Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Authorization Act of 2010. As a stalwart supporter of NASA and with the privilege of representing the world-class workers at the NASA Glenn…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Authorization Act of 2010. As a stalwart supporter of NASA and with the privilege of representing the world-class workers at the NASA Glenn Research Center (NASA Glenn), I strongly support the vital workforce protections included in the Senate bill. My opposition to this legislation stems from my concern for the NASA's long-term health. I am concerned that the language in the underlying bill sends the agency on a path toward privatization, and privatization undermines the agency and its workers.
I unequivocally support language in the underlying bill that provides NASA's unparalleled civil-servants with three years of protection from layoffs under a Reductions-In-Force (RIF) moratorium. For years, NASA employees have been caught in the cross-hairs of repeated program reorganizations and major cuts in in-house R&D funding--and they have paid for it with job loss and insecurity. The compromise language proposed by Chairman Gordon does not have the RIF moratorium I wanted. But it does include a RIF moratorium for a year and a half. Chairman Gordon was making progress toward a viable alternative and I believe that provisions in this bill under consideration today leave NASA employees vulnerable in the long-term and could force the agency to continue down the unsustainable path it currently finds itself on.
NASA research centers such as NASA Glenn--and the agency as a whole-- will benefit more from increased investments in Solar-Electric Propulsion, High Efficiency Space Power Systems, Green Aviation and Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer within the Aeronautics, Space Technology and Exploration programs. These programs are critical in the development of next generation technologies to support future key NASA missions over the next decade. These programs need to be funded. And they are often the first to be cut. In fact, this legislation includes a $500 million unfunded mandate to extend Shuttle operations through Fiscal Year 2011, which means that Shuttle funding will have to come from somewhere else within NASA.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 privatizes two key functions for NASA; transporting crew and cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). Commercial providers have been given the opportunity to provide cargo to the space station and, according to Government Accountability Office (GAO), they have failed to meet the required safety benchmarks. The GAO also raises serious concerns about the lack of expertise at the Federal Aviation Administration to oversee the commercial space launch industry. This bill not only furthers the outsourcing of cargo transportation, but expands it to include transporting crew.
The results of privatizing government services frequently follow a pattern in which a company assumes control of a service from the government by promising lower costs. After winning the contract, the company requests more funding to do the job, and then attempts to save its own money by cutting corners through cuts in pay, benefits and safety. Our astronauts deserve better than to have their lives put at risk.
Further, if the services are privatized, those competencies among the expert staff at NASA would be effectively irreversible because it would take so much time to rebuild them. We must preserve and leverage ongoing technical work on Service Module for human spaceflight beyond Low Earth Orbit. This work will be critical to maintaining jobs and core-intellectual competencies embodied within the agency.
This legislation also fails to provide the agency with the option of a government-vehicle back-up should the commercial sector be unable to satisfactorily provide the services for which they were hired. The Augustine Commission--the Commission President Obama tasked with reviewing future human space flight plans--believed it would be too risky to rely solely on the commercial sector and suggested including a government back-up option.
Providing more money to the commercial sector without the necessary safety and regulatory safeguards could come at the expense of other in- house, long-lead research and development programs.
I cannot support legislation that provides the government with no other option than to rely exclusively on the commercial sector. I will continue to work with appropriators to preserve and protect civil servant jobs at NASA and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.