Our government has already invested literally years and billions of dollars into this program. We should build upon these investments and not abandon them. Our country can support the commercial spaceflight industry, but not at the expense of our human spaceflight program, which for years has inspired future generations and driven technology that enhances our quality of life. This technology is crucial to our national security. NASA conducts aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control, noise and, emissions reductions and fuel efficiency. NASA's contribution to our knowledge of air and water supports improved decision making for natural resource management and emergency response, thus enabling us to better respond to future homeland security threats.

Knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical first step in protecting our water supply; water flows over the Earth's surface in oceans, lakes, and streams, and is particularly vulnerable to attack. NASA sensors also provide a wealth of information about the water cycle; and contributes to improving our ability to monitor water resources and water quality from space; we must also protect the quality and safety of the air we breathe; airborne contaminants can pose danger to human health; and chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are plausible threats against which we can protect.

I have asked my colleagues in Congress to join me in my efforts to restore funding for the Constellation to the FY 2011 budget for the following reasons:

1. Elimination of the Constellation program will present homeland security implications for cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and the Intelligence community of the United States;

2. Elimination of the Constellation program will compromise the effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence;

3. Continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial to improving national security, climate, and research in science and medicine.

It is my hope, that this Congress will continue to support NASA's Constellation program and to support balanced energy policies that promote economic growth and will help us meet our clean energy goals.

H. Res. 1150

Whereas the United States has invested in human flight

program since May 5, 1961, a program that has been a source

for the United States leadership role in space exploration

and advancement in scientific research; and is a national

security interest and asset for the Nation.

Whereas the Constellation program is a human space flight

program that includes: the Ares I launch vehicle, capable of

launching to low-Earth orbit; the Ares V heavy-lift launch

vehicle, to send astronauts and equipment to the Moon; the

Orion capsule, intended to carry astronauts to low-Earth

orbit and beyond; and the Altair lunar lander and lunar

surface systems astronauts will need to explore the lunar

surface.

Whereas the President's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget provided

$18,700,000,000 for the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA); the Budget funds a program of space-

based research to advance our understanding of climate change

and its effects, as well as human and robotic space

exploration; and the budget supports the use of the Space

Shuttle to complete assembly of the International Space

Station.

Whereas the 2010 NASA budget funded a program of space-

based research that supports the Administration's commitment

to deploy a global climate change research and monitoring

system.

Whereas 2010 NASA budget was to fund the safe flight of the

Space Shuttle through the vehicle's retirement at the end of

2010. An additional flight will be conducted if it can be

completed safely before the end of 2010.

Whereas the President's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget proposes to

eliminate the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA)'s Space Shuttle and Constellation program and allocate

$6,000,000,000 over 5 years for the purpose of developing

commercial space flight.

Whereas the Congress recognizes the policy outlined in

section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space

Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the

United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for

human space flight and operations in low-earth orbit, and

beyond, as an essential element of national security and the

ability to ensure continued United States participation and

leadership in the exploration of space.

Whereas eliminating the Constellation upon retirement of

the Space Shuttle will create a national security risk to the

United States and will diminish the Nation's efforts to

advance scientific research in space.

Whereas the United States will for the first time since its

space program began, be without a human space flight program.

Whereas transferring funds from the Constellation program

to the development of commercial space programs to carry

human and crew into space is taking a chance on an unknown

quantity and is an unnecessary and unreasonable risk this

country must not take.

Whereas the retirement of the Space Shuttle this year will

leave the United States vulnerable and depending on Russia to

put United States astronauts in orbit without the

Constellation program; in May of last year when it became

clear the United States had no one else to turn to, Russia

raised its prices from $48,000,000 to $51,000,000 per launch

for each astronaut.

Whereas the Constellation program is not just about going

to the moon, as the United States has a commitment to the

International Space Station (ISS), and with the Space Shuttle

being retired this September, the Constellation is the only

system under development that will give NASA the future

capability to launch and retrieve crews to and from the ISS.

Whereas decreasing the use of the International Space

Station would impact the ability to sustain its systems and

physical infrastructure.

Whereas the Constellation program should be funded to

continue use of the International Space Station to support

the agency and other Federal, commercial, and academic

research and technology testing needs.

Whereas partnerships between universities and NASA centers

should be established to provide research opportunities for

conduct of research in the United States International Space

Station National Laboratories for the next generation of

scientists in order to ensure effective utilization of the

International Space Station research capabilities.

Whereas NASA conducts aeronautics research to address

aviation safety, air traffic control, noise and, emissions

reductions and fuel efficiency.

Whereas NASA's contribution to our knowledge of air and

water supports improved decisionmaking for natural resource

management and emergency response, thus enabling us to better

respond to future homeland security threats.

Whereas knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical

first step in protecting our water supply; water flows over

the Earth's surface in oceans, lakes, and streams, and is

particularly vulnerable to attack.

Whereas NASA sensors provide a wealth of information about

the water cycle; and contributes to improving our ability to

monitor water resources and water quality from space; we must

also protect the quality and safety of the air we breathe;

airborne contaminants can pose danger to human health; and

chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are

plausible threats against which we can better protect the

United States through NASA's research: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of

Representatives that--

(1) NASA is a national security asset and interest for the

United States;

(2) elimination of the Constellation program will present

Homeland Security implications for cyberspace, critical

infrastructure, and the intelligence community of the United

States;

(3) elimination of the Constellation program will

compromise the effectiveness of the International Space

Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space

station research, and intelligence;

(4) continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial

to improving national security, climate, and research in

science and medicine; and

(5) the United States should maintain its funding of the

Constellation program and should begin funding commercial

space in 5 years and not sooner.