H. Rept. 111-576 - 111th Congress (2009-2010)
July 28, 2010, As Reported by the Science and Technology Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 111-576 - NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010




[House Report 111-576]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


111th Congress                                                   Report
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                111-576

_______________________________________________________________________




              NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
                      AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010

                               ----------

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   on

                               H.R. 5781

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS


      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


 July 28, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed




             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 
                       AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010







111th Congress 
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
                                                                111-576
_______________________________________________________________________



              NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
                      AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010


                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   on

                               H.R. 5781

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS


      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


 July 28, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed






111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-576

======================================================================



 
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010

                                _______
                                

 July 28, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and Technology, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 5781]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

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

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Bill............................................................2
  II. Purpose........................................................31
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation........................31
  IV. Hearing Summaries..............................................31
   V. Committee Actions..............................................48
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................48
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis....................................48
VIII. Committee Views................................................60
  IX. Committee Cost Estimate........................................70
   X. New Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost 
      Estimate.......................................................70
  XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4...............................70
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............70
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........71
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................71
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................71
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................71
XVII. Earmark Identification.........................................71
XVIII.Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........71

 XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........71
  XX. Committee Recommendations......................................73
 XXI. Additional Views...............................................74
XXII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................82

                                I. Bill

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

  (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010''.
  (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is as 
follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 101. Fiscal year 2011.
Sec. 102. Fiscal year 2012.
Sec. 103. Fiscal year 2013.

                      TITLE II--HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

                        Subtitle A--Exploration

Sec. 201. Reaffirmation of exploration policy.
Sec. 202. Restructured Exploration program.
Sec. 203. Space radiation.

                Subtitle B--International Space Station

Sec. 211. Extension of ISS operations.
Sec. 212. ISS research management institution.
Sec. 213. ISS research management plan.
Sec. 214. Outreach plan for United States ISS research.
Sec. 215. ISS cargo resupply requirements and contingency capacity 
through 2020.
Sec. 216. Centrifuge.
Sec. 217. Exploration technology development using the ISS.
Sec. 218. Fundamental space life science and physical sciences and 
related technology research.

                       Subtitle C--Space Shuttle

Sec. 221. Contingent authorization of additional space shuttle mission.
Sec. 222. Expanded scope of Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office.
Sec. 223. Post-Shuttle workforce transition initiative grant program.
Sec. 224. Disposition of orbiter vehicles.

                  Subtitle D--Space and Flight Support

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

               Subtitle E--Commercial Crew Transportation

Sec. 241. Affirmation of policy.
Sec. 242. Commercial crew and related commercial space initiatives.
Sec. 243. Federal assistance for the development of commercial orbital 
human space transportation services.

                     Subtitle F--General Provisions

Sec. 251. Use of program funds.

                           TITLE III--SCIENCE

                       Subtitle A--Earth Science

Sec. 301. Earth science applications.
Sec. 302. Essential space-based Earth science and climate measurements.
Sec. 303. Commercial remote sensing data purchases pilot project.
Sec. 304. Report on temperature records.

                       Subtitle B--Space Science

Sec. 311. Suborbital programs.
Sec. 312. Review of Explorer program.
Sec. 313. Radioisotope thermoelectric generator material requirements 
and supply.

                         TITLE IV--AERONAUTICS

Sec. 401. Environmentally friendly aircraft research and development 
initiative.
Sec. 402. Research on NextGen airspace management concepts and tools.
Sec. 403. Research on aircraft cabin air quality.
Sec. 404. Research on on-board volcanic ash sensor systems.
Sec. 405. Aeronautics test facilities.
Sec. 406. Expanded research program on composite materials used in 
aerospace.

                       TITLE V--SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Sec. 501. Space technology program.

                    TITLE VI--EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Sec. 601. STEM education and training.
Sec. 602. Assessment of impediments to space science and engineering 
workforce development for minority and underrepresented groups at NASA.
Sec. 603. Independent review of the National Space Grant College and 
Fellowship Program.
Sec. 604. Hands-on space science and engineering education and 
training.

          TITLE VII--INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITIES REVITALIZATION

Sec. 701. Institutional management.
Sec. 702. James E. Webb Cooperative Education Distinguished Scholar 
Program.

                   TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT

Sec. 801. Prohibition on expenditure of funds when 30 percent threshold 
is exceeded.
Sec. 802. Project and program reserves.
Sec. 803. Independent reviews.
Sec. 804. Avoiding organizational conflicts of interest in major NASA 
acquisition programs.
Sec. 805. Report to Congress.

                       TITLE IX--OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 901. Cloud computing.
Sec. 902. Review of practices to detect and prevent the use of 
counterfeit parts.
Sec. 903. Preservation and management of lunar sites.
Sec. 904. Continuity of moderate resolution land imaging remote sensing 
data.
Sec. 905. Space weather.
Sec. 906. Use of operational commercial suborbital vehicles for 
research, development, and education.
Sec. 907. Study on export control matters related to United States 
astronaut safety and NASA mission operations.
Sec. 908. Amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.
Sec. 909. Near-Earth objects.
Sec. 910. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 911. Ethics programs in the Office of General Counsel.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  The Congress finds the following:
          (1) NASA is and should remain a multimission agency with a 
        balanced and robust set of core missions in science, 
        aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration.
          (2) NASA's programs have the potential to inspire our youth 
        to pursue studies and careers in science, technology, 
        engineering, and mathematics, and the agency should carry out 
        its activities in a manner that enhances the educational and 
        outreach potential of its programs.
          (3) NASA should begin to reinvest in sustained fashion in a 
        long-term space technology research and development activity. 
        Such investments are an important catalyst for innovation, and 
        they represent the critically important ``seed corn'' on which 
        NASA's ability to carry out challenging and productive missions 
        in the future will depend.
          (4) The Space Shuttle workforce, both civil servants and 
        contractors, encompasses skills and experience that will be 
        needed in the Nation's future human space flight activities, 
        and the transition of that workforce to a challenging human 
        space flight and exploration program needs to be carried out in 
        as expeditious and nondisruptive a manner as possible.
          (5) Human and robotic exploration of the solar system will be 
        a significant undertaking of humanity in the 21st century and 
        beyond, and it is in the national interest that the United 
        States should assume a leadership role in a cooperative 
        international exploration initiative. Continuity of exploration 
        goals is critical if progress is to be maximized and costly 
        inefficiencies are to be minimized.
          (6) Commercial activities have long contributed to the 
        vitality and strength of the Nation's space and aeronautics 
        programs, and the growth of a healthy, self-sustaining United 
        States commercial space and aeronautics sector should continue 
        to be encouraged.
          (7) Congress agrees with the finding of the Review of United 
        States Human Spaceflight Plans Committee that: ``While there 
        are many potential benefits of commercial services that 
        transport crew to low-Earth orbit, there are simply too many 
        risks at the present time not to have a viable fallback option 
        for risk mitigation.''.
          (8) It is in the national interest for the United States 
        Government to develop a government system to serve as an 
        independent means--whether primary or backup--of crewed access 
        to low-Earth orbit and beyond so that it is not dependent on 
        either non-United States or commercial systems for its crewed 
        access to space.
          (9) Development of the next crewed space transportation 
        system to low-Earth orbit should be guided by the Columbia 
        Accident Investigation Board's recommendation that ``the design 
        of the system should give overriding priority to crew safety, 
        rather than trade safety against other performance criteria, 
        such as low cost and reusability''.
          (10) In an environment of constrained budgets, responsible 
        stewardship of taxpayer-provided resources makes it imperative 
        that NASA's exploration program be carried out in a manner that 
        builds on the investments made to date in the Orion, Ares I, 
        and heavy lift projects and other activities of the exploration 
        program in existence prior to fiscal year 2011 rather than 
        discarding them. A restructured exploration program should 
        pursue the incremental development and demonstration of crewed 
        and heavy-lift transportation systems in a manner that ensures 
        that investments to provide assured access to low-Earth orbit 
        also directly support the expeditious development of the heavy 
        lift launch vehicle system, minimize the looming human space 
        flight ``gap'', provide a very high level of crew safety, and 
        enable challenging missions beyond low-Earth orbit in a timely 
        manner.
          (11) NASA's programs in astrophysics, heliophysics, planetary 
        science, and Earth science and climate research have greatly 
        increased our understanding of both our home planet and the 
        rest of the universe, and they have also provided numerous 
        benefits to our society.
          (12) NASA's aeronautics program is undertaking research and 
        development that benefits our economic development and 
        competitiveness, enhances our quality of life and enables 
        environmentally responsible aviation operations, and 
        strengthens our national defense.
          (13) The ISS provides a unique research environment and 
        capabilities for basic and applied research, as well as having 
        the potential to serve as a testbed for human space flight 
        technologies and operational concepts. It is critically 
        important that NASA make needed investments to promote 
        productive ISS utilization, including a meaningful program of 
        grants in the life and physical sciences microgravity research 
        disciplines.
          (14) It is in the national interest for the United States to 
        have an export control policy that protects the national 
        security while also enabling the United States aerospace 
        industry to compete effectively in the global marketplace and 
        the United States to undertake cooperative programs in science 
        and human space flight in an effective manner.
          (15) A strong, robust NASA program is in the national 
        interest. Ensuring that it can continue to pursue cutting-edge 
        space and aeronautical research and development activities and 
        push back the frontier of space exploration requires a 
        sustained and adequate commitment in resources. However, NASA's 
        share of the Federal discretionary budgetary authority has 
        declined significantly relative to its post-Apollo historical 
        average share of 2.07 percent. It should be a national goal to 
        restore NASA's funding share to its post-Apollo historical 
        average.
          (16) NASA should be vigilant in taking all necessary steps to 
        control cost and schedule growth in mission projects, including 
        the development of an integrated cost containment strategy, and 
        adopt measures that improve the performance and transparency of 
        its cost and acquisition management practices. NASA should 
        approach cost and schedule management with the same level of 
        innovation, rigor, and technical excellence that it applies to 
        the execution of its mission projects.
          (17) NASA has been inconsistent in its treatment of 
        termination liability costs for contracts issued by different 
        mission directorates and across various agency programs 
        relative to historical practice. This inconsistency has 
        hampered NASA's ability to effectively execute its Exploration 
        programs.
          (18) NASA's temperature records substantially overlap with 
        the records of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the 
        University of East Anglia.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
        Administrator of NASA.
          (2) ISS.--The term ``ISS'' means the International Space 
        Station.
          (3) NASA.--The term ``NASA'' means the National Aeronautics 
        and Space Administration.
          (4) NOAA.--The term ``NOAA'' means the National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration.
          (5) OSTP.--The term ``OSTP'' means the Office of Science and 
        Technology Policy.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 101. FISCAL YEAR 2011.

   There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for 
fiscal year 2011 $19,000,000,000, to be allocated as follows:
          (1) For Science, $5,015,700,000, of which--
                  (A) $1,801,800,000 shall be for Earth Science;
                  (B) $1,485,700,000 shall be for Planetary Science;
                  (C) $1,076,300,000 shall be for Astrophysics;
                  (D) $646,900,000 shall be for Heliophysics, of which 
                $5,000,000 shall be an augmentation to the Explorers 
                program; and
                  (E) $5,000,000 shall be an augmentation to the total 
                amount provided under subparagraphs (C) and (D) for 
                Astrophysics and Heliophysics in order to augment the 
                funding for the Science Mission Directorate's 
                suborbital research programs, to be allocated between 
                the Astrophysics and Heliophysics suborbital programs 
                at the Administrator's discretion.
          (2) For Aeronautics, $579,600,000.
          (3) For Space Technology, $572,200,000.
          (4) For Exploration, $4,535,300,000 of which--
                  (A) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research;
                  (B) $14,000,000 shall be for the Commercial Orbital 
                Transportation System demonstration program;
                  (C) $50,000,000 shall be for commercial crew 
                transportation-related activities;
                  (D) $4,156,300,000 shall be for the restructured 
                exploration program described in section 202; and
                  (E) $100,000,000 shall be for the loan and loan 
                guarantee program described in section 243.
          (5) For Space Operations, $4,594,300,000, of which--
                  (A) $989,100,000 shall be for the Space Shuttle 
                program;
                  (B) $2,804,800,000 shall be for the ISS, of which 
                $75,000,000 shall be for fundamental space life science 
                and physical sciences and related technology research 
                using ground-based, free-flyer, and ISS facilities, 
                including ISS National Laboratory research;
                  (C) $60,000,000 shall be for the Post-Shuttle 
                Workforce Transition Initiative grant program described 
                in section 223; and
                  (D) $740,400,000 shall be for Space and Flight 
                Support, of which $50,000,000 shall be for the 21st 
                Century Launch Complex Initiative.
          (6) For Education, $145,800,000.
          (7) For Cross-Agency Support Programs, $3,111,400,000.
          (8) For Construction and Environmental Compliance and 
        Restoration, $407,300,000, of which $10,000,000 is an 
        augmentation to the President's requested funding level in 
        order to support the NASA laboratory revitalization initiative 
        described in section 701.
          (9) For Inspector General, $38,400,000.

SEC. 102. FISCAL YEAR 2012.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for 
fiscal year 2012 $19,450,000,000, to be allocated as follows:
          (1) For Science, $5,278,600,000 of which--
                  (A) $1,944,500,000 shall be for Earth Science;
                  (B) $1,547,200,000 shall be for Planetary Science;
                  (C) $1,109,300,000 shall be for Astrophysics;
                  (D) $672,600,000 shall be for Heliophysics, of which 
                $25,000,000 shall be an augmentation to the Explorers 
                program; and
                  (E) $5,000,000 shall be an augmentation to the total 
                amount provided under subparagraphs (C) and (D) for 
                Astrophysics and Heliophysics in order to augment the 
                funding for the Science Mission Directorate's 
                suborbital research programs, to be allocated between 
                the Astrophysics and Heliophysics suborbital programs 
                at the Administrator's discretion.
          (2) For Aeronautics, $598,700,000, of which $78,900,000 shall 
        be for the Aviation Safety Program, $80,400,000 shall be for 
        the Aeronautics Test Program, $83,900,000 shall be for the 
        Airspace Systems Program, $233,500,000 shall be for Fundamental 
        Aeronautics, and $122,000,000 shall be for Integrated Systems 
        Research.
          (3) For Space Technology, $1,012,200,000.
          (4) For Exploration, $4,881,800,000 of which--
                  (A) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research;
                  (B) $50,000,000 shall be for commercial crew 
                transportation-related activities;
                  (C) $4,516,800,000 shall be for the restructured 
                exploration program described in section 202; and
                  (D) $100,000,000 shall be for the loan and loan 
                guarantee program described in section 243.
          (5) For Space Operations, $3,930,300,000, of which--
                  (A) $86,100,000 shall be for the Space Shuttle 
                program;
                  (B) $3,033,600,000 shall be for the ISS, of which 
                $100,000,000 shall be for fundamental space life 
                science and physical sciences and related technology 
                research using ground-based, free-flyer, and ISS 
                facilities, including ISS National Laboratory research;
                  (C) $40,000,000 shall be for the Post-Shuttle 
                Workforce Transition Initiative grant program described 
                in section 223; and
                  (D) $770,600,000 shall be for Space and Flight 
                Support, of which $50,000,000 shall be for the 21st 
                Century Launch Complex Initiative.
          (6) For Education, $145,800,000.
          (7) For Cross-Agency Support Programs, $3,189,600,000.
          (8) For Construction and Environmental Compliance and 
        Restoration, $373,800,000, of which $10,000,000 is an 
        augmentation to the President's requested level in order to 
        support the NASA laboratory revitalization initiative described 
        in section 701.
          (9) For Inspector General, $39,200,000.

SEC. 103. FISCAL YEAR 2013.

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for 
fiscal year 2013 $19,960,000,000, to be allocated as follows:
          (1) For Science, $5,569,500,000, of which--
                  (A) $2,089,500,000 shall be for Earth Science;
                  (B) $1,591,200,000 shall be for Planetary Science;
                  (C) $1,149,100,000 shall be for Astrophysics;
                  (D) $734,700,000 shall be for Heliophysics, of which 
                $55,000,000 shall be an augmentation to the Explorers 
                program; and
                  (E) $5,000,000 shall be an augmentation to the total 
                amount provided under subparagraphs (C) and (D) for 
                Astrophysics and Heliophysics in order to augment the 
                funding for the Science Mission Directorate's 
                suborbital research programs, to be allocated between 
                the Astrophysics and Heliophysics suborbital programs 
                at the Administrator's discretion.
          (2) For Aeronautics, $609,400,000, of which $81,200,000 shall 
        be for the Aviation Safety Program, $79,600,000 shall be for 
        the Aeronautics Test Program, $87,300,000 shall be for the 
        Airspace Systems Program, $239,000,000 shall be for Fundamental 
        Aeronautics, and $122,300,000 shall be for Integrated Systems 
        Research.
          (3) For Space Technology, $1,059,700,000.
          (4) For Exploration, $4,888,500,000 of which--
                  (A) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research;
                  (B) $5,000,000, shall be for the Exploration 
                Technology and Demonstration program;
                  (C) $5,000,000 shall be for the Exploration Precursor 
                Robotic Missions program;
                  (D) $50,000,000 shall be for commercial crew 
                transportation-related activities;
                  (E) $4,513,500,000 shall be for the restructured 
                exploration program described in section 202; and
                  (F) $100,000,000 shall be for the loan and loan 
                guarantee program described in section 243.
          (5) For Space Operations, $3,993,300,000, of which--
                  (A) $3,179,400,000 shall be for the ISS, of which 
                $100,000,000 shall be for fundamental space life 
                science and physical sciences and related technology 
                research using ground-based, free-flyer, and ISS 
                facilities, including ISS National Laboratory research;
                  (B) $40,000,000 shall be for the Post-Shuttle 
                Workforce Transition Initiative grant program described 
                in section 223; and
                  (C) $773,900,000 shall be for Space and Flight 
                Support, of which $50,000,000 shall be for the 21st 
                Century Launch Complex Initiative.
          (6) For Education, $145,800,000.
          (7) For Cross-Agency Support Programs, $3,276,800,000.
          (8) For Construction and Environmental Compliance and 
        Restoration, $376,900,000, of which $10,000,000 is an 
        augmentation to the President's requested funding level in 
        order to support the NASA laboratory revitalization initiative 
        described in section 701.
          (9) For Inspector General, $40,100,000.

                      TITLE II--HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

                        Subtitle A--Exploration

SEC. 201. REAFFIRMATION OF EXPLORATION POLICY.

  Congress reaffirms its support for the exploration policy set forth 
in sections 401 and 402 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-422; 122 Stat. 
4788-4789).

SEC. 202. RESTRUCTURED EXPLORATION PROGRAM.

  (a) Requirements.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop a plan to 
restructure the exploration program in existence prior to fiscal year 
2011 in order to develop and demonstrate in an integrated manner and as 
expeditiously and efficiently as practicable a governmentally owned 
crew transportation system and heavy lift transportation system that 
satisfies the following requirements:
          (1) The plan shall make maximum practicable use of the 
        design, development, and test work completed to date on the 
        Orion crew exploration vehicle, Ares I crew launch vehicle, 
        heavy lift launch vehicle system, and associated ground support 
        and exploration enabling systems, including spacesuit 
        development and related life support technology, and take best 
        advantage of investments and contracts implemented to date.
          (2) The performance capabilities of the crew transportation 
        system shall be phased in a manner that is consistent with 
        available and anticipated resources, with the initial 
        operational goal of having the crew transportation system 
        developed under this section available to assure crewed access 
        to low-Earth orbit and the ISS no later than December 31, 2015, 
        in order to minimize the duration of the United States human 
        space flight gap following the retirement of the Space Shuttle 
        fleet. If one or more United States commercial entities are 
        certified to provide ISS crew transportation and rescue 
        services, the crew transportation system developed under this 
        section shall be available as a backup ISS crew transportation 
        and rescue service as needed but shall not be utilized as the 
        primary means of ISS crew transportation and rescue or 
        otherwise compete with the commercial system for ISS crew 
        transportation and rescue services.
          (3) The crewed spacecraft element of the crew transportation 
        system shall be evolvable on a continuous development path to 
        support--
                  (A) ISS crew transportation and rescue capability;
                  (B) non-ISS missions to, from, and in low-Earth 
                orbit; and
                  (C) human missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
          (4) The crew transportation system shall be able to serve as 
        a testbed for demonstrating operations concepts for exploration 
        missions beyond low-Earth orbit, as well as for demonstrating 
        technologies and carrying out risk reduction for the heavy lift 
        launch vehicle development program.
          (5) The crew transportation system shall have predicted 
        levels of safety during ascent to low-Earth orbit, transit, and 
        descent from low-Earth orbit that are not less than those 
        required of the Ares I/Orion configuration that has completed 
        program preliminary design review.
          (6) In order to make the most cost-effective use of the funds 
        available for the restructured exploration program, the 
        Administrator shall pursue the expeditious and cost-efficient 
        development of a heavy lift launch system that utilizes the 
        systems and flight and ground test activities of the crew 
        transportation system developed under this section to the 
        maximum extent practicable. In developing the heavy lift launch 
        vehicle--
                  (A) the heavy lift launch vehicle shall be sized to 
                enable challenging missions beyond low-Earth orbit and 
                evolvable on a continuous development path to enable 
                the efficient and cost-effective conduct of crewed 
                missions to the full range of destinations envisioned 
                in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
                Authorization Act of 2008, namely Lagrangian points, 
                the Moon, near-Earth objects, and Mars and its moons;
                  (B) not later than 180 days after the date of 
                enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall carry 
                out a review of the heavy lift launch vehicle 
                requirements needed to support crewed missions to the 
                full range of destinations envisioned in the National 
                Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act 
                of 2008, and shall select an exploration launch vehicle 
                architecture to meet those requirements;
                  (C) the development of the heavy lift launch vehicle 
                authorized in this paragraph shall be completed as 
                expeditiously as possible within available resources 
                and shall take maximum benefit from the prior 
                investments made in the Orion, Ares I, and heavy lift 
                projects and from investments made in the restructured 
                program on the development, demonstration, and test of 
                the crew transportation system; and
                  (D) the Administrator shall strive to meet the goal 
                of having the heavy lift launch vehicle authorized in 
                this paragraph available for operational missions by 
                the end of the current decade.
  (b) Implementation of Restructured Program.--The restructured 
exploration program shall be implemented in a manner that--
          (1) facilitates the planned transition of Space Shuttle 
        program personnel to the restructured exploration program upon 
        the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet, while providing for 
        cost effective management and vehicle development;
          (2) provides for a robust flight and ground test and 
        demonstration program;
          (3) streamlines program management processes to the maximum 
        extent practicable while ensuring that the Government's ability 
        to meet its responsibilities for cost discipline, safety, and 
        mission assurance is maintained;
          (4) working with industry, eliminates unnecessary NASA and 
        industry institutional infrastructure, other fixed costs, 
        processes, and oversight, reducing exploration program fixed 
        costs to the extent practicable and maximizing the program's 
        affordability;
          (5) incentivizes, through innovative management practices, 
        NASA program and project managers and industry counterparts to 
        establish and maintain realistic cost and schedule estimates, 
        and take necessary steps to avoid cost and schedule growth;
          (6) seeks to minimize to the extent practicable the operating 
        costs of the crew transportation system developed under the 
        restructured exploration program;
          (7) enables the restructured exploration program to undertake 
        in an incremental fashion increasingly challenging uncrewed and 
        crewed demonstration flights in and beyond low-Earth orbit;
          (8) allows the systems developed under the restructured 
        exploration program to serve as potential testbeds for the 
        demonstration of key enabling exploration technologies and 
        operational capabilities; and
          (9) prepares for and enables human missions to a variety of 
        destinations in the inner solar system, including cislunar 
        space, the Moon, Lagrangian points, near-Earth objects, and 
        ultimately Mars and its moons.
  (c) Support Systems.--The restructured exploration program shall 
continue work on ground systems and other exploration-enabling 
technologies and capabilities needed to support the exploration 
program, including spacesuit development, as expeditiously as possible 
within available resources.
  (d) NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization Program for 
the Restructured Exploration Program.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall carry out a program 
        to prepare infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center that is 
        needed to enable processing and launch of the elements of the 
        restructured exploration program, including simplifying vehicle 
        interfaces and other ground processing and payload integration 
        areas to minimize overall costs, enhance safety, and complement 
        the purpose of this section.
          (2) Elements.--The program required by this section shall 
        include--
                  (A) investments in support of the restructured 
                exploration program to--
                          (i) improve processing and launch operations 
                        at the Kennedy Space Center;
                          (ii) enhance the overall capabilities of the 
                        Eastern Range; and
                          (iii) reduce the long-term cost of operations 
                        and maintenance;
                  (B) measures in support of the restructured 
                exploration program to provide multivehicle support and 
                improvements in payload processing; and
                  (C) such other measures in support of the 
                restructured exploration program as the Administrator 
                may consider appropriate.
  (e) Report on NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization 
Program for the Restructured Exploration Program.--Not later than 180 
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report on the 
plan for the implementation of the program authorized in subsection 
(d).
  (f) International Collaboration.--The Administrator shall explore 
potential international collaborations that would enable more ambitious 
exploration missions in a timely manner and within available resources 
than would otherwise be possible, such as human lunar landings or the 
incremental establishment of a lunar research outpost.

SEC. 203. SPACE RADIATION.

  (a) Strategy.--The Administrator shall develop a space radiation 
mitigation and management strategy and implementation plan that 
includes key milestones, a timetable, and estimation of budget 
requirements. The strategy shall include a mechanism to coordinate NASA 
research, technology, facilities, engineering, operations, and other 
functions required to support the strategy and plan. The Administrator 
shall transmit the strategy and plan to the Congress not later than 1 
year after the date of enactment of this Act.
  (b) Space Radiation Research Facilities.--The Administrator, in 
consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, 
shall assess the national capabilities for carrying out critical 
ground-based research on space radiation biology, and shall identify 
any issues that could affect the ability to carry out that research.
  (c) Research on Solar Particle Events.--The Administrator shall carry 
out research on solar particle events to improve the predictions and 
forecasts of solar particle events that could affect human missions 
beyond low-Earth orbit.
  (d) Radiation Research on Non-human Primates.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall transmit to the 
        Congress not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
        this Act a report on prior radiation research on non-human 
        primates and the justification and rationale for any additional 
        research involving non-human primates.
          (2) Consultation.--In preparing the report, the Administrator 
        shall consult with other Government agencies that have 
        previously conducted radiation research on non-human primates.

                Subtitle B--International Space Station

SEC. 211. EXTENSION OF ISS OPERATIONS.

  (a) In General.--The Administrator shall, in consultation with the 
ISS partners, take all necessary measures to support the operation and 
full utilization of the International Space Station through at least 
the year 2020, if it can continue to be operated safely over that 
period. The Administrator shall, in consultation with the ISS partners, 
seek to minimize to the extent practicable the operating costs of the 
ISS.
  (b) Vehicle and Component Review.--
          (1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
        Administrator shall--
                  (A) conduct an in-depth assessment of all essential 
                modules, operational systems and components, structural 
                elements, and permanent scientific equipment on board 
                or planned for delivery and installation aboard the 
                ISS, including both United States and international 
                partner elements, to determine anticipated spare or 
                replacement requirements to ensure complete, effective, 
                and safe function and full scientific utilization of 
                the ISS; and
                  (B) provide the completed assessment to the Congress 
                within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
          (2) Requirements of assessment.--The results of the required 
        assessment shall include, at a minimum, the following:
                  (A) The identification of spare or replacement 
                elements and parts currently produced, in inventory, or 
                on order, and the state of readiness and schedule for 
                delivery to the ISS, including the planned 
                transportation means for such delivery. Each element 
                identified shall include a description of its location, 
                function, criticality for system integrity, and 
                specifications regarding size, weight, and necessary 
                configuration for launch and delivery.
                  (B) The identification of anticipated requirements 
                for spare or replacement elements not currently in 
                inventory or on order, a description of their location, 
                function, criticality for system integrity, the 
                anticipated cost and schedule for design, procurement, 
                manufacture and delivery, and specifications regarding 
                size, weight, and necessary configuration for launch 
                and delivery, including available launch vehicles 
                capable of transportation of such items to the ISS.
                  (C) The identification of spare or replacement parts 
                existing or planned that due to size, weight, and 
                launch configuration can only be carried to the ISS by 
                the Space Shuttle.
          (3) Comptroller general.--The Administrator shall enable the 
        Comptroller General to monitor and, as appropriate, participate 
        in the assessment required by paragraph (1) in such a way as to 
        enable the Comptroller General to provide to the Congress an 
        independent review of the assessment.

SEC. 212. ISS RESEARCH MANAGEMENT INSTITUTION.

  (a) Designation.--Pursuant to section 507 of the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16767), 
the Administrator shall designate an independent, nonprofit United 
States institution, based on the result of a competitive solicitation, 
for the management of fundamental space life science and physical 
sciences and related technology research to be conducted on the ISS, as 
well as all research, including United States commercial research, that 
is funded by non-NASA United States domestic entities and carried out 
on the ISS.
  (b) Responsibilities.--The research management institution designated 
under subsection (a) shall make recommendations to the Administrator 
for--
          (1) competitively selecting, prioritizing, and overseeing 
        United States ISS research projects across all United States 
        users, sponsors, and disciplines, including domestic entities 
        other than NASA, seeking to carry out research on the ISS;
          (2) establishing a process for governance of United States 
        ISS research users;
          (3) conducting outreach and education to enhance the 
        utilization of the ISS; and
          (4) providing easily accessible information on the United 
        States capabilities, research facilities, and resources 
        associated with the United States research use of the ISS.
  (c) Deviations.--If the Administrator takes actions that deviate from 
the recommendations provided by the research management institution 
under subsection (b), the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress 
a report explaining the reasons for such deviation.
  (d) Other Government Contracts.--Other government agencies engaged in 
research and development are authorized to enter into contracts with 
the nonprofit organization designated under subsection (a) if it is 
determined by those agencies to be beneficial to meeting their mission 
requirements for use of the ISS.

SEC. 213. ISS RESEARCH MANAGEMENT PLAN.

  (a) In General.--The Administrator, in coordination with the 
Associate Administrator for the Space Operations Mission Directorate, 
shall require that the institution designated under section 212(a) 
prepare for the Administrator a United States ISS research management 
plan that--
          (1) establishes a process for selecting United States ISS 
        research;
          (2) identifies the expertise and support available to 
        researchers selected to carry out research on the ISS;
          (3) establishes a process for determining allocation 
        schedules for research to be carried out on the ISS;
          (4) establishes a process for accommodating logistical and 
        transportation requirements for ISS research payloads;
          (5) prescribes flight schedules for research payloads to the 
        ISS (and research materials to be returned to Earth, if 
        necessary); and
          (6) addresses other factors associated with the selection, 
        management, and oversight of United States ISS research.
  (b) Transmittal to Congress.--The plan shall be transmitted to the 
Congress not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

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

  Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a plan prepared by the 
institution designated under section 212(a) for broadening and 
enhancing the outreach to potential United States Government, academic, 
and commercial users of the ISS.

SEC. 215. ISS CARGO RESUPPLY REQUIREMENTS AND CONTINGENCY CAPACITY 
                    THROUGH 2020.

  (a) In General.--The Administrator shall ensure the availability of 
ISS cargo resupply capacity to support the full and productive 
utilization and the extended operations of the ISS through the year 
2020.
  (b) Assessment.--The Administrator shall conduct an assessment of the 
ISS cargo resupply capacity required to support the enhanced research 
utilization and extended operations of the ISS through 2020. The 
assessment shall describe the methodology and assumptions used to 
define the cargo requirements and provide a breakdown of the cargo 
resupply requirements (upmass and downmass) to support scientific 
research, other research and development, operations and maintenance, 
crew supplies, and other necessary activities. In addition, the 
assessment shall identify the systems to be used for ISS cargo 
resupply, the amount of cargo those systems will transport, and the 
timeline for cargo resupply services to the ISS.
  (c) Additional Resupply Options.--The Administrator shall explore 
with ISS partners options for ensuring the provision of needed upmass 
to and downmass from the ISS in the event that adequate commercial 
cargo resupply capabilities are not available during any extended 
period after the date that the Space Shuttle is retired. Before relying 
on ISS partners to upmass or downmass cargo, the Administrator must 
certify to the Congress that no United States or commercial cargo 
resupply capabilities are available.

SEC. 216. CENTRIFUGE.

  (a) Assessment.--The Administrator shall carry out an assessment of 
innovative options for deploying a variable-gravity centrifuge on the 
ISS. The assessment shall identify the requirements for a variable-
gravity centrifuge to support fundamental and applied research on the 
ISS, including research to help mitigate the risk of long-term 
spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit. The assessment shall also--
          (1) review the requirements for development, launch, and 
        operation of the facility on the ISS;
          (2) provide an estimate of the potential cost and timeline 
        for developing and deploying the centrifuge capabilities 
        evaluated as part of the assessment;
          (3) evaluate the status of previous work on development of an 
        in-flight centrifuge for the ISS and the cost and time that 
        would be required to complete the work and launch the facility; 
        and
          (4) identify the potential for international collaboration 
        and other potential partnerships or innovative acquisition 
        approaches that could facilitate the development and deployment 
        of a centrifuge facility for the ISS.
  (b) Transmittal to Congress.--The Administrator shall transmit the 
assessment described in subsection (a) to the Congress not later than 1 
year after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 217. EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT USING THE ISS.

  (a) Plan.--The Administrator shall develop priorities for technology 
development, testing, and demonstration activities that enable and 
support NASA's long-term plans for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit 
and that require the capabilities of the ISS, and shall develop a plan, 
including milestones, a schedule, and an estimate of resource 
requirements, for carrying out the prioritized activities. The plan 
shall be developed for the period of fiscal years 2011 through 2020.
  (b) Transmittal to Congress.--The Administrator shall transmit the 
plan developed under subsection (a) to the Congress not later than 270 
days after the date of enactment of this Act.

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

  (a) Strategic Plan for Science and Technology Research.--
          (1) Development.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
        academia, other Federal agencies, and other potential 
        stakeholders, shall develop a strategic plan for carrying out 
        competitive, peer-reviewed fundamental space life science and 
        physical sciences and related technology research, including 
        research on phenomena such as the response of fluids and 
        materials to reduced gravity environments that need to be 
        understood in developing exploration-related technologies and 
        systems. The plan shall--
                  (A) address the facilities and instrumentation that 
                would enable and facilitate such research;
                  (B) be consistent with the priorities and 
                recommendations established by the National Academies 
                in its decadal survey of life and microgravity 
                sciences;
                  (C) provide a research timeline and identify the 
                resource requirements for its implementation;
                  (D) include an estimate of the number of students, 
                including undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral 
                students, and early-career researchers that would be 
                supported in carrying out the plan; and
                  (E) identify--
                          (i) criteria for the proposed space research, 
                        including--
                                  (I) a justification for the research 
                                to be carried out in the space 
                                microgravity environment;
                                  (II) the use of model systems;
                                  (III) the testing of flight hardware 
                                to understand and ensure its 
                                functioning in the microgravity 
                                environment;
                                  (IV) the use of controls to help 
                                distinguish among the direct and 
                                indirect effects of microgravity, among 
                                other effects of the flight or space 
                                environment;
                                  (V) approaches for facilitating data 
                                collection, analysis, and 
                                interpretation;
                                  (VI) procedures to ensure repetition 
                                of experiments as needed; and
                                  (VII) support for timely presentation 
                                of the peer-reviewed results of the 
                                research;
                          (ii) instrumentation required to support the 
                        measurements and analysis of the research to be 
                        carried out under the strategic plan, including 
                        the potential use of instrumentation developed 
                        by other countries and the potential for a 
                        variable-gravity centrifuge to support the 
                        research;
                          (iii) the capabilities needed to support 
                        direct, real-time communications between 
                        astronauts working on research experiments 
                        onboard the ISS and the principal investigator 
                        on the ground; and
                          (iv) a process for involving the external 
                        user community in research planning, including 
                        planning for relevant flight hardware and 
                        instrumentation, and for utilization of the 
                        ISS, free flyers, or other research platforms.
          (2) Transmittal to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit 
        the strategic plan developed under paragraph (1) to the 
        Congress.
  (b) Integrated Research Management Organization.--
          (1) Responsible official.--
                  (A) In general.--The Administrator shall ensure that 
                a responsible official is designated at NASA 
                headquarters to lead a competitive, integrated basic 
                and applied research program in fundamental space life 
                science and physical sciences and related technology.
                  (B) Responsibilities.--The official designated under 
                subparagraph (A) shall be responsible for--
                          (i) leading near-term and long-term strategic 
                        planning pursuant to the research plan 
                        developed under subsection (a);
                          (ii) ensuring the input of the external user 
                        community in science planning processes;
                          (iii) ensuring the implementation of an 
                        integrated, multidisciplinary and 
                        interdisciplinary, competitive research program 
                        in fundamental space life and physical sciences 
                        and related technology;
                          (iv) supporting the appropriate interaction 
                        of research investigators and agency managers 
                        and engineers in planning, designing, testing, 
                        and operations related to such research 
                        projects;
                          (v) monitoring progress of the program in 
                        achieving the objectives and milestones 
                        identified in the strategic plan developed 
                        under subsection (a)(1); and
                          (vi) other functions required to support the 
                        research program under this section.
                  (C) Coordination and communications.--The 
                Administrator shall ensure that the responsible 
                official coordinates and communicates the fundamental 
                space life science and physical sciences and related 
                technology research activities with relevant entities 
                within NASA, with the ISS research management 
                institution designated under section 212(a), and with 
                other relevant agencies and organizations.
          (2) Budget request.--The Administrator shall, as part of the 
        annual NASA fiscal year budget request--
                  (A) identify and include a description of research 
                being carried out pursuant to section 204 of the 
                National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
                Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16633);
                  (B) identify the percentage of the total research 
                budget for ISS research that the research described in 
                subparagraph (A) represents; and
                  (C) identify the programs proposed for carrying out 
                research activities on the ISS and the proposed funding 
                to support those research programs, including a 
                breakdown for each of the programs identified of the 
                funding requested for competitive grants.

                       Subtitle C--Space Shuttle

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

  (a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that it 
is very important, in view of the extension of the life of the ISS 
until at least 2020, for the Shuttle fleet to leave the ISS in the best 
possible configuration for the post-Shuttle era and that NASA should 
take all necessary steps to ensure the continued viability of the ISS 
in the event that there are delays in the delivery or the inability to 
deliver critical parts and supplies once the Shuttle is retired.
  (b) Contingent Authorization of Additional Shuttle Mission Beyond the 
Planned Manifest.--The Administrator is authorized to conduct 1 
additional Space Shuttle mission to the ISS beyond the missions 
contained in the flight manifest as of February 1, 2010, if--
          (1) the Administrator determines that an additional Space 
        Shuttle mission is a useful and necessary step to reduce risks 
        to the operation and utilization of the ISS that are associated 
        with the retirement of the Shuttle fleet; and
          (2) the conditions in subsection (c) have been met.
  (c) Conditions.--In order to comply with subsection (b), the 
Administrator shall determine and certify that all of the following 
conditions have been met:
          (1) The importance of conducting the additional Space Shuttle 
        mission to the ISS outweighs the risks associated with 
        conducting a Shuttle mission without a backup Shuttle launch-
        on-need capability.
          (2) Any actions resulting from safety inspections and reviews 
        required by NASA's Orbiter Modification Down Period (OMDP) and 
        other safety guidance have been successfully addressed.
          (3) Workarounds addressing mandatory OMDP requirements, if 
        any, have been identified and the associated risks have been 
        characterized.
          (4) The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has reviewed the 
        safety issues associated with the additional Shuttle mission as 
        well as NASA's plans to mitigate any identified risks.
  (d) Contingent Authorization of Appropriations.--In the event that 
the additional Shuttle flight to the ISS is authorized, funding for the 
incremental costs associated with the additional mission is authorized 
as follows from within funds authorized in title I:
          (1) For fiscal year 2011, $700,000,000, to be taken in the 
        amounts specified below from within the funding for the 
        following accounts and transferred to the Space Shuttle 
        account:
                  (A) $175,000,000 from the ISS, except that at least 
                $50,000,000 shall remain available for fundamental 
                space life and physical sciences and related technology 
                research.
                  (B) $525,000,000 from the restructured exploration 
                program.
          (2) For Fiscal Year 2012, $200,000,000, to be taken from 
        within the funding for the ISS and transferred to the Space 
        Shuttle account, except that at least $50,000,000 shall remain 
        available for fundamental space life and physical sciences and 
        related technology research.

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

  Section 613(b) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17761(b)) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Space Shuttle Transition 
        Liaison Office'' and inserting ``Post-Shuttle Transition 
        Liaison Office''; and
          (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``2 years after the 
        completion of the last Space Shuttle flight'' and inserting ``2 
        years after the award of the final grant under section 223 of 
        the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization 
        Act of 2010''.

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

  (a) Establishment.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the Post-
        Shuttle Transition Liaison Office established under section 
        613(b) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17761(b)), as amended by 
        section 222, is authorized to make grants for the 
        establishment, operation, coordination, and implementation of 
        aerospace workforce and community transition strategies.
          (2) Transfer.--The Administrator may transfer amounts made 
        available under this section to other Federal agencies for the 
        purpose of assisting in the transition of aerospace workers and 
        communities adversely affected by the termination of the Space 
        Shuttle program.
  (b) Use of Funds.--A recipient of a grant under subsection (a) shall 
use the funds made available through the grant to--
          (1) conduct community and business outreach;
          (2) develop and implement regional revitalization and 
        facilities reuse strategies;
          (3) support entrepreneurship and new business development 
        initiatives; and
          (4) support workforce retraining.

SEC. 224. DISPOSITION OF ORBITER VEHICLES.

  (a) In General.--Upon the termination of the Space Shuttle Program, 
the Administrator shall decommission any remaining Space Shuttle 
orbiter vehicles according to established safety and historic 
preservation procedures prior to their designation as surplus 
government property. The orbiter vehicles shall be made available and 
located for display and maintenance through a competitive procedure 
that takes into account geographical diversity, established pursuant to 
the disposition plan developed under section 613(a) of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17761(a)), 
with priority consideration given to eligible applicants meeting all 
conditions of that plan which would provide for the display and 
maintenance of orbiters at locations with the best potential value to 
the public, including where the location of the orbiters can advance 
educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics disciplines, and with an historical relationship with the 
Space Shuttle orbiters.
  (b) Smithsonian Institution Orbiter.--Notwithstanding the procedures 
in subsection (a), the Smithsonian Institution shall be entitled to 
receive one of the remaining Space Shuttle orbiter vehicles. The 
Administrator shall collaborate with the Secretary of the Smithsonian 
Institution to determine which orbiter the Smithsonian Institution 
shall receive, and otherwise determine the timing and procedures of 
transfer from NASA to the Smithsonian Institution. The Smithsonian 
Institution, which, as of the date of enactment of this Act, houses the 
Space Shuttle Enterprise, shall determine any new location for the 
Enterprise.
  (c) Display and Maintenance.--The orbiter vehicles made available 
under subsection (a) shall be displayed and maintained through 
agreements and procedures established pursuant to section 613(a) of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 
(42 U.S.C. 17761(a)).

                  Subtitle D--Space and Flight Support

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

  (a) Purpose.--Funding authorized in title I for the 21st Century 
Space Launch Complex Initiative shall be available to carry out the 
following activities:
          (1) Investments to improve civil and national security 
        operations at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air 
        Force Station to enhance the overall capabilities of the 
        Eastern Range and to reduce the long-term cost of operations 
        and maintenance.
          (2) Measures to provide multivehicle support, improvements in 
        payload processing, and partnering at the Kennedy Space Center 
        and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.
          (3) Measures to support the restructured exploration program.
          (4) Such other measures related to launch support and 
        infrastructure modernization at the Kennedy Space Center as the 
        Administrator may consider appropriate to carry out NASA's 
        launch operations.
  (b) Report on the 21st Century Space Launch Complex Initiative.--
          (1) Report required.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
        of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 
        appropriate committees of the Congress a report on the plan for 
        the implementation of the 21st Century Space Launch Complex 
        Initiative.
          (2) Elements.--The report required by this subsection shall 
        include--
                  (A) a description of those initiatives tied to the 
                restructured exploration program;
                  (B) a description of proposed initiatives intended to 
                be conducted jointly or in cooperation with Cape 
                Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, or other 
                installations or components of the United States 
                Government; and
                  (C) a timetable for carrying out activities and 
                initiatives planned for the 21st Century Space Launch 
                Complex Initiative.

               Subtitle E--Commercial Crew Transportation

SEC. 241. AFFIRMATION OF POLICY.

  The Congress affirms the policy of--
          (1) making use of United States commercially provided ISS 
        crew transportation and crew rescue services to the maximum 
        extent practicable;
          (2) limiting, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of 
        the system developed under section 202 to non-ISS missions once 
        commercial crew transportation and crew rescue services that 
        meet safety requirements become operational; and
          (3) facilitating, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
        transfer of NASA-developed technologies to United States 
        commercial orbital human space transportation companies in 
        order to help promote the development of commercially provided 
        ISS crew transportation and crew rescue services.

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

  (a) Commercial Services Opportunities.--NASA shall seek, to the 
extent practicable, to make use of commercially available space 
services, including commercially available services to transport United 
States Government astronauts to and from the ISS, provided that--
          (1) those commercial services have demonstrated the 
        capability to meet NASA-specified ascent, transit, entry, and 
        ISS proximity operations safety requirements;
          (2) the services provider has completed, and NASA has 
        verified, crewed flight demonstrations or operational flights 
        that comply with NASA standards, policies, and procedures; and
          (3) the per-seat cost to the United States is not greater 
        than the per-seat cost for the system developed under section 
        202.
  (b) Human-rating.--The Administrator shall establish requirements, 
standards, and processes for the human rating of space transportation 
systems that are equivalent to NASA safety processes and procedures.
  (c) Technology Transfer.--The Administrator shall make available, on 
a nonexclusive basis, NASA-developed technologies for transfer to 
potential United States commercial orbital human space transportation 
companies. NASA shall determine the appropriate means, through cost-
reimbursable arrangements or other mechanisms, to transfer the 
technologies.
  (d) Technical Assistance and Facilities.--The Administrator shall 
make available, to the extent practicable, NASA facilities and 
equipment to assist in the testing and demonstration of commercial crew 
transportation systems, including those associated with NASA's safety 
and mission assurance activities, such as NASA's Independent 
Verification and Validation facility for software verification. The 
Administrator shall determine the appropriate means, through cost-
reimbursable arrangements, agreements entered into under section 
203(c)(5) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 
2473(c)(5)), or other mechanisms, to provide technical assistance and 
access to facilities to the commercial space sector.
  (e) NASA Insight and Oversight Processes.--Any company that seeks to 
provide commercial crew transportation services under contract to NASA 
shall enter into an arrangement with NASA that allows NASA to obtain 
ongoing insight into the design methodologies, processes, technologies, 
test data, and production and quality control practices employed in the 
development of the commercial crew transportation system throughout the 
development, test, demonstration, and production phases. NASA may offer 
early warning of conditions that could lead NASA to withhold 
certification of the crew transportation systems for the flight of 
United States Government personnel or to decline to enter into a 
contract for services. NASA may not require the company to make changes 
to its design, technologies, or processes during the development, test, 
demonstration, or production phases.
  (f) Contracts for Commercially Available ISS Crew Transportation and 
Crew Rescue Services.--
          (1) Certification of safety and reliability.--Before entering 
        into a contract for the use of commercially available 
        commercial crew transportation or crew rescue services for 
        United States Government astronauts, the Administrator shall 
        certify that a commercial ISS crew transportation and crew 
        rescue service provider with which a contract is planned has 
        demonstrated the safety and reliability of its systems for crew 
        transportation and crew rescue to be equivalent to NASA-
        promulgated safety and reliability policies, procedures, and 
        standards for human spaceflight. Individual certifications made 
        under this paragraph shall be provided to the Committee on 
        Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and to 
        the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
        Senate.
          (2) Flight experience.--The Administrator shall not enter 
        into any contract or commit any United States Government funds 
        for a commercial ISS crew transportation or rescue service to a 
        service provider until sufficient successful flight experience 
        has been accrued by the service provider's system to provide to 
        NASA the safety-related and reliability-related data and 
        information needed to determine whether to fly its astronauts 
        on that system. The Administrator shall require an amount of 
        demonstrated flight experience for a commercial crew 
        transportation system that is at least as much as NASA requires 
        under Alternative 1 as delineated in the NASA Policy Directive 
        NPD 8610.7D, effective January 31, 2008, for common launch 
        vehicle configurations before Class A (high cost and high 
        priority) payloads can be flown on them.
          (3) Administrator's actions.--To facilitate the ability of 
        commercial crew transportation providers to comply with NASA 
        human spaceflight safety and reliability requirements, the 
        Administrator shall--
                  (A) develop and communicate the human-rating 
                requirements established under subsection (b) to 
                commercial space companies;
                  (B) establish minimum acceptable safety levels;
                  (C) provide technical assistance, to the maximum 
                extent practicable, to the commercial space sector in 
                understanding and applying NASA human-rating 
                requirements, standards, and processes to commercial 
                crew transportation and crew rescue systems;
                  (D) establish and communicate to the commercial 
                sector the process NASA will apply for securing ongoing 
                NASA insight into the design methodologies, processes, 
                technologies, test data, and production and quality 
                control practices employed in the development of the 
                commercial crew transportation system throughout the 
                development, test, demonstration, and production 
                phases;
                  (E) establish and communicate to the commercial 
                sector NASA's process for certifying that commercial 
                human spaceflight systems (including mission control, 
                operations, ground systems, and other supporting 
                infrastructure) comply with NASA human-rating 
                requirements and standards and related NASA policies 
                and procedures for safety and reliability, which 
                process shall be no less stringent than the NASA 
                policies and procedural requirements established for 
                launch of Class A (high cost and high priority) 
                payloads; and
                  (F) ensure that the certification established under 
                subparagraph (E) includes independent verification and 
                validation of compliance with NASA policies, 
                procedures, and standards.
  (g) ASAP Review of NASA's Human-rating Requirements, Standards, and 
Processes.--
          (1) In general.--The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel shall 
        conduct a review to identify issues pertinent to the 
        establishment of human-rating requirements, standards, and 
        processes for commercial crew transportation and rescue systems 
        that are proposed for transport of United States astronauts.
          (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Aerospace Safety and Advisory Panel 
        shall transmit to the Congress a report describing--
                  (A) the Panel's assessment of NASA's currently 
                established human-rating specifications and guidance;
                  (B) the Panel's view of the mandatory safety 
                requirements that must be met with regard to human 
                rating; and
                  (C) the steps NASA and the commercial space industry 
                need to take to ensure that commercial crew 
                transportation and rescue vehicles have human rating 
                requirements, standards, and processes equivalent to 
                those of NASA.
  (h) Indemnification and Liability.--The Administrator shall not 
proceed with a request for proposals, award any contract, or commit any 
United States Government funds for a commercial ISS crew transportation 
or rescue service to be provided by a commercial service provider until 
all indemnification and liability issues associated with the use of 
such systems by the United States Government shall have been addressed 
and the Administrator has provided to the Congress a report describing 
the indemnification and liability provisions that are planned to be 
included in such contracts.
  (i) Predicted Level of Safety.--The Administrator shall not award any 
contract or commit any United States Government funds for a commercial 
ISS crew transportation system service to a service provider unless 
that commercial crew transportation system has a predicted level of 
safety during ascent to low-Earth orbit, transit, and descent from low-
Earth orbit that is not less than that specified for the Government 
system in section 202(a)(5).

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

  (a) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish a program to 
provide financial assistance in the form of direct loans or loan 
guarantees to commercial entities for the costs of development of 
orbital human space transportation systems.
  (b) Eligible Projects.--A loan or loan guarantee may be made under 
such program only for a project in the United States to develop 
commercial orbital human space transportation systems that would be 
used to provide transportation services to and from low-earth orbit.
  (c) Eligible Borrower.--A loan or loan guarantee may be made under 
such program only for a borrower who is determined by the Administrator 
to be eligible under the criteria established pursuant to subsection 
(i).
  (d) Limitations.--No loan or loan guarantee shall be made unless the 
Administrator determines that--
          (1) there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the 
        principal and interest on the obligation by the borrower;
          (2) the amount of the obligation (when combined with amounts 
        available to the borrower from other sources which shall be a 
        minimum of 25 percent of the total expected project development 
        cost) is sufficient to carry out the total development project.
  (e) Superiority of Rights.--The rights of the Administrator, with 
respect to any property acquired pursuant to a loan, shall be superior 
to the rights of any other person with respect to the property.
  (f) Terms and Conditions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, a loan or loan guarantee made pursuant to this section shall--
          (1) bear interest at an annual rate, as determined by the 
        Administrator, of--
                  (A) in the case of a direct loan--
                          (i) the cost of borrowing to the Department 
                        of the Treasury for obligations of comparable 
                        maturity; or
                          (ii) 4 percent; and
                  (B) in the case of a guaranteed loan, the current 
                applicable market rate for a loan of comparable 
                maturity; and
          (2) have a term not to exceed 30 years.
  (g) Consultation.--In establishing the terms and conditions of a loan 
or loan guarantee under this section, the Administrator shall consult 
with the Secretary of the Treasury.
  (h) Fees.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall charge and collect 
        fees for loans and loan guarantees in amounts the Administrator 
        determines are sufficient to cover applicable administrative 
        expenses.
          (2) Availability.--Fees collected under this subsection 
        shall--
                  (A) be deposited by the Administrator into the 
                Treasury of the United States; and
                  (B) remain available until expended, subject to such 
                other conditions as are contained in annual 
                appropriations Acts.
          (3) Limitation.--In charging and collecting fees under 
        paragraph (1), the Administrator shall take into consideration 
        the amount of the obligation.
  (i) Regulations.--The Administrator shall issue final regulations 
before making any loan or loan guarantee under the program. Such 
regulations shall include--
          (1) criteria that the Administrator shall use to determine 
        eligibility for loans and loan guarantees under this section, 
        including whether a borrower demonstrates that a non-
        governmental market exists for the orbital human space 
        transportation service, as evidenced by written statements of 
        interest from potential purchasers of the services;
          (2) criteria that the Administrator shall use to determine 
        the amount of any fees charged under subsection (h), including 
        criteria related to the amount of the obligation; and
          (3) any other policies, procedures, or information necessary 
        to implement this section.
  (j) Audit.--
          (1) Annual independent audits.--The Administrator shall enter 
        into an arrangement with an independent auditor for annual 
        evaluations of the program under this section.
          (2) Comptroller general review.--The Comptroller General of 
        the United States shall conduct a biennial review of the 
        Administrator's execution of the program under this section.
          (3) Report.--The results of the independent audit under 
        paragraph (1) and the Comptroller General's review under 
        paragraph (2) shall be provided directly to the Committee on 
        Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
        Senate.
  (k) Report to Congress.--Concurrent with the submission to the 
Congress of the President's annual budget request in each year after 
the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall transmit 
to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate a report containing a summary of all 
activities carried out under this section.
  (l) Minimizing Risk.--The Administrator shall promulgate regulations 
and policies to carry out this section in accordance with Office of 
Management and Budget Circular No. A-129, entitled ``Policies for 
Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables'', as in effect on the 
date of enactment of this section.
  (m) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Cost.--The term ``cost'' has the meaning given such term 
        under section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 
        U.S.C. 661a).
          (2) Obligation.--The term ``obligation'' means the loan 
        issued under this section or the loan or other debt obligation 
        that is guaranteed under this section.
          (3) Program.--The term ``program'' means the program 
        established in subsection (a).

                     Subtitle F--General Provisions

SEC. 251. USE OF PROGRAM FUNDS.

  For all programs authorized under this title, authorized funds may be 
obligated only for performance of the programs.

                           TITLE III--SCIENCE

                       Subtitle A--Earth Science

SEC. 301. EARTH SCIENCE APPLICATIONS.

  The Administrator shall develop guidelines and procedures for 
entering into arrangements with State, local, regional, tribal, and 
other Federal Government agencies that seek to benefit from ongoing 
NASA technical information, capabilities, and support related to Earth 
science applications and decision support systems. The guidelines and 
procedures shall include a definition of the partnership, milestones, 
cost-sharing, and project-relevant criteria for the project. The 
guidelines and procedures shall define arrangements for reimbursement 
for Government services, as appropriate, including the use of NASA 
spacecraft and aircraft, sensors, equipment, facilities, and associated 
personnel for the purpose of aiding State, local, regional, tribal, and 
other Federal Government needs.

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

  The Administrator, in cooperation with the Administrator of NOAA and 
other relevant Federal agencies, shall enter into an arrangement with 
the National Academies for a study, to be completed, and transmitted to 
the Congress not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, to provide a prioritized list and definition of essential 
Earth science and climate measurements that should be collected with 
space-based means, and maintained and archived by the Federal 
Government on a continuous basis. The study shall also identify which 
measurements could potentially be obtained through international 
partnerships, from data purchases or other arrangements with private or 
commercial entities, or from other relevant sources.

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

  (a) Workshop.--Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator shall organize a workshop including 
relevant commercial remote sensing data providers, scientists, and 
remote sensing data users, among other relevant stakeholders, to 
identify the essential criteria for a pilot project for purchasing 
commercial remote sensing data to support research in Earth science and 
for applied uses of the data to address State, local, regional, and 
tribal needs. The workshop shall address lessons learned and 
recommendations related to past experience with commercial data 
purchases, including those outlined in the National Research Council 
report entitled ``Toward New Partnerships in Remote Sensing: 
Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research''.
  (b) Pilot Project.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, after consideration of the results of the 
workshop under subsection (a) and after obtaining relevant information 
from potential commercial remote sensing data providers and users of 
such data, the Administrator shall establish a pilot project for the 
provision, through competitive solicitations, of commercial remote 
sensing data to serve research and applied uses of the data to serve 
State, local, regional, and tribal needs.

SEC. 304. REPORT ON TEMPERATURE RECORDS.

  Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Administrator shall issue a report to the Congress detailing the extent 
and degree to which NASA's temperature records overlap with the records 
at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the 
reasons for and sources of that overlap, and the possibility that 
NASA's temperature records have been compromised.

                       Subtitle B--Space Science

SEC. 311. SUBORBITAL PROGRAMS.

  (a) Responsible Official.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall ensure that an 
        individual who shall report directly to the Associate 
        Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate is designated 
        to lead NASA's suborbital and airborne program.
          (2) Responsibilities.--The designated individual shall be 
        responsible for--
                  (A) leading near-term and long-term strategic 
                planning for the suborbital and airborne program;
                  (B) ensuring the implementation of strategic and 
                other relevant plans;
                  (C) integrating NASA's suborbital and airborne 
                programs;
                  (D) ensuring the productivity of the suborbital 
                facilities and assets as necessary to carry out the 
                plans;
                  (E) coordinating NASA's suborbital activities with 
                associated NASA offices and Centers, universities, and 
                other external institutions; and
                  (F) monitoring progress on meeting the strategic 
                objectives for enhanced suborbital and airborne 
                activities, NASA workforce development, and integration 
                of suborbital activities within NASA's overall plans 
                and priorities.
  (b) Strategic Plan.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall provide to the Congress 
a strategic plan to support the full and productive use of NASA's 
suborbital and airborne assets as a foundation for meeting its 
scientific research, engineering, workforce development, and education 
goals and objectives across NASA centers and mission directorates and 
in partnership with universities and other relevant external 
institutions. The strategic plan shall--
          (1) be developed in consultation with relevant NASA offices 
        and Centers and with input from universities, nonprofit 
        research institutions, and private industry;
          (2) identify the needs and priorities for using NASA's 
        airborne and suborbital assets to support NASA's scientific 
        research, engineering, workforce development, and educational 
        goals;
          (3) identify and prioritize the required infrastructure 
        investments, including maintenance, upgrades, and any enhanced 
        facility or equipment capabilities, that are required to carry 
        out the needs and priorities described in paragraph (2); and
          (4) provide an estimate of the budget requirements and a 
        schedule and timeline for implementing the plan.
  (c) Training and Professional Development.--The Administrator shall, 
to the extent practicable, expand the opportunities within NASA's 
suborbital programs for training science and engineering students and 
for providing professional development for early career professionals. 
Training and development activities shall be expanded consistent with 
the goals and objectives of the strategic plan to be developed under 
subsection (b).

SEC. 312. REVIEW OF EXPLORER PROGRAM.

  (a) Establishment.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academies to conduct a review of the 
Explorer Program and offer any recommendations as it considers 
necessary.
  (b) Scope.--Such review shall address at least the following:
          (1) A review of existing or recent Explorer program elements 
        such as NASA's University Class Explorer (UNEX), Small Explorer 
        (SMEX), Medium Class Explorer (MIDEX), Explorers (EX), and 
        Missions of Opportunity to assess the degree of--
                  (A) innovation in instrumentation, and other 
                technology and space mission elements;
                  (B) flexibility and new approaches in management and 
                collaboration;
                  (C) project implementation within the planned budget 
                and schedule; and
                  (D) training opportunities for space scientists and 
                engineers.
          (2) The status, capability, and availability of launch 
        vehicles and infrastructure to support the Explorer program 
        elements.
          (3) Projected launch capabilities and facilities for 
        Explorers, including private sector launch capabilities.
          (4) The frequency of Explorer missions.
          (5) The balance of Explorer missions among theme areas and 
        between larger and smaller mission sizes.
          (6) The opportunities and challenges for partner 
        participation in Explorer missions, including international and 
        interagency collaborations.
          (7) The contributions of Explorers to a robust space science 
        program, and the value of the Explorer Program for the Nation's 
        scientific research and engineering community, including its 
        impact on training of younger researchers and engineers.
  (c) Report.--Not later than 16 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress the review 
and a plan for responding to the recommendations of the review.

SEC. 313. RADIOISOTOPE THERMOELECTRIC GENERATOR MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS 
                    AND SUPPLY.

  (a) Analysis of Requirements and Risks.--The Administrator, in 
consultation with other Federal agencies, shall conduct an analysis of 
NASA requirements for radioisotope power system material which is 
needed to carry out planned, high priority robotic missions in the 
solar system and other surface exploration activities beyond low-Earth 
orbit, as well as the risks to NASA missions in meeting those 
requirements, or any additional requirements, due to a lack of adequate 
domestic production of radioisotope power system material. The analysis 
shall--
          (1) detail NASA's current projected mission requirements for 
        radioisotope power system material;
          (2) explain the assumptions used to determine NASA's 
        requirements for the material, including--
                  (A) the planned use of Advanced Stirling Radioisotope 
                Generator technology;
                  (B) the status of and timeline for completing 
                development and demonstration of the Advanced Stirling 
                Radioisotope Generator technology, including the 
                development of flight readiness requirements; and
                  (C) the risks, implications, and contingencies for 
                NASA mission plans of any delays or unanticipated 
                technical challenges related to the anticipated use of 
                Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator technology;
          (3) assess the risk to NASA programs of any potential delays 
        in achieving the schedule and milestones for planned domestic 
        production of radioisotope power system material;
          (4) outline a process for meeting any additional NASA 
        requirements for the material; and
          (5) estimate the incremental costs required to increase the 
        amount of material produced each year, if such an increase is 
        needed to support additional NASA requirements for the 
        material.
  (b) Transmittal.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with other Federal 
agencies, shall transmit the results of the analysis to the Congress.

                         TITLE IV--AERONAUTICS

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

  Section 302 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17721) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting the 
        following:
  ``(a) In General.--The Administrator''; and
          (2) by adding at the end the following:
  ``(b) Plan.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall develop a plan and 
        associated timetable for this initiative identifying key 
        milestones, including projected flight demonstrations to 
        validate vehicle and technology concepts in a relevant 
        environment.
          ``(2) Submission.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
        enactment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        Authorization Act of 2010, the Administrator shall transmit the 
        plan to the Congress.''.

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

  The Administrator shall review at least annually the alignment and 
timing of NASA's research and development activities in support of the 
NextGen airspace management modernization initiative and shall make any 
necessary adjustments by reprioritizing or retargeting NASA's research 
and development activities in support of the NextGen initiative.

SEC. 403. RESEARCH ON AIRCRAFT CABIN AIR QUALITY.

  The Administrator shall initiate research on aircraft cabin air 
quality that complements research conducted by the Federal Aviation 
Administration and its Center of Excellence on Research in the 
Intermodal Transport Environment, including research on innovative 
aircraft cabin air quality sensors operating during ground and flight 
operations and on innovative warning and mitigation technologies for 
poor air quality.

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

  (a) In General.--The Administrator shall conduct a study to assess 
the feasibility of establishing a project focused on the development of 
a low-cost on-board volcanic ash sensor system.
  (b) Specifications.-- The study shall consider, at a minimum--
          (1) NASA's unique capabilities;
          (2) opportunities for collaboration, both nationally and 
        internationally; and
          (3) projected resource requirements, research milestones, and 
        potential accomplishments.

SEC. 405. AERONAUTICS TEST FACILITIES.

  (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that--
          (1) NASA must reverse the deteriorating condition of its 
        aeronautics ground test facilities and infrastructure, as this 
        condition is hampering the effectiveness and efficiency of 
        aeronautics research performed by both NASA and industry 
        participants making use of NASA facilities, thus reducing the 
        competitiveness of the United States aviation industry;
          (2) NASA has a role in providing test capabilities that are 
        not economically viable as commercial entities and thus are not 
        available elsewhere; and
          (3) to ensure continued access to reliable and efficient 
        national-class test capabilities by researchers, NASA should 
        seek to establish strategic partnerships with other Federal 
        agencies, academic institutions, and industry.
  (b) Plan.--The Administrator shall develop a plan to stabilize and, 
where possible, reverse the deterioration of NASA's aeronautics ground 
test facilities. The Administrator shall transmit such plan to the 
Congress not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.

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

  The Administrator shall expand NASA's research program on composite 
materials used in aerospace applications to address--
          (1) progressive damage analysis, aging, inspection 
        techniques, and new manufacturing and repair techniques; and
          (2) ways to mitigate how the environment, operating fluids, 
        and mechanical loads interact with composite materials over 
        time.

                       TITLE V--SPACE TECHNOLOGY

SEC. 501. SPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

  (a) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish a space 
technology program to enable research and development on advanced space 
technologies and systems that are independent of specific space mission 
flight projects. The program shall support--
          (1) early-stage concepts and innovation;
          (2) development of innovative technologies in areas such as 
        in-space propulsion, power generation and storage, liquid 
        rocket propulsion, avionics, structures, and materials that may 
        enable new approaches to human and robotic space missions;
          (3) flight demonstrations of technologies, including those 
        that have the potential to benefit multiple NASA mission 
        directorates, other Federal Government agencies, and the 
        commercial space industry; and
          (4) research, development, and demonstration of enabling 
        technologies in support of future exploration missions.
  (b) Procedure.--In establishing the space technology program under 
this section, the Administrator shall--
          (1) to the maximum extent practicable, use a competitive 
        process to select projects to be supported as part of the 
        program;
          (2) support the development of an organization to investigate 
        innovative concepts for technological approaches, systems, 
        architectures, or mission strategies;
          (3) make use of small satellites and NASA suborbital 
        platforms, to the extent practicable, to demonstrate space 
        technology concepts and developments; and
          (4) undertake partnerships with other Federal agencies, 
        universities, private industry, and other spacefaring nations, 
        as appropriate.
  (c) Decadal Survey.--The Administrator shall enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academies for a decadal survey study to 
make recommendations for research and development priorities for NASA's 
space technology program over the next decade. Included in the decadal 
survey shall be an identification and prioritization of key technology 
research and development activities needed to enable a robust 
exploration technology program, from basic research and development 
through flight demonstrations. The Administrator shall transmit the 
results of the study to the Congress not later than 20 months after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

                    TITLE VI--EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

SEC. 601. STEM EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

  (a) In General.--In order to create the diverse, skilled scientific 
and technical workforce essential to meeting the challenges facing NASA 
and the Nation in the 21st century, the Administrator shall develop, 
conduct, support, promote, and coordinate formal and informal 
educational and training activities that leverage NASA's unique content 
expertise and facilities to--
          (1) contribute to improving science, technology, engineering 
        and mathematics (STEM) education and training at all levels in 
        the United States; and
          (2) enhance awareness and understanding of STEM, including 
        space and Earth sciences, aeronautics, and engineering.
  (b) Programs.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall carry out evidence-
        based programs designed to--
                  (A) increase student interest and participation, 
                including by women, underrepresented minority students, 
                and students in rural schools;
                  (B) improve public literacy and support; and
                  (C) improve the teaching and learning of space and 
                Earth sciences, aeronautics, engineering, and other 
                STEM disciplines supported by NASA.
          (2) Included programs.--Programs authorized under this 
        subsection may include--
                  (A) informal educational programming designed to 
                excite and inspire students and the general public 
                about space and Earth science, aeronautics, 
                engineering, and other STEM disciplines supported by 
                NASA while strengthening their content knowledge in 
                these disciplines;
                  (B) teacher training and professional development 
                opportunities for pre-service and in-service elementary 
                and secondary school teachers designed to increase the 
                content knowledge of teachers in space and Earth 
                science, aeronautics, engineering, and other STEM 
                disciplines supported by NASA, especially through 
                hands-on research and technology experiences;
                  (C) research opportunities for secondary school 
                students, including internships at NASA and its field 
                centers, that provide secondary school students with 
                hands-on research and technology experiences as well as 
                exposure to working scientists and engineers;
                  (D) research opportunities at NASA and its field 
                centers for undergraduate and graduate students 
                pursuing degrees in space and Earth sciences, 
                aeronautics, engineering, and other STEM disciplines 
                supported by NASA;
                  (E) competitive scholarships, fellowships, and 
                traineeships for undergraduate and graduate students in 
                space and Earth sciences, aeronautics, engineering, and 
                other STEM disciplines supported by NASA; and
                  (F) competitive grants for institutions of higher 
                education, with special consideration for minority 
                serving institutions, including 2-year institutions of 
                higher education, to establish or expand degree 
                programs or courses in space and Earth sciences, 
                aeronautics, engineering, and other STEM disciplines 
                supported by NASA.
  (c) Organization of STEM Education Programs.--
          (1) Director of stem education.--The Administrator shall 
        appoint or designate a Director of STEM Education, who shall 
        have the principal responsibility to oversee and coordinate all 
        NASA programs and activities in support of STEM education and 
        training, including space and Earth sciences, aeronautics, and 
        engineering.
          (2) Qualifications.--The Director shall be an individual who, 
        by reason of professional background and experience, is 
        specially qualified to advise the Administrator on all matters 
        pertaining to STEM education and training, including space and 
        Earth sciences, aeronautics, and engineering, at NASA.
          (3) Duties.--The Director shall--
                  (A) oversee and coordinate all programs in support of 
                STEM education and training, including space and Earth 
                sciences, aeronautics, and engineering;
                  (B) represent NASA as the principal interagency 
                liaison for all STEM education and training programs, 
                unless otherwise represented by the Administrator or 
                the Associate Administrator for Education;
                  (C) prepare the annual budget and advise the 
                Associate Administrator for Education and the 
                Administrator on all budgetary issues for STEM 
                education and training relative to the programs of 
                NASA;
                  (D) establish, periodically update, and maintain a 
                publicly accessible online inventory of STEM education 
                and training programs and activities;
                  (E) develop, implement, and update the STEM education 
                and training strategic plan required under subsection 
                (d);
                  (F) increase, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
                participation and advancement of women and 
                underrepresented minorities at every level of STEM 
                education and training; and
                  (G) perform such other matters relating to STEM 
                education and training as are required by the 
                Administrator or the Associate Administrator for 
                Education.
  (d) Strategic Plan.--The Director of STEM Education shall develop, 
implement, and update once every 3 years a STEM education and training 
strategic plan for NASA. The plan shall--
          (1) identify and prioritize annual and long-term STEM 
        education and training goals and objectives for NASA;
          (2) describe the role of each NASA program or activity in 
        contributing to the goals and objectives identified under 
        paragraph (1);
          (3) specify the metrics that will be used to assess progress 
        toward achieving those goals and objectives; and
          (4) describe the approaches that will be taken to assess the 
        effectiveness of each STEM education program and activity 
        supported by NASA.
  (e) Outreach to Students From Underrepresented Groups.--The 
Administrator shall seek to ensure that program participants include 
minority and underrepresented groups, including students from a high-
need local education agency as defined in section 2102(3) of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6602(3)).
  (f) Consultation and Partnership With Other Agencies.--In carrying 
out the programs and activities authorized under this section, the 
Administrator shall--
          (1) consult with the Secretary of Education and the Director 
        of the National Science Foundation regarding activities 
        designed to improve elementary and secondary STEM education and 
        training, and recruit minorities that are underrepresented in 
        STEM teaching; and
          (2) consult and partner with the Director of the National 
        Science Foundation in carrying out programs under this section 
        designed to build capacity in STEM education and training at 
        the undergraduate and graduate level.

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

  (a) Assessment.--The Administrator shall enter into an arrangement 
for an independent assessment of any impediments to space science and 
engineering workforce development for minority and underrepresented 
groups at NASA, including recommendations on--
          (1) measures to address such impediments;
          (2) opportunities for augmenting the impact of space science 
        and engineering workforce development activities and for 
        expanding proven, effective programs; and
          (3) best practices and lessons learned, as identified through 
        the assessment, to help maximize the effectiveness of existing 
        and future programs to increase the participation of minority 
        and underrepresented groups in the space science and 
        engineering workforce at NASA.
  (b) Report.--A report on the assessment carried out under subsection 
(a) shall be transmitted to the Congress not later than 15 months after 
the date of enactment of this Act.
  (c) Implementation.--To the extent practicable, the Administrator 
shall take all necessary steps to address any impediments identified in 
the assessment.

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

  (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that--
          (1) the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program, 
        established in title II of the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration Authorization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 2486 et 
        seq.), has been an important program through which the Federal 
        Government has partnered with State and local governments, 
        universities, private industry, and other organizations to 
        enhance the understanding and use of space and aeronautics 
        activities and their benefits through education, the fostering 
        of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary space research and 
        training, and supporting Federal funding for graduate 
        fellowships in space-related fields; and
          (2) enhancing the National Space Grant College and Fellowship 
        Program's effectiveness will support the program's maximum 
        contribution to NASA's and the Nation's goals for science, 
        technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and 
        training.
  (b) Review.--The Administrator shall enter into an arrangement with 
the National Academies for a review of the National Space Grant College 
and Fellowship Program, including its structure and capabilities for 
supporting STEM education and training, and recommendations on 
measures, if needed, to enhance the program's effectiveness.
  (c) Transmittal.--The Administrator shall transmit the results of the 
review to the Congress not later than 18 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

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

  (a) Pilot Projects.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall competitively 
        select pilot projects that test and demonstrate new forms of 
        collaborative and hands-on education and training projects 
        related to aeronautics, exploration, science, space operations, 
        and human spaceflight, that serve to stimulate and engage 
        students in science and engineering, and that foster skills 
        including engineering, teamwork, project management, and 
        problem solving. In particular, the pilot projects shall 
        emphasize engineering and technology-related education and 
        training. The pilot projects shall include a breadth of 
        activities that range in scope and complexity and shall also 
        test and demonstrate selection, evaluation, mentoring, and 
        related tools and services required to support the projects. 
        The program shall be directed at serving undergraduates. The 
        Administrator may include broader participation from pre-
        collegiate and graduate students, as appropriate. To the extent 
        practicable, the initiative shall also be accessible to NASA's 
        young science, technical, and project management professionals.
          (2) Projects.--Pursuant to subsection (b), the pilot projects 
        shall be carried out through competitive solicitations. The 
        duration of a project awarded under the pilot program shall be 
        no more than 4 years. The pilot projects program shall--
                  (A) include a range of projects of varying scope and 
                complexity;
                  (B) provide participants with experience in areas 
                such as--
                          (i) formulating, planning, designing, 
                        developing, testing and integrating, and 
                        operating mission or flight hardware;
                          (ii) systems engineering;
                          (iii) analyzing data from a mission or 
                        investigation; and
                          (iv) documentation, reporting, and reviews;
                  (C) include defined and measurable objectives;
                  (D) provide mentoring for participants;
                  (E) provide for evaluation of the project and 
                documentation of the outcomes of the project and its 
                contribution to education and training; and
                  (F) encourage outreach to and partnerships with 
                universities, Federal agencies, private entities, and 
                other institutions involved in student collaborations 
                and hands-on training and education, including 
                organizations that focus on engaging young girls in 
                science and engineering hands-on education and training 
                activities.
          (3) Emphasis on participation of individuals from 
        underrepresented minority populations.--The Administrator shall 
        make it an emphasis of the pilot projects to seek the 
        involvement of participants from underserved and 
        underrepresented minority populations.
          (4) Flight opportunities and access to space.--The 
        Administrator shall ensure, to the extent practicable, the 
        availability and accessibility of platforms for flying and 
        launching into space student's collaborative and hands-on 
        projects.
          (5) Forum for participant presentations.--The Administrator 
        shall organize a forum for students and other participants in 
        the pilot projects to discuss and present their work, at an 
        appropriate stage of the project, and to engage with other 
        students and young professionals involved in ongoing 
        collaborative and hands-on training activities related to space 
        science and engineering, aeronautics, space exploration, and 
        human spaceflight.
          (6) Workshop.--The Administrator shall organize a workshop or 
        workshops involving the competitively-selected pilot project 
        teams for the purposes of collecting information on the results 
        of the pilot projects (including on selection, evaluation 
        tools, and mentoring services) and identifying lessons learned 
        and best practices for NASA-supported collaborative and hands-
        on education and training projects.
          (7) Report and strategy.--Not later than 3 years after the 
        date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit 
        to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
        Transportation of the Senate a report--
                  (A) on the outcomes of existing student collaborative 
                and hands-on projects such as those being conducted as 
                part of NASA's science programs;
                  (B) on the results of the pilot projects; and
                  (C) on best practices of NASA's student 
                collaborations and hands-on education and training 
                activities.
        The report shall define decision criteria, a strategy, and a 
        process for extending successful projects or transitioning them 
        into an ongoing, competitive program.
  (b) Information Exchange.--The Administrator shall support mission 
directorates sponsoring student collaborative and hands-on education 
and training projects in exchanging information, sharing knowledge, and 
leveraging activities, as appropriate.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Administrator such sums as may be necessary for 
fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 to carry out this section, to 
remain available until expended.

          TITLE VII--INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITIES REVITALIZATION

SEC. 701. INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT.

  (a) Modernization of Laboratories, Facilities, and Equipment.--
          (1) Strategy.--
                  (A) In general.--The Administrator shall develop a 
                strategy for the maintenance, repair, upgrading, and 
                modernization of NASA's laboratories, facilities, and 
                equipment.
                  (B) Criteria.--The strategy shall include criteria 
                for prioritizing deferred maintenance tasks and also 
                for upgrading or modernizing laboratories, facilities, 
                and equipment.
                  (C) Other considerations.--The strategy shall also 
                include an assessment of modifications needed to 
                maximize usage of facilities that offer unique and 
                highly specialized benefits to the aerospace industry 
                and the American public.
          (2) Plan.--The Administrator shall develop a plan for 
        implementing the strategy in paragraph (1), including a 
        timeline, milestones, and an estimate of resources required for 
        carrying out the plan.
          (3) Transmittal to congress.--The Administrator shall 
        transmit to the Congress the strategy under paragraph (1) and 
        the plan under paragraph (2) not later than 180 days after the 
        date of enactment of this Act.
  (b) Establishment of Capital Fund.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a capital 
        fund at each of NASA's field centers for the modernization of 
        facilities and laboratories.
          (2) Source of funding.-- The Administrator shall ensure to 
        the maximum extent practicable that all financial savings 
        achieved by closing outdated or surplus facilities at a NASA 
        field center shall be made available to that center's capital 
        fund for the purpose of modernizing the field center's 
        facilities and laboratories and for upgrading the 
        infrastructure at the field center.

SEC. 702. JAMES E. WEBB COOPERATIVE EDUCATION DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR 
                    PROGRAM.

  (a) Establishment.--The Administrator is authorized to establish a 
national cooperative education program to complement existing NASA 
Center-administered cooperative education initiatives.
  (b) Application Process.--The Administrator shall encourage and seek 
applications from the pool of American students pursuing science, 
technology, engineering, or mathematics degrees who wish to gain 
working experience in NASA.
  (c) Selection.--From the applications, the Administrator shall select 
10 finalists annually as James E. Webb Cooperative Education 
Distinguished Scholars.
  (d) Award.--The James E. Webb Cooperative Education Distinguished 
Scholars shall be provided with--
          (1) learning experiences that will enhance their 
        understanding of activities conducted in the various NASA 
        Centers in furtherance of NASA's missions and priorities;
          (2) exposure to NASA headquarters functions and activities; 
        and
          (3) stipends for living expenses.

                   TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT

SEC. 801. PROHIBITION ON EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS WHEN 30 PERCENT THRESHOLD 
                    IS EXCEEDED.

  Section 103(e) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16613(e)) is amended by striking 
``beginning 18 months after the date the Administrator transmits a 
report under subsection (d)(1)'' and inserting ``beginning 18 months 
after the Administrator makes such determination''.

SEC. 802. PROJECT AND PROGRAM RESERVES.

  To ensure that the establishment, maintenance, and allotment of 
project and program reserves contribute to prudent management, not 
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a report describing NASA's 
criteria for establishing the amount of reserves at the project and 
program levels and how such criteria complement NASA's policy of 
budgeting at a 70 percent confidence level.

SEC. 803. INDEPENDENT REVIEWS.

  Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a report describing NASA's 
procedures for conducting independent reviews of projects and programs 
at lifecycle milestones and how NASA ensures the independence of the 
individuals who conduct those reviews prior to their assignment.

SEC. 804. AVOIDING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN MAJOR NASA 
                    ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.

  (a) Revised Regulations Required.--Not later than 270 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall revise the NASA 
Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to provide uniform 
guidance and tighten existing requirements for preventing 
organizational conflicts of interest by contractors in major 
acquisition programs.
  (b) Elements.--The revised regulations required by subsection (a) 
shall, at a minimum--
          (1) address organizational conflicts of interest that could 
        potentially arise as a result of--
                  (A) lead system integrator contracts on major 
                acquisition programs and contracts that follow lead 
                system integrator contracts on such programs, 
                particularly contracts for production;
                  (B) the ownership of business units performing 
                systems engineering and technical assistance functions, 
                professional services, or management support services 
                in relation to major acquisition programs by 
                contractors who simultaneously own business units 
                competing to perform as either the prime contractor or 
                the supplier of a major subsystem or component for such 
                programs;
                  (C) the award of major subsystem contracts by a prime 
                contractor for a major acquisition program to business 
                units or other affiliates of the same parent corporate 
                entity, and particularly the award of subcontracts for 
                software integration or the development of a 
                proprietary software system architecture; or
                  (D) the performance by, or assistance of, contractors 
                in technical evaluations on major acquisition programs;
          (2) ensure that NASA receives advice, when appropriate, on 
        systems architecture and systems engineering matters with 
        respect to major acquisition programs from federally funded 
        research and development centers or other sources independent 
        of the prime contractor;
          (3) require that a contract for the performance of systems 
        engineering and technical assistance functions for a major 
        acquisition program contains a provision prohibiting the 
        contractor or any affiliate of the contractor from 
        participating as a prime contractor or a major subcontractor in 
        the development of a system under the program; and
          (4) establish such limited exceptions to the requirement in 
        paragraphs (2) and (3) as may be necessary to ensure that NASA 
        has continued access to advice on systems architecture and 
        systems engineering matters from highly qualified contractors 
        with domain experience and expertise, while ensuring that such 
        advice comes from sources that are objective and unbiased.

SEC. 805. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

  The Administrator shall transmit to the Congress, not later than 
April 30 of each year, an estimate of the total termination liability 
as of the end of the second fiscal quarter for all NASA contracts with 
a total value in excess of $200,000,000.

                       TITLE IX--OTHER PROVISIONS

SEC. 901. CLOUD COMPUTING.

  (a) Definition.--As defined by the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, for purposes of this section, the term ``cloud 
computing'' means a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network 
access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources that can be 
rapidly provisioned with minimal management effort or service provider 
interaction.
  (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after NASA has entered into a 
contract for its first use of a non-Federal cloud computing facility, 
the Comptroller General shall transmit to the Congress a report 
detailing whether sensitive but unclassified and classified NASA 
information was processed on that facility and if so, how NASA ensured 
that data access and security requirements were in place to safeguard 
NASA's scientific and technical information.

SEC. 902. REVIEW OF PRACTICES TO DETECT AND PREVENT THE USE OF 
                    COUNTERFEIT PARTS.

  Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Comptroller General shall transmit to the Congress a review of NASA's 
processes and controls to detect and prevent the use of counterfeit 
parts in NASA mission projects and related assets. The review shall 
examine--
          (1) the trends in known and identified counterfeit parts in 
        NASA's supply chain;
          (2) NASA's processes and controls to detect counterfeit parts 
        and prevent their incorporation into NASA mission projects, 
        instruments, and other mission-related assets; and
          (3) any gaps in NASA's controls and processes for detecting 
        counterfeit parts and preventing their incorporation into NASA 
        missions and related assets.

SEC. 903. PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF LUNAR SITES.

  (a) International Dialogue.--The Director of OSTP, in cooperation 
with the Administrator, other relevant Federal agencies, commercial 
entities, and international bodies, shall enter into a dialogue to 
identify the questions and research needed to understand--
          (1) the potential adverse impacts of various uses of the Moon 
        on scientific research activities;
          (2) the potential adverse impacts of such uses on lunar areas 
        of historical, cultural, or scientific value; and
          (3) how to prevent or mitigate such impacts.
  (b) Grants Program.--The Administrator, in cooperation with other 
relevant Federal agencies and stakeholders, shall establish a grants 
program to conduct research for the purpose of identifying and 
characterizing potential impacts related to lunar activities and 
describing potential means for managing and mitigating the impacts.
  (c) International Framework.--As a result of the dialogue under 
subsection (a), the Director of OSTP shall initiate an effort to 
establish an international framework for identifying, protecting, and 
preserving lunar areas determined to be of significant historical, 
cultural, or scientific value.
  (d) Report.--The Director of OSTP shall provide a report on the 
results of the international dialogue under subsection (a) and the 
establishment of an international framework under subsection (c), to be 
transmitted to the Congress not later than 2 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 904. CONTINUITY OF MODERATE RESOLUTION LAND IMAGING REMOTE SENSING 
                    DATA.

  (a) Reaffirmation of Policy.--The Congress reaffirms the finding in 
section 2(1) of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (15 U.S.C. 
5601(1)) which states that ``The continuous collection and utilization 
of land remote sensing data from space are of major benefit in studying 
and understanding human impacts on the global environment, in managing 
the Earth's natural resources, in carrying out national security 
functions, and in planning and conducting many other activities of 
scientific, economic, and social importance.''.
  (b) Continuous Land Remote Sensing Data Collection.--The Director of 
OSTP shall take steps in consultation with other relevant Federal 
agencies to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, the continuous 
collection of space-based medium-resolution observations of the Earth's 
land cover and to ensure that the data are made available in such ways 
as to facilitate the widest possible use.

SEC. 905. SPACE WEATHER.

  (a) Strategy and Implementation Plan.--The Director of OSTP, in 
coordination with the Administrator and with other relevant Federal 
agencies, space weather coordinating bodies, industry, academia, and 
other stakeholders, shall prepare a long-term strategy for a 
sustainable space weather program and develop a plan to implement the 
strategy. The implementation plan shall--
          (1) define individual agency responsibilities for carrying 
        out the strategy;
          (2) identify the milestones and schedule required for each 
        agency's contributions;
          (3) provide an estimate of the resources required for each 
        agency to carry out its responsibilities;
          (4) establish a process for coordinating agency 
        responsibilities, programs, and budgets required for 
        implementing the plan; and
          (5) identify opportunities for private sector and 
        international contributions to implementing the plan.
  (b) Study on Prediction.--The Director of OSTP shall enter into an 
arrangement with the National Academies to assess the status of 
capabilities for space weather prediction and recommend the highest 
priority basic research, infrastructure, and operational needs required 
to improve the Nation's ability to predict space weather events. The 
study should also address the benefits of space weather prediction. The 
Director shall transmit the results of the study to the Congress not 
later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 906. USE OF OPERATIONAL COMMERCIAL SUBORBITAL VEHICLES FOR 
                    RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND EDUCATION.

  (a) Plan.--The Administrator shall prepare a plan describing the 
processes required to support the use of commercial reusable suborbital 
flight vehicles for carrying out competitively selected scientific and 
engineering investigations and educational activities. The plan shall--
          (1) describe NASA, space flight operator, and supporting 
        contractor responsibilities for developing standard payload 
        interfaces and conducting payload safety analyses, payload 
        integration and processing, payload operations, and safety 
        assurance for NASA-sponsored space flight participants, among 
        other functions required to fly NASA-sponsored payloads and 
        space flight participants on commercial suborbital vehicles;
          (2) identify NASA-provided hardware, software, or services 
        that may be provided to space flight operators on a cost-
        reimbursable basis, through agreements entered into under 
        section 203(c)(5) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 
        1958 (42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(5)), or on a contractual basis; and
          (3) describe the United States Government and space flight 
        operator responsibilities for liability and indemnification 
        with respect to commercial suborbital vehicle flights that 
        involve NASA-sponsored payloads or activities, NASA-supported 
        space flight participants, or other NASA-related contributions.
  (b) Commercial Reusable Suborbital Capabilities and Risks.--The 
Administrator shall assess and characterize the potential capabilities 
and performance of commercial reusable suborbital vehicles for 
addressing scientific research, including research requiring access to 
low gravity and microgravity environments, for carrying out technology 
demonstrations related to science, exploration, or space operations 
requirements, and for providing opportunities for educating and 
training space scientists and engineers, once those vehicles become 
operational. The assessment shall also characterize the risks of using 
potential commercial reusable suborbital flights to NASA-sponsored 
researchers, investigators, and scientific investigations and flight 
hardware. The Administrator shall make a determination on the need to 
enter into arrangements with commercial reusable suborbital service 
providers for flights or flight services to acquire analytical data to 
inform the assessment.
  (c) Transmittal.--The plan and assessment described in subsections 
(a) and (b) shall be transmitted to the Congress not later than 1 year 
after the date of enactment of this Act.
  (d) In General.--The report of the National Academy of Sciences 
entitled ``Revitalizing NASA's Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, 
Driving Innovation and Developing Workforce'' found that suborbital 
science missions were critical to building an aerospace workforce 
capable of meeting the needs of current and future human and robotic 
space exploration.
  (e) Management.--The Administrator shall designate an officer or 
employee of the Space Technology Program to act as the responsible 
official for the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Program in the 
Space Technology Program. The designee shall be responsible for the 
development of short-term and long-term strategic plans related to the 
use of commercial reusable suborbital vehicles to support NASA's 
requirements for competitively-selected science, technology 
demonstration, and educational activities.
  (f) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish a Commercial 
Reusable Suborbital Research Program within the Space Technology 
Program that shall fund the development of competitively selected 
payloads for scientific research, technology development, and 
education, and shall provide flight opportunities for those payloads to 
microgravity environments and suborbital altitudes that meet the 
requirements of such investigations. The Commercial Reusable Suborbital 
Research Program may fund engineering and integration demonstrations, 
proofs of concept, or experiments for commercial reusable vehicle 
flights, once the vehicles have met the requirements consistent with 
subsection (h). The program shall coordinate with NASA's Mission 
Directorates to help achieve NASA's research, technology, and education 
goals.
  (g) Report.--The Administrator shall submit a report annually to the 
Congress describing progress in carrying out the Commercial Reusable 
Suborbital Research program, including the number and type of 
suborbital missions planned in each fiscal year. The plan and 
assessment described in subsections (a) and (b) shall be transmitted to 
the Congress not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
Act, before the transmittal of which the Administrator shall not be 
constrained in the execution of this section.
  (h) Indemnification and Liability.--The Administrator shall not 
proceed with a request for proposals, award any contract, commit any 
United States Government funds, or enter into any other agreement for 
the provision of a commercial reusable suborbital vehicle launch 
service of a NASA-sponsored payload or spaceflight participant until 
all indemnification and liability issues associated with the use of 
such systems by the United States Government shall have been addressed 
and the Administrator has provided to the Congress a report describing 
the indemnification and liability provisions that are planned to be 
included in such contracts or agreements.

SEC. 907. STUDY ON EXPORT CONTROL MATTERS RELATED TO UNITED STATES 
                    ASTRONAUT SAFETY AND NASA MISSION OPERATIONS.

  (a) Establishment.--The Director of OSTP, in consultation with the 
Administrator and other relevant Federal agencies, shall conduct a 
study to examine the need for a process for granting real-time, limited 
waivers to export control license restrictions or regulations that are 
necessary for United States Government entities and contractors to 
enter into technical discussions and to share technical data with 
foreign government entities and contractors to resolve anomalies that 
may--
          (1) threaten the safety of United States astronauts aboard 
        cooperative crewed spacecraft such as the ISS; or
          (2) impair the operations of international civil research and 
        other spacecraft that involve the national interests of the 
        United States.
  (b) Transmittal.--The results of the study shall be transmitted to 
the Congress not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
Act.

SEC. 908. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958.

  Section 202 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 
U.S.C. 2472) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
  ``(d) The Administrator and the Deputy Administrator may be retired 
commissioned military personnel.''.

SEC. 909. NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS.

  (a) Responsible Official.--The Administrator shall designate a 
responsible official for coordinating NASA's near-Earth object 
observation activities and NASA's interactions with other Federal 
agencies and international entities on near-Earth object surveys, 
defense, and efforts related to addressing any threats to the United 
States posed by near-Earth objects. The responsible official shall 
report directly to the Administrator.
  (b) Reaffirmation of Policy on Near-Earth Object Survey.--The 
Congress reaffirms the direction set forth in section 321(d)(1) of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 
(42 U.S.C. 16691(d)(1)) that directed the Administrator ``to plan, 
develop, and implement a Near-Earth Object Survey program to detect, 
track, catalogue, and characterize the physical characteristics of 
near-Earth objects equal to or greater than 140 meters in diameter in 
order to assess the threat of such near-Earth objects to the Earth''.
  (c) Reaffirmation of Policy With Respect to Threats Posed by Near-
earth Objects.--The Congress reaffirms the direction set forth in 
section 804 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17794) that directed the Director 
of OSTP by October 15, 2010, to--
          (1) develop a policy for notifying Federal agencies and 
        relevant emergency response institutions of an impending near-
        Earth object threat, if near-term public safety is at risk; and
          (2) recommend a Federal agency or agencies to be responsible 
        for--
                  (A) protecting the United States from a near-Earth 
                object that is expected to collide with Earth; and
                  (B) implementing a deflection campaign, in 
                consultation with international bodies, should one be 
                necessary.
  (d) Arecibo Observatory.--Congress reiterates its support for the use 
of the Arecibo Observatory for NASA-funded near-Earth object-related 
activities. The Administrator shall coordinate with the Director of the 
National Science Foundation to ensure the availability of the Arecibo 
Observatory's planetary radar to support these activities.
  (e) Plan.--Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a plan for 
carrying out the direction reaffirmed by subsection (b).
  (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--From the funds authorized for 
Planetary Science in title I, $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2012 and 
$1,000,000 in fiscal year 2013 shall be for supporting competitively 
awarded grants for investigation of innovative approaches to carrying 
out the congressionally mandated survey of near-Earth objects equal to 
or greater than 140 meters in diameter.

SEC. 910. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

  It is the sense of Congress that NASA shall endeavor to carry out, to 
the extent feasible and technologically possible, the top 
recommendation from the decadal survey in each mission area.

SEC. 911. ETHICS PROGRAMS IN THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL.

  (a) Reaffirmation of Responsibilities of Counsel.--The legal staff of 
the Office of General Counsel of NASA is reminded that as Government 
attorneys they have a special obligation to instruct NASA staff to 
comply with applicable Federal law and regulations.
  (b) Biennial Ethics Training for Counsel.--All NASA counsel shall be 
required to receive ethics training in the legal obligations of 
Government attorneys on a biennial basis.
  (c) Certification of Training.--Certification of participation in 
such a program shall be included in each counsel's personnel record.
  (d) Designated Ethics Officer.--The General Counsel of NASA may not 
serve as NASA's designated ethics officer.

                              II. Purpose

    The purpose of the bill is to reauthorize the science, 
aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration programs of 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for 
the fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013, and address space and 
aeronautics policy and programmatic issues.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    The NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008 provided 
policy and programmatic guidance for NASA that made clear that 
NASA is and should remain a multi-mission agency with a 
balanced portfolio of programs in science, aeronautics, and 
human space flight, including human and robotic exploration 
beyond low Earth orbit. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 
reaffirms the basic principles espoused in the earlier NASA 
Authorizations while emphasizing the need to reinvigorate 
NASA's capability to undertake innovative space technology R`D, 
replenish our Earth observations assets and capabilities, and 
restructure NASA's existing exploration program so that it can 
be both executable and productive in spite of a very 
challenging budgetary environment. It also reaffirms the 2008 
Authorization's support for a healthy commercial space sector 
and includes provisions to foster its growth. The need for the 
legislation at this time is due to the expiration of the 
previous authorization and the fact that major changes to 
NASA's programs have been proposed by the Administration and 
debated by Congress over the past year. Without a clear 
statement of congressional priorities and policies for NASA, 
the nation runs the risk of serious drift in our space program, 
with a resultant cost in time and resources and loss of 
critical capabilities.

                         IV. Hearing Summaries

    The House Committee on Science and Technology and its 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics have held 18 hearings 
relevant to the issues covered in the NASA Authorization Act of 
2010 during the 111th Congress.
    On Wednesday, February 25, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
presiding, at 10:00 am in room 2318 Rayburn House Office 
Building, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to review the impacts of current export control 
policies on U.S. science and technology activities and 
competitiveness and to examine the findings and recommendations 
of the National Academies study, Beyond ``Fortress America'': 
National Security Controls on Science and Technology in a 
Globalized World. There were five witnesses: (1) Lieutenant 
General Brent Scowcroft, Co-chair of the National Academies 
Committee on Science, Security and Prosperity; (2) Mr. A. 
Thomas Young, Co-chair of the Strategic and International 
Studies Working Group on the Health of the U.S. Space 
Industrial Base and the Impact of Export Controls; (3) Dr. 
Claude R. Canizares, Vice President for Research and Associate 
Provost at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; (4) Maj. 
General Robert Dickman, Executive Director of the American 
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
    Lieutenant General Scowcroft provided testimony on the 
National Academies report, ``Beyond `Fortress America': 
National Security Controls on Science and Technology in a 
Globalized World.'' Lt. General Scowcroft pointed out that 
current export controls were outdated, and their regulations 
were more applicable to the Cold War era. Lt. General Scowcroft 
added that there was a better way to manage export controls and 
suggested that ``we need to turn to an open mindset and export 
unless there is a reason not to.'' Mr. Young agreed with Lt. 
General Scowcroft's assessment of current export controls. He 
expanded in greater detail about their negative effects on the 
space commercialization industry, and specifically on the 
second and third tier space industrial base. Dr. Canizares 
discussed the diminishing effects that export controls levied 
on America's once dominant scientific leadership. Major General 
Dickman agreed with much of what had been said by the previous 
panelist, but added a sobering statement that described the 
real effects of export controls on the state of America's 
aerospace professionals: ``In a very real sense, we the 
American taxpayer, are subsidizing the development of the 
technical workforce that is building the systems that are 
taking business away from U.S. companies and threatening our 
security.''
    On Thursday, March 5, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing to examine the status of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) efforts to 
improve the cost management of its acquisitions and programs. 
The hearing focused on (1) the results of the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) recently completed assessments of 
selected large-scale NASA projects and its designation of NASA 
acquisition management as a ``high-risk'' area, (2) the causes 
of cost growth and schedule delays in NASA acquisitions and (3) 
the agency's progress in addressing them. There were three 
witnesses: (1) Christopher Scolese, Acting Administrator of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (2) Ms. 
Christina T. Chaplain, Director of Acquisition and Sourcing 
Management for the Government Accountability Office; (3) Gary 
P. Pulliam, Vice President of the Civil and Commercial 
Operations at The Aerospace Corporation.
    Acting Administrator Scolese testified about internal and 
external factors that affect NASA's cost and schedule growth, 
and stated that some factors were outside of the 
administration's control. However, he was pleased to report 
that NASA had made improvements in standards for project 
lifecycle milestones and accountability for their stakeholders.
    Ms. Chaplain testified that NASA had a history of failing 
to address and correct its poor cost estimating practices. 
However, Ms. Chaplain stated that in the most recent assessment 
of NASA's large-scale projects, GAO found that ``improvements 
have been made, but problems still exist.'' Mr. Pulliam's 
testimony described four main causes of NASA's cost growth and 
schedule delays, and offered a rationale for why some of those 
problems still existed.
    On Thursday, March 26, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords presiding, the House Committee on Science and 
Technology's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics convened a 
hearing to review the status of federal and industry research 
and development (R`D) efforts to develop and demonstrate the 
safe and cost-effective use of biofuels in civil aviation. The 
hearing focused on (1) what research was needed to determine 
the optimal characteristics of both aircraft engine 
technologies and biofuels to minimize harmful emissions while 
maintaining aircraft safety and reliability and maximizing 
performance? (2) What were the most realistic aviation biofuel 
options over the long term, and what will be required to 
achieve widespread use of biofuels in aviation? (3) What steps, 
if any, was the federal government taking to assess the 
viability of biofuels for aviation or to facilitate their 
widespread use in aviation? (4) What were the results of the 
recently completed aviation biofuels demonstrations?
    There were three witnesses: (1) Dr. Jaiwon Shin, Associate 
Administrator of Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate at 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (2) Dr. 
Lourdes Q. Maurice, Chief Scientist of the Federal Aviation 
Administration and Environmental Lead for the Commercial 
Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative; (3) Dr. Alan H. Epstein, 
Vice President of Technology and Environment at Pratt ` 
Whitney, United Technologies Corporation; (4) Mr. Billy M. 
Glover, Managing Director of Environmental Strategy at Boeing 
Commercial Airplane Company; and (5) Mr. Holden E. Shannon, 
Senior Vice President of Global Real Estate and Security at 
Continental Airlines.
    Dr. Shin testified that ``NASA has initiated a modest 
research effort in 2007 that builds upon the existing expertise 
in fuel chemistry and processing, combustion, and gas turbine 
engines to address some of the challenges associated with the 
application of these fuels for aviation.'' Dr. Shin stated that 
it would take a concerted effort by multiple government 
agencies, aerospace industries, academia, and biofuel producers 
to successfully implement widespread use of biofuels in 
aviation.
    Dr. Maurice testified that the FAA had ``identified a 
number of options that can replace petroleum jet fuel without 
the need to modify aircraft, often referred to as drop-in 
fuels.'' However, she was quick to admit that biofuels in 
aviation still faced challenges in certification, 
quantification of environmental impacts, and infrastructure and 
deployment.
    Dr. Epstein testified that testing had shown ``an engine 
can be designed to reduce fuel consumption if it can be assured 
that all aircraft fuel was largely bio-jet fuel.'' In his 
conclusion, Dr. Epstein proclaimed that the remaining 
challenges were not in the realm of propulsion engineering but 
rather belonged to the business community, biological and 
chemical engineers, ecologists, and lawmakers.
    Mr. Glover testified that Boeing's main goal was to 
facilitate rapid commercialization of the biofuel industry and 
capture the opportunities it offered the aviation industry. He 
voiced Boeing's shared sentiment with the other witnesses that 
government played a role in supporting the commercialization 
and development of aviation biofuels in order to make a 
successful transition.
    Mr. Shannon testified on behalf of Continental that 
airlines have a strong economic incentive to reduce their fuel 
consumption and resulting greenhouse gas emissions.
    On Tuesday, April 28, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing to examine the challenges space traffic 
management and orbital debris posed to civil and commercial 
space users. The Subcommittee explored potential measures to 
improve information available to civil and commercial users to 
avoid in-space collisions as well as ways to minimize the 
growth of future space debris. The hearing focused on the 
following questions and issues: (1) What were the current and 
projected risks to civil and commercial space users posed by 
other spacecraft and space debris? (2) What information and 
services were available to civil and commercial space users in 
terms of real-time data and predictive analyses? (3) What could 
be done to minimize the growth of space debris? (4) What was 
the level of coordination among military, civil, and commercial 
space users in the sharing of space situational awareness 
information? (5) Have shortcomings been identified by civil and 
commercial space users with regards to the availability of 
situational awareness information they need? (6) How were these 
shortcomings being addressed? (7) Have civil and commercial 
space users identified their long-term situational awareness 
needs? What options were being considered to address them?
    There were four witnesses: (1) Lt. Gen. Larry D. James, 
Commander, 14th Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and 
Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Space, U.S. 
Strategic Command; (2) Mr. Nicholas Johnson, Chief Scientist 
for Orbital Debris, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration; (3) Mr. Richard DalBello, Vice President of 
Government Relations Intelsat General Corporation; (4) Dr. 
Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy Institute, George 
Washington University.
    During the opening testimonies, General James explained 
what the Joint Functional Component Command (JFCC) for Space 
was doing in terms of tracking orbital objects. He also stated 
that the Air Force Space Command ``will continue to work 
closely with the commercial and foreign space communities to 
understand their evolving needs and desires for space 
situational awareness...''
    Mr. Johnson stated the U.S. needed to limit space debris 
because the debris remains in low-Earth orbit for long periods 
of time. He also spoke about NASA's role in the matter.
    Mr. Dalbello talked about what the commercial satellite 
industry was doing in terms of tracking and the process of 
inter-company and government cooperation.
    Dr. Pace spoke about the need for international and 
industry cooperation and concerns about the need for improving 
tracking data accuracy.
    On Tuesday, May 19, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 
(NASA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget Request, NASA's proposed FY 
2009 Operating Plan, and use of funds provided through the 
Recovery Act.
    There was one witness: (1) Mr. Christopher Scolese, Acting 
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    Mr. Scolese began his testimony by noting the increase in 
NASA's budget in the regular appropriation along with allocated 
funds from the Recovery Act. He commented on the status of 
currently planned missions related to science, including the 
James Webb Space Telescope. Mr. Scolese also gave the current 
plans and budget for NASA's human space flight operations. He 
then discussed the independent review of the U.S. human space 
flight program and NASA's role in the review.
    On Thursday, June 18, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
heard from advisory and other stakeholder bodies on issues 
relevant to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA).
    There were six witnesses: (1) Mr. John C. Marshall, member 
of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP); (2) Dr. Kenneth 
M. Ford, Chair of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC); (3) Mr. 
Robert M. Hanisee, Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee of 
NAC; (4) Dr. Raymond S. Colladay, Chair of the National 
Academies' Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB); (5) 
Dr. Berrien Moore III, member of the National Academies' Space 
Studies Board (SSB); (6) Mr. J.P. Stevens, Vice-President for 
Space Systems at the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA).
    Mr. Marshall spoke first, and told the subcommittee that 
from the perspective of the ASAP, priority in the NASA budget 
ought to be given to making sure safety was not sacrificed due 
to reduced funding. In his view, allocating sufficient 
resources to extend the shuttle program without compromising 
safety would leave NASA with insufficient resources to fulfill 
its other directives, and endanger the future of the entire 
space program. Mr. Marshall also called for a redefinition of 
NASA's exploration missions, since recent budget cuts made the 
current exploration program unsustainable. He announced that 
while ASAP was pleased with NASA's compliance with the 
recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 
there were still risks that could not be mitigated without 
extensive redesign of the shuttle. Mr. Marshall also discussed 
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services. He then listed a 
few areas ASAP believed NASA could pay more attention to in 
fostering a culture of safety.
    Dr. Ford focused on three areas critical to the future of 
America's space program: developing new space transportation 
architecture, reestablishing a technology R`D program, and, 
most importantly, securing stable funding linked to a stable 
purpose. Dr. Ford saw the accelerated development of a heavy-
lift launch vehicle as a crucial first step in modernizing 
space transportation, and ensuring access to the International 
Space Station (ISS), since commercial transport and the Ares I 
project would not be available for many years to come.
    Mr. Hanisee began his remarks with a discussion of NASA's 
past managerial and financial tangles. He said that although 
problems like the anarchic accounting systems of ten autonomous 
centers have been reined in, the intractable issue of property 
accounting continued to muddy the fiscal waters. Legacy assets 
like the Space Shuttle, and the ISS were particularly 
problematic from an accounting point of view. One possible 
solution would be to write off the troublesome assets as 
Research and Development.
    Dr. Colladay focused his testimony on technology 
development. He thought that R`D programs at NASA were driven 
too much by the needs of the moment. While there have been 
significant advances from technology developed to fill known 
program needs, especially in environmentally responsible 
aviation, a long-term, research-driven technology development 
program would reinvigorate the agency's capabilities. Moreover, 
such a program should be organized so as to support not just 
NASA, but also commercial space programs and other government 
agencies. However Dr. Colladay also expressed concern that NASA 
lacked sufficient funds to properly pursue new technologies, or 
even to accomplish preexisting program goals.
    Dr. Moore spoke of the need to balance NASA's disparate 
priorities. While he felt that the 2010 budget was a distinct 
improvement over 2009, Dr. Moore stated that NASA should still 
try to clamp down on costs, to do more with less, or simply try 
to do less. He reported that the Earth Science Decadal missions 
in particular were in dire financial straits. The agency ought 
to cut back on its programs, and be more careful about 
selecting programs in the first place, in order to avoid the 
excessively expensive and focus on the possible. Cutting back 
on the number of NASA Centers and National Labs would be a good 
start.
    Mr. Stevens expressed concern over the insufficient funding 
of the Ares V and the Lunar Lander in the current NASA budget, 
and the imminent loss of jobs associated with those projects. 
He also urged the Subcommittee to continue funding ISS without 
taking funds away from other critical programs. Mr. Stevens 
said that another great disappointment in the FY 2010 budget 
was the decrease in funding for NASA education initiatives, 
which he hoped the Subcommittee would correct in future 
budgets. Mr. Stevens also recommended that commercial space 
launch indemnification be extended for at least another 5 
years, as its elimination would drive even more launch business 
overseas.
    The hearing was adjourned due to votes.
    On Thursday, July 16, 2009 the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing on enhancing the relevance of space 
activities to address national needs. The hearing (1) examined 
how recent reports by the National Research Council and The 
Space Foundation characterized the relevance of space-related 
activities, particularly their role in improving the health, 
economic well-being, and the quality of life of all Americans; 
(2) reviewed what should be done to maintain and enhance that 
relevance; and (3) analyzed whether enhanced awareness of the 
contributions from space-related activities would result in 
inspiring future generations of Americans.
    There were four witnesses: (1) General [U.S. Air Force, 
retired] Lester L. Lyles, Chair of the Committee on the 
Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program, 
Aeronautics ` Space Engineering Board of the National Research 
Council; (2) Ms. Patti Grace Smith, Board of Directors of the 
Space Foundation; (3) Ms. Deborah Adler Myers, General Manager, 
Science Channel, Discovery Communications; and (4) Mr. Miles 
O'Brien, Journalist.
    General Lyles testified that the US still has the 
preeminent civil space program. He then mentioned that his team 
generated six goals, such as to sustain and expand our 
leadership in science.
    Ms. Smith followed and said that space was relevant in 
every American's life and that the U.S. needed to acquire more 
civilian and national security space systems. She added that 
not taking the initiative will require the U.S. to be more 
reliant on foreign space systems.
    Ms. Myers indicated that the space community struggled 
against the cliche that science was dry and boring. At the 
Science Channel, Ms. Myers noted that they developed television 
programming and reached out to their audience on Facebook and 
Twitter.
    Mr. O'Brien testified that the engineers at NASA lack 
communication skills. He proposed that NASA missions should all 
have a public relations requirement where the message should be 
part of the mission, and not an afterthought. Mr. O'Brien also 
proposed that there needed to be money set aside for such 
operations.
    On Tuesday, September 15, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing to examine the summary report of the Review of U.S. 
Human Space Flight Plans Committee that was established by NASA 
under the direction of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, and to consider implications and related issues for 
NASA.
    There were two panels of witnesses: on the first panel was 
(1) Mr. Norman R. Augustine, Chair of the Review of U.S. Human 
Space Flight Plans Committee; on the second panel there were 
(2) Vice-Admiral Joseph W. Dyer USN (Ret.), Chair of the 
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) at NASA; and (3) Dr. 
Michael D. Griffin, Eminent Scholar and Professor of Mechanical 
and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Alabama in 
Huntsville.
    Mr. Augustine began by emphasizing that his panel was asked 
to offer opinions and alternatives, not to make 
recommendations. He announced that while many look to Mars as 
the ultimate destination of the Human Spaceflight Program, 
safety concerns made any trip to Mars in the near future 
improbable. Mr. Augustine included four alternatives to NASA's 
baseline program in his written testimony. He told the 
Committee that the imbalance between tasks to be performed and 
funds available made it impossible to execute the current 
program of record. Moreover, the panel determined that NASA's 
budget would need to linearly increase to $3 billion above the 
FY 2010 budget guidance by FY 2014 and then increase by an 
estimated annual inflation rate of 2.4 percent to conduct any 
viable human space flight and exploration program. Mr. 
Augustine summed up his remarks by telling the Committee that 
the great risk involved in human space flight made it 
irresponsible to cut corners on funding.
    The Committee then granted Mr. Augustine's request to be 
joined by another member of his panel, Dr. Edward F. Crawley, 
to help answer any questions the Committee might have.
    Vice-Admiral Dyer opened the second panel by focusing on 
safety and safety-related opportunities and issues. While he 
observed that canceling existing programs and starting over 
would only lengthen the period of time in which the U.S. would 
be incapable of transporting humans into space, he reiterated 
that ASAP did not support extending the Space Shuttle program. 
Vice-Admiral Dyer added to the previous critiques of commercial 
solutions to the gap, saying that the Commercial Orbital 
Transportation Services Project (COTS) was not subject to the 
same human-ratings standards as NASA itself. He observed that 
NASA would do well to develop a better process for integrating 
manned and unmanned systems. Vice-Admiral Dyer also urged the 
Committee to undertake a broader and more transparent 
discussion of the great risks inherent in human spaceflight.
    In his opening statement, Dr. Griffin focused on the recent 
history of NASA's budget. He said that the budget cuts of 1994 
had obviously not worked out. Dr. Griffin pointed out that 
while $3 billion sounds like a lot of money, if NASA funding 
had been kept at the same level from 1993 to the present, there 
would be even more money in the NASA budget than that requested 
by the Augustine committee. He concluded that in order to 
follow through on the directives laid out in the 2005 and 2008 
NASA Authorization acts, Congress must increase NASA's budget. 
As President Kennedy said, better not to go to the Moon at all 
than to go halfway.
    On Thursday, October 22, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing on NASA's efforts to define advanced concepts 
and develop innovative technologies. The hearing examined (1) 
the opportunities, challenges, and issues identified in 
external reviews associated with NASA's analysis of advanced 
concepts and long-term development of technology; (2) NASA's 
progress in responding to the provisions in NASA Authorization 
Acts and recommendations from external reviews associated with 
technology development; and (3) NASA's efforts to collaborate 
and coordinate with other federal agencies on technology 
development issues.
    There were three witnesses: (1) Dr. Robert D. Braun, Co-
Chair of the National Research Council's Space Engineering 
Board Committee to Review the NASA Institute for Advanced 
Concepts; (2) Dr. Raymond S. Colladay, Vice-Chair of the 
National Research Council's Aeronautics and Space Engineering 
Board Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil 
Space Program; (3) Mr. Christopher Scolese, Associate 
Administrator of NASA.
    Dr. Braun began his testimony by asserting that the 
original organization of the NASA Institute of Advanced 
Concepts (NIAC) was effective. However Dr. Braun allowed that 
modifications to both NIAC and NASA would improve NIAC's 
effectiveness, especially the reestablishment of aeronautics 
and space systems technology development enterprise within 
NASA. In his view, NASA ought to focus its efforts on short-
term, mid-range missions and long-term, strategic technology 
investments. To this end, Dr. Braun recommended that NASA 
establish a formal program to direct the development of a 
selected set of technologies.
    Dr. Colladay started off by observing that long-term 
advanced research and development (R`D) did not happen in 
industry, because the pay-off was too distant, or in academia 
in the absence of sustained government funding. To revitalize 
NASA's long-term technology development, Dr. Colladay 
recommended technology R`D be independent of NASA's other major 
programs, with an organizational structure modeled along the 
lines of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). 
This hypothetical technology mission area ought to reach 
outside NASA, to engage with commercial space companies as well 
as other government agencies and departments. Moreover, before 
embarking on this new program, there should be a comprehensive 
assessment of the current state of the art advanced space 
technology. Dr. Colladay concluded by asserting the importance 
of technology relevance and transition.
    Mr. Scolese began by reporting that recent National Academy 
reviews of NASA suggested that NASA ought to shift its emphasis 
from technologies for flight to the development of game-
changing technology. The timeframe for such technology 
investment should be 10-20 years. An independent management 
structure would be best suited to the early stages of these 
projects. Mr. Scolese added that NASA did invest in 
technological development in a limited way through its 
partnership program, as well as through its mission and 
engineering programs, despite its lack of a long-term 
development program. He said that NASA has also increased its 
outreach efforts to outside groups, joining with other 
government organizations to fund life science research on the 
International Space Station.
    On Thursday, November 19, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle 
Giffords presiding, the House Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics held a hearing on the growth of global space 
capabilities, and why they matter.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Mr. Marty Hauser, Vice 
President for Research and Analysis at the Washington 
Operations of the Space Foundation; (2) Mr. J.P. Stevens, Vice 
President for Space Systems at the Aerospace Industries 
Association; (3) Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy 
Institute at George Washington University; (4) Dr. Kai-Uwe 
Schrogl, Director of the European Space Policy Institute; (5) 
Dr. Ray A. Williamson, Executive Director of the Secure World 
Foundation.
    Mr. Hauser began his testimony by reporting that most 
space-faring nations now had the same space capabilities as the 
U.S. He said that more than 60 countries had space agencies, 
and many of them were increasingly willing to share their 
expertise with countries not as far along. He added that 
America was losing its competitive position in launch, 
manufacturing, and service capabilities. He further noted that 
while there were commercial opportunities in the expansion of 
launch capabilities, there was also the threat of competition. 
Mr. Hauser told the Subcommittee that if America wished to 
retain its primacy in space, Congress would have to bite the 
financial bullet, and give NASA the funds it needs to succeed.
    Mr. Stevens identified three areas in which the U.S. was 
losing its leadership in space: satellites, human spaceflight, 
and launch systems. He was especially concerned that the U.S. 
commercial space launch industry only had 15% of the global 
market. Mr. Stevens reminded the Subcommittee that space 
capabilities, especially launch systems, could easily be 
translated into military capabilities; in other words, the loss 
of U.S. superiority in space was a threat to national security 
as well as to national pride. He agreed with the Chairwoman's 
emphasis on international cooperation, but added that any such 
deals should avoid threatening America's industrial base or 
national security. For Mr. Stevens, the International Space 
Station (ISS) was an example of a successful cooperation, and 
therefore should be extended through 2020.
    Dr. Pace used his opening statement to remind the 
Subcommittee that the geosynchronous arc gets more crowded 
every year. He laid out the Chinese government's plans for the 
next decade, which culminated with a three-man space station in 
2020. Dr. Pace said that if the U.S. did not make plans beyond 
the ISS, America would essentially be bowing out of the human 
spaceflight business. He explained that space tourism and 
commercial spaceflight, though valuable, could hardly sustain a 
major international cooperative human spaceflight effort. Dr. 
Pace believed that the NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008 
still offered the clearest and most practical way forward for 
the U.S. space program.
    Dr. Schrogl provided European perspectives on the expansion 
of space-faring capabilities around the world, and the 
implications of that expansion on trans-Atlantic relations. In 
his view, space-based security concerns were a promising area 
of trans-Atlantic cooperation. A similar cooperation was highly 
necessary in the regulation of space as a strategic economic 
area. Dr. Schrogl also hoped that future years would see more 
trans-Atlantic cooperation on the less-urgent but equally vital 
area of space exploration.
    Dr. Williamson shared the Secure World Foundation's 
insights on the growth of world space capabilities, and why 
those changes were vital to U.S. interests. Like previous 
panelists, he noted the scientific and commercial opportunities 
created by the nascent space programs of other nations. Dr. 
Williamson added that an increasing amount of space debris made 
the lack of any effective governance of the global commons of 
outer space a more acute problem every day. In his view, the 
U.S. could best ensure its own orbital security by engaging 
with emerging space states regarding adherence to international 
best practices. Dr. Williamson said that assisting new space 
states was also an opportunity for the U.S. to flex its soft 
power, to use its technological and economic capabilities to 
influence foreign policymakers. He also added that working with 
states to build space capacity would create a larger market for 
U.S. goods as well as a long-term sustainable security climate 
in space based on cooperation rather than competition and that 
ITAR reform would go a long way in this regard as well.
    On December 2, 2009, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a 
hearing focused on issues related to ensuring the safety of 
future human space flight in government and non-government 
space transportation systems. The hearing examined (1) the 
steps needed to establish confidence in a space transportation 
system's ability to transport U.S. and partner astronauts to 
low Earth orbit and return them to Earth in a safe manner, (2) 
the issues associated with implementing safety standards and 
establishing processes for certifying that a space 
transportation vehicle is safe for human transport, and (3) the 
roles that training and experience play in enhancing the safety 
of human space missions.
    There were six witnesses: (1) Mr. Bryan D. O'Connor, Chief 
of Safety and Mission Assurance at the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA); (2) Mr. Jeff Hanley, Program 
Manager of the Constellation Program at NASA; (3) Mr. John C. 
Marshall, member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP); 
(4) Mr. Bretton Alexander, President of the Commercial 
Spaceflight Federation; (5) Dr. Joseph R. Fragola, Vice 
President of Valador, Inc; and (6) Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford, 
USAF (ret.).
    Mr. O'Connor began by explaining the mission of the Office 
of Safety and Mission Assurance. He said that many of the 
programs planned by his office were being implemented at the 
new NASA Safety Center in Cleveland. In his view, working with 
NASA's Russian counter-parts on Apollo-Soyuz, Shuttle-Mir and 
the International Space Station (ISS) had been an invaluable 
learning experience on different safety procedures. Mr. 
O'Connor added that his office was also investing 2009 Recovery 
Act funds in supplementing activities related to technologies 
that enable commercial human spaceflight capabilities.
    Mr. Hanley focused on outlining how the Constellation 
Program had sought to improve crew safety above and beyond the 
features of previous crewed aircraft. He said that the design 
goal of the program was a 10-fold increase in astronaut safety 
relative to the shuttle missions. He also reported that NASA 
was developing a new integrated test and verification plan as 
part of its design review process.
    Mr. Marshall criticized the Augustine Report for its 
oversimplified approach to safety issues. Mr. Marshall believed 
that because commercial providers had no reason to develop 
strong safety guidelines on their own, NASA had to lay down and 
police a set of guidelines on their behalf. He insisted that 
safety was the greatest weakness of the COTS program, and NASA 
would have to oversee construction carefully to ensure that 
companies did not take on undue risks in an effort to cut costs 
or speed up production.
    Mr. Alexander spoke for the 20 member organizations of the 
Commercial Spaceflight Federation. He regarded commercial crew 
transport as complementary, not competitive, with NASA's 
mission. Mr. Alexander claimed that since low-Earth orbit was 
an easier and more focused destination than those intended for 
the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, the commercial program 
would be more cost-effective. He agreed with previous speakers 
that safety was the paramount concern of all those involved in 
spaceflight programs, commercial or otherwise. He suggested 
that the FAA should retain its licensing authority over 
aircraft, while NASA would have oversight in its capacity as 
customer.
    Dr. Fragola described his four laws for a safe space 
launcher design. To begin with, the design must be as 
inherently safe as possible. Secondly, the crew should be put 
at the top of the rocket, as far away from the source of 
failure as possible. There must also be a credible abort 
trigger set, and finally, the design should include a tested 
abort system that allows for a safe crew escape and recovery. 
Dr. Fragola said that under these criteria, the Ares I was the 
safest vehicle around, 2 to 3 times safer than the 
alternatives. This was because of its reliability and its 
benign abort conditions.
    General Stafford stated that while he strongly agreed with 
the majority of the findings of the Augustine Report, there 
were a few he objected to. His disagreements with the report 
began with its recommendation that the responsibility for 
transportation of crew and cargo to the ISS be given to 
commercial contractors exclusively. First of all, commercial 
cargo transport would require the construction of costly, time-
consuming autonomous transfer vehicles. Secondly, safe delivery 
of a crew to the ISS required the successful combination of a 
human-rated launch vehicle, the spacecraft itself, and the 
launch abort system. The Augustine Report lacked an in-depth 
analysis of these vital safety issues. General Stafford did not 
see what entity other than NASA could credibly establish and 
verify appropriate standards for human spaceflight.
    On Thursday, December 3, 2009 the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight, together with the Subcommittee on 
Space and Aeronautics, held a hearing on the independent audit 
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 
The Hon. Brad Miller, Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Investigations and Oversight, presided. Each year, federal 
agencies are required to obtain an audit of their consolidated 
financial statements from independent auditing firms. NASA 
received the report of Ernst ` Young evaluating the Fiscal Year 
2009 (FY09) financial statements on November 13, 2009. Ernst ` 
Young determined that ``the scope of our work was not 
sufficient to enable us to express, and we do not express, an 
opinion on the consolidated balance sheets . . .'' This 
constituted a ``disclaimed opinion''--one in which the auditing 
firm finds a material weakness in the accounting processes of 
the agency so severe that they cannot reliably verify the 
agency's financial accounts. The Subcommittees met to determine 
what NASA needed to do to continue improving its financial 
control and accounting system.
    There were three witnesses: (1) Hon. Paul Martin, Inspector 
General of NASA, accompanied by the Deputy Inspector General, 
the Hon. Tom Howard; (2) Mr. Dan Murrin, Partner in Assurance 
and Advisory Business Services at Ernst & Young LLP; (3) Hon. 
Elizabeth Robinson, Chief Financial Officer of NASA.
    In his opening statement, Mr. Martin recalled that for most 
of the past decade, improving financial management was at the 
top of the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG's) list of 
performance challenges. He told the Subcommittees that the 2009 
audit identified three significant deficiencies in internal 
controls. To begin with, NASA's inability to ensure that the 
value of legacy property, plants and equipment was fairly 
stated in financial disclosures was a serious material 
weakness. The other two deficiencies involved NASA's process 
for estimating its environmental liabilities and its compliance 
with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996. 
Mr. Martin concluded that NASA's Office of the Chief Financial 
Officer was currently acting on suggestions from Ernst ` Young 
and the OIG to improve its monitoring and remediation efforts, 
and should be able to improve on its financial management 
process and systems during FY 2010.
    Mr. Murrin shared the results of the FY 2009 audit 
conducted by his firm, the sixth such audit for which he was 
the engagement partner. Together with the audit report, Ernst ` 
Young issued a Report on Internal Controls listing specific 
weaknesses in NASA's internal controls and a third report on 
compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement 
Act. Mr. Murrin reported that the main reason the auditors 
chose to disclaim was related to assets capitalized in previous 
years which were not susceptible to audit. In their second 
report, the auditors made two recommendations: first, that NASA 
should continue to implement the new standards, especially 
those regarding legacy assets; and secondly, that NASA should 
develop an overarching, key control activity. Mr. Murrin also 
acknowledged the significant progress made since Ernst ` 
Young's first audit of NASA in 2004.
    Ms. Robinson focused her remarks on three points. The first 
was the progress NASA had made. Ms. Robinson testified that it 
was the 2003 consolidation of the financial systems of its ten 
centers and headquarters that led to the first of the now seven 
disclaimed opinions. Since then, NASA had eliminated all but 
one material weakness, and Ms. Robinson assured the 
Subcommittees that NASA was now able to track and control its 
funds, account for the cost related to individual programs and 
projects, and manage the agency's day-to-day operations. Her 
second point touched on explaining the material weakness. Ms. 
Robinson said that NASA's processes and contracts were designed 
to comply with annual expense accounting requirements, and thus 
struggled to fulfill the new requirement for asset depreciation 
accounting. The agency began implementing significant reforms 
in 2002, but it could not recreate records that did not exist 
before that date. She added that the scheduled retirement of 
the shuttle and space station would make the net asset balances 
plummet to levels immaterial for financial purposes. Ms. 
Robinson's third point was that the new standard published by 
the Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) on 
October 14th provided a clear way forward for NASA.
    On Thursday, December 10, 2009, the Honorable Bart Gordon 
presiding, the Committee on Science and Technology held a 
hearing on the future direction and funding for NASA, and what 
that future held for the U.S. aerospace workforce and 
industrial base.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. David Thompson, 
President of the American Institute of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics (AIAA); (2) Ms. Marion C. Blakey, President and 
CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA); (3) Mr. A. 
Thomas Young, retired Executive Vice-President of the Lockheed 
Martin Corporation; and (4) Dr. Richard Aubrecht, Vice-Chairman 
and Vice-President of Strategy and Technology at Moog Inc.
    Mr. Thompson spoke on behalf of the AIAA, representing more 
then 36,000 aerospace scientists and engineers. He explained 
that there were insufficient new aerospace engineers and 
scientists to take the places of the increasing number of 
retirees. He claimed that the aerospace sector would therefore 
experience a dramatic decline in its technical workforce over 
the next decade. Mr. Thompson also pointed out that although 
U.S. human spaceflight programs employed less than 20% of the 
country's aerospace workers, they had an enormous influence on 
motivating young people to enter the field of aerospace science 
and engineering in the first place. He concluded from this that 
cuts to U.S. human spaceflight programs would stress an already 
weak sector of the economy. Cutbacks to human spaceflight 
programs could also weaken the industrial base of the entire 
space and national security sector.
    Ms. Blakey began by saying that aerospace talent and 
facilities lost to other industries would be irretrievable. 
Without the inspirational power of NASA programs, it would 
become even more difficult to attract students to the study of 
STEM fields. A commitment to a robust human spaceflight program 
could have an enormous influence in attracting and retaining 
new workers. Ms. Blakey added that the constantly fluctuating 
budgets that have been a staple of the last decade adversely 
affected the production and maintenance of a skilled workforce. 
Moreover, such interruptions or cancellations were catastrophic 
to small firms, whose expertise would then be lost forever.
    Mr. Young remarked that without significant experience and 
continuity of participation, intellectual capability was not 
enough by itself to maintain a successful spaceflight program. 
He thought that the attempt to move faster and go cheaper was 
punching holes in the safety net necessary to prevent human 
errors from warping into catastrophes. Mr. Young insisted that 
the kind of uncompromising discipline necessary for safe 
spaceflight required a permanent investment.
    Dr. Aubrecht, an engineer for the precision motion control 
company Moog, spoke of his company's work on fly-by-wire flight 
control technology. He told the Committee that NASA programs 
gave Moog the opportunity to develop the core technologies and 
core knowledge that it eventually transferred to commercial 
applications. Dr. Aubrecht explained it was common for NASA 
contracts that accounted for only a small percentage of a 
company's sales to form a majority of its research and 
development. He concluded that consistent funding of the 
Constellation program was necessary to carry on this system.
    On February 3, 2010, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords 
presiding, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a 
hearing on the key issues and challenges facing the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as seen by the 
agency's ``watchdogs''--the NASA Inspector General, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Aerospace 
Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). Leveraging the unique 
perspectives these organizations developed in the course of 
their work at NASA in the areas of management, mission 
execution, and security and safety oversight, the hearing 
examined (1) the critical issues and challenges facing NASA 
that warrant congressional attention and (2) the corresponding 
commitment, initiatives, and policies needed by NASA to 
successfully address these issues and challenges. Separate 
hearings would address NASA's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request 
as well as the administration's human space flight strategy 
after they are announced.
    There were three witnesses: (1) Hon. Paul K. Martin, 
Inspector General, NASA; (2) Ms. Cristina T. Chaplain, 
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, GAO; (3) Vice-
Admiral Joseph W. Dyer [U.S. Navy, Ret.], Chair, ASAP.
    Mr. Martin identified five critical challenges facing NASA: 
(1) transitioning from the Space Shuttle to a new generation of 
space vehicles; (2) enhancing risk management techniques; (3) 
improving the agency's financial management; (4) addressing 
systemic weaknesses in acquisition and contracting processes; 
and (5) ensuring the security and integrity of NASA's 
information technology (IT) systems.
    Ms. Chaplain concurred with Mr. Martin on the issues facing 
NASA, listing as NASA's main challenges retiring the Space 
Shuttle, completing and operating the International Space 
Station (ISS), acquiring complex systems for research, 
improving financial management and protecting IT systems. She 
added that however broad the changes proposed in the 
President's new budget, they did not alter these basic 
concerns. However, Ms. Chaplain also noted that previous 
commercial approaches did not succeed because they lacked sound 
government insight and oversight.
    Vice-Admiral Dyer quoted the conclusion of his panel's 2009 
report, emphasizing that the Ares I was designed with an 
emphasis on safety, and any new approach would have to 
guarantee an equal or greater safety level. He called on NASA 
to create clear Human Rating Requirements (HRR) for potential 
commercial contractors. Vice-Admiral Dyer added that managing 
the transition of the shuttle workforce would now be doubly 
important.
    On Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 10:00 am, the Committee 
on Science and Technology held a hearing on the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Fiscal Year (FY) 
2011 Budget Request and Issues.
    There was one witness: Charles F. Bolden, Administrator of 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
    Mr. Bolden began his testimony by explaining that NASA's 
future exploration effort would focus not just on our Moon, but 
also on near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, Mars and its 
moons- with Mars as the ultimate destination. By investing in 
the right technology, NASA would be able to map out a more 
realistic path to that final goal. Mr. Bolden said that the 
budget's renewed focus on R`D would produce new opportunities 
for U.S. industry and spur the creation of new businesses. He 
highlighted the sustainability and affordability of the new 
approach. Mr. Bolden said that the lessons NASA had learned in 
the course of the Constellation program would inform the 
Agency's future flagship technology development and 
demonstration program. He further noted the presence of 
investments in heavy-lift R`D, climate change observations, 
aeronautics and education initiatives.
    On March 24, 2010 the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 
held a hearing on the administration's proposed changes to the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) 
exploration program.
    There were two witnesses: (1) Mr. Douglas Cooke, Associate 
Administrator for the Explorations Systems Mission Directorate 
at NASA; and (2) Mr. A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin (Ret.).
    Mr. Cooke began by confirming that the ultimate destination 
in human spaceflight remained Mars. He said that to further 
this goal, the FY 2011 budget would fund three new programs 
aimed at expanding the capabilities of America's human 
spaceflight program. While commending those who worked so 
diligently on the Constellation program, Mr. Cooke affirmed the 
need for commercial groups to take over transit to and from 
LEO, leaving NASA free to go beyond.
    In oral testimony, Mr. Young strongly condemned the 
proposed cancellation of the Constellation program. He said 
that neither Soyuz nor industry provided a long term solution 
to the problem of American access to LEO. While commercial 
industry should be encouraged, it was still a long way from 
being able to satisfy human space transportation needs. 
Therefore, the U.S. ought to commit instead to developing a 
heavy-lift capability along the lines of the Ares I. Mr. Young 
added that what NASA needed was a Plan A, such as could not be 
found in the budget proposal. If enacted, the proposed budget 
would lead to an irreversible deterioration of America's 
aerospace workforce.
    On May 5, 2010, the Honorable Gabrielle Giffords presiding, 
the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics held a hearing on the 
research needed to improve our understanding of the impact of 
volcanic ash clouds on aircraft and aircraft operations and 
what could be done to mitigate that impact. Last year, when the 
Mount Redoubt volcano erupted southwest of Anchorage, one of 
the operating airlines grounded its fleet, diverted flights and 
wrapped the engines of its parked planes in plastic sealant. 
More recently, the eruption of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull 
volcano paralyzed air travel in Europe for six days, 
inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of passengers around the 
world and causing airline revenue losses of at least $1.7 
billion.
    There were five witnesses: (1) Dr. Tony Strazisar, Senior 
Technical Advisor for NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission 
Directorate [Substituting for Associate Administrator Jaiwon 
Shin]; (2) Dr. Jack A. Kaye, Earth Science Division at NASA; 
(3) Ms. Victoria Cox, Senior VP for NextGen and Operations 
Planning at the FAA's Air Traffic Organization; (4) Captain 
Linda M. Orlady, Executive Air Safety Vice Chair of the Air 
Line Pilots Association, International; and (5) Mr. Roger 
Dinius, Flight Safety Director at GE Aviation.
    Dr. Strazisar testified regarding NASA's past experience 
with the impact of volcanic ash on aircraft. He said that 
volcanic ash ingestion is rare because the established practice 
is to avoid flight in the vicinity of volcanic debris. Dr. 
Strazisar shared with the committee the experience of a NASA 
DC-8 research plane that in February of 2000 flew through the 
edge of an ash cloud produced by Iceland's Heckla volcano. Even 
though that encounter only lasted seven minutes, disassembling 
the engines revealed significant damage invisible to the naked 
eye. Improving forecasts and operational procedures could go a 
long way towards providing a solution for air traffic 
management.
    Dr. Kaye said that NASA's Earth Science program, through 
its 13 earth-observing missions, fed critical information on 
volcanic debris to NOAA and other agencies. The new satellites 
the Earth Science division would be launching over the next 
year would further augment this data stream. Since volcanic 
eruptions are the only sources of sulfur dioxide large enough 
to be detected by satellite, NASA and NOAA could then provide 
accurate, near real-time information on the location of sulfur 
dioxide emissions, which can be particularly useful in the 
first few days after an eruption.
    Ms. Cox reiterated that accidents and incidents caused by 
encounters with volcanic ash are quite rare. She said the FAA 
treats volcanic ash much like a major weather event. According 
to Ms. Cox, the relatively constrained airspace over Europe 
limited the options available to the European Union (EU) in its 
response to the Eyjafjallajokull eruption. Since NextGen 
focuses on quality and delivery of information, it would aid 
operators and flight traffic controllers in getting the 
necessary data.
    Capt. Orlady observed that in addition to engine and 
windshield damage, volcanic gases also pose a serious threat to 
the health of crew and passengers alike. She said that a lack 
of standardization of available forecasts complicated European 
handling of the recent air travel disruption. She added that 
her organization, ALPA, advocated complete avoidance of 
volcanic ash until a deeper understanding of engine tolerance 
was achieved. Better detection mechanisms, more vigorous 
certification processes, and new procedural training exercises 
will also help.
    Mr. Dinius said that ash clouds had three significant 
effects on airplane engines: (1) corrosion of compressor 
blades; (2) plugging of cooling holes; and (3) accumulation on 
hot parts. He added that GE recommended avoiding flight into 
visible ash, but further research into ash clouds and their 
impact on commercial engines could reduce the risk of flying 
through one.
    On May 26, 2010, the Honorable Bart Gordon presiding, the 
Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing on the 
proposed National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
Human Spaceflight Plan. The purpose of the hearing was to 
continue the examination of the proposed NASA human spaceflight 
plan and to review issues related to the budget, cost, schedule 
and potential impacts of the plan.
    The hearing examined: (1) the Administration's proposed 
goals, strategies and plans for NASA's human spaceflight and 
exploration programs, including the revisions announced by the 
president on April 15, 2010; (2) the assumptions, basis, 
feasibility and sustainability of those plans within the FY 
2011 budget plan and outyear funding plan; (3) the key 
challenges and risks involved in implementing the proposed 
change of course for NASA; and (4) what outstanding questions 
and issues needed to be addressed, and what information was 
needed for Congress' consideration of the proposed future 
direction for NASA's human spaceflight and exploration 
programs.
    There were four witnesses: (1) Mr. Charles Bolden, 
Administrator of NASA; (2) Mr. Neil Armstrong, Commander of 
Apollo 11; (3) Capt. Eugene Cernan, Commander of Apollo 17; and 
(4) Mr. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin.
    Administrator Bolden testified that the new budget set the 
agency on a sustainable path, progressing step by step from a 
mission to an asteroid by 2025 to a mission to Mars orbit by 
the 2030s. He said that NASA would build on its work on the 
Orion to develop a Crew Rescue Vehicle which could in the 
future be leveraged into spacecraft for deep-space missions. 
Meanwhile in the present, the construction of a rescue vehicle 
would preserve critical high-tech-industry jobs.
    Chairman Gordon then called in the second panel. In his 
testimony, Mr. Armstrong enumerated the reasons to return to 
the Moon. He said that the lunar vicinity was an exceptional 
location to learn about traveling to more distant and more 
difficult destinations. He also cited the many scientific 
challenges to address regarding Helium-3, platinum group metals 
and how to survive on the lunar surface. Mr. Armstrong added 
that his priorities for the human space program were 
maintaining American leadership, access to low-Earth orbit and 
capability to explore.
    Captain Cernan referred to a letter he wrote along with Mr. 
Armstrong and Mr. Lovell in which they expressed their concerns 
regarding the new plan. He said it would take the private 
sector as long as ten years to access low-Earth orbit safely 
and cost-effectively. Relying solely on the commercial sector 
could thus lead to abandoning American involvement in the ISS 
entirely. Constellation, on the other hand, had already been 
debated and vetted by Congress and federal agencies from OMB to 
DoD. He said that exploration was necessary to drive technology 
innovation, not the reverse.
    Mr. Young concluded that NASA's success stemmed from its 
meld of institutional continuity and expertise with industry 
capability. He thought that the Administration's proposal 
abandoned this model, leaving NASA with a purely advisory role. 
If implemented, this would be similar to the failed acquisition 
reform the Air Force undertook in the 1990s. Mr. Young also 
said that the proposed FY 2011 budget could not support both an 
adequate ISS program and exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.

                          V. Committee Actions

    On July 20, 2010, H.R. 5781, a bill to reauthorize the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 
2011 through 2015, was introduced by Chairman Gordon and 
referred to the Committee on Science and Technology. On July 
22, 2010, the Full Committee met to consider H.R. 5781 and 
ordered the bill reported, as amended, by a voice vote.

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    Authorizes funding for the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013. Funding 
for fiscal year 2011 is $19.0 billion. Funding for fiscal year 
2012 is $19.45 billion. Funding for fiscal year 2013 is $19.96 
billion. Provides for a balanced set of programs in human space 
flight and exploration, aeronautics research and development, 
and scientific research, including Earth observations and 
research. Provides a contingent authorization for an additional 
Space Shuttle mission if the NASA Administrator certifies it is 
needed and that all required safety reviews have been 
completed. Extends the operation and utilization of the 
International Space Station (ISS) through at least 2020 and 
includes provisions to enhance research utilization of the ISS, 
including establishment of an independent ISS research 
management institution and reinvigoration of NASA's life and 
physical sciences microgravity research and technology program. 
Establishes a Space Technology program to pursue innovative 
technology research and development. Restructures NASA's 
exploration program to provide for the development of low-Earth 
orbit crew transportation system for assured access to the ISS, 
as well as initiation of a heavy lift launch vehicle program to 
enable crewed missions beyond low-Earth orbit. Contains 
provisions related to institutional capabilities, education, 
commercial crew services, acquisition management, space 
weather, suborbital research, preservation and management of 
lunar sites, post-Shuttle workforce transition, and Shuttle 
orbiter disposition. Also establishes a number of reporting and 
study requirements.

                    VII. Section-by-Section Analysis


Sec. 1. Short title

    The ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act of 2010''.

Sec. 2. Findings

    Congress finds that the agency is and should remain a 
multimission agency, and 16 other findings.

Sec. 3. Definitions

    The terms ``Administrator'', ``ISS'', ``NASA'', ``NOAA'', 
and ``OSTP'' are defined.

                TITLE I. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS


Sec. 101. Fiscal Year 2011

    Authorizes NASA at $19,000,000,000 for FY 2011. That amount 
is the same as that in the President's FY 2011 request.
    The authorization includes the following breakdown:
          Science: $5,015,700,000, of which
                  $1,801,800,000 is for Earth Science
                  $1,485,700,000 is for Planetary Science
                  $1,076,300,000 is for Astrophysics
                  $646,900,000 is for Heliophysics of which
                  $5,000,000 is for the Explorers program 
                augmentation, and
                  $5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation
          Aeronautics: $579,600,000
          Space Technology: $572,200,000
          Exploration: $4,535,300,000 of which
                  $215,000,000 is for Human Research
                  $14,000,000 is for the commercial cargo COTS 
                demonstration program
                  $50,000,000 is for commercial crew 
                transportation-related activities
                  $4,156,300,000 is for the restructured 
                exploration program
                  $100,000,000 is for the loan and loan 
                guarantee program established in Sec. 243
          Space Operations: $4,594,300,000, of which
                  $989,100,000 is for the Space Shuttle program
                  $2,804,800,000 is for the International Space 
                Station of which
                  $75,000,000 is for fundamental space life 
                science and physical sciences and related 
                technology research
                  $60,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce 
                Transition Initiative
                  $740,400,000 is for Space and Flight Support 
                of which
                  $50,000,000 is for the 21st Century Space 
                Launch Complex Initiative Education, 
                $145,800,000
          Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,111,400,000
          Construction and Environmental Compliance and 
        Restoration: $407,300,000 of which $10,000,000 is for 
        the laboratory revitalization augmentation
          Inspector General: $38,400,000

Sec. 102. Fiscal Year 2012

    Authorizes NASA at $19,450,000,000 for FY 2012. That is the 
same amount as is projected for FY 2012 in the President's FY 
2011 budget request. The authorization includes the following 
breakdown:
          Science: $5,278,600,000 of which
                  $1,944,500,000 is for Earth Science
                  $1,547,200,000 is for Planetary Science
                  $1,109,300,000 is for Astrophysics,
                  $672,600,000 is for Heliophysics of which
                  $25,000,000 is for the Explorer program 
                augmentation
                  $5,000,000 is for the Suborbital Augmentation
          Aeronautics: $598,700,000 of which
                  $78,900,000 is for the aviation safety 
                program
                  $80,400,000 is for the aeronautics test 
                program
                  $83,900,000 is the airspace systems program
                  $233,500,000 is for fundamental aeronautics 
                research, and
                  $122,000,000 is for integrated systems 
                research
          Space Technology: $1,012,200,000
          Exploration: $4,881,800,000 of which
                  $215,000,000 is for Human Research
                  $50,000,000 is for commercial crew 
                transportation-related activities
                  $4,516,800,000 is for the restructured 
                exploration program
                  $100,000,000 is for the loan and loan 
                guarantee program established in Sec. 243
          Space Operations: $3,930,300,000, of which
                  $86,100,000 is for the Space Shuttle program
                  $3,033,600,000 is for the International Space 
                Station of which
                  $100,000,000 is for fundamental space life 
                science and physical sciences and related 
                technology research
                  $40,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce 
                Transition Initiative
                  $770,600,000 is for Space and Flight Support 
                of which
                  $50,000,000 is for the 21st Century Space 
                Launch Complex Initiative
          Education: $145,800,000
          Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,189,600,000
          Construction and Environmental Compliance and 
        Restoration: $373,800,000 of which $10,000,000 is for 
        the laboratory revitalization augmentation
          Inspector General: $39,200,000

Sec. 103. Fiscal Year 2013

    Authorizes NASA at $19,960,000,000 for FY 2013. That is the 
same amount as is projected for FY 2013 in the President's FY 
2011 budget request. The authorization includes the following 
breakdown:
          Science: $5,569,500,000, of which
                  $2,089,500,000 is for Earth Science
                  $1,591,200,000 is for Planetary Science
                  $1,149,100,000 is for Astrophysics
                  $734,700,000 is for Heliophysics of which
                  $55,000,000 is for the Explorer program 
                augmentation, and
                  $5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation
          Aeronautics: $609,400,000 of which
                  $81,200,000 is for the aviation safety 
                program
                  $79,600,000 is for the aeronautics test 
                program
                  $87,300,000 is for the airspace systems 
                program
                  $239,000,000 is for fundamental aeronautics, 
                and
                  $122,300,000 is for integrated systems 
                research
          Space Technology: $1,059,700,000
          Exploration: $4,888,500,000 of which
                  $215,000,000 is for Human Research
                  $5,000,000 is for the Exploration Technology 
                and Demonstration program
                  $5,000,000 is for the Exploration Precursor 
                Robotic Missions program
                  $50,000,000 is for commercial crew 
                transportation-related activities
                  $4,513,500,000 is for the restructured 
                exploration program
                  $100,000,000 is for the loan and loan 
                guarantee program established in Sec. 243
          Space Operations: $3,993,300,000, of which
                  $3,179,400,000 is for the International Space 
                Station of which
                  $100,000,000 is for fundamental space life 
                science and physical sciences and related 
                technology research
                  $40,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce 
                Transition Initiative
                  $773,900,000 is for Space and Flight Support 
                of which
                  $50,000,000 is for the 21st Century Space 
                Launch Complex Initiative
          Education: $145,800,000
          Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,276,800,000
          Construction and Environmental Compliance and 
        Restoration: $376,900,000 of which $10,000,000 is for 
        the laboratory revitalization initiative
          Inspector General: $40,100,000

                      TITLE II. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT


                        SUBTITLE A. EXPLORATION

Sec. 201. Reaffirmation of Exploration Policy

    Reaffirms the support of the Congress for the exploration 
policy articulated in Secs. 401 and 402 of Public Law 110-422.

Sec. 202. Restructured Exploration Program

    Directs the Administrator to develop a plan to restructure 
the current exploration program and develop, test, and 
demonstrate a government-owned crew transportation system and 
evolvable heavy lift transportation system in a manner that 
enables a challenging exploration program, minimizes the human 
space flight ``gap'', seeks efficiencies in program management 
and reductions in fixed and operating costs, requires a high 
level of crew safety, contains a robust flight and ground test 
program, facilitates the transition of shuttle personnel, 
invests in improvements in infrastructure and launch operations 
at Kennedy Space Center, makes maximum practicable use of the 
work completed to date on the Orion crew capsule and associated 
pad abort flight data; Ares I and Ares I-X flight data; heavy 
lift studies, analysis and design; ground support and 
exploration enabling projects, including space suit development 
and related life support technology among other projects; and 
all existing contracts, and is phased in a manner consistent 
with available and anticipated resources.

Sec. 203. Space radiation

    Directs the Administrator to develop a space radiation 
mitigation and management strategy and implementation plan, and 
to transmit the strategy and plan no later than 12 months after 
the date of enactment of the Act. Directs the Administrator to 
carry out a report on the usefulness of radiation research on 
non-human primates.

                SUBTITLE B. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

Sec. 211. Extension of ISS operations

    Directs the Administrator to take all necessary measures to 
support the operation and full utilization of the International 
Space Station (ISS) through at least the year 2020, to seek to 
reduce ISS operating costs and to conduct an assessment of 
essential components required for future utilization of the 
ISS.

Sec. 212. ISS Research Management Institution

    Directs the Administrator to designate an independent, not-
for-profit U.S. institution for the management of research 
carried out on the ISS.

Sec. 213. ISS Research Management Plan

    Directs the Administrator to have the designated 
institution prepare a management plan and transmit the plan no 
later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Act.

Sec. 214. Outreach plan for U.S. ISS research

    Directs the Administrator to have the institution prepare a 
plan for broadening and enhancing the outreach to potential 
U.S. government, academic, and commercial users of the ISS no 
later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Act.

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

    Directs the Administrator to conduct an assessment of the 
ISS Cargo Resupply capacity required to support extended 
operations of the ISS through 2020 and explore options with its 
partners for ensuring upmass and downmass needs are addressed 
in the event that adequate U.S. commercial cargo resupply 
capabilities are not available during any extended period after 
the Shuttle is retired and to certify that no United States or 
commercial capability can offer upmass or downmass services 
before relying on ISS partners for upmass or downmass services.

Sec. 216. Centrifuge

    Directs the Administrator to assess innovative options, 
including international collaborations, for deploying a 
variable-gravity centrifuge and to transmit the assessment no 
later than one year after the date of enactment of the Act.

Sec. 217. Exploration technology development using the ISS

    Directs the Administrator to develop a plan for carrying 
out prioritized activities that support NASA's long-term plans 
for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit that require the 
capabilities of the International Space Station and to transmit 
the plan no later than 270 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act.

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

    Requires the Administrator to designate a responsible 
official and to develop a strategic plan for carrying out 
fundamental, i.e., basic and applied research in space life and 
physical sciences and technology consistent with the priorities 
and recommendations established by the National Academies in 
its decadal survey of life and microgravity sciences and to 
transmit the plan within one year of the enactment of the Act.

                       SUBTITLE C. SPACE SHUTTLE

Sec. 221. Contingent authorization of additional Space Shuttle mission

    Authorizes the Administrator to conduct one additional 
Space Shuttle mission to the ISS if it is determined to be 
necessary to reduce risk for ISS operations and utilization, 
and if certain safety conditions are met and to offset the 
additional cost by taking funds from the ISS and Exploration 
accounts.

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

    Renames Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office to Post-
Shuttle Transition Liaison Office and extends life to 2 years 
after the last grant is awarded.

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

    Authorizes the Administrator to make grants for the 
establishment, operation, coordination, and implementation of 
aerospace workforce and community transition strategies.

Sec. 224. Disposition of orbiter vehicles

    Provides for the disposition of the remaining Space Shuttle 
orbiter vehicles upon the termination of the Space Shuttle 
program though a competitive procedure that takes into account 
geographical diversity and provides for priority consideration 
being given to eligible applicants to display the orbiters at 
locations with the best potential value to the public, 
including where the location can advance STEM disciplines.

                  SUBTITLE D. SPACE AND FLIGHT SUPPORT

Sec. 231. 21st Century Space Launch Complex Initiative

    Directs that the Administrator, in carrying out the 21st 
Century Space Launch Initiative, give priority to activities 
supporting the restructured exploration program. Also calls out 
specific activities that can be undertaken as part of the 
Initiative.

               SUBTITLE E. COMMERCIAL CREW TRANSPORTATION

Sec. 241. Affirmation of policy

    Reaffirms the policy of making use of United States 
commercially provided International Space Station crew 
transport and crew rescue services; limiting the use of the 
government system to non-ISS missions once commercial crew 
transport and crew rescue services meeting safety requirements 
become operational; and facilitating the transfer of NASA-
developed technologies to United States commercial orbital 
human space transportation companies.

Sec. 242. Commercial crew and related commercial space initiatives

    Directs NASA to seek opportunities to make use of 
commercially available crew transportation services provided 
that service providers meet applicable NASA safety 
requirements, have completed crewed flight demonstrations, and 
per-seat cost is not greater than the crew transportation 
system of the restructured exploration program.
    Directs the Administrator to establish requirements for the 
human-rating of space transportation systems that are 
equivalent to NASA safety processes and procedures and requires 
the Administrator to make available NASA-developed technologies 
and NASA facilities and equipment to assist in the testing and 
demonstration of commercial crew transportation systems.
    Requires that any company seeking to provide commercial 
crew transport services to NASA enter into an arrangement with 
NASA that allows NASA to obtain ongoing insight into the design 
methodologies, processes, technologies, and other information 
employed in the development and production of a commercial crew 
transportation system.
    Requires the Administrator, before entering into any 
contracts for the use of commercially available commercial crew 
transport or crew rescue services, to certify that each 
commercial provider has demonstrated the safety and reliability 
of its systems.
    Prohibits the Administrator from proceeding with a 
procurement award for a commercial crew transport and rescue 
services until sufficient flight experience has been 
demonstrated and accrued; directs the Administrator to develop 
and communicate NASA's human-rating requirements to commercial 
space companies; and directs the Aerospace Safety Advisory 
Panel to conduct a review.
    Prohibits the Administrator from entering into any 
agreement for a U.S. commercial ISS crew transport or rescue 
service until all indemnification and liability issues 
associated with the use of such systems by the U.S. government 
have been addressed and the Administrator has provided a report 
describing the indemnification and liability provisions.
    Directs the Administrator not to proceed with a procurement 
award for a commercial ISS crew transport system service if the 
provider's crew transportation system has a predicted level of 
safety that is less than that predicted for the restructured 
exploration program's crew transportation system.

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

    Directs the Administrator to establish a program to provide 
financial assistance in the form of loans or loan guarantees to 
commercial entities for the costs of development of orbital 
human space transportation systems.

                     SUBTITLE F. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 251. Use of program funds

    Directs that all funding for programs authorized under 
Title II, authorized funds may be obligated only for 
performance of the programs.

                           TITLE III. SCIENCE


                       SUBTITLE A. EARTH SCIENCE

Sec. 301. Earth science applications

    Directs the Administrator to develop a process for entering 
into arrangements with other government agencies that seek to 
benefit from ongoing NASA capabilities related to Earth science 
applications and decision support systems.

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

    Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with 
the National Academies for a study, to be completed within 18 
months after the enactment of this Act, to develop a 
prioritized list of essential earth science and climate 
measurements that can be collected with space-based means.

Sec. 303. Commercial remote sensing data purchases pilot project

    Directs the Administrator to initiate a pilot project for 
purchasing commercial remote sensing data to address state, 
local, regional, and tribal needs.

Sec. 304. Report on temperature records

    Directs the Administrator to issue a report on the extent 
to which NASA's temperature records overlap with the records of 
the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

                       SUBTITLE B. SPACE SCIENCE

Sec. 311. Suborbital programs

    Directs the Administrator to designate an individual 
responsible for leading near-term and long-term strategic 
planning for the suborbital and airborne program; and provide, 
within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, a 
strategic plan to support the full and productive use of NASA's 
suborbital and airborne assets.

Sec. 312. Explorer program

    Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with 
the National Academies to conduct a review of the Explorer 
Program not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 
the Act and to submit a plan for responding to the 
recommendations of the review no later than 16 months after the 
date of enactment of the Act.

Sec. 313. Radioisotope thermoelectric generator material requirements 
        and supply

    Directs the Administrator to conduct an analysis of NASA 
requirements for radioisotope power system material needed to 
carry out planned, high priority robotic missions in the solar 
system and other surface exploration activities beyond low-
Earth orbit; and to transmit the results of the analysis no 
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Act.

                         TITLE IV. AERONAUTICS


Sec. 401. Environmentally friendly aircraft research and development 
        initiative

    Amends Sec. 302 of P.L. 110-422 by directing the 
Administrator to develop a plan and associated timetable for 
this initiative, including projected flight test 
demonstrations, and to transmit the plan within 270 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act.

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

    Directs the Administrator to review at least annually the 
alignment and timing of NASA's research and development 
activities in support of the NextGen airspace management 
modernization initiative.

Sec. 403. Research on aircraft cabin air quality

    Directs the Administrator to initiate research on aircraft 
cabin air quality, including research on innovative aircraft 
cabin air quality sensors, that complements research conducted 
by FAA.

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

    Directs the Administrator to conduct a study to assess the 
feasibility of establishing a project focused on the 
development of a low-cost, on-board volcanic ash sensor system.

Sec. 405. Aeronautics test facilities

    Directs the Administrator to develop an agency-wide plan to 
stabilize and where possible reverse the deterioration of the 
agency's aeronautics ground test facilities.

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

    Directs the Administrator to expand NASA's research program 
on composite materials used in aerospace applications to 
address such topics as progressive damage analysis and ways to 
mitigate how the environment interacts with composite materials 
over time.

                       TITLE V. SPACE TECHNOLOGY


Sec. 501. Space technology program

    Directs the Administrator to establish a space technology 
program to enable research and development on advanced space 
technologies and systems that are independent of specific space 
mission flight projects, including such areas as in-space 
propulsion, power generation and energy storage, liquid rocket 
propulsion, avionics, structures, and materials, and including 
research, development, and demonstration of enabling 
technologies in support of future exploration missions; enter 
into an arrangement with the National Academies for a ``decadal 
survey'' study to make recommendations on research and 
development priorities for NASA's space technology program over 
the next decade; and transmit the results of the study no later 
than 20 months after the date of enactment of the Act.

                    TITLE VI. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH


Sec. 601. STEM education and training

    Directs the Administrator to develop, conduct, support, 
promote, and coordinate formal and informal educational and 
training activities that leverage NASA's unique content 
expertise and facilities and enhance opportunities for minority 
and underrepresented groups, including rural students and 
students from a high need local education agency; consult with 
other officials regarding activities to improve STEM education 
and training and recruit minorities that are underrepresented 
in STEM teaching; and designate a Director to oversee and 
coordinate all NASA programs and activities in support of STEM 
education and training.

Sec. 602. Assessment of impediments to space science and engineering 
        workforce development for minority and underrepresented groups 
        at NASA

    Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement for 
an independent assessment of impediments to space science and 
engineering workforce development for minority and 
underrepresented groups at NASA and transmit a report of the 
assessment not later than 15 months after the date of enactment 
of this Act.

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

    Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with 
the National Academies for a review of the National Space Grant 
College and Fellowship Program and to transmit the results of 
the review no later than 18 months after the date of the 
enactment of the Act.

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

    Directs the Administrator to establish a program of pilot 
projects for hands-on space science and engineering education 
and training.

          TITLE VII. INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITIES REVITALIZATION


Sec. 701. Institutional management

    Directs the Administrator to develop a strategy for the 
maintenance, repair, upgrading, and modernization of the 
agency's laboratories, facilities and equipment and to transmit 
the strategy and an implementation plan no later than 180 days 
after the date of enactment of the Act.
    Authorizes the Administrator to establish a capital fund at 
each of NASA's Centers for modernization of facilities and 
laboratories.

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

    Authorizes the Administrator to establish a national 
Cooperative Education Program that will complement existing 
NASA Center-administered cooperative education initiatives. As 
the ``best of the brightest'', ten finalists will be selected 
annually as James E. Webb Cooperative Education Distinguished 
Scholars.

                   TITLE VIII. ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT


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

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization of 2005 is amended to clarify the starting point 
of the period at the end of which NASA is prohibited from 
expending further funds on a project.

Sec. 802. Project and program reserves

    Directs the Administrator to transmit not later than 180 
days after enactment of this Act a report describing NASA's 
criteria for establishing the amount of reserves at the Project 
and Program levels.

Sec. 803. Independent reviews

    Directs the Administrator to transmit not later than 270 
days after the date of enactment of this Act a report 
describing internal entities that conduct independent reviews 
of projects and programs at life cycle milestones and how NASA 
ensures the independence of members prior to their assignment.

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

    Directs the Administrator to revise the NASA Supplement to 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation not later than 270 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act to provide uniform 
guidance and tighten existing requirements for organizational 
conflicts of interest by contractors in major acquisition 
programs.

Sec. 805. Report to Congress

    Directs the Administrator to transmit a report to Congress 
on April 30th of each year that provides an estimate of the 
total termination liability as of the end of the second quarter 
of the fiscal year for all NASA contracts with a total value in 
excess of $200 million.

                       TITLE IX. OTHER PROVISIONS


Sec. 901. Cloud computing

    Directs the Comptroller General to transmit a report 
detailing whether sensitive but unclassified and classified 
NASA information was processed on a non-Federal cloud computing 
facility and if so, how NASA ensured the safeguarding of NASA's 
scientific and technical information.

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

    Directs the Comptroller General to transmit the results of 
its review of NASA's processes and controls to detect and 
prevent the use of counterfeit parts in NASA mission projects 
and related assets no later than one year after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

Sec. 903. Preservation and management of lunar sites

    Directs the OSTP Director, in cooperation with the 
Administrator and others, to enter into an international 
dialogue to identify the questions and research needed to 
understand the potential adverse impacts of various uses of the 
Moon on scientific activities and on lunar areas of historical, 
cultural, or scientific value, and how to prevent or mitigate 
the impacts. Directs the Administrator, in cooperation with 
other relevant Federal agencies and stakeholders, to establish 
a grants program and to provide a report on the results of the 
international dialog and the establishment of an international 
framework within two years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.

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

    Reaffirms the finding in Section 2 of the Land Remote 
Sensing Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-555, regarding the 
continuous collection and utilization of land remote sensing 
data from space.
    Requires the Director of OSTP to take steps to ensure the 
continuous collection of space-based medium resolution 
observations of the Earth's land cover and that data are made 
available to facilitate the widest possible use.

Sec. 905. Space weather

    Directs the Director of OSTP to prepare a long-term 
strategy for a sustainable space weather program and develop a 
plan to implement the strategy, to enter into an arrangement 
with the National Academies to assess the status of 
capabilities for space weather prediction, and transmit the 
results of these activities no later than 18 months after the 
date of enactment of the Act.

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

    Directs the Administrator to prepare a plan describing the 
use of commercial reusable suborbital flight vehicles for 
carrying out scientific and engineering investigations and 
educational activities; assess and characterize the potential 
capabilities and performance of commercial reusable suborbital 
vehicles for addressing scientific research; and transmit the 
plan and assessment within one year after the date of enactment 
of this Act. Prohibits the Administrator from proceeding with a 
procurement award for the provision of a commercial reusable 
suborbital vehicle launch service of a NASA-sponsored payload 
or spaceflight participant until all indemnification and 
liability issues have been addressed and the Administrator has 
provided a report describing the indemnification and liability 
provisions that are planned to be included in such contract(s).

Sec. 907. Study on export control matters related to U.S. astronaut 
        safety and NASA mission operations

    Directs the Director of OSTP to conduct a study to examine 
the need for a process for granting real-time, limited waivers 
to export control license restrictions or regulations on 
matters related to U.S. astronaut safety and NASA mission 
operations and to transmit the results of the study no later 
than one year after the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 908. Amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958

    Amends section 202 to permit the Administrator and Deputy 
Administrator to be retired commissioned military personnel.

Sec. 909. Near-Earth objects

    Reaffirms the direction codified in P.L. 110-422 and 
directs the Administrator to designate a responsible official 
for coordinating NASA's near-Earth object observation 
activities; directs the Administrator to transmit a plan for 
carrying out the reaffirmed direction within 270 days after 
enactment; reiterates Congressional support for the use of 
Arecibo Observatory for near-Earth object activities; and 
authorizes funding for specific activities.

Sec. 910. Sense of Congress

    Puts forth a Sense of Congress that NASA shall endeavor to 
carry out, to the extent feasible, the top recommendations from 
decadal surveys in each mission area.

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

    Requires legal staff of the Office of General Council of 
NASA to receive ethics training and prohibits the General 
Counsel of NASA from serving as NASA's designated ethics 
officer.

                         VIII. Committee Views


Sec. 201. Reaffirmation of exploration policy

    The Committee believes that steadfastness of commitment is 
critical to the successful conduct of a meaningful program of 
human and robotic exploration of the solar system. Congress in 
the NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008 expressed its 
commitment to a step-by-step program of exploration beyond low 
Earth orbit, including cislunar space, the Moon, Lagrangian 
points, Near Earth Objects, and ultimately Mars and its moons--
a program that could be enhanced by international cooperation 
under U.S. leadership. The Committee expresses its continued 
support for such a commitment.

Sec. 202. Restructured exploration program

    The Committee believes NASA's human space flight program 
should have three main elements: (1) extension and enhanced 
utilization of the International Space Station (ISS), including 
the option for an additional Space Shuttle mission if the 
Administrator determines that it is needed and can be done 
safely; (2) development of the capability to provide assured 
access to low Earth orbit and the ISS at a pace that minimizes 
the human space flight ``gap'' that will occur after the 
retirement of the Space Shuttle, as well as providing a 
testbed, including a robust flight test program for 
demonstrating technologies and operational concepts needed for 
exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, as was done in the Gemini 
program prior to the Apollo missions; and (3) development and 
demonstration of capabilities for exploration beyond low-Earth 
orbit at as rapid a pace as funding will allow, including the 
expeditious development of an evolvable heavy lift launch 
vehicle that makes maximum practicable use of the systems, 
technologies, and test activities of the assured access crewed 
transportation system. While the Committee supports the growth 
of a self-sustaining commercial crew transportation industry, 
it is not willing to make U.S. access to low-Earth orbit (LEO) 
and the ISS dependent on the emergence by a date certain of 
certifiable and sustainable commercial crew transportation 
systems; the Committee believes it is in the national interest 
to maintain a government capability for crewed access to LEO 
and the ISS, whether it serves as primary or backup means of 
access.
    The assured access and heavy lift launch systems should be 
designed and implemented in a manner that seeks to reduce NASA 
and contractor fixed and operating costs and eliminate 
unnecessary infrastructure, supports the transition of shuttle 
workforce to the new program in a timely manner to minimize 
workforce disruption and ensure that essential human space 
flight skills are maintained, and can carry out the missions 
called out in the Act. It is critically important for NASA and 
the contractors to work together to get infrastructure and 
other fixed costs down so that scarce funds can be utilized to 
design, build, and fly systems, rather than to carry 
unnecessary overhead costs. With respect to operating costs, 
working to minimize them should be an important program goal, 
and should be given consideration early in the design phase, 
for the assured access crew transportation system to low Earth 
orbit. If NASA has more than one possible approach available to 
developing a government assured access crew transportation 
system that is consistent with NASA being able to make maximum 
practicable use of its systems, technologies, and test 
activities in the development of the heavy lift launch vehicle 
authorized in this Act, the Committee expects that NASA would 
adopt the approach that is best matched to ISS crew transfer 
requirements and that will have the lower marginal cost for 
operations to LEO and the ISS unless there is a compelling 
reason to do otherwise.
    With respect to the heavy lift launch vehicle development 
authorized in this Act, the Committee believes that NASA should 
pursue as efficient a development path as possible to the 
attainment of a heavy lift launch vehicle that can support the 
full complement of human exploration missions called for in 
this Act and the NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008. The 
very constrained budgetary outlook NASA is facing leaves no 
room for dead-end design approaches--the design should be 
evolvable on a continuous development path to meet the full 
range of exploration mission requirements. In that regard, 
previous NASA analyses have indicated that the heavy lift 
vehicle should be sized to be consistent with a design goal of 
being able to launch on the order of 150 metric tons to low 
Earth orbit and have appropriate volumetric capacity in order 
to support missions ranging from missions to establish a 
sustained human presence on the Moon to missions to NEOs and 
Mars and its Moons.
    Finally, the Committee recognizes the negative impact of 
budgetary instability on NASA's ability to execute its 
restructured exploration program in an efficient manner. The 
Committee has attempted to provide ``stretch'' goals for the 
desired availability of both the LEO system and the heavy lift 
launch vehicle in order to make clear that the Committee wants 
NASA to move expeditiously to carry out a meaningful and 
sustainable exploration program, while recognizing that 
available funding will necessarily determine the pace at which 
the program can proceed.

Flagship technology demonstrations and Precursor Robotic Missions

    The Committee supports a robust advanced technology program 
that is separate from NASA's mission projects, as authorized in 
the NASA Authorization Act of 2008. As discussed in the 
Committee view on the Space Technology Program, the Committee 
views that program as the highest priority at this time, 
because of its focus on innovative and early technology 
concepts that are shepherded through concept study, 
development, and demonstration phases, if they prove ready, are 
selected, and if users support their demonstration. Given the 
constraints of the fiscal environment, the Committee views a 
program requiring significant investments in flagship 
technology demonstration missions as premature until the 
requirements for those demonstrations and the priorities for 
the investments have been established. The Space Technology 
Program is an appropriate program in which to identify those 
technologies that may merit further investment as potential 
flagship demonstration missions. In addition, the Committee 
views the Robotic Precursor Missions program as a ``nice-to-
have'' until the mission objectives to justify a robotic 
reconnaissance mission in advance of planned human exploration 
are established. Until such time, NASA's Science Mission 
Directorate has mission expertise in sending robotic missions 
to near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, lunar orbit, among 
other sites and a body of data and knowledge about those sites 
that should be explored. Synergies with the Science Mission 
Directorate should also be considered before initiating and 
expending resources on a new program. With respect to the 
flagship demonstration, precursor robotic programs and other 
space technology activities, the Committee directs a Decadal 
Survey to establish priorities to guide the nation's 
investments for the future.

Subtitle B--International Space Station

    After decades of the nation's investment in the development 
and assembly of the International Space Station, one of the 
most complex engineering endeavors ever achieved, NASA, the 
private sector, and universities can now turn to utilizing this 
on-orbit laboratory and seeking a return on the long-term 
investments made to date. In 2005, Congress designated the U.S. 
portion of the International Space Station as a national 
laboratory and directed the increased utilization of the 
station by non-NASA entities. National Academies reports have 
reiterated the need for ISS utilization plans and have also 
stressed the importance of cross-disciplinary priorities and 
well-defined programmatic goals to guide the decisions and 
trade-offs related to ISS research activities. Along these 
lines, the Committee includes provisions directing the 
Administrator to develop a research strategy, to establish an 
ISS research management entity and plan, and to designate a 
responsible official to lead an ISS integrated research 
program. These steps need to be taken to guide the effective 
use of increases in resources for ISS utilization and to ensure 
the optimal research and development benefits of the ISS.

Sec. 216. Centrifuge

    A variable-gravity centrifuge has long been cited by the 
scientific community as an important on-orbit research facility 
requirement for space life sciences research. Until its 
cancellation in 2005, such a centrifuge was included in the 
International Space Station (ISS) program. The Japanese Space 
Agency (JAXA) was tasked to provide the Centrifuge to NASA as 
part of the offset of NASA's provision of the shuttle launch 
services for the launch of the Japanese Experimental Module 
(Kibo). The Centrifuge Accommodation Module (CAM) flight model 
and the engineering model of the centrifuge rotor were 
manufactured by JAXA at the time the project was cancelled by 
NASA in 2005.
    A centrifuge capability would significantly increase the 
utility of the ISS as an orbiting laboratory. In light of the 
extended utilization of the ISS until at least 2020, the 
Committee believes that an assessment of innovative options for 
deploying a variable-gravity centrifuge on the ISS is needed 
and should include provisions for its initiation, including an 
estimate of the potential cost and timeline for developing and 
deploying the centrifuge capabilities evaluated as part of the 
assessment, as well as the status of previous work on 
development of an in-flight centrifuge for the ISS.

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

    National Academies' reports have reiterated the importance 
of basic and applied research on microgravity life and physical 
sciences and technology carried out on the ground, on free-
flying spacecraft, and on the International Space Station to 
understand and overcome the fundamental challenges and issues 
related both to requirements-driven and strategic research for 
complex future exploration missions and to understanding of 
phenomena that may have important terrestrial applications. 
Over the last several years, the capacity for basic, applied, 
and exploration-related research and technology development has 
declined significantly as a result of budget cuts. The number 
of researchers performing active investigations in these 
disciplines has declined significantly as have opportunities to 
train the next generation of researchers prepared to address 
key challenges in space life and physical science and 
technology research and development. According to a recently 
released National Academies report on Life and Physical Science 
Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report, 
``The scientific community engaged in space exploration 
research has dwindled as a result of marked reductions in 
budget funding levels, from approximately $500 million shared 
equally between life and physical sciences in 2002 to the 
current level of about $180 million, and the concomitant 
reduction in the ISS research portfolio, from 966 
investigations in 2002 to 285 in 2008.'' The Committee is 
augmenting the investment in fundamental space life science and 
physical sciences and related technology research that would 
make use of ground-based, free-flyer, and ISS facilities to 
reinvigorate the capabilities and workforce in these 
disciplines and to ensure progress on the research needed to 
support the nation's goals in human exploration of outer space 
as well as potentially provide terrestrial benefits.

Sec. 221. Contingent authorization of additional Space Shuttle mission

    The Committee believes that it is very important, in view 
of the extension of the life of the ISS until at least 2020, 
for the Shuttle fleet to leave the ISS in the best possible 
configuration for the post-Shuttle era. Consequently, the 
Committee is providing contingent authorization for one 
additional Space Shuttle mission to the ISS, to be carried out 
if the NASA Administrator determines that such a mission is 
necessary to reduce risk for ISS operations and utilization, 
and if certain safety conditions are met. However, NASA will 
have to offset the incremental cost of such a mission, if it 
decides to undertake it, through corresponding cuts to funding 
for the ISS and for the restructured exploration program.

Sec. 242. Commercial crew and related commercial space initiatives

    The Committee believes that NASA can assist the development 
of commercial space capabilities that could aid NASA in 
carrying out future missions. There are four main forms of 
useful assistance: (1) financial and technical support for the 
development and utilization of commercially-provided cargo 
services to support ISS operation and utilization; (2) conduct 
of a fundamental research and technology program in crewed 
space transportation and related fields as part of the NASA 
Space Technology program and the dissemination of the results 
of that research, along the lines of the program established 
under the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and later 
under NASA's Aeronautics research program that has had such a 
significant impact on the development of commercial aviation; 
(3) an initiative in cooperation with would-be commercial 
providers to allow NASA to obtain insight into and familiarity 
with the design approaches, technologies, and production 
processes for planned commercial crew vehicles and to enable 
NASA to provide early warning to commercial providers of 
conditions that could impede certification of the vehicles for 
use by NASA astronauts, while prohibiting NASA from imposing 
design changes on the commercial providers during the 
development process; and (4) a program of federal loans and 
loan guarantees. NASA should provide information and technical 
assistance on NASA's human-rating standards and processes and 
methods of compliance with those standards and processes at no 
cost to any developers of commercial orbital human space flight 
services that seek it. However, NASA should not enter into any 
contract or agreement for the transport of NASA astronauts on a 
commercially provided crew transport and rescue service until 
all indemnification and liability issues have been addressed 
and sufficient flight experience has been accrued by the 
service provider's system to allow NASA to have the safety- and 
reliability-related data and information needed to fly its 
astronauts on that system.

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

    The program in this bill provides federal assistance in the 
form of loans or loan guarantees. The Committee believes the 
program will enhance would-be commercial crew transportation 
providers' abilities to secure financing.
    Even under normal economic conditions, companies can face 
obstacles in securing enough affordable financing to survive 
the ``valley of death'' between developing innovative 
technologies and commercializing them. Because the risks that 
lenders must assume to support new technologies can put private 
financing out of reach, companies may not be able to 
commercialize innovative technologies without government 
assistance. In this constrained economic environment, even 
companies that might ordinarily rely on private financing are 
turning to the federal government for assistance.
    Combined with technical assistance from NASA, the Committee 
believes that the loan and loan guarantee provisions in this 
bill provide significant resources to would-be commercial crew 
transportation providers. While allowing the amount of federal 
funding allocated for loans and loan guarantees to potentially 
leverage a significantly greater amount of loan money, the 
financial commercial crew provisions in this bill also expose 
the taxpayer to minimum risk and cost in contrast to the direct 
funding of about $5.8 billion proposed by the Administration.
    With respect to loan guarantees, the program would help 
companies obtain affordable financing because the federal 
government would agree to reimburse lenders for the guaranteed 
amount if the borrowers default. This encourages lending by 
reducing the lenders' financial risks. In addition, because the 
federal loan guarantee would signal confidence in a project, 
the loan guarantee program in this bill can help companies 
raise capital from other sources, for example by selling 
equity.
    The subsidy rate [i.e., the amount of leverage that a given 
amount of funds provided for loan guarantees can provide] for 
the loan guarantees will be established by OMB, which will have 
to assess the risk involved. However, since OMB is providing 
such large amounts to commercial providers in the president's 
request and planning on the operational availability of 
commercial providers by 2016, the Committee must assume that 
OMB considers the risk to be low. Therefore, OMB should be 
willing to provide a subsidy rate that allows a large amount of 
leverage from the available funding.
    The bill includes safeguards for the use of the loans and 
loan guarantees. Loans or loan guarantees will not be provided 
to any companies unless--among a whole series of conditions--
the Administrator determines that there is a ``reasonable 
prospect of repayment of the principle and interest by the 
borrower''; and that the amount of the obligation, when 
combined with amounts available to the borrower from other 
sources is sufficient to carry out the total development cost. 
Furthermore, the Administrator will charge fees sufficient to 
cover the costs of administering the program.

Title III, Subtitle A--Earth Science

    NASA's Earth science programs support the development of 
new knowledge of our Earth system, address societal needs, 
advance our understanding of climate change, adaptation, and 
mitigation, and help inform U.S. policy and responses on 
climate change. The data collected from NASA's Earth 
observation systems are being applied to address societal 
challenges such as natural resource management, land use, and 
natural hazard events, and environmental monitoring. NASA's 
Earth observing satellites have acquired imagery used to 
monitor the offshore oil spill in the Gulf Coast of the United 
States and to measure the plume from the recent eruption of an 
Icelandic volcano that spewed volcanic ash into the atmosphere 
and wreaked havoc on international air traffic.
    The National Academies has found that the nation's 
environmental satellite system is at risk of collapse. Most of 
the satellites in NASA's Earth observing fleet are all well 
beyond their intended lifetimes. Within the last year, NASA 
lost two Earth observing spacecraft. However, during the time 
in which the National Academies issued its warnings and 
recommended priorities for the next generation missions, the 
funding for NASA's Earth Science Program was projected to 
decline. This decline in purchasing power has had a direct 
impact on NASA's ability to develop the replacement satellites 
and carry out a robust and balanced program. The amounts 
authorized in this Act are intended to help restore that 
purchasing power and help mitigate the risk to the future 
viability of the nation's space-based Earth observations 
system.
    Recognizing the broad impact that NASA's Earth science and 
climate research activities have in addressing both scientific 
priorities and national and societal challenges, the Committee 
encourages NASA to increase its efforts to make the results of 
its science-based missions and research activities available to 
address societal needs.

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

    The Committee believes that the nation needs to make a 
commitment to sustaining key environmental and climate 
measurements on a continuous basis. There are several studies, 
both national and international, on priority environmental and 
climate measurements. In questions to hearing witnesses--
leading climate and Earth science experts--there was some 
consensus but not universal consensus on climate and 
environmental measurements, and the list of measurements is 
quite long. The science community knows these studies, but the 
broader policy community needs a clear, concrete list that 
represents the national consensus going forward. This provision 
is intended to ensure that a consistent list is available to 
both researchers and policymakers.
    The Committee believes that the U.S. needs to explore 
opportunities for addressing some of the measurements through 
international or commercial partnerships. That said, the U.S. 
may not want to give up scientific, technological or other 
relevant capabilities and leadership on some of the critical 
measurements, and there may be measurements for which the 
government does not want to rely on partnerships to provide. 
The study directed in this provision should determine those 
essential environmental and climate measurements that should be 
obtained through U.S. Federal government assets and to which 
the U.S. Federal government should commit to obtain on a long-
term, continuous basis and include in Federal government data 
archives. The intent of the provision is not to redo existing 
studies and priorities but to establish the list that is to be 
the basis of our Federal government's commitment for long-term, 
continuous measurements of the Earth's climate and environment.

Sec. 303. Commercial remote sensing data purchases pilot project

    The Committee views the availability of commercial high 
resolution remote sensing data as an opportunity to enhance 
Earth science research and address research and application 
needs that may not be met with government-provided data. High 
resolution commercial remote sensing imagery provide 
information at the scales often needed for State, local, 
regional, and tribal government uses. NASA carried out a 
science data purchase project with commercial remote sensing 
imagery in the past. The Committee believes it is time to apply 
the lessons learned from those experiences and to again seek to 
leverage the capabilities of both government and private sector 
remote sensing assets through a new pilot project to facilitate 
and enhance the uses of the data for scientific research and 
applications that address State, regional, local and tribal 
needs.

Sections 311 and 312. Space science--Suborbital and explorers

    Reports of the National Academies including, Revitalizing 
NASA's Suborbital Program and A Performance Assessment of 
NASA's Heliophysics Program have identified the importance of 
the suborbital and Explorer programs as part of a balanced and 
robust space science program. Both programs provide flexibility 
to focus on targeted or faster opportunities for scientific 
investigations, provide critical hands-on training for 
scientists and engineers, and build on scientific discoveries 
made with ``flagship'' science missions. The suborbital 
programs also offer a means to demonstrate new technologies or 
reduce technology risk for future space flight missions, and 
several instruments that have flown on space science missions 
trace their heritage to suborbital flight experiments. Building 
scientific instruments is an art as much as an engineering 
development process. Reducing and slowing Explorer and 
suborbital programs affects the industrial experience base in 
developing scientific instruments and can have implications for 
the capability to build future instrumentation within schedule 
and on budget in the future. Given the stresses that the 
fiscally constrained environment imposes on research and 
development programs, the Committee views additional 
investments in the suborbital and Explorer programs as prudent 
for enabling high-value science, technology demonstration and 
risk reduction, and workforce and development and for ensuring 
the foundational strength and success of the nation's space 
science programs into the future.

Sec. 401. Environmentally friendly aircraft research and development 
        initiative

    Research associated with the Environmentally Friendly 
Aircraft R&D initiative explores and assesses technologies that 
will simultaneously reduce fuel burn, noise, and emissions and 
thus reduce the impact of aviation on the environment. As such, 
the Committee believes that accelerating this research through 
increased use of flight demonstrations will enable earlier 
receipt of these benefits. NASA needs to start planning and 
budgeting for flight test demonstrations and the platforms it 
will need to carry them out.

Sec. 501. Space technology

    The Committee believes that a reinvigorated program of 
investments in space technology at NASA will provide the 
innovation and transformational technologies that will benefit 
NASA's future space and Earth science and human space flight 
and exploration missions, as well as provide new capabilities 
that can benefit our economy as a whole. In addition, 
technology transfer is a critical aspect of NASA's overall 
mission as an agency and one that Congress encourages NASA to 
continue to support. NASA's ability to bring the technology it 
develops through all of its mission activities to the 
marketplace strengthens our economy and encourages economic 
development. The Committee believes that a space technology 
program to enable research and development on advanced space 
technologies and systems that are independent of specific space 
mission flight projects is a high priority, particularly in a 
constrained budgetary environment. To realize the ``seed corn'' 
potential of the space technology program, NASA should focus on 
developing innovative technologies in areas such as in-space 
propulsion, power generation and storage, liquid rocket 
propulsion, avionics, structures, and materials that may enable 
new approaches to human and robotic space missions, including 
exploration enabling research, development, and demonstration 
activities.
    While acknowledging the need for appropriately phased 
technology demonstrations to support the nation's future 
exploration activities, the Committee believes it important to 
ensure that we first develop the most innovative approaches to 
meeting NASA's future technology need and have a clear 
understanding of future exploration mission requirements before 
attempting expensive Flagship Demonstration missions and 
robotic precursor missions.

Sec. 701. Institutional management

    Congress directed an assessment of NASA's laboratory 
facilities in its NASA Authorization Act of 2008 [P.L. 110-
422]. That assessment showed that NASA's deferred maintenance 
has continued to grow. NASA needs to address the decline in its 
laboratory capabilities, including equipment, maintenance, and 
facilities, which have affected the ability of NASA's 
scientific workforce to carry out the basic research and 
technology development needed to support NASA's space and 
aeronautics programs, along with other programs of national 
importance. The agency's annual spending on facilities 
maintenance, repairs, and upgrades falls short of comparable 
industry guidelines as a percentage of the current replacement 
value of active facilities. The augmentation above the 
President's request and the establishment of a Capital Fund at 
each of the NASA Centers are intended to help address the 
deferred maintenance problem and the need to upgrade and 
modernize NASA's research laboratories and facilities. Those 
actions, coupled with its authorization of augmented funding 
for aeronautics test facilities, signals the Committee's view 
that these assets are critical for sustaining the nation's 
leadership in space and aeronautics.

Sec. 903. Preservation and management of lunar sites

    The Committee believes that the United States, emerging 
spacefaring nations, and private and other non-governmental 
entities will seek to explore the Moon for scientific, 
commercial, and other purposes in the coming years. There are 
currently no clear guidelines establishing how a government, 
commercial, or private entity should treat lunar sites of high 
scientific or historical interest, such as the Apollo landing 
sites. This provision directs the government to take the 
initial steps, in cooperation with the international community, 
to consider the issues related to the preservation and 
management of significant lunar sites of high scientific, 
historical, and cultural interest and develop a path forward 
for dealing with those issues.

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

    NASA is developing the Landsat Data Continuity Mission 
(LDCM), which is slated for launch in late 2012 or 2013; 
however there is no long-term strategy for the collection of 
moderate resolution space-based land imagery. The Government 
Accountability Office, in a report on Environmental Satellites, 
found that ``there is no commitment to ensure continuity after 
that mission [LDCM]. Without Landsat or a similar satellite 
program, there will be a significant gap in land cover images 
and other important global climate data ranging from water 
management to agriculture.'' The Committee considers continuity 
of moderate resolution land imaging data, which have been 
collected since the 1970s to be critically important due to 
their use in measuring urban sprawl, studying deforestation, 
informing decisions related to agriculture, forestry, land 
change, water resource management, climate change, and geology, 
among other applications. The long data record established in 
the Landsat program enables multidecadal studies of changes to 
the Earth's land cover. This provision directs the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy to take the steps, in 
consultation with other Federal agencies, to ensure the 
continuous collection of moderate resolution land imaging 
remote sensing data and ensure that they are made available in 
a manner that will ensure their widest possible use.

Sec. 905. Space weather

    The Committee is aware of that the National Academies is 
preparing to undertake the next decadal survey in solar and 
space physics and that the research and missions considered and 
prioritized in the survey will contribute to our understanding 
of space weather and our capability to predict it. The 
Committee recognizes the serious implications that space 
weather events can have on our national infrastructure and 
believes that steps to improve our predictive capabilities are 
in the nation's interest. The Committee fully expects that the 
study directed in this provision will be coordinated with the 
National Academies' decadal survey in solar and space physics, 
but that a stand-alone study is needed that provides an in-
depth assessment of our capability in space weather prediction 
and that recommends the priorities for basic research and 
infrastructure to help strengthen the nation's space weather 
program and predictive capabilities.

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

    The Committee views the potential development of commercial 
reusable suborbital research and development platforms as an 
area to monitor, consistent with the recommendations of the 
National Academies report, published in 2010, on Revitalizing 
NASA's Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving 
Innovation, and Developing a Workforce. The Committee believes 
that those systems may offer significant promise for selected 
research areas. In order for their potential research 
applications to be better understood and assessed, it will be 
important for such commercial systems to enter operational 
service so that their capabilities for meeting the requirements 
for suborbital scientific and technology research 
investigations can be demonstrated. In addition, issues related 
to risks and liability and indemnification associated with 
flying NASA-supported research payloads or spaceflight 
participants on the vehicles need to be defined and addressed 
before NASA supports their use for NASA-related research and 
other objectives, including for supporting NASA-sponsored tests 
and demonstration flights or for flying NASA-provided 
engineering test units or other payloads.

                      IX. Committee Cost Estimate

    With respect to requirements of clause 3(d) of House rule 
XIII, the Committee anticipates that a CBO cost estimate letter 
on H.R. 5781 will address these issues when the bill proceeds 
to consideration on the House floor.

              X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of House 
rule XIII and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 and with respect to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of 
House rule XIII and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee anticipates that a CBO cost estimate 
letter on H.R. 5781 will address these issues when the bill 
proceeds to consideration on the House floor.

                  XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 5781 contains no unfunded mandates on State or local 
governments. The Committee anticipates that this issue will be 
further addressed in a CBO cost estimate letter for the bill 
when it proceeds to consideration on the House floor.

         XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    The oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee 
on Science and Technology are reflected in the body of this 
report.

      XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of 
H.R. 5781 are to reauthorize the activities of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and provide direction for 
the future of human spaceflight.

                XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 5781.

                XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 5781 does not establish nor authorize the 
establishment of any advisory committee, although the bill does 
provide additional direction to existing advisory committees.

                 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 5781 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

                      XVII. Earmark Identification

    H.R. 5781 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of Rule XXI.

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

    This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or 
tribal law.

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

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE III--AERONAUTICS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 302. ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY AIRCRAFT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                    INITIATIVE.

  [The Administrator]
  (a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish an 
initiative involving NASA, universities, industry, and other 
research organizations as appropriate, of research, 
development, and demonstration, in a relevant environment, of 
technologies to enable the following commercial aircraft 
performance characteristics:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (b) Plan.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall develop a 
        plan and associated timetable for this initiative 
        identifying key milestones, including projected flight 
        demonstrations to validate vehicle and technology 
        concepts in a relevant environment.
          (2) Submission.--Not later than 270 days after the 
        date of enactment of the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration Authorization Act of 2010, the 
        Administrator shall transmit the plan to the Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE VI--SPACE OPERATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle B--Space Shuttle

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 613. SPACE SHUTTLE TRANSITION.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office.--
          (1) Establishment.--The Administrator shall develop a 
        plan and establish a [Space Shuttle Transition Liaison 
        Office] Post-Shuttle Transition Liaison Office within 
        the Office of Human Capital Management of NASA to 
        assist local communities affected by the termination of 
        the Space Shuttle program in mitigating the negative 
        impacts on such communities caused by such termination. 
        The plan shall define the size of the affected local 
        community that would receive assistance described in 
        paragraph (2).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Termination of office.--The office established 
        under paragraph (1) shall terminate [2 years after the 
        completion of the last Space Shuttle flight] 2 years 
        after the award of the final grant under section 223 of 
        the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
        Authorization Act of 2010.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE I--GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND REPORTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 103. BASELINES AND COST CONTROLS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Thirty Percent Threshold.--If the Administrator 
determines under subsection (d) that the development cost of a 
program will exceed the estimate provided in the Baseline 
Report of the program by more than 30 percent, then, [beginning 
18 months after the date the Administrator transmits a report 
under subsection (d)(1)] beginning 18 months after the 
Administrator makes such determination, the Administrator shall 
not expend any additional funds on the program, other than 
termination costs, unless the Congress has subsequently 
authorized continuation of the program by law. An appropriation 
for the specific program enacted subsequent to a report being 
transmitted shall be considered an authorization for purposes 
of this subsection. If the program is continued, the 
Administrator shall submit a new Baseline Report for the 
program no later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
the Act under which Congress has authorized continuation of the 
program.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


               NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE II--COORDINATION OF AERONAUTICAL AND SPACE ACTIVITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

  Sec. 202. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) The Administrator and the Deputy Administrator may be 
retired commissioned military personnel.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     XX. Committee Recommendations

    On July 22, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology 
by voice vote favorably reported the bill, H.R. 5781, as 
amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.

                         XXI. Additional Views

                              ----------                              


 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVES RALPH HALL, LAMAR SMITH, 
  ROSCOE BARTLETT, FRANK LUCAS, TODD AKIN, MICHAEL McCAUL, MARIO DIAZ-
            BALART, ADRIAN SMITH, PAUL BROUN AND PETE OLSON

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act of 2010 strikes a good balance between space 
science, aeronautics, and human space flight.
    Clearly the greatest challenges addressed by this 
legislation fall within the realm of human space flight, and 
rightly so. Earlier this year the Administration proposed 
canceling the Constellation program. It did so without 
seemingly giving any consideration to past Congressional 
support for the program; without consulting with Congress prior 
to unveiling its plans; and without providing a credible 
follow-on system.
    Over five years and $10 million of effort has been expended 
on Constellation. Designs for the Ares 1 launch vehicle and the 
Orion crew exploration vehicle were well along, bolstered by 
several successful systems tests and flight demonstrations. The 
Ares-1X flight in October 2009 met virtually all performance 
goals, as did the PAD Abort Launch test flown late this spring 
in New Mexico. These were not insignificant achievements, and 
more importantly, they demonstrated the feasibility and safety 
of the Ares 1/Orion architecture.
    H.R. 5781 represents a bipartisan rejection of the 
Administration's plan for human spaceflight. We are pleased 
that the bill builds on the existing Constellation system 
architecture, but allows for updates and modifications where 
needed. The bill directs NASA to use these proven designs and 
capabilities to the greatest extent practicable, in part 
because they've been demonstrated to be safe and effective, in 
part to maximize the benefits resulting from the investment of 
resources and intellectual capital, and because these 
technologies could be transferred to a follow-on heavy lift 
launch vehicle.
    The bill is very clear that once Shuttle is retired, NASA 
must give first priority to developing a government-owned crew 
launch system to assure crew access to the International Space 
Station (ISS) by 2015 because it has the smallest degree of 
technical risk, it can be developed sooner, and it will meet 
NASA's rigorous safety

and performance standards. Having said that, in several 
sections the bill makes clear that Congress desires and 
supports having commercial crew launch companies take on the 
task of ferrying astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit once 
they have proven their ability to routinely fly cargo missions 
to ISS.
    Since 2005, NASA has awarded $606 million to private launch 
companies through the Commercial Orbital Transportation 
Services (COTS) and Cargo Resupply Services contracts to help 
in the design, development, and testing of their new vehicles 
to deliver cargo to the ISS beginning next year. The bill 
provides an additional $450 million in loan, loan guarantee and 
technical assistance funding to help these and other companies 
begin the hard work of building human rated launch systems.
    This bill fully funds the President's request for the Space 
Technology Program at $2.64 billion to revitalize NASA's long-
term, high-risk research and development capability. This 
program will span the entire breadth of NASA's enterprise, 
helping produce new sensors, materials, propulsion systems, and 
other cutting-edge technologies necessary to enable the next 
generation of missions. Much of the program's funding will go 
to industry and academia in the form of competitive grants. It 
is vitally important Congress restore a strong R&D culture at 
our nation's civil space agency.
    In the areas of Space Science and Aeronautics, H.R. 5781 
continues Congress' strong support for the agency's programs. 
Much of the work they do directly supports the Federal Aviation 
Administration's NextGen program to increase capacity in our 
national airspace system, as well as enabling quieter, more 
fuel efficient and safer aircraft.
    We are pleased that several amendments offered by 
Republicans were adopted with bipartisan support. One amendment 
reduced the authorization length from five to three years, 
thereby cutting the bill's cost from $100 billion total outlay 
to $58.41 billion and increasing congressional oversight of the 
agency. We believe that this amendment, as well as others, 
strengthens the authorization. We look forward to working with 
the Majority to continue to improve the bill as it moves 
through the process.
    We believe this bill will allow NASA to accomplish many 
important national goals--it reaffirms Congress' support for a 
balanced portfolio of agency programs, and it directs the 
agency to continue building a government-owned human space 
launch system as our near-term solution for developing a 
successor to Shuttle. It endorses a commercial crew system but 
chooses to wait until commercial cargo flights are demonstrated 
to be flown in a safe and routine manner.
    We do not support a commercial-only approach as proposed by 
the Administration, remaining unconvinced by the little 
evidence provided to us in hearings and briefings that the 
commercial launch industry is anywhere near ready to perform 
this vital role. While their PowerPoint presentations assert an 
ability to begin

production, they cannot assure enough of a finished product to 
justify abandoning the 5 years of legislative cooperation by 
both Republicans and Democrats embodied in the Constellation 
program. That said, we do back the industry's development both 
in policy and with taxpayer investment, and remain optimistic 
that commercial crew will one day be our primary source of 
ferrying astronauts to and from low Earth orbit.
                                   Ralph Hall.
                                   Lamar Smith.
                                   Roscoe Bartlett.
                                   Frank Lucas.
                                   Todd Akin.
                                   Michael McCaul.
                                   Mario Diaz-Balart.
                                   Adrian Smith.
                                   Paul Broun.
                                   Pete Olson.

         ADDITIONAL VIEWS OFFERED BY HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER

    Although I agree with much of the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, there are some 
specific areas on which I wish to state a different view.

                      CHINA AND FOREIGN RELATIONS

    It was recently revealed that NASA received, or thought it 
received, direction from the President to pursue a diplomacy 
strategy in the Middle East. Protections are necessary to make 
certain that NASA does not engage in foreign relations with 
China without the explicit authorization of Congress. Such 
foreign relations activities are potentially dangerous for our 
nation, because there is no difference between China's military 
and space ambitions.
    While there may be arguable benefits of one kind or another 
to cooperation with the Chinese, it is clear that such benefits 
should not come at the expense of U.S. national security and 
human rights interests. In particular, such cooperation should 
not undermine the U.S. commitment to important 
nonproliferation, labor, environmental, trade, and safety 
standards. The history of cooperation with China on space 
issues has been a particularly one-sided benefit to China at 
the expense of America's security.

                         TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

    Appropriate investments in research and development are 
critical to the future of every American, of our economy, and 
of our position of strength in the world. The President's 
budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 for NASA called for 
increased research and technology development so that America 
could be more competitive and NASA could explore the solar 
system more affordably. While some of these R&D funds remain, 
this bill removes most of that funding, and abandons the 
efforts that can enable a new era of exploration in the solar 
system.
    Our research and development programs are critical, both to 
create long-term jobs and to enable NASA to continue to explore 
even as we work to control deficit spending. Some technological 
goals should be supported, such as on-orbit fueling depots, 
which can then be operated by private ventures once the 
development is done. These programs are our investment in the 
future, and by abandoning them, as this legislation does, we 
are risking our long-term prospects for the temporary 
appearance of leadership.

                             CONSTELLATION

    I applaud the courage in cancelling of the Constellation 
program. Constellation, according to our nation's best experts, 
is unsustainable and would not have fulfilled the goal of 
putting America back on the Moon by 2020 or even 2025, and we 
must be better trustees of America's public resources than 
continuing to spend funds on a program that cannot succeed. 
Instead, by choosing to invest in commercial launch options to 
low Earth orbit, an effort strongly supported in language, 
though not resources, throughout this legislation, our nation 
will invest in multiple projects to enable and stimulate access 
to Earth orbit, commercial human access to Earth orbit and more 
affordable NASA exploration beyond Earth orbit. I am strongly 
in support of these goals; I always have been. I therefore 
strongly support and endorse the key human spaceflight and 
technology elements outlined in the President's budget for NASA 
and supported here.

                            COMMERCIAL CARGO

    This legislation praises the virtues of the Commercial 
Cargo efforts which have been supported time and again by 
Congress, while cutting more than 95% out of the NASA request 
for this program for FY11. The rationale for these cargo 
expenditures is two-fold: (1) to reduce risk through additional 
work performed by the COTS participant companies, and thereby 
improve the chance of mission success; (2) to accelerate agreed 
upon milestone tasks, including launch schedules. Ccritically, 
these payments would only be made for the successful completion 
of milestones or tasks not contemplated in the original 
agreements between the COTS providers and NASA.
    Through the COTS program, NASA invests financial and 
technical resources to stimulate efforts within the private 
sector to develop and demonstrate safe, reliable, and cost-
effective space transportation capabilities. Under COTS, NASA 
is helping commercial industry develop and demonstrate its own 
cargo space transportation capabilities to serve the U.S. 
government and other potential customers. The companies lead 
and direct their own efforts, with NASA providing technical and 
financial assistance. A unique aspect of the COTS program is 
that the companies are paid incrementally as they reach certain 
milestones that are critical to their ability to meet the needs 
of NASA, thus leveraging private resources. This encourages 
steady progress toward their goals and accountability--payment 
for performance. This allows NASA greater control over the 
program and total program costs if a specific company fails to 
meet the necessary milestones and timelines.
    Beyond existing, previously agreed COTS milestones, NASA 
desired to further reduce risk and improve the chance of 
mission success by supporting additional milestones. Consistent 
with the COTS approach, private company expenditures would 
exceed the value of the payments made for the completion of 
particular milestones, thus further leveraging private 
resources for public needs. This program should have been 
funded at the full $312 million--a relatively small price to 
support the $100 billion that has been invested in the 
International Space Station.

                            COMMERCIAL CREW

    This legislation cuts more than 95% out of the NASA request 
for FY11 Commercial Crew efforts, while ``restoring'' less than 
one-tenth of that in a previously unheard of and wholly 
unexamined loan guarantee program.
    The reasoning and program structure for Commercial Crew 
follows closely with that of Commercial Cargo--it is the best 
way to achieve long-term safe, reliable, inexpensive 
transportation to low Earth orbit. By providing funding to meet 
certain milestones, and capabilities, NASA can make certain 
that these commercial companies are both reliable and up to the 
task. NASA would continue to be responsible for assuring 
astronaut safety.
    Without clear statements by NASA, with some funding to back 
the milestones up, the development of these systems to the 
standards required by NASA becomes much less market-friendly. 
By encouraging this development, we can create an American 
commercial human spaceflight industry that will lower costs 
while increasing safety and reliability. This will give NASA 
greater access to space, and ultimately, lead to greater 
opportunities for our nation to explore the solar system and 
beyond--NASA's first and most critical function.

                              EXPLORATION

    While I applaud the cancellation of the Constellation 
program, I fear that it is a cancellation in name only, as the 
funding removed from R&D, Commercial Cargo, and Commercial Crew 
is being used to establish a ``Restructured Exploration 
Program,'' or, as it appears to be, Constellation Lite. This 
program has even less money than the unsustainable 
Constellation did, but the ultimate goals haven't changed 
enough for this to be sustainable or successful.
    This bill calls for NASA to immediately start building 
towards a heavy-lift rocket, but heavy-lift as envisioned might 
not be needed if we can create and implement on-orbit fuel 
depots, other technologies, and proper design. By forcing NASA 
to begin an underfunded heavy-lift program now, we are 
undermining any opportunity to achieve the groundbreaking 
technologies that could enable long-term sustainable 
exploration and the ancillary spinoff benefits that have been a 
hallmark of NASA throughout its history.

                                                  Dana Rohrabacher.

             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE PETE OLSON

    I am a proud original cosponsor of the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010. This bill 
reaffirms the commitment of Congress to maintain America's 
leadership in human space flight. It builds upon the 
investments we have already made in development of the Orion 
spacecraft, Ares rocket system, spacesuit development, and 
enabling systems that are being designed to put us back on the 
course of exploration.
    The budget put forth by the President in February of this 
year was not only misguided, but ceded our hard earned 
leadership in space. This legislation corrects that course. I 
support the bill overall, but there are a couple of specific 
points I would like to reiterate.
    I'm very pleased that the Launch on Need (LON) flight has 
been authorized, contingent on the NASA Administrator 
determining such a flight would be safe and is needed to enable 
full utilization of the ISS. However, I am concerned that the 
funds for this flight, as amended by the full committee, will 
come out of the Space Operations and ISS accounts which are 
already stretched too thin. I had an alternate proposal that 
would have funded this flight in part from the proposed 
increase in earth science funds by redirecting $500 million. 
Earth Sciences received a robust increase in the President's 
FY2011 budget proposal. Taking a small portion of this increase 
would be much more prudent than cutting into another portion of 
the human space flight account.
    My amendment to provide funding for the LON flight would 
have also stripped funds from workforce training efforts. I do 
not disparage the need to help the workforce transition upon 
completion of the shuttle program, but using limited NASA funds 
to do so seems counterintuitive to me. There are funds within 
other government agencies, unspent stimulus funds to be exact, 
at the Departments of Commerce and Labor that would be better 
suited for this purpose.
    Upon completion of the shuttle program, the question of 
where the orbiters should be housed was a topic of considerable 
debate during the markup. I strongly feel that Houston has 
earned the right to become the permanent home of an orbiter. 
The people of Houston have managed every mission and trained 
every crew throughout the life of the program, thus bringing an 
orbiter to a location near the Johnson Space Center seems a 
fitting testament to their efforts, dedication, and sacrifice.
    Finally, as we work toward ensuring the future of human 
space flight, it is imperative that the Administration stop 
forcing contractors to assess termination liability costs. To 
date, forcing companies to do so has led to the layoffs of 
thousands of workers, with many more to come. It is clear that 
this Congress, both in the House and Senate, will not approve 
of the President's proposal to fully cancel Constellation. As 
such, we must not let a workforce go that will be needed going 
forward. These layoffs should be stopped immediately.
    It has been an honor to work with Chairman Bart Gordon, 
Ranking Member Ralph Hall, and Subcommittee Chairwoman 
Gabrielle Giffords on this bill and I look forward to its 
consideration and passage by the full House.
                                                        Pete Olson.



   XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 5781, THE 
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2010

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Science and Technology,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Gordon. Good morning. The Committee will come to 
order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and 
Technology is here to consider the following measures, H.R. 
5781, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act of 2010. But before we get started, I would 
like to introduce one of our guests. Mr. Saggese is the 
president of the Italian Space Agency, here in the front row, 
and we welcome you here, Mr. Saggese. Italy has been an 
important partner with us in space in many other ways, and we 
look forward to continuing to work with you, and glad you are 
here to see sausage being made right up front.
    All right. We will now proceed with the markup. This has 
been a challenging road to get to today's markup because the 
issues we are addressing go to the core of what we want from 
NASA and from nation's space and aeronautics program. This 
committee, and in particular the Space and Aeronautic 
Subcommittee, under the able leadership of Chairwoman Giffords 
and Ranking Member Olson have tried to take the time needed to 
explain those issues and examine them carefully and to get as 
much information as we could from the administration about its 
proposed plans for NASA. As a result, the bill before us today 
reflects the constructive input of the many witnesses who 
testified at 19 hearings at the committee and subcommittee 
level and have held to date on this issue during the 111th 
Congress. We have also heard from a variety of experts and 
stakeholders from the government, commercial sector, the 
science community, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel and 
other advisory committees, and numerous organizations and 
individuals. We have benefited from all their views. And let me 
be clear, the bill before us today is not perfect. I believe 
that there are a number of amendments that will be offered 
today that will improve it. That is what the legislative 
process is all about.
    However, I think it is a good bill that makes the hard 
choices that need to be made, and we are in tough economic 
times, and we could not do it all. While I believe it is 
important that NASA remain a multi-mission agency with 
challenging initiatives in science, aeronautics and human space 
flight and exploration, I also want to ensure that NASA's 
missions are matched to the available resources. As a result, 
some of the nice-to-haves have had to be deferred, and worthy 
activities have been funded at lower levels than some of us 
would like. Nevertheless, I think the legislation before us 
sets a clear, sustainable and executable path for NASA, 
especially in the areas of human space flight.
    That has been a part of the lemon that we had been 
confronted with. For all of us, and for all of its 
accomplishments, the Constellation program was not executable 
as planned, given the budgetary outlook facing the agency. 
Unfortunately, it has become clear that the administration's 
proposed human space flight program is not executable under 
that budgetary outlook either. As a result, we have had to 
craft an alternative approach that is executable, and that has 
taken some time, but I believe that the bill before us today 
provides the Nation with a productive future for its human 
space flight program, one that can be sustained even in the 
midst of budgetary uncertainty. It is in the interest of time 
that I will not re-state what is in the bill. Instead, I will 
simply say that this bill represents a balanced, fiscally 
responsible and bipartisan approach to authorizing NASA's 
programs.
    I want to emphasize the fact that it is a bipartisan bill, 
and that in that regard I am gratified that Ranking Member Hall 
and Ranking Member Olson have joined Chairwoman Giffords and I 
as original co-sponsors of this legislation. They have made 
thoughtful and constructive contributions to the bill, and I 
thank them for that. I imagine that there will be amendments 
before us today on which of the four of us may disagree, but no 
one should construe that to mean that we are not united on the 
need for a strong, robust and innovative space and aeronautics 
program for the United States. The bipartisan nature of this 
bill sends an important message to Congress as a whole, as well 
as to the administration that NASA is a national resource 
worthy of our support.
    Let me just quickly conclude by saying that what--in all 
candor, the Constellation program was brought to us by people 
that had a very sincere interest. We found, though, that as it 
moved along that it resulted in a balloon mortgage that we 
could not afford now. Once again, the program that the 
administration put forth was done in all good faith, but once 
again we found that balloon mortgage. We really have to work 
within our means here. Even looking at the Senate bill, we are 
afraid that it is not within those budgetary guidelines. And I 
am afraid that the passion that we all have on this committee 
for NASA may not be shared across the board. And as we start 
getting into tough budgetary times, we really need to, I think, 
be responsible in coming in with a good budget. And the reason 
this is so important is that NASA really is, I think, the best 
brand in the world. It is the statement that the United States 
is a leader in technology and innovation. And so we have a 
responsibility on this committee, I think, to nurture it and to 
move it forward.
    We all know that we are getting close to election time. We 
all know that peoples' trigger finger gets a little bit itchy 
at that time, but I have been so impressed with the cooperation 
on the staff level, on the member level to try to pull these 
things together. Folks have parochial interests. I know that 
there are going to be some, you know, some tough issues today 
that will be very heartfelt, but we are going to, you know, we 
need to work through those. Working together we are going to 
come out with the kind of bill that we can all be proud of.
    And again, I thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
    Good morning. Today the Committee is meeting to mark up H.R. 5781, 
the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. It has been a challenging road to 
get to today's markup, because the issues we are addressing go to the 
core of what we want from NASA and our nation's space and aeronautics 
program.
    This Committee, and in particular the Space and Aeronautics 
Subcommittee under the able leadership of Chairwoman Giffords, have 
tried to take the time needed to examine those issues carefully and to 
get as much information as we could from the Administration about its 
proposed plans for NASA.
    As a result, the bill before us today reflects the constructive 
input of the many witnesses who testified at the 19 hearings that the 
Committee and Subcommittee have held to date on those issues in the 
111th Congress.
    We have also heard from a variety of experts and stakeholders from 
government, the commercial sector, the science community, the Aerospace 
Safety Advisory Panel, other advisory committees, and numerous 
organizations and individuals.
    We have benefited from all of their views.
    Let me be clear. The bill before us is not perfect.
    I believe that there are a number of amendments that will be 
offered today that will improve it. That's what the legislative process 
is all about.
    However, I think it is a good bill that makes the hard choices that 
need to be made.
    We are in tough economic times, and we cannot do it all.
    While I believe it is important that NASA remain a multi-mission 
agency with challenging initiatives in science, aeronautics, and human 
space flight and exploration, I also want to ensure that NASA's 
missions are matched to available resources.
    As a result, some of the ``nice-to-haves'' have had to be deferred, 
and worthy activities have been funded at lower levels than some of us 
would like.
    Nevertheless, I think the legislation before us sets a clear, 
sustainable, and executable path for NASA, especially in the area of 
human space flight.
    That has been part of the dilemma that we have been confronting.
    For all of its accomplishments, the Constellation program was not 
executable as planned, given the budgetary outlook facing the agency.
    Unfortunately, it has become clear that the Administration's 
proposed human space flight program is not executable under that 
budgetary outlook either.
    As a result, we have had to craft an alternative approach that is 
executable, and that's taken some time, but I believe that the bill 
before us today provides the Nation with a productive future for its 
human space flight program--one that can be sustained even in the midst 
of budgetary uncertainty.
    In the interests of time, I will not restate what is in the bill; I 
know that Members are familiar with the provisions.
    Instead, I will simply say that this bill represents a balanced, 
fiscally responsible, and bipartisan approach to authorizing NASA's 
programs.
    I want to emphasize the fact that it is a bipartisan bill, and in 
that regard I am gratified that Ranking Member Hall and Ranking Member 
Olson have joined Chairwoman Giffords and I as original cosponsors of 
this legislation.
    They have made thoughtful and constructive contributions to the 
bill, and I thank them for that.
    I imagine there will be amendments before us today on which four of 
us may disagree, but no one should construe that to mean that we are 
not united on the need for a strong, robust, and innovative space and 
aeronautics program for America.
    The bipartisan nature of this bill sends an important message to 
Congress as a whole, as well as to the Administration, that NASA is a 
national resource worthy of our support.
    With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I now 
turn to Mr. Hall for his opening statement.

    Chairman Gordon. And I would like to then yield to Ms. 
Giffords, as Chairwoman of the Committee, for a brief 
statement.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hall. 
I appreciate this opportunity. Truly for the members who have 
been on my subcommittee and in the full committee, this really 
is at a point where we are at a crossroads. Our job here in 
this committee is to determine the future of America's space 
flight program, and our job is to determine whether or not 
America will continue to have a human space flight program 
second to none or not. We will determine whether America will 
continue to push the forefront of space science and technology 
or not. We will determine whether America will continue to 
foster innovation and drive our 21st century economy or not, 
and today we will determine whether America will continue to 
inspire the youth of America or not.
    Of course, we didn't arrive at this crossroads suddenly. 
Over the last year and a half my subcommittee held 15 oversight 
hearings on NASA, exploring these and the many issues facing 
today's space flight program. And over the last year and a half 
we have had to face an unsettling reality after the Augustine 
Committee made clear our exploration program of record was 
unexecutable under the current budget. So, in response to this 
report, the President introduced his 2011 budget, which 
included a number of serious changes to NASA programs. We then 
had four hearings with witnesses from NASA, as well as outside 
experts, to delve into these proposals and to the effects on 
our space flight program. Unfortunately, many of our questions 
remained unanswered, so the leadership of the committee twice 
reached out to NASA to get a better justification of the 
President's proposals, and twice we were rebuffed. Even to this 
day we have yet to receive a budget that reflects the changes 
to the new plan that the President announced on April 15. Our 
hope is in the future that we will be able to work closely with 
the administration and with NASA to make sure that we have the 
information so that we can move forward in a clearer manner.
    So when we set out our task to determine the future of 
America's space flight program, our goal was paramount in our 
minds to develop a sustainable program that will guarantee 
America's access to Low-Earth orbit [LEO], but more importantly 
a path to explore beyond LEO, something we have not done for 37 
years. And the result is a bill that provides a pragmatic path 
forward. It gives NASA a clear sense of purpose and a direction 
in a way that will recognize these--the nation's need for 
fiscal restraint. And I have said many times before the 
President's requests contains very--a lot of good proposals, 
which this bill, in fact, has retained.
    And Mr. Chairman, of course, I know you will get into this, 
but our legislation authorizes NASA's programs and activities 
for five years, with total annual funding of $19 billion in 
fiscal year 2011, rising modestly to $20.99 billion in fiscal 
year 2015. It extends through at least 2020 the life of the 
International Space Station, a premier laboratory that should 
be considered a modern wonder of the universe. And it 
continues, and in fact expands, our commitment to science and 
aeronautics. However, our approach differs from the President's 
proposal on a number of levels, most notably on the development 
of human space flight programs. And the bill directs the NASA 
administrator to restructure the current exploration program to 
develop and demonstrate a governmentally owned crew 
transportation system to provide assured access to LEO, as well 
as heavy lift transportation systems to provide the backbone 
for exploration missions. As we have often stated, our role in 
Congress is not to pick winners and losers. We are not trying 
to design a rocket in this committee. We know that the best and 
brightest minds in the country are in the NASA centers around 
the country, and they should be designing the architecture. So 
this bill requires NASA to bring those minds to bear on this 
issue.
    NASA will tell us in the following months how they will fly 
to the ISS by 2016 in a crew vessel evolvable to one day 
explore the solar system. NASA will tell us how they will build 
a heavy lift vehicle that will begin flying by the end of this 
decade to prepare us to once again leave LEO. The restructured 
exploration program will ensure that America will continue to 
play a leadership role in human space flight and exploration, 
in spite of challenging economic times. The bill also 
recognizes the value of encouraging the growth of a healthy, 
self-sustaining U.S. commercial space sector by providing the 
nascent commercial crew industry with access to NASA 
technologies and facilities and assistance in the form of loans 
and loan guarantees. Additionally, this bill reinforces that 
NASA will turn over crew transportation to commercial providers 
when they have proven that they can accomplish the task 
successfully. The prize is out there. It is up for the American 
entrepreneurs to seize it.
    This bill also contains a number of great pieces I know 
that we are going to get into a little bit later today, but I 
want to again thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that you have 
worked very hard with Ranking Member Hall and Congressman Olson 
as well, and so many Members of this Committee who are directly 
involved with NASA's human space flight programs and NASA 
centers around the country, or have constituents that are 
really interested in human space flight. The fact is that, as 
you said, Mr. Chairman, the clock is ticking. We don't have a 
lot of time, and this is our opportunity for this committee to 
put its best foot forward.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Giffords follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Representative Gabrielle Giffords
    Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    We stand now at a crossroads. What we decide today, and in this 
Congress, will determine the future of America's space program.
    We will determine whether America will continue to have a human 
spaceflight program second to none, or not.
    We will determine whether America will continue to push the 
forefront of space science and technology, or not.
    We will determine whether America will continue to foster the 
innovation that will drive our 21st century economy, or not.
    And we will determine whether America will continue to inspire the 
youths of America and the citizens of the world, or not.
    But we didn't arrive at this crossroad suddenly.
    Over the last year and a half, this committee, and my subcommittee, 
have held 15 oversight hearings on NASA, exploring these and the many 
other issues facing America's space program today.
    And over this last year and a half, we have had to face an 
unsettling reality.
    As the Augustine Committee made clear, our exploration program of 
record was unexecutable within the current budget.
    In response to this report, the President introduced his 2011 
budget, which included a number of serious changes to NASA programs.
    We have held four hearings with witnesses from NASA as well as 
outside experts to delve into these proposals and their effects on our 
spaceflight program.
    Unfortunately, many of our questions remained unanswered.
    So, the leadership of this committee twice reached out to NASA to 
get a better justification of the President's proposals--and twice we 
were rebuffed.
    The unfortunate truth is that the administration did not provide 
this committee with the depth of information necessary to justify many 
of its proposals.
    To this day, we have yet to receive a budget that reflects the 
changes to the new plan that the President announced on April 15th.
    Nor have we received any technical assessment performed by NASA to 
support this plan.
    I find this most disappointing.
    I hope that in the future the administration will work more closely 
with this committee to better inform this very important process.
    When we set upon our task to determine the future of America's 
human spaceflight program, one goal was paramount in our minds: develop 
a sustainable program that will guarantee American access to space and 
put us on a path to explore beyond low-earth orbit--something we have 
not done for 37 years.
    The result is a bill that provides a pragmatic path forward and 
gives NASA a clear sense of purpose and direction in a way that also 
recognizes the nation's need for fiscal restraint.
    As I have said before, the President's request contained many good 
proposals, which this bill has retained:

        
  It authorizes NASA's programs and activities for five 
        years, with total annual funding of $19 billion in FY 2011, 
        rising modestly to $20.99 billion in FY 2015.

        
  It extends, through at least 2020, the life of the 
        International Space Station (ISS), a premier laboratory that 
        should be considered a modern wonder of the universe.

        
  And it continues, and in fact expands, our commitment 
        to science and aeronautics.

    However, our approach differs from the President's proposal on a 
number of issues--most notably on the development of human spaceflight 
systems.
    This bill directs the NASA Administrator to restructure the current 
exploration program to develop and demonstrate a government-owned crew 
transportation system to provide assured access to low-Earth orbit, as 
well as a heavy lift transportation system to provide the backbone for 
exploration missions.
    As I have often stated, our role in Congress is not to pick winners 
and losers. We aren't trying to design a rocket in this committee.
    We know that the best and brightest minds in the country are in 
NASA centers around the country and they should be designing this 
architecture.
    So this bill requires NASA to bring those minds to bear on this 
issue.
    NASA will tell us in the following months how they will fly to the 
ISS by 2016 with a crew vessel evolvable to one day explore the solar 
system.
    NASA will tell us how they will build a Heavy Lift Vehicle that 
will begin flying by the end of this decade and prepare us to once 
again leave low-earth orbit.
    The restructured exploration program will ensure that America will 
continue to play a leadership role in human space flight and 
exploration, in spite of challenging economic times.
    The bill also recognizes the value of encouraging the growth of a 
healthy, self-sustaining U.S. commercial space sector by providing the 
nascent commercial crew industry with access to NASA technologies and 
facilities as well as assistance in the form of loans and loan 
guarantees.
    Additionally, this bill reinforces that NASA will turn over crew 
transportation to commercial providers when they have proven they can 
accomplish the task safely.
    The prize is out there; it's up to American entrepreneurs to seize 
it.
    This bill contains a number of other great pieces:

        
  Supporting the operation and full utilization of the 
        ISS through at least 2020 and establishing an ISS research 
        management entity

        
  Augmenting funding to revitalize fundamental space 
        life and physical science research

        
  Establishing a grants program to assist workers and 
        communities affected by the end of the Shuttle Program

        
  Providing a modest increase to smaller space science 
        projects including suborbital science and scientist-led 
        Explorer programs that demonstrate cutting-edge scientific 
        concepts and technological approaches, and offer hands-on 
        opportunities for students and young researchers to ensure that 
        our nation's space science program has a robust and vibrant 
        foundation to continue these discoveries in the decades to come

        
  Taking steps to ensure progress is being made on 
        NASA's environmentally friendly aircraft research and 
        development

        
  Reinvigorating NASA's long-term space technology 
        research and development activity

    So, we stand at a crossroad for America's space program.
    We will create our own path with changes we make today and I know 
that what will emerge will produce an executable and sustainable 
program that will get us exploring the heavens again soon.
    The clock is ticking, and it is important that Congress complete 
its work on the NASA reauthorization so that the nation's space program 
can once again have a clear direction.
    I want to thank you and Ranking Members Hall and Olson for all of 
your efforts as well as the rest of this committee.
    It is a pleasure to serve on a committee with such engaged members. 
The nation needs just such engagement at this critical time.
    With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Giffords, and--for the work 
you and Mr. Olson did, and the many hearings that you had, and 
I now yield to Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I thank you--I 
think I thank you for scheduling this morning's markup. I sit 
here thinking about the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take of 
first do no harm, and from the devastation we all felt when the 
President ran a line through the word Constellation, that has 
been our goal and my goal. I am on this bill as a co-sponsor in 
an effort to do less harm than I think the bill across the hall 
is going to do. But we need to get the best of both, and work 
together and try to work this thing through because a lot 
depends on our actions here, and I want to begin by commending 
your leadership, and that of your subcommittee, Chairwoman 
Gabrielle Giffords, and Ranking Subcommittee Member Pete 
Olson--for the excellent oversight hearings conducted during 
this Congress on NASA's management and execution of its 
programs, we heard from an impressive array of industry, 
government and academic witnesses, and I want to especially 
note the compelling testimony we heard from former astronauts 
Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, Tom Stafford. These extraordinary 
men bring a lifetime of experience and wisdom to the debate, 
and I appreciate the time and effort that they took to appear 
before the committee. The work for the Space Committee and full 
committee was very aggressive and very thorough and helped all 
members gain good insight into the agency's science, 
aeronautics and human space flight programs.
    The hearings and briefings also revealed that NASA was 
unable to provide convincing reasoning for its decision to 
cancel Constellation. Despite a repeated request by this 
committee, NASA failed to provide credible schedules, cost 
estimates and a coherent rationale as to why it was necessary 
to wipe away $10 billion in taxpayer investment in 
Constellation to start anew with an ill-defined plan that 
risked taxpayers' money on a commercial-only solution. NASA 
also failed to offer convincing evidence that its proposed $6 
billion investment in a commercial crew initiative would have 
any reasonable chance of succeeding, or even that careful 
thought had been given to the basic assumptions about safety, 
marketability, liability, indemnification and intellectual 
property considerations.
    Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan bill before us today directs 
NASA to build on key components of Constellation to ensure a 
robust human space exploration program. It emphasizes that NASA 
should rely on their investments in the Aries One and Orion 
launch systems to the maximum extent practicable, and that work 
should be phased to begin a gradual buildup of a heavy lift 
launch vehicle. This bill also--the bill also includes 
important policy provisions directing NASA to transition low 
Earth orbit crew ferry flights to the commercial industry when 
it demonstrates a capability to NASA's satisfaction. Until that 
day, however, the least risky path to minimize our reliance on 
the Russians is to continue to build a low Earth orbit launch 
system, such as was envisioned by the Constellation program.
    This bill before us takes the right approach for NASA's 
other important missions. It sustains a strong and vibrant 
space science program, enabling new missions to help scientists 
better understand the evolution of our solar system and 
universe. It provides funding for important aeronautics 
research designed to increase the capability and the capacity 
of our national aerospace system to make aircraft quieter, 
safer and more fuel efficient. This bill also fully funds the 
administration's request for NASA's space technology program. 
This initiative is designed to revitalize NASA's long term high 
risk research and development activity with the goal of 
enabling a broad set of new capabilities ranging from 
propulsion systems, material sensors and other technologies we 
will need to extend our reach into the deep space.
    Mr. Chairman, given that our members received a copy of the 
text just three days ago, I ask that we continue to work 
together between now and consideration on the House floor to 
improve the bill so that all of us can enthusiastically support 
it. I also want to recognize the hard work done by your staff 
in crafting this bill in the bipartisan manner by which they 
have worked with our staff throughout the course of the 
Congress, with special kudos extended to Dick Obermann. He has 
been very open with us, and he is--we are appreciative of all 
of his efforts. I also want to thank Ken Monroe and Ed Feddeman 
on my staff for their excellent work and guidance through this 
process.
    Given the budget constraints, as well as the turmoil 
surrounding the direction of our human space flight program, it 
is vitally important that this good piece of legislation be 
enacted as soon as possible. I support this bill. I urge all 
members to lend their support to it as well. And I thank the 
other members of my staff who have worked day and night to help 
me. It is important that we get this legislation through 
Congress, get a bill, and get it to the President.
    And at that time--this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield what 
time I have left and what time he has to consume to 
Subcommittee Chairman Pete Olson.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this morning's markup of the 
NASA Authorization Act of 2010.
    I want to begin by commending your leadership and that of 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords and Ranking Subcommittee 
Member Pete Olson for the excellent oversight hearings conducted during 
this Congress on NASA's management and execution of its programs. We 
heard from an impressive array of industry, government and academic 
witnesses, and I want to especially note the compelling testimony we 
heard from former astronauts Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan and Tom 
Stafford. These extraordinary men bring a lifetime of experience and 
wisdom to the debate, and I appreciate the time and effort they took to 
appear before our Committee.
    The work of the Space Subcommittee and full Committee was 
aggressive and thorough, and helped all Members gain good insight into 
the agency's science, aeronautics, and human space flight programs.
    The hearings and briefings also revealed that NASA was unable to 
provide convincing reasoning for its decision to cancel Constellation. 
In spite of repeated requests by this Committee, NASA failed to provide 
credible schedules, cost estimates, and a coherent rationale as to why 
it was necessary to wipe away $10 billion in taxpayer investment in 
Constellation and to start anew with an ill-defined plan that risks 
taxpayer money on a commercial-only solution. NASA also failed to offer 
convincing evidence that its proposed $6 billion investment in a 
commercial crew initiative would have any reasonable chance of 
succeeding, or even that careful thought had been given to basic 
assumptions about safety, marketability, liability, indemnification and 
intellectual property considerations.
    Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan bill before us today directs NASA to 
build on key components of Constellation to ensure a robust human space 
exploration program. It emphasizes that NASA should rely on our 
investments in the Ares 1 and Orion launch systems to the maximum 
extent practicable, and that work should be phased to begin a gradual 
build-up of a heavy lift launch vehicle.
    The bill also includes important policy provisions directing NASA 
to transition low-Earth orbit crew ferry flights to the commercial 
industry when it demonstrates the capability to NASA's satisfaction. 
Until that day, however, the least risky path to minimize our reliance 
on the Russians is to continue developing a low-Earth orbit launch 
system such as was envisioned by the Constellation program.
    This bill before us takes the right approach for NASA's other 
important missions. It sustains a strong and vibrant space science 
program, enabling new missions to help scientists better understand the 
evolution of our solar system and universe. It provides funding for 
important aeronautics research designed to increase the capacity of our 
national airspace system, to make aircraft quieter, safer and more fuel 
efficient.
    This bill also fully funds the Administration's request for NASA's 
Space Technology Program. This initiative is designed to revitalize 
NASA's long-term, high-risk research and development activities with 
the goal of enabling a broad set of new capabilities ranging from 
propulsion systems, materials, sensors, and other technologies we'll 
need to extend our reach into deep space.
    Mr. Chairman, given that our members received a copy of the text 
just three days ago, I ask that we continue to work together between 
now and consideration on the House floor to improve the bill so that 
all of us can enthusiastically support it.
    I also want to recognize the hard work done by your staff in 
crafting this bill and the bipartisan manner with which they have 
worked with our staff throughout the course of this Congress, with 
special kudos extended to Dick Obermann. He has been very open with us, 
and we appreciate all his efforts. I also want to thank Ken Monroe and 
Ed Feddeman on my staff for their excellent work and guidance 
throughout this process.
    Given the budget constraints as well as the turmoil surrounding the 
direction of our human space flight program, it is vitally important 
that this good piece of legislation be enacted as soon as possible. I 
support this bill and I urge all Members to lend their support as well. 
It's important we get this legislation through Congress and to the 
President. Thank you.

    Mr. Olson. Well, I want to thank my great friend and fellow 
Texan Mr. Hall for yielding to me a little time.
    I am pleased to be here today to discuss the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010. 
We promised a NASA authorization bill this year, and I am proud 
to say we are delivering on that promise here today in 
committee. I want to extend a very special thanks to our 
Chairman, Mr. Gordon, and our Ranking Member, Mr. Hall, as well 
as the distinguished Chairwoman of the Space and Aeronautics 
Subcommittee, Ms. Giffords, along with the very dedicated and 
hard working staff at the full committee.
    This authorization bill is very important to me personally. 
It is also important to the district I represent, Houston, 
Texas. But above all else, this authorization bill is important 
to our nation. And so I thank my colleagues again for bringing 
this to the committee and for exhibiting that, in the spirit of 
doing what is right for America, bipartisan solutions exist in 
Washington, D.C.
    I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Pete Olson
    I am very pleased that we are here today to discuss the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010. We 
promised a NASA Authorization this year, and I'm proud to be discussing 
this bill in committee today.
    I want to extend a very special thanks to our Chairman, Mr. Gordon, 
and Ranking Member, Mr. Hall, as well as the distinguished Chairwoman 
of our Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, Ms. Giffords of Arizona, 
along with the very impressive and hardworking staff at the full and 
subcommittee.
    This Authorization is very important to me personally, as well as 
to the district I represent in Houston, Texas, but above all else, this 
authorization is important to our nation. And so I thank my colleagues 
again for bringing this to the committee and for exhibiting in word and 
deed, that in the spirit of doing what's right for America, bipartisan 
solutions are possible.
    Thank you and I yield back the remainder of my time.

    Chairman Gordon. Additional opening statements will be 
placed in the record at this time. I think we have something 
like 30 something amendments, so I believe everybody's going to 
have a chance to have their say on this bill today. So I ask 
unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read, and open 
amendments at the--and open for amendment at any point, and 
that members proceed with the amendments in the order of the 
roster. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Representative David Wu
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to voice my strong support for the NASA 
reauthorization bill this committee is considering today.
    The space program inspires us to reach for the stars in both our 
dreams and our actions. More importantly, it helps drive our nation's 
technological innovation.
    I am particularly glad to see that today's NASA bill reflects the 
concerns that I and many of my colleagues voiced with the President's 
proposal to cancel the human spaceflight program.
    I am deeply concerned with the idea of privatizing space 
exploration. While I believe we should do all that we can to foster and 
encourage a healthy, competitive commercial spaceflight industry, I 
believe the core functions should remain a public enterprise.
    Simply put, the President's plan to privatize American human 
spaceflight heads in the wrong direction and has been poorly executed 
to boot.
    The space program has inspired a generation of scientists and 
engineers, and I believe we ought to preserve this source of 
inspiration for future generations.
    The Constellation Program is not perfect. But putting all of our 
eggs in a private-sector basket is simply too risky a gamble. We would 
be jeopardizing our lead in space exploration, and we would be 
jeopardizing our nation's future.
    I am pleased that this committee was able to craft a bill that 
balances our need to develop a robust commercial spaceflight sector 
with our responsibility to ensure the continued viability of the 
national human spaceflight program.
    The bill before us today restructures the existing exploration 
program to ensure a viable, public human spaceflight program which will 
build on existing expertise and keep our astronauts flying.
    America's leadership in space exploration is a national treasure. 
We, as the stewards of that resource, have an obligation to maintain 
the commitment to space exploration that began with President Kennedy's 
challenge to the American people that we land a man on the moon and 
return him safely to Earth.
    I commend the chairman on bringing this legislation up for 
consideration today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to ensure future generations are able to enjoy the innumerable benefits 
that only a public-sector human spaceflight program can provide.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your hard work on this vital 
legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Gordon. The first amendment on the roster is an 
amendment offered by the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. 
Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 039, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 
gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment.
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I and many of my 
colleagues here in the room have always maintained that a NASA 
led vehicle is essential in order for us to maintain, I would 
say, our U.S. leadership, and perhaps supremacy in space, and 
this bill strongly supports that premise. However, I think it 
is important that we consider other aspects. The development of 
commercial crew and cargo is an important component to our 
ensuring domestic access to the space station and to continuing 
to preserve our unique work force through commercial and 
public/private partnerships that spur job creation. The level 
of a commercial investment can be debated, whether it is 
Augustine's recommendation of $4.5 billion, the President's 
request of $6 billion, or the Committee's level of less than a 
billion. However, we do know that the Senate authorizers and 
the appropriators have both now approved a level of funding 
that will help to develop this essential service.
    This amendment proposes to match the levels already 
approved by Senate authorizers and appropriators and to 
continue the development method which is currently in place for 
the commercial industry, based on meeting milestone 
requirements. In addition, my amendment would replace 
provisions in the bill with language from the bill that I 
introduced in March with Senator Hutchison which was adopted in 
the Senate compromise bill. This language would ensure that, 
before allowing NASA to procure commercial crew services, we 
require that the agency meet a number of requirements, 
including human rating requirements, commercial market 
assessments, procurement system reviews, evaluation of 
government supplied capabilities, and infrastructure, flight 
demonstration and readiness requirements and commercial crew 
rescue capabilities.
    With this criteria in place, we recognize that public/
private commercial space holds promise for the space coast and 
many other communities across the country. We must provide a 
level of support that will encourage the development of this 
creative industry. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Would anybody like to be heard on this 
amendment?
    Mr. Hall. I would like to be heard.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentlelady's 
amendment. Her amendment would take roughly $2 billion out of 
the exploration program and redirect it to the commercial crew 
account. It would also zero out the loan and loan guarantee 
provisions in the bill. For the last several years we have 
heard witnesses and expert panels complain about NASA being 
starved for funds needed to build an assured launch system. And 
as it now stands, once the shuttle is retired, we will be 
relying on the Russians for at least four years to get 
astronauts to and from the space station. Stripping away two 
billion to invest in a commercial crew system is not the 
answer.
    NASA is being tasked in this bill to get us a low Earth 
orbit launch system as soon as is practicable. We are also 
directing NASA to begin design and development of a heavy lift 
launch system in a carefully planned concurrent approach. $2 
billion will delay our ability to get a new system into place. 
Further, investing two billion with a commercial provider may 
or not be sufficient. No engineering and market studies have 
been done that conclusively demonstrate the viability of a 
commercial space tourist market. We have been working hard to 
direct all the funds we can to get the U.S. back into space. 
Expert witnesses have told us that the fastest, least risky and 
most assured path is to build a government system. Now, let us 
not start down the same path, draining funds from NASA's best 
hope of assured launch. I oppose this amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Ms. Giffords is recognized.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like I said in my 
opening statements, we have some real issues being able to 
understand the development of the commercial systems that have 
been proposed by the administration, and I think that comes 
over into the, you know, the amendment here. The aerospace 
corporations, on analysis, raise some serious questions about 
the credibility of the administration's funding plan for 
commercial crew development, and my concern is that this 
amendment would make some significant cuts to the restructured 
exploration program, ultimately weakening its viability. And I 
respectfully would oppose this amendment because we have 
crafted a pretty important balance for the funding of this 
bill, and this amendment would disrupt that balance.
    Chairman Gordon. Any further discussion? Oh, Mr. 
Rohrabacher is recognized.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. I move to strike the last words. They 
are--I guess that is what we need to say here, but I move to 
support the gentlelady's amendment. Let us just take a look at 
what we are deciding here. I mean, you know, basically the 
gentlelady's deciding to give--at least let us give commercial 
space a chance. Without her amendment what we are saying is we 
are going to put all of our eggs in the government run space 
transportation basket. We need to make sure that there is at 
least an alternative to having everybody who provides space 
transportation being a government employee and cutting out 
these--the entrepreneurial and commercial sector. The lady 
wants to at least give that a chance.
    Now, I have two amendments later on that actually go a lot 
further, and obviously if the lady's amendment passes, I will 
be withdrawing my--or passes or fails I will probably be 
withdrawing my amendment, because if we--what she is proposing 
is a compromise position that permits us to move forward with 
commercial and doesn't just cut the legs out from under those 
people in the commercial sector that would like to build an 
industry somewhat like, perhaps, the industry of the airline 
industry. We have breached the threshold. We are going to have 
to make a decision. Is space transportation going to be 
something that is nothing more than a government enterprise run 
by--paid for by the taxpayers and run by government employees. 
Or do we believe that the airline industry in the United States 
was a good idea, when we reach the threshold that the private 
sector could provide transportation to the public on jets and 
other type of vehicles? It is time for us to at least give the 
commercial enterprise a chance, and I would hope that all of us 
would support this position, because it is a compromise 
position. What she is talking about is not just fully accepting 
what the President had in mind.
    But let me just note, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why 
there is some confusion here, we haven't had the hearings on 
this that we need to have, and I am--I have worked well with 
you and with the Democrat majority, but let us face it, we 
haven't had one hearing that went to this idea which is--which 
the gentlelady is actually amending that would talk about the 
loan guarantee program. Now, where is loan guarantees--where 
does that fit in? How come we haven't had any hearings on that? 
Do we know the loan guarantees are going to work better than 
what the program now is designed for, in terms of working with 
the development of commercial space alternative? We don't know 
that.
    So I think the gentlelady's amendment is a compromise, it 
is responsible, and people on both sides of this issue, whether 
it should just be a government run enterprise, or whether we 
should get the private sector involved, should be supporting 
this as a compromise position.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I would ask 
Mr. Olson or Ms. Giffords to correct me if I am wrong, but it 
is my understanding that you did have hearings, and there were 
witnesses from the commercial space industry, and that these 
things were discussed.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. On the loan guarantee issue, Mr. Chairman? 
Not----
    Chairman Gordon. Not on the loan guarantee itself, but 
rather on the----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. That is an integral part of what we are 
talking about here.
    Chairman Gordon. Well, let me say that I am philosophically 
attuned with Mr. Kosmas and Mr. Rohrabacher, but I am not 
fiscally attuned to that. I would like to see us have 
alternatives. I think that we have left the options within this 
bill in other areas for a commercial option, which I hope that 
can move forward, but this is--this comes with a $2.3 billion 
price tag, and it is going to slow down, as Mr. Hall pointed 
out, other programs. So, again, as I say, I am philosophically 
but not fiscally attuned to this, and for that reason I will 
have to oppose the amendment.
    Are there any other--anyone else would like to be heard? If 
not, if there is no further discussion, the vote occurs on the 
amendment. All in favor of the amendment say aye. Those opposed 
no. The no's have it, the amendment is not agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Sensenbrenner, are you 
ready to proceed with----
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 040, amendment to H.R. 5781, 
offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 
gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is kind of 
a truth in statistics and truth in data amendment. What it does 
is it refers to the overlap between the climate data at the 
University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom and the climate 
data that NASA has assembled. Climategate has been something 
that has been discussed extensively in the global warming 
climate change community since the November 19, 2009 release of 
more than 1,000 e-mails and 2,000 documents from climate 
scientists associated with the Climate Research Institute at 
the University of East Anglia. It revealed a pattern of 
suppression, manipulation and obstruction that pushed climate 
science toward pre-determined outcomes in order to promote 
hysteria, and, in my opinion, justify heavy-handed regulatory 
response. The scandal was not confined to one British 
university, as it is widely acknowledged that there is 
substantial overlap between the CRU's temperature records and 
the temperature records at NASA. Therefore, if the Climate 
Research Unit's records are suspect, NASA's might very well be 
too.
    This amendment isn't about whether climate change is real. 
It is about the integrity of the scientific process and the 
scientific records that we use to set life altering policies. 
This amendment would require NASA to investigate and report to 
Congress on the degree to which its temperature records overlap 
with the CRU's in the potential that those records may be 
flawed.
    As we continue with the debate on climate science, I think 
it is important that we clear the air on whether NASA's records 
ended up being polluted as a result of the scandal that arose 
in England. And all I am asking for is a report to Congress 
about whether the records were intermingled, and the potential 
that the records may be flawed. And that way, when we deal with 
this issue in the next Congress, I think we can have more 
confidence in the records that are set before us. So that way, 
I urge the adoption of this amendment. All it does is require a 
report to Congress, which is a report that I think is 
necessary, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
    ``Climategate'' refers to the November 19, 2009 release of more 
than 1,000 e-mails and 2,000 documents from climate scientists 
associated with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of 
East Anglia in the U.K. It revealed a pattern of suppression, 
manipulation and obstruction that pushed climate science towards 
predetermined outcomes in order to promote hysteria and justify a 
heavy-handed regulatory response.
    The scandal was not confined to the one British university, as it 
is widely-acknowledged that there is substantial overlap between the 
CRU's temperature records and the temperature records at NASA. 
Therefore, if CRU's records are suspect, NASA's might very well be too.
    This isn't about whether climate change is real. It's about the 
integrity of the scientific process and the scientific records that we 
use to set life-altering policies. This Amendment would require NASA to 
investigate and report to Congress on the degree to which its 
temperature records overlap with the CRU's, and the potential that 
those records may be flawed.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Would anyone 
like to--Dr. Baird is recognized.
    Mr. Baird. Thank the Chairman. As my colleagues know, I am 
often--consistently a strong advocate for openness in data, and 
I have read many of the reports on this over--since the issue 
first emerged. The--I have two concerns. First of all, I find 
that the scrutiny of data--if we are going to be open about 
analyzing data, we need to be--and critical of data sets, we 
need to be equally critical on both sides at the very least. I 
note that the--my colleagues in the majority have previously 
heard from a punitive scientist who claims to have been awarded 
a Nobel Prize, and he had no such thing, and there is very 
little scrutiny that comes from the other side on that.
    But on the matter at hand, the problem I have with the 
particular language, and I would ask the author of the 
amendment if he would willing--be willing to consider this, 
there is a somewhat conclusory statement that I am not 
comfortable putting into this legislation, and the conclusory 
statement begins on line three. ``The integrity of the CRU's 
data set was compromised by the Climategate e-mail scandal.'' 
That is not an open objective request for information, that is 
a conclusory statement about the integrity of a data set, and--
--
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Baird. I would be happy to.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman support this 
amendment if we strike the word ``the'' in lines three and all 
of lines four and five? That eliminates----
    Mr. Baird. I would be--I personally would be. I can't speak 
for my colleagues on that.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be thus modified.
    Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
willingness to do that, but I want to underscore this point. I 
think we need to look at this, but I would hope that we show 
equal scrutiny to the so-called skeptics of climate change 
research. We have got abundant data, I believe, on ocean 
acidification and global overheating that suggests that the 
bulk of the data is solid, the phenomenon is real, and we need 
to take action. But I think actually adding a level of analysis 
of the data may help put this issue to bed, and we can get back 
to the true overall findings. And with that I yield back. I 
thank the gentleman for removal of that passage of concern.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I support the 
gentleman's amendment, and I support all sound science on 
climate change. This amendment's in line with a resolution that 
I introduced and we passed sometime last year. We introduced 
and we debated, I am just told. It didn't pass. They didn't see 
the good judgment in it, I guess. Use of sound science in the 
climate debate, but that is what the gentleman is suggesting 
here, and I certainly support that amendment and any other 
amendment along that line. I yield back my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Ms. Woolsey is 
recognized.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Climate change 
clearly is one of the most serious threats that our nation and 
our planet is facing, and Mr. Sensenbrenner's amendment would 
instruct NASA to conduct a report that it has already written. 
I really worry that--and would speculate this amendment might 
be mischievous in its motives, hoping to create a paper trail 
among NASA scientists that outside critics could get through 
FOIA and use selectively, like the CRU e-mails, to further 
inflame passion on climate science.
    I fear this would only further the burden already harassing 
NASA climate scientists. I oppose this amendment. I see it as 
putting a burden on NASA that is already transparent on its 
data and its methods. So I just think we are going nowhere with 
this but backwards. We ought to be going forward. We can't 
continue to slow down what we need to be dealing with right 
now, and that is climate change and the effects of what it is 
having on our planet.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. Anyone else like 
to--I am sorry----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Argument----
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Rohrabacher----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Argument number three, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Without----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. That is all right. Mr. 
Chairman, let me just note that I remember the hearings that we 
had here in which investigated whether or not Mr. Hanson from 
NASA, who is the guru of global warming for NASA, had been 
censored, or in some way restricted in an objectionable way 
when the last administration required that he put at the bottom 
of his papers that had not been approved by other--by NASA as a 
whole that this was his opinion. And that was it, saying--just 
requiring a--that type of disclaimer, that the--all of NASA did 
not endorse his findings. We had a hearing to determine whether 
that was an act of censorship, or if that was an act that 
undermined the honesty of scientific research.
    And, you know, okay, we heard that. We heard the hearing 
and heard what the charges were. That charge was nothing as 
compared to what we have seen from--about this whole crisis on 
information from East Anglia and the American researches that 
have been tied in to global warming, and the indication that--
through these intercepted e-mails that there has been dramatic 
fraud that has taken place. There has been this suppression of 
information by these very same people, and we have not had one 
hearing on that that I remember. Has the Science Committee had 
a hearing on this? We didn't have a hearing on whether or not 
there should be a loan guarantee that we are now relying upon, 
and now we are not--we didn't have a hearing on this as well.
    Mr. Chairman, these are very significant issues, and to the 
degree that we paid any attention to Mr. Hanson's complaint 
that he was required to have a disclaimer at the bottom of his 
documents, as compared to the information that we have now 
about the wholesale doctoring of information by global warming 
researches, people who were operating with government funds, 
this is a disgrace. We are not doing our job here if we haven't 
had a hearing on this, and we haven't. And that is why I think 
Mr. Sensenbrenner needs to have this passed, in order to 
emphasize that this is a major issue that should not just be--
shrug our shoulders and say, well, we are going to move on now, 
even though there hasn't been any real investigation of the 
issue. So I would support this amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I will 
recognize myself. Mr. Hall has volunteered to give you a 
hearing next year, if that--all things work out. Let me--just 
for the record, let me say this. NASA already makes all of its 
data and modeling available to the public. Anyone can go look 
at it via the Internet. NASA scientists already have a 37 page 
article that goes into careful detail about how they model 
climate data and discusses differences with the CRU. That 
article is in a draft form, and out for peer review, but it is 
available to anyone to read on the NASA website.
    Now, with that said, was have over 30 amendments today that 
deal with the core of NASA. We could talk a great deal about 
climate change. I think this is important, but a little off 
message here. And I think that Mr.--Dr. Baird has made a 
worthwhile suggestion to Mr. Sensenbrenner, who, in his normal 
jovial way, accepted, and so I think that we should take this 
rare moment and celebrate it and support the modified 
Sensenbrenner amendment. Is there further discussion? Mr. 
Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I did recognize that you invited 
me not to speak. The Oversight Subcommittee would gladly have 
held a hearing had any of us been within the United States. 
This is in East Anglia, which is beyond the subpoena power of 
subcommittee. We cannot require documents to be produced from 
East Anglia. We cannot require witnesses to attend hearings and 
give testimony from East Anglia.
    But we have all seen in the last few days just what 
selective editing can do to the truth, how badly it could 
mangle it. If there had not been a complete videotape of 
Shirley Sherrod's complete speech to the National Association 
for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in Georgia, she 
would have been forever tarred, her character forever--her 
reputation forever ruined as a racist when, in fact, she was 
telling a story of racial reconciliation that I can tell you, 
as a Southerner, has happened on both sides, by whites and by 
African-Americans over the last generation or two.
    What happened with respect to the e-mails in East Anglia is 
that a group of e-mails that were intended to be private, that 
were unguarded, were stolen and selectively edited, and we have 
no idea what the total picture looked like, and it is beyond 
our subpoena power to find out, but there have been three 
inquiries in the United Kingdom, which is not exactly a 
developing--a Third World country. Our sister committee, the 
equivalent committee of this one, the Science and Technology 
Committee of the House of Commons, did a full investigation and 
concluded that all of the findings of the CRU are credible, 
that there was no subversion of the peer review process, and 
that there was no reason to doubt any of the findings of the 
CRU with respect to climate change. There was a second panel by 
the Royal Society, which is the equivalent of our National 
Academy of Sciences, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which reached the 
same conclusion, there was no evidence of any deliberate 
scientific malpractice or misrepresentation, that the findings 
of the CRU with respect to climate change were credible. And 
University of East Anglia itself conducted a review of all of 
the information, all of the e-mails, all of what was done by 
that unit, by that research unit, and concluded that the CRU 
had not, in fact, blocked access to any raw data or tampered 
with it in any way. They had not manipulated data to achieve a 
certain outcome. There was no reason to think that the work of 
the CRU could not be relied upon, was unreliable, that it was--
that it couldn't be trusted, and that any uncertainties with 
respect to the CRU's work were probably applicable to any 
scientist doing any kind of research anywhere.
    So it does help this amendment substantially that it takes 
out a finding that--for which there is no evidence, no credible 
evidence. I still think that--I understand that the Committee 
will support this amendment, but it is redundant. It is better 
that it is just redundant rather than factually incorrect and 
redundant, but it is still redundant because NASA is already 
doing this, and doing it in a very public way, and NASA's--and 
believe me, I am very critical of NASA. I am completely willing 
to be critical of NASA, as everyone on this committee knows. 
But with respect to their climate data, it has been open, it 
has been transparent. It is on the Internet. You can see it. 
You can subject it--it is subject to peer review. I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for that 
clarification.
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Gordon. If there is no further discussion----
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman----
    Ms. Woolsey. Oh, Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Gordon. We go to--Dr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. I would just like to note that Mr. Miller may 
indeed be right, but still there is a--there are a very large 
number of people out there who have some concerns about the 
credibility of these data. This amendment certainly does no 
harm. All we are doing is asking NASA to make sure of the 
validity of this data. I can't see any downside to voting 
this--approving this amendment. I see a large upside in that it 
will confirm to those who believe that the data is not 
adulterated that it, in fact, is not adulterated. How can there 
be a downside to this? I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. If there are no further questions, or----
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Gordon. Let us see, I believe Mrs. Woolsey----
    Ms. Woolsey. --yield to me.
    Chairman Gordon. --had spoken earlier, but I think probably 
Ms. Johnson would like to yield to you.
    Ms. Johnson. Yes, I will yield.
    Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Thank you. I would just--thank you very 
much. Some of us would like to consider a vote on this, so 
could we have a vote? Could--roll the vote?
    Chairman Gordon. You want a roll call vote?
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    Chairman Gordon. Could we have a show of hands vote, since 
there is a lot of folks that would have to come in for that?
    Ms. Woolsey. Oh, we are not going to have any roll call 
votes on anything?
    Chairman Gordon. We may. I mean, if----
    Ms. Woolsey. Later. I mean----
    Chairman Gordon. We will have a roll call vote----
    Ms. Woolsey. --and----
    Chairman Gordon. --anytime anybody wants to----
    Ms. Woolsey. Oh, I am not calling for it now. I am calling 
for it when you--I am suggesting we are rolling the votes. I--
--
    Chairman Gordon. No, we are going to take the amendments as 
we----
    Ms. Woolsey. Oh, then I will--no, thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. We could have a--we----
    Ms. Woolsey. I will lose on that one, so no. I--no use 
throwing myself on the--my sword on that one. Thank you. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. If there is no further discussion on the 
amendment, then the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor 
say aye. No's no. And no's noted, but the ayes have it, and the 
amendment is not agreed to--agreed to, excuse me. Agreed to. 
All right. The third of 30 something amendments is--on the 
roster is offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Rohrabacher. Are you ready to proceed?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Considering that I--considering the vote 
that--prior to this vote, I will withdraw my amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. The next 
amendment on the roster is also an amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher 
from California. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. This is a bit different because it--I 
have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 046, amendment to H.R. 5781, 
offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 
gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and there is a 
difference between what NASA proposed and what the bill before 
us proposes, in terms of spending for the development of 
commercial cargo. And, again, I know that this may 
scientifically prove that there are snowballs in Hell, but I am 
supporting the administration's request, and a champion of 
President Obama's policy on development of commercial cargo 
alternatives. And I think that what we--again, what we have 
done in our efforts is an alternative to what NASA is 
officially requesting, and if we have, you know, if we are 
going to this loan guarantee program, which is--might be 
something I might support in--after we know more about it, I 
think that we should not go in that direction until at least we 
have had hearings on that and determined the efficacy of that 
approach.
    So what I am suggesting, then, is that we go with what 
the--what NASA and the President has recommended, which will 
ensure that, at least in the commercial cargo part of our space 
program, if we are not going to have a robust human space 
transportation system--using the system for the private sector, 
at least we could have the private sector system that is robust 
in terms of providing cargo transportation.
    Let me note that this proposal is not really something that 
we are destroying. The--we are just moving around some money 
here. The effort for Constellation and what your budget has--
what we are voting on today will not give us full funding 
anyway for what we need in--to accomplish the goal that has 
been stated here of having a government run system. Well, at 
least if we do this we--this will provide the funds that are 
necessary to have a private sector alternative to that. And we 
have seen investment, and a great deal of success, in Falcon 9, 
and we also have the Delta system and the Atlas system 
available to us, and with some modifications, which this would 
help out, they could actually do more than cargo. They could 
actually start heading even in the direction of human 
transportation.
    But this amendment is focused on the commercial end. We 
should have--if we can't have a robust human space flight 
endeavor for the private sector, and let the private sector do 
that, at least we could make sure the private sector could take 
care of some of the commercial cargo needs for our space 
program, and that is what my amendment would do. Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Comrade Rohrabacher, and I have 
been informed that President Obama thanks you. Ms. Edwards is 
recognized.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I plan to oppose the 
gentleman's amendment. Under the Commercial Orbital 
Transportation Services Demonstration project, NASA is helping 
industry develop and demonstrate cargo space transportation 
capabilities. $500 million was allocated to the multi-year COTS 
Demonstration program, and of that amount $14 million was to be 
provided in fiscal year 2011. However, the fiscal year 2011 
budget request instead includes $312 million for commercial 
cargo development efforts. That amount represents an increase 
in the COTS program of over 62 percent relative to the original 
COTS funding commitment, which is extraordinary in this time.
    During the Committee's review of NASA's budget request, 
Committee staff asked the reason for the $312 million increase. 
Here is what NASA said. $288 million would be an augmentation 
to the current COTS agreements for additional milestones that 
NASA would like to add to the program to provide additional 
capabilities or tests. $14 million would be for currently 
negotiated milestones expected to be completed in fiscal year 
2011, part of the original 500 million COTS funding commitment. 
$10 million would be for program operations for the commercial 
crew and cargo office at Johnson Space Center in fiscal year 
2011. NASA also confirmed that neither Space-X nor Orbital, the 
two COTS program participants, requested the additional funding 
of $288 million, and both they and NASA say that the increased 
funding is not required to meet planned demonstration flight 
milestones.
    The $14 million for currently negotiated milestones is 
expected to be completed in fiscal year 2011 and authorized in 
this bill for fiscal year 2011. We include funding for the 
commercial office as JSC as part of the $50 million for the 
commercial activities in the bill. With this environment of 
tight budgets, where we have to make tough choices, the bill 
chooses not to add significant additional funding to a program 
that has been progressing satisfactorily since 2006, and 
doesn't need it to meet its milestones.
    As I know, and Mr. Rohrabacher understands, we can't do it 
all, and when budgets are tight, some of the nice-to-haves 
and--need to be deferred in order to use scarce resources for 
other programs in greater need of resources. I urge colleagues 
to oppose the amendment, and I would say to Mr. Rohrabacher, 
you know, if I had had my way, we would have probably had zero 
in this program, and so--and the administration came out in one 
direction. We have struck what I think is an appropriate 
balance in----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentlelady----
    Ms. Edwards. And with that, I yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. --question? Would the gentlelady yield for 
a question?
    Ms. Edwards. Yes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The money that we are talking about, this 
$312 million, if it is not spent for the development of 
commercial--on a commercial alternative and providing that 
incentive, where do you think the money will be spent? And if 
the money is spent where it will go, will that provide us 
anything that will work? I am suggesting that the money being 
spent here will end up providing us with a commercial 
capability, but the money--if the $312 million isn't spent 
here, will it not just go into a program that, even by the 
current plan, will not come to fruition and not provide us any 
added capability?
    Ms. Edwards. Well, if I could reclaim my time, we have a 
really balanced program and a balanced budget. I mean, the fact 
is that even the commercial enterprises that are identified 
here didn't ask for the money. And so it seems to me, as we are 
trying to figure out ways in which we can create balance 
throughout the agency and the authorization and, you know, 
support this sort of emerging development of a commercial space 
flight cargo capacity, that this budget and the authorization 
herein I think really reflects that, and at the same time 
enables NASA to move forward in a way that is responsible. So 
with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I think you made a 
good point, that if we took a vote with all or none, we would 
have a very--there are strong feelings both ways, and this was 
an attempt to try to make that balance. If there is no further 
discussion, then the vote occurs on the amendment. All in 
favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The no's have it. The 
amendment is not agreed to. The next amendment on the roster is 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida. Mr. 
Grayson, are you ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Grayson. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 081, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Grayson of Florida.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 
gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides for $500 
million in government support to companies with no revenue, no 
profit, virtually no capital, no customers and no product. This 
is the epitome of socialism and corporate welfare. I--this 
amendment has one purpose and one purpose only, to strike the 
$500 million that we are seeking to give to people who haven't 
even asked for it so that they can supposedly develop a 
capability that the government already has. Specifically, this 
is an amendment that eliminates the subsidy in this bill that 
provides for these commercial entities to get $500 million.
    It raises the question of why we are trying in the first 
place to turn over an existing functioning--well functioning 
program that uses government entities and government resources 
to put men in space, and we are trying to turn that over to 
commercial entities for what? So that we can hand them $500 
million? Almost every large NASA contract is a cost 
reimbursement contract. Presumably, if one of these entities 
ever does develop the ability to put men in space, NASA will 
give them a cost reimbursement contract. A cost reimbursement 
contract pays the contractor a fee, and then invites the 
contractor to submit invoices for its expenses. It is basically 
a huge expense account.
    So any one of these companies that actually does get to the 
point where they can put men in space will, in all likelihood, 
get a cost reimbursement contract from NASA. And then on top of 
that we are supposed to be giving them under this bill $500 
million in loans. For what? Why are we doing this? I think that 
this is a terrible waste. I think that it--if anybody here is 
serious at all about the idea that we should be cutting the 
deficit, this is a good place to start. Why hand $500 million 
of Federal resources to companies that don't need it, haven't 
asked for it, don't want it, and will provide, in all 
likelihood, nothing for it. That is why I propose this 
amendment. I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Would anyone else like to be heard on the 
amendment? Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, again, we are at a real crossroads 
here, and let me just note I think America is a better country 
because we have United Airlines and American Airlines and 
private companies that actually provide transportation through 
the air, although 100 years ago it seemed like that would be a 
totally impossible dream. We are on the, you know, we are 
basically--we reached a threshold now technologically where we 
can have commercial space endeavors. But all along, as we know, 
in the development of private industries and taking 
technologies and taking it in the private sector, and--there 
has never been a--you might say a pristine free enterprise 
approach, and there has been some government involvement, and 
the degree is whether or not some of us believe in some 
government involvement versus some people don't believe there 
should be any private sector involvement at all.
    And I respect the notion that the government should run 
everything. I respect the notion that the businesses that are 
now run in the private sector that people should be out there--
should be government employees. If people actually believe that 
that is the best approach to running enterprises, and they 
are--that is great. I don't agree with that. I don't think the 
American people agree with that as well. I think the American 
people are very supportive of efforts to try to get private 
individuals and entrepreneurs and commercial enterprise 
involved in what has basically been a government run operation, 
in terms of space transportation. And this--what this bill does 
is--and, again, I would agree with the gentleman on one thing. 
We haven't had the hearings necessary to talk about the 
efficacy of the loan program.
    But that doesn't mean that we are just basically now going 
to take the steps of--that would just totally undermine all of 
the different approaches to commercial space, because that is 
what we are hearing today. We are hearing today that it is not 
good just to have the grant--a grant program. It is not good to 
have--and so--and now it is not good to have a loan guarantee 
program. And what we are really saying here is--what we are 
really hearing here is that there--government should run all of 
the space business in the future. That we are--that is what, 
you know, we are making that determination. I would suggest 
that, by taking this money and providing it at least for loan 
guarantees, I would have had it even more direct than that, 
that it is a wise use of our money, and apparently NASA and the 
administration agreed with that, as compared by putting the 
same amount of money, this $312 million, into the exploration 
program, that we are going to be building a government system 
that the money that is being provided won't even guarantee that 
we have that system, because--so we are taking it from a loan 
guarantee program for commercial enterprise and giving it to 
part of our budget that will produce probably nothing, no 
capabilities, because we are--it is underfunded to the point 
that we know we are not going to be able to accomplish our 
mission with it.
    So I would suggest that the gentleman's amendment--I 
certainly appreciate people with different philosophical 
approaches to what government should do and what it shouldn't 
do, but this will be the coffin--the nail in the coffin for 
commercial space if we continue down the path that we seem to 
be going today. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Ms. Giffords is recognized.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also 
respectively--respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. 
And again, you know, we have been talking a lot about the 
balance in this bill, and really trying to ensure that we have 
a national human space flight program that is NASA led, and 
that we are also trying to augment and promote the future of 
commercial space. And the way that this provision is written, 
the administrator is not going to provide loans or any loan 
guarantees to any companies unless a whole series of conditions 
are met. And they include the administrator determining that 
there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the principle 
and interest by the borrower, and also that the amount of the 
obligation, when combined with the amount available to the 
borrower from other sources is actually sufficient to carry out 
the total development cost, and finally that the administrator 
shall charge fees sufficient to cover the cost--administrating 
the program.
    In contrast to the direct funding that the administration 
takes in their tack, this bill exposes the taxpayer, I believe, 
to minimum cost and minimum risk, but allows the amount of 
Federal funding allocated for the loan guarantees--potentially 
leverage a significantly greater amount of money. How much more 
will be set by OMB, who will have the chance to assess the risk 
involved with the loan guarantee programs. And since OMB is 
providing such large amounts to commercial providers in the 
President's request, I have to assume that they consider the 
risk to be low, so they should be willing to provide a rate 
that allows a large amount of leverage from the available 
funding. But, of course, that is for OMB to determine, not for 
us.
    I also would just like to note that the gentleman's 
amendment actually cuts into NASA's budget, and I don't think 
that is the intent of the Committee. In fact, you know, if I 
had been the President, I would have doubled NASA's budget, 
frankly. I mean, we don't have that many resources. I want to 
make sure that we keep all the dollars on the table that we 
do--that we have. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment? Not to my right. To my left, Mr. Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very 
brief with this. I support the amendment as proposed. I also 
note that the guarantee as written here would require that the 
private entrepreneur come up with 25 percent of the money, and 
75 percent would be the Federal loan guarantee. I just think 
that we do have a program. I agree with all that Mr. Grayson 
said about duplication. We are talking about companies that 
have really no track record at all receiving up to half a 
billion dollars of Federal loan guarantee. Perhaps they can pay 
it back, but we are looking at 75 percent of the money being 
the government's share here, and I think we would just be 
better off saying no and moving on.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on this issue? 
I am sure there will be further discussion as we go through--
down the--amendments, but in terms of this amendment? If no, 
then a vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. 
Those opposed say no. The no's have it.
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Gordon. A recorded vote has been asked. The clerk 
will record the vote--poll the vote.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon?
    Chairman Gordon. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon votes no.
    Mr. Costello?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes no.
    Mr. Wu?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird?
    Mr. Baird. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird votes no.
    Mr. Miller?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords?
    Ms. Giffords. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords votes no.
    Ms. Edwards?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes no.
    Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes no.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
    Mr. Rothman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson?
    Mr. Matheson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chandler?
    Mr. Chandler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chandler votes no.
    Mr. Carnahan?
    Mr. Carnahan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
    Mr. Hill?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Mitchell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wilson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Dahlkemper?
    Ms. Dahlkemper. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Dahlkemper votes aye.
    Mr. Grayson?
    Mr. Grayson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes aye.
    Ms. Kosmas?
    Ms. Kosmas. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Kosmas votes no.
    Mr. Peters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Garamendi?
    Mr. Garamendi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garamendi votes aye.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Lamar Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bilbray?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Adrian Smith?
    Mr. Smith of Nebraska. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Adrian Smith votes no.
    Mr. Broun?
    Dr. Broun. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
    Mr. Olson?
    Mr. Olson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Olson votes no.
    Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Rothman.
    Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as a 
no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes no.
    Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes no.
    Chairman Gordon. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes no.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there anyone else that has not voted? 
Is there anyone who would like to change their vote? Ms. 
Woolsey is recognized.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move from a no 
to a yes.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there anyone else who has not--already 
voted aye--the clerk will--the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 6 members vote aye and 23 members 
vote no.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


    Chairman Gordon. The ayes have it. The amendment is not--I 
mean the no's have it, the amendment is not agreed to. And the 
next amendment on the roster is the amendment offered by the 
gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. Are you ready to proceed 
with your amendment?
    Ms. Kosmas. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 040, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 
gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment.
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is fair to 
say that all the discussion around amendments for today's bill 
focus on our attempts to find a balance in what we are 
proposing to do. That is to say we want to ensure that we 
maintain America's leadership with a NASA led vehicle, but we 
are looking for opportunities to increase the use of innovation 
and entrepreneurship. And this amendment proposes to do just 
that by suggesting we authorize and fund from within the 
exploration budget a flagship technology demonstration program. 
This would be based at the Johnson Space Center and at the 
Kennedy Space Center. Demonstration missions would be launched 
from Kennedy Space Center and utilize the expertise and the 
work force there, which has been my number one priority in the 
19 months that I have been serving here.
    The Augustine Commission, as well as many previous 
commissions and studies, have identified the need to develop 
these technologies, such as an on orbit refueling, in site 
resource utilization, life support systems, and new propulsion 
methods in order to enable human space flight below low Earth 
orbit--beyond low Earth orbit, excuse me, beyond low-Earth 
orbit. Technologies such as on orbit fueling has the potential 
to significantly improve the performance of heavy lift vehicles 
while achieving appreciably lower total life cycle costs. The 
ability to utilize the resources at the destinations we intend 
to visit is also essential to conducting successful long 
duration exploration missions.
    The need to develop and prove these types of technologies 
is fundamental to the successful execution of an exploration 
program. My amendment proposes to fund this program at the same 
levels already approved by the Senate authorizers and 
appropriators in order to spur the development of these 
critical technologies. I urge you to support my amendment, and 
I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Kosmas, and Mr. Hall is 
recognized.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. We have 
worked very hard to ensure that there is a follow-up program to 
the space shuttle that would assure the U.S. has a vibrant 
space exploration program. Gentlelady's amendment will likely 
take money away from the task of developing the next generation 
of launch vehicles so we can reduce the gap as soon as 
possible. I think some of her proposed technology 
demonstrations would be useful, but I don't believe most of us 
are willing to take money from the development of exploration 
vehicles to do that at this time. We do oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. While I am glad to see that there are some 
people here who are looking to build the future, rather than 
trying to just get by with today's capabilities, and what the 
lady from Florida is suggesting as a priority for this budget 
is, again, very future oriented, and--as compared to simply 
spending money on a system that will not--well, let us put it 
this way, it is based on old concepts. She is taking money from 
part of the budget based on old concepts and taking--and trying 
to put the--put that money into developing new technologies in 
new ways to approach space exploration and space 
transportation. And it is--I happen to believe--anyway, we have 
had to talk about commercial. Now I happen to believe 
commercial is the way to go, but certainly we should be talking 
about new technologies is the way to go.
    And one of the big problems with the Constellation program 
and the Aries system, and spending money simply in that 
program, was that it was not developing new technology. And the 
lady is--and the money that is being funded in this bill will 
not even lead to the completion of that program. So at least 
what the lady is proposing is that we take money that is being 
spent in a way that will not lead to the completion of any 
project, and at least let us start developing these new 
technologies that will give us new capabilities for better 
approaches to space transportation.
    And I would not be supporting it if it just added more 
money, but I believe this is--now we are actually shifting 
money away from something that is less creative and will give 
less benefit in the end to America than developing these new 
concepts of space transportation, like refueling, which I 
believe, and I agree with the lady, would--will open up a whole 
new world, or a whole new universe, of exploration for 
humankind, if we perfect that approach, rather than just 
relying on the old approach, which is just building bigger 
rockets, bigger behemoths to launch into the air. Well, this 
will give us perhaps the same capability as building some big 
Constellation rocket by putting money into developing a system 
of refueling and other type of technologies that will expand 
our capabilities in a new way, rather than relying on the old 
ways of approaching space transportation. So I would ask my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me point 
out that this bill does provide $5 billion over the next five 
years for new technologies, because we, you know, and I 
certainly agree with you that we want to look at--for those new 
technologies. But I can't agree that this does not add 
additional expense. It actually adds $2 billion to the program, 
or it will pretty much gut much of the exploration program, as 
Mr. Hall has pointed out. And so for that, even though I am 
sympathetic to it in, you know, in a world with additional 
resources, I am afraid that we can't afford it now. Is there 
further discussion? If no further discussion, then the vote 
occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The 
no's have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 065, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Lujan of New Mexico.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 
gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Lujan. Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The 
Commercial Reusable Sub-Orbital Research program at NASA, known 
as CRuSR, is designed to allow students, businesses and 
researchers to fly experiments on board commercial sub-orbital 
space vehicles. The goal of the program is to facilitate access 
to near space by NASA sponsored researchers, engineers, 
technologists and educators. These flights provide researchers 
access to microgravity environments, which is far less costly 
than sending experiments into the International Space Station. 
The President's budget request for NASA includes $15 million a 
year for the CRuSR program for 2011 through 2015, however, the 
original text of this of this bill only authorizes $1 million a 
year for CRuSR from the space technology authorization for 2011 
and 2012. My amendment would strike the $1 million annual 
authorization for the CRuSR program from 2011 to 2012, removing 
the one million limit and leaving allocation of funding for 
CRuSR to the direction of the NASA administrator. This is not a 
new authorization, nor does it take away funding from any other 
authorizations in the bill. My amendment also clarifies 
management and other requirements of the program which are 
consistent with critical sub-orbital science missions.
    My home state of New Mexico is currently reaping the 
economic benefits of commercial sub-orbital space flight 
through our Spaceport America facility near Las Cruces. About 
500 New Mexicans are now on the job, creating the first 
commercial spaceport in the world. Another 300 new jobs are 
expected this year. New Mexico's spaceport is inspiring 
students to study math and science and pursue careers in STEM 
fields which will develop our future economy. Investments in 
programs like CRuSR and in public/private partnerships within 
NASA to support and develop a sub-orbital space flight will 
ensure that America continues to be a global leader in the 
space technology for the 21st century.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment. Thank you for your consideration. I yield back 
my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Lujan, for another good 
amendment. Does Mr. Hall wish to be recognized?
    Mr. Hall. I do. I would like to be.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall----
    Mr. Hall. I don't have to be.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. I was going to whisper to you that I support his 
amendment. I do plan to support the gentleman's amendment. I 
have some talented young guys in my hometown of Rockwall, 
Texas. It is the smallest county in Texas out of 254 counties. 
I hate to admit that anything is small, but right there in that 
small county, operate out of a little place called Caddo Mills 
Airport [ph], they have a company called Armadillo Aerospace, 
and I attended a celebration for them and recognition for them 
here. Didn't know where I was going, didn't know what I was 
going to say when I got there, but NASA had a prize program, 
and they had won a part of the prize program, and received a 
half a million dollars. And I have seen a video of some of 
their work. I hope to get out there and see them in person one 
of these days. They are going some very interesting things, and 
have some good ideas for commercial and reusable sub-orbital 
flight vehicles.
    I have had some concerns with aspects of the program, but I 
think Mr. Lujan's amendment has improved the program, and it is 
likely to get help--likely to help some of these bright young 
people make good contributions to scientific research. I make 
no recommendations for my colleagues. They can vote the way 
they see fit, they are going to anyway, but for me, I am going 
to support Mr. Lujan's amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
    I plan to support the gentleman's amendment.
    I have some talented young guys in my hometown of Rockwall that 
operate out of the Caddo Mills Airport. They have a company called 
Armadillo Aerospace, and I have seen video of some of their work. I 
hope to get out there and see them in person one of these days. But 
they are doing some very interesting things and have some good ideas 
for commercial reusable sub-orbital flight vehicles. I have had some 
concerns with aspects of this program, but I think Mr. Lujan's 
amendment has improved the program, and it is likely to help some of 
these bright young guys make good contributions to scientific research. 
I make no recommendation for my colleagues, they can vote the way they 
see fit, but as for me I will support Mr. Lujan's amendment.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and I think Mr. Lujan 
probably thanks you. If there is no further discussion on the 
amendment--oh, Ms. Kosmas is recognized.
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very quickly, I 
want to speak in support of this amendment. The suborbital 
CRuSR program obviously provides many opportunities for NASA, 
university or private researchers, tourists and other Federal 
agencies. The thing that I have identified as my number one 
priority almost might be affected here, as these opportunities 
can use the shuttle landing strip and other facilities at 
Kennedy Space Center, and therefore my work force and the 
expertise that they have may be put to good use through the 
support of this program. Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Kosmas. Does anyone else 
wish to be heard? If not, then the vote occurs on the 
amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have 
it. The amendment is agreed to. The next amendment on the 
roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia, 
Dr. Broun. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Dr. Broun. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 001, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 
gentleman for five minutes to explain the amendment.
    Dr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was excited to hear 
you, as you made your opening remarks, about being fiscally 
responsible. And I want to thank you, Ranking Member Hall, 
Chairman--Chairwoman Giffords, and Congressman Olson, along 
with the staff for all of you all's hard work in producing this 
bipartisan bill that will allow NASA to refocus its core 
mission in a fiscally responsible way.
    I know this has not been an easy task, and many difficult 
decisions had to be made. While I believe this bill is a good 
faith effort towards a balanced approach and addresses the 
right priorities, I am still concerned with the heavy burden of 
debt and the huge deficits looming before us. Therefore, I 
offer my amendment today that would authorize these programs 
for three years instead of five years, as the current language 
does.
    Again, I appreciate the strong bipartisan effort in 
developing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Paul C. Broun
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you, Ranking Member Hall, 
Chairwoman Gifford and Congressman Olson, along with staff, for all of 
your hard work in producing a bipartisan bill that will allow NASA to 
refocus on its core mission in a fiscally responsible manner. I know 
this has not been an easy task and many difficult decisions had to be 
made.
    While I believe this bill is a good faith effort towards a balanced 
approach and addresses the right priorities, I am still concerned with 
the heavy burden of debt and huge deficits looming before us. 
Therefore, I offer my amendment today, which would authorize these 
programs for three years, instead five years, as the current language 
does.
    Again, I appreciate strong bipartisan effort in developing this 
bill and urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Broun. I want to excite you 
some more in that I support your amendment. But I also hope--
and part of that is because I hope in three years that there 
will be more money available, that we will have a better 
economy, and that we will be able to carry out things that Ms. 
Kosmas, Mr. Rohrabacher, and other good amendments that have 
been before us.
    Dr. Broun. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?
    Chairman Gordon. Certainly, Dr. Broun.
    Dr. Broun. I am excited that you accept my amendment. I 
have been trying to be very quiet over here, let Mr. 
Rohrabacher do--talk, but thank you, and I agree with you, and 
I associate myself with your last remarks about----
    Chairman Gordon. You are always----
    Dr. Broun. --thank you so much, sir.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment? If--the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor 
say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed 
to. The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Are you ready 
to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I am. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 003, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the 
gentleman for five minute to explain his amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, conspicuously absent from 
this legislation is any mention of the Constellation program. 
While that might suit the prerogative of the administration, it 
is not consistent with the intent of this Congress or this 
Committee. Congress has repeatedly affirmed its support for the 
Constellation program through the previous authorization bills 
and by the sentiments expressed by members on both sides of the 
aisle.
    I am not here to defend NASA's mismanagement of its 
resources. Without question, budgetary constraints force us to 
re-evaluate how each program has been managed, but the 
wholesale elimination of Constellation will have detrimental 
effects on our struggling economy, set back our space program 
several years, and result in significant termination costs, 
while surrendering the progress that has been made in recent 
years. This amendment makes it clear that this Committee and 
this Congress continue to support the Constellation program.
    Now, what I am here to say is that I am afraid that the 
omission of the word Constellation in the text of this bill 
will be interpreted by the administration as saying that we are 
going back on what we have previously stated in statements and 
in authorization legislation that has been previously passed. 
And all this amendment does is to insert the words 
``Constellation program'' and ``after support for''. So this 
makes it clear that this is not a 180 by the Committee, it is 
not a 180 by the Congress, and what we should be doing here, if 
we need to redirect and reprogram money, is to do it in the 
context of legislation that has been around for more than 20--
or 48 hours and open for amendment for only 24 hours.
    This is a big program. We spent $10 billion on it, and we 
do need to spend a little bit more time before either 
withdrawing support for Constellation or allowing the 
administration to say, well, since Congress didn't mention 
Constellation, as they have in the past, I guess they have 
drawn back on it. There is no fiscal effect on this. This 
basically transfers the burden to NASA to come up here and to 
be a little bit more detailed on why they are doing this. Given 
the previous support and previous comments by members of this 
Committee, I would strongly urge members to adopt this 
amendment, yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
    Conspicuously absent from this legislation is any mention of the 
Constellation Program. While that may suit the prerogative of the Obama 
Administration, it is not consistent with the intent of this Congress 
or this committee.
    Congress has repeatedly affirmed its support for the Constellation 
program through the previous authorization bill and by the sentiments 
expressed by Members on both sides of the aisle.
    I am not here to defend NASA's mismanagement of its resources. 
Without question, budgetary constraints force us to reevaluate how each 
program has been managed, but wholesale elimination of Constellation 
will have detrimental effects on our struggling economy, set back our 
space program several years, and result in significant termination 
costs while surrendering the progress that has been made in recent 
years.
    My amendment makes clear that this committee and this Congress 
continue to support the Constellation program.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Let me point 
out that there have been numerous hearings, I think 19 
hearings, on this program. This is not the Constellation 
program that was envisioned some time back. Simply because we 
simply do not have the money, and as Dr. Broun has pointed out, 
we are trying to live within our budget, this is a new program. 
And let me also point out, to the best of my knowledge, this 
Committee has never named a program. That is up to NASA. And so 
I would say that we should continue with that, and it is up to 
NASA to name--I am more interested in the content. This is a 
content that has provided good--a good balance, and I would 
suggest that we continue and reject the gentleman's amendment. 
Is there further discussion? If not----
    Mr. Hall. Yes, I----
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. I would like to yield to Mr. Sensenbrenner, if he 
wants to say a word.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We 
are not naming this program. We are using the program that NASA 
named. I fully agree that NASA has the prerogative to name 
programs. You know, we shouldn't be saying that this is the Jim 
Sensenbrenner program or the Bart Gordon program and making 
monuments to ourselves. I am just referring to NASA's own 
terminology in this amendment. This is very clear. You know, 
are we going to go back on the support for this program, or are 
we not? And all this does is insert NASA's name in the list of 
things that we support. I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
yield back.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, let me take up my time, if I might? 
We do name things after people and after programs. There is a 
certain Chairman of Science Committee that--I am going to name 
the Bart Gordon ARPA-E Foundation, if I live, and if I am here 
next year. And I don't think it hurts to address or tip our hat 
to the word Constellation because that has been the battle cry 
of all us, that--keep Constellation and build on it, change 
whatever changes we had to make on it, but make it a NASA 
program, rather than loaning some bunch of people some money, 
not knowing if they are going to pay it back, and then they are 
going to charge the heck out of us for flying in one of the 
seats, not ever knowing that we will ever get our money back. 
We could call it Constellation Light or anything else, but I 
support the gentleman's amendment. It is a simple amendment 
that reaffirms Congress's support for the Constellation 
program.
    Constellation program has been a rallying cry for thousands 
of aerospace workers and former astronauts. Former astronauts 
came here, used the word Constellation time and again, and--
Cernan and Armstrong, Stafford. And it means a lot to those old 
heroes of the past who came here before this Committee to take 
on the striking of a line through the word Constellation, that 
brought us here, that spawned this hearing. While this bill 
makes some important updates to the original Constellation 
program, it retains the key elements and focus of that vision. 
And that is what it is, it is a vision. I think it is important 
that we recognize, as a Congress, the legacy of this program. I 
think that the gentleman's amendment does precisely that. I 
urge the passage of it, and I think you are going to hear from 
a lot of the old astronauts if we don't put Constellation back, 
at least, into this program somewhere. Yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
    I support the gentleman's amendment. It is a simple amendment that 
reaffirms Congress' support for the Constellation program. The 
Constellation program has been a rallying cry for thousands of 
aerospace workers and former astronauts.
    While this bill makes some important updates to the original 
Constellation program, it retains the key elements and focus of that 
vision. I think that it is important that we recognize as a Congress 
the legacy of this program. I think that the gentleman's amendment does 
precisely that, and I urge its passage.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Let me just sort of 
conclude. We have got votes going on. I would support 
Constellation, but if we are going to call it Constellation, we 
need to fund it like Constellation. This program is not being 
funded like Constellation. This is--when you read the bill, 
this clearly is a hybrid with a lot of the Constellation 
investments that have been made, but it is something different. 
Once again, I think this Committee has never named a program. 
It is up to NASA. I think that Mr. Hall has a good idea of 
changing that precedent next year, and I would welcome him to 
do that in the context of what he was talking about.
    But we are here today, and so if there is no further 
discussion, then those in favor of the motion, say aye. 
Opposed, no. I think the--well, we are--I want to do the right 
thing here. Let us see. Let us have a show of hands. Let us 
just . . .
    Mr. Hall. Sounded like the ayes had it.
    Chairman Gordon. Well, that is what--let us have a show of 
hands. If--those that are in favor, say aye. Opposed, raise 
your hand. The no's have it.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
    Chairman Gordon. You can get it. You are bringing them 
back. The clerk will record the vote.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon?
    Chairman Gordon. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon votes no.
    Mr. Costello?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes no.
    Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes no.
    Mr. Baird?
    Mr. Baird. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird votes no.
    Mr. Miller?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords?
    Ms. Giffords. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords votes no.
    Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes no.
    Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes no.
    Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes no.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
    Mr. Rothman?
    Mr. Rothman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes no.
    Mr. Matheson?
    Mr. Matheson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chandler?
    Mr. Chandler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chandler votes no.
    Mr. Carnahan?
    Mr. Carnahan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carnahan votes no.
    Mr. Hill?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Mitchell?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wilson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Dahlkemper?
    Ms. Dahlkemper. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no.
    Mr. Grayson?
    Mr. Grayson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes no.
    Mrs. Kosmas?
    Ms. Kosmas. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Kosmas votes no.
    Mr. Peters?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Garamendi?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.
    Mr. Lamar Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes aye.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes aye.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes aye.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes aye.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bilbray?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Adrian Smith?
    Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Broun?
    Dr. Broun. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
    Mr. Olson?
    Mr. Olson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Olson votes aye.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there anyone who has not been recorded? 
Mr. Miller? Votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Lipinski?
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there anyone else--clerk--record the 
vote. As she is adding it up----
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 10 members vote aye and 19 members 
vote no.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


    Chairman Gordon. No's have it, the amendment is not agreed 
to, and when we come back we will proceed to--as--when we come 
back we will proceed with Mr. Olson's amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Gordon. Yes, Mr.----
    Ms. Edwards. Do you have a----
    Chairman Gordon. --Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Do you have a time that we are--we will come 
back? Do you have a specific time?
    Chairman Gordon. We--okay. Let us do--no. I mean, I am sure 
people would like to go to their offices, but I would like to 
get started 10 minutes after the last vote.
    Ms. Edwards. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Gordon. The Committee will come back to order. The 
next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas, Pete Olson.
    Mr. Olson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 034, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Olson of Texas.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Olson. Mr. Chairman, one of the strengths of our bill 
is that it seeks to maximize development of current investments 
and technology, including the Orion crew capsule and the Ares I 
launch vehicle. Unrecognized in our bill is the great progress 
being made in the spacesuit technology as well. The process of 
producing a new spacesuit in accordance with strict NASA 
oversight for safety and compatibility is well under way.
    My amendment would recognize those efforts in spacesuit 
development and life support technology by including them in 
the restructured exploration program. I ask my colleagues to 
support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Pete Olson
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration. This bill seeks to maximize development of 
current investments and technology, including the Orion crew capsule 
and Ares 1 crew launch vehicle, among other things, but great progress 
is being made in spacesuit technology as well.
    The process of producing a spacesuit in accordance with strict NASA 
oversight for safety and compatibility is well underway. This amendment 
would recognize those efforts in spacesuit development and life support 
technology.
    Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Olson, for a good 
amendment. Is there any further discussion?
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Gordon. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Hall. I support his amendment with some minor 
clarification to Section 202, the restructured exploration 
program, and simply directs NASA to include spacesuit 
development and related life support technology among the 
systems that should attempt to bring forward to the new 
restructured exploration program. Section 202 calls out Ares I 
and the Orion crew vehicle. This amendment simply adds another 
of the Constellation-related technologies to be applied to the 
new crew transportation system at no additional cost. There is 
no cost associated with this amendment. It is a good provision. 
I urge all members to support it.
    Chairman Gordon. If there is no further discussion, the 
vote is on the amendment. All in favor say aye, opposed, no. 
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 
the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 041, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The continued and 
expedited development of NASA led heavy lift vehicle is 
critical to us for maintaining America's international 
leadership in space exploration, and I think it is safe to say 
in the opinion of the members of this Committee, it is also 
integral to this particular piece of legislation.
    What my amendment does is to support and hasten that 
development by utilizing the investments we have already made 
by both the Air Force and other government entities as well as 
by increasing the competition to ensure that the use of NASA 
funding is as efficient and effective as possible.
    As currently written, the bill before us blocks out the use 
of many technologies in which the Federal Government has 
already invested. This amendment would allow NASA to consider 
the joint use of propulsion systems across civil, military and 
commercial vehicles which would enable efficiencies in 
production and in cost.
    I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in order to 
ensure robust competition that will maximize Federal 
investments in the development of a heavy lift vehicle. And I 
yield back my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion? Let me just 
point out that we share the same objective of getting to heavy 
lift as soon as possible. But once again, we want to do it 
within the resources of NASA. My concern is that providing this 
joint effort of civil, national security, commercial has never 
been done, at least in this area, and think it could slow us 
down. Where we have seen it being done is in the National 
Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 
(NPOESS) program that wound up being an enormous waste of money 
and I am afraid demonstrated that sometimes the one-size-fits-
all approach does not work.
    Is there further discussion?
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. --since you mentioned that, let me--I am sure the 
gentlelady has the best intentions with this amendment, but I 
am not sure I understand what she is trying to do. We want NASA 
to move forward with their design and development work. I guess 
I would have to ask the gentlelady to explain what she is 
trying to either promote or restrict and would she expect NASA 
to delay its design and development work until NASA completes a 
study on the joint use of propulsion systems with the Air 
Force, commercial cargo carriers and others before they could 
proceed with vehicle design? NASA studied exploration 
architecture for years. I just worry that this amendment could 
be an unnecessary step. Would you care to comment, Ms. Kosmas?
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Hall. To the contrary, what this 
is intended to do is take advantage of the kinds of innovation 
that have already been developed and are being used by both the 
Air Force and other government entities and to ensure that 
there is a robust competition in order to support and hasten 
and expedite the development by using those technologies that 
have already been developed and are being developed for other 
Federal agencies.
    Mr. Hall. I haven't seen the amendment. I should have 
looked at it before asking any questions, but do you have the 
word shall in there?
    Ms. Kosmas. Yes. I am sorry, yes, it does. It says the 
administrator shall take appropriate actions to ensure the 
long-term affordability and sustainability of the heavy lift 
launch vehicle, including consideration of joint use of 
propulsion systems across civil, national security and 
commercial vehicles.
    Mr. Hall. And would you expect NASA to delay its design and 
development work until NASA completes a study on the use of 
propulsion systems the Air Force or cargo carriers have----
    Ms. Kosmas. That certainly wasn't my intention. My 
intention was for them to assess what is already being done out 
there and to ensure that there is competition in the 
procurement process that takes advantage of those things that 
are being developed or have already been developed by other 
Federal agencies.
    Mr. Hall. I thank you. I withdraw my problems with it.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in 
favor say aye. Opposed, no. I guess we need a show of hands. 
All those in favor of the amendment raise your hand. Those 
opposed raise your hand. The no's have it. The amendment is not 
agreed to.
    First let me say this. I notice that Ms. Jackson Lee has 
been in our audience for much of the day. She is a former 
member of this Committee, a valuable member of this Committee, 
and a member of the Aviation and Space Subcommittee, and she is 
not able to directly participate because of the rules of the 
House that she is no longer on our Committee but has been a 
great resource as we put the bill together. And we thank you, 
Ms. Jackson Lee, and hope to have your continued advice.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson. He is not here now. He 
just came to tell me that he is in his other committee at a 
point where he is asking questions. Mr. Hall and I talked 
earlier about not wanting to encourage people to have to wait 
until the end, but we all know we serve on more than one 
committee. And so if we come to a point where somebody's 
amendment is appropriate but they are not here, then with joint 
agreement with Mr. Hall and I, they will be able to bring that 
amendment forward at the end of the proceedings. So we will 
pass on Mr. Grayson at this time and, I should say, unless 
someone wants to introduce it for him.
    If not, then the next amendment on the roster is an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Wilson. Are 
you ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Wilson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 034, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Wilson of Ohio and Ms. Fudge of Ohio.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The authorization 
legislation before the Committee today seeks to reaffirm our 
commitment to NASA as well as ensure that America remains the 
world's leader in space and aeronautics.
    As a proud Blue Dog Member of Congress, it is a priority of 
mine to ensure that NASA makes full use of its vast existing 
resources, and the path forward outlined in this mark 
restructures our exploration program in a fiscally responsible 
manner.
    Many NASA facilities have recently been updated to reflect 
the testing demands of the missions outlined within this 
markup. Furthermore, this markup includes substantial funding 
to renovate existing facilities. It is the intent of my 
amendment to ensure that NASA utilize existing resources either 
in their current or renovated form and ensure that duplicative 
testing facilities are not built.
    I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Ms. Fudge, would you like to--is there any 
further discussion? Mr. Wilson is recognized again.
    Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to withdraw my 
motion.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Wilson, and thank you for 
bringing that information to our attention.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 
the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 043, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment seeks 
to provide guidance and authority for the use of funds as 
proposed by the President to upgrade the Kennedy Space Center 
[KSC] to create a 21st century launch complex capable of more 
efficient and more versatile operations for NASA, commercial 
and military users. Many of the facilities and technologies at 
KSC and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station are literally vintage. 
For instance, while we all have GPS on our Blackberries, the 
Eastern Range still operates using radar. There are many long-
overdue upgrades that are necessary to support NASA's next 
vehicle and to enable multiple users such as the military, 
suborbital vehicles and commercial launches.
    Expanding the capabilities on the space coast will leverage 
existing infrastructure and expertise and will allow for more 
effective and flexible operations. The modernization and 
utilization of KSC's workforce, facilities and infrastructure 
by other users could lessen the negative impacts of the gap 
between the end of the shuttle program and the initiation of 
exploration activities.
    Additionally, the success of commercial space and eventual 
NASA vehicle will help to ensure that the maintenance of our 
unique workforce continues. As you know, it is one of my 
highest priorities. But to enable this, we must bring KSC into 
the 21st century. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment, and I yield back my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlelady's 
amendment. It just directs NASA administrator to carry out a 
program preparing the infrastructure at the Kennedy Space 
Center needed to support the exploration program authorized by 
this very bill. It also requires the administrator to provide a 
report to Congress within 180 days with an implementation plan, 
and the amendment also directs NASA to do a study on an 
implementation plan to make goals established under the 21st 
century space launch complex initiative. No direction is given 
to implement the plan. Rather, it calls for a report described 
in the initiative needed to meet the goals, a description of 
joint initiative with the U.S. Air Force and a timetable.
    I think this amendment is very worthwhile and urge members 
to support it.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I certainly agree. 
This is an excellent amendment. There is a unique workforce in 
that area. They are under a lot of stress now. I think this is 
an excellent amendment to help really maintain that workforce 
for NASA and our country.
    Is there further discussion? If there is no further 
discussion on the amendment, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. 
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Peters. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment? Well, Mr. Peters was here. So we 
will treat Mr. Peters as we mentioned earlier and move now to 
the next amendment on the roster, an amendment offered by the 
gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. Are you ready to proceed?
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 038, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we all agree 
that the extension of the life of the International Space 
Station through 2020 is a very important initiative and it 
serves to maximize the $100 billion investment already made in 
the International Space Station.
    However, it is extremely important that we determine what 
parts and what components we might need to deliver to the 
International Space Station, especially in the case of large, 
heavy replacement systems and structures. This is to ensure 
that the promise to extend the International Space Station to 
2020 is not just an empty gesture.
    It is important to remember that to this point, decisions 
about which instruments and equipment were delivered to the ISS 
were based on the assumption of the need to support the space 
station only through 2015, not through 2020.
    Right now we have no answers as to how we will get the 
equipment necessary to extend the life of the International 
Space Station without the shuttle. This amendment would direct 
the administrator to review and report to Congress on the 
components needed to fully service and support the extension of 
the space station. Right now 10 shuttle flights worth of 
flight-ready payloads averaging between 40,000 and 50,000 
pounds per flight are sitting in storage warehouses ready to 
fly and ready to use, over 1,400 parts and pieces of equipment. 
We don't know how many or which of those grounded payload items 
might actually be needed in order to ensure the station can be 
supported and maintained until 2020. Not only that, we do not 
know which or how many of these items are simply too large or 
too heavy to be carried to orbit by any existing vehicle other 
than the space shuttle.
    And finally, we do not know what additional items might 
need to be ordered, manufactured and delivered in the future or 
what launch vehicle capacity will be needed to deliver them to 
the station.
    I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and require 
NASA to quickly report back on what additional resources and 
equipment are needed to fully utilize the International Space 
Station through 2020, on how to deliver this equipment to the 
space station. I urge your support, and I yield back my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I originally opposed this amendment 
because it contained an unfunded provision to keep shuttle 
contracts open for the entire fiscal year 2011, but since the 
gentlelady has removed that provision, I think it would be 
helpful for NASA to thoroughly review the needs of the space 
station and report back to us. I support the amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I agree, this is a 
common sense, constructive amendment that will help make NASA 
more efficient, and I agree.
    Is there further discussion? If there is no further 
discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say 
aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster, number 17, is offered by 
the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I am withdrawing that amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Edwards, and thank you for 
the input and the information.
    The next amendment is number 18. It is offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 039, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I hope the members on both 
sides of the aisle listen to this argument very carefully.
    The adoption of this amendment is essential if this bill is 
to work because if we do not give a preference to either U.S. 
Government-funded or U.S. private-sector funded launch 
capability, the agreements that NASA may have in mind with the 
Russians will simply allow the Russians to underbid our private 
sector launch capability, and we will probably end up 
outsourcing more of our launch capability to the Russians. They 
don't have to establish a market price for their launch 
capability, and we will continue going down a road that was 
started over 15 years ago during the reign of Administrator Dan 
Golden where much of our aerospace capabilities ended up not 
being funded because we had to fund the Russians to keep the 
International Space Station going.
    Now, I believe that we need a public and private 
partnership, and during my chairmanship of the Committee, 
former Congressman and Chairman Bob Walker's commercial space 
bill was passed and signed into law by President Clinton.
    We need to avoid duplication of costs, but we also have to 
recognize that the 800-pound gorilla out there that does not 
have to charge for their services and a market-based price is 
Russia. And as a result, without this amendment giving 
preference to launch capability made in the USA, either by the 
government or by American-based private sector companies, we 
simply will not be able to compete.
    And all this amendment does is it says that if there is a 
capability on the part of American public sector or private 
contractors, they shall be given preference. And this is the 
only way that the loan guarantees that are contained in this 
bill will end up working. It is the only way that we will be 
able to develop a viable and healthy private launch capability 
not using government funds but using the inventiveness of the 
private sector. I think you could call this amendment the 
prevention of outsourcing launch capability to Russia and 
perhaps in the future to China, and I would strongly urge its 
adoption. Yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
    A $100 billion authorization may be commonplace for this Congress, 
but it still bothers me to be asked to vote on a triple-digit billion 
dollar budget that I received barely more than 48 hours ago.
    The Majority, following the President's lead, is boldly going where 
our space program has never gone before and they're doing it by giving 
many if not most Members of the Committee little over 24 hours to read 
the bill and draft amendments.
    Among the bill's most blatant inefficiencies is that it places the 
primary responsibility for Space travel in the private sector, but 
mandates that the government maintain a separate but equally capable 
capacity for space travel. Further, it places reliance on Russia to 
handle space transport of U.S. personnel and cargo.
    Future space travel will require a public and private partnership 
as well as cooperation with international partners, but surely there is 
a way to share responsibilities rather than duplicate costs. I'm, 
disappointed that Members did not have more time with this legislative 
language to help strike a more appropriate and cost effective balance.
    My current amendment addresses only a small part of this problem by 
ensuring that U.S. pubic and commercial ventures take priority over 
international partners when transporting cargo to space.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for that 
constructive amendment. Is there further discussion?
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. This is almost a buy America deal. I support the 
gentleman's amendment. It is sensible that we first promote and 
encourage our own United States companies, very capable 
companies and capabilities before relying on foreign partners. 
I urge its passage.
    Chairman Gordon. I agree. It is a sensible Sensenbrenner 
amendment.
    If there is no further discussion, all in favor of the 
amendment say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment 
is passed.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 
the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Kosmas. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 042, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Kosmas of Florida.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you and the 
other Committee members are aware of the fact that I have 
worked very hard and I have articulated many times today that 
we are seeking solutions that minimize the human spaceflight 
gap. This is important not only to our workforce but to 
maintaining American's leadership in human space exploration. 
And as I often say, maintaining that ability to inspire the 
next generation to engage in science, technology, engineering 
and mathematics, and that inspiration has served us well for 
the last 50 years and I think will continue to do so.
    Last year I succeeded in eliminating the hard deadline for 
the shuttle retirement in order to ensure that all scheduled 
missions were flown. I have also been pushing to officially 
manifest what is currently designated STS-135, the Launch On 
Need mission. Providing for the launch of this mission, which 
will have already been processed and ready to go in support of 
STS-134, will have several benefits which I believe are 
essential and a worthwhile investment.
    As I have said, this mission will help to minimize the 
spaceflight gap by stretching out the human spaceflight 
capabilities into mid-2011. This will ease the transition for 
the unique and highly skilled professional workforce, not just 
at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida but across the country. 
Many have expressed concerns about the difficult time we would 
have in reestablishing this valuable and critical workforce 
should it be disbanded. Maintaining a large portion of the 
workforce and the infrastructure into 2011 will provide a 
better transition and will allow us to be preparing the follow-
on program which NASA will be working to define during this 
period.
    This Launch On Need flight will also help to ensure that 
the International Space Station is both serviced and utilized 
to its best potential. The extended life of the International 
Space Station enables us to fulfill our need to explore by 
serving as a test bed for exploration technology development, 
and it will help us to address the needs here on earth through 
physical and life sciences research. But we can only ensure its 
viability for a longer lifetime by using the shuttle, our only 
domestic capability to deliver large spare parts and 
replacement hardware that were cut from the manifest when the 
decision was made to arbitrarily cancel the shuttle program in 
2010.
    A list of the hardware which is fully built and stored at 
Kennedy Space Center is not attached but here in my hands for 
your consideration. This additional launch provides the most 
risk-free logistical support in the next year. We should take 
this critical step to maximize the $100 billion investment 
given the recent decision to extend the life of the 
International Space Station to 2020.
    I urge you to support my amendment and to authorize this 
critical shuttle mission in order to preserve our workforce and 
maximize the investments we have made in the International 
Space Station, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Kosmas follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Suzanne M. Kosmas

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>





    Chairman Gordon. Ms. Kosmas, thank you very much. You have 
stated very well the need for this Launch On Need shuttle 
mission. It provides us a great deal of extra flexibility and 
again helps to maintain the good workforce that is in your 
area.
    Is there further discussion on this? If not, all in favor 
say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed 
to.
    Mr. Peters, as mentioned earlier, if someone is not there 
when their amendment comes that we will take in consideration 
that we all have a variety of different committees to attend. 
Yours was just a couple before, and so we want to move back to 
your amendment, if there is no objection. What amendment is 
that? Mr. Peters, are you prepared to proceed?
    Mr. Peters. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 050, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Peters of Michigan.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we pursue human 
spaceflight beyond low earth orbit, the safety and well-being 
of our astronauts is of course paramount to all of us.
    However, I also remain concerned about the research 
recently proposed by NASA that seeks to determine the effects 
of deep space radiation in humans using a research method that 
has not been employed in decades, radiation testing on non-
human primates. NASA already possesses the results of 40 years 
of radiation experiments performed on non-human primates by 
NASA, the Air Force and other military agencies, and I have 
concerns that additional Federal funding of this research is 
duplicative, inhumane and will not yield significantly new 
results to advance the safety of our astronauts.
    Primates and specifically the squirrel monkeys proposed for 
this research differ significantly from humans in psychological 
and genetic traits, and the proposed studies on monkeys employ 
single doses of heavy ionizing radiation which may not 
effectively replicate the multiple doses and mix of radiation 
exposures that humans will encounter when they are in deep 
space.
    Certainly one of the best parts of NASA's space exploration 
program is the way it has driven our technology forward, 
bringing us great innovations like microprocessors, Velcro and 
microwaves. We should also strive for equal technological 
advances in accompanying research programs instead of using 
technologies and methodologies that are over 40 years old.
    Historical and ongoing studies included those funded by 
NASA and the Department of Energy already use validated, non-
animal methods to determine the effects of radiation on human 
tissues. These include vitro studies, computational science, 
space radiation modeling, exposure data and decades of follow-
up on space programs.
    The European Space Agency has already rejected the use of 
primates in research experiments, and NASA aerospace engineer 
April Evans resigned her position on the International Space 
Station program in protest of this testing, calling it a step 
backwards for NASA's animal testing record.
    We have an amendment before you. I have had some 
discussions, Mr. Chairman, with some other members of the 
Committee that had some concerns, and I do have a modification. 
Is it appropriate to talk about the modification at this time?
    Chairman Gordon. Well, Mr. Peters, since we have that 
modification and everyone hasn't had a chance to see it, that 
needs to be copied, distributed to everyone and so with 
unanimous consent, I will ask you to temporarily withdraw your 
amendment until it can be shown to everyone, and then we will 
bring you back up at a later date.
    Mr. Peters. That is fine. Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. With no objection, so ordered. And now we 
will move onto the next amendment on the roster which is the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson. Are you ready to proceed with 
your amendment?
    Mr. Olson. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 031, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Olson of Texas.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Olson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This 
amendment has already been discussed during the previous 
amendment of my colleague from Florida, and so I will be very 
brief.
    I strongly support the exploration space operations budget 
and as such wanted to offer alternative methods of paying for 
the Launch On Need flight. I support the Launch On Need flight 
if it is necessary, safe and paid for.
    For example, I am frustrated that funds continue to be 
budgeted for post-shuttle workforce transition from within 
NASA's own budget, the workforce transition funds and other 
departments, the Department of Commerce, for example, in 
unspent stimulus funds that should be made available to assist 
the workforce. Forcing NASA to use their scarce financial 
resources this way seems counterintuitive to me. But I will 
withdraw my amendment, realizing that this issue has already 
been voted on. I just wanted to offer an alternative path to 
ensure we have a viable, fiscal responsible plan to execute a 
Launch On Need flight if necessary.
    I withdraw my amendment and yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Pete Olson
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration. There are two flights left of the space 
shuttle. When that last shuttle, STS-134, launches from the Kennedy 
Space Center, there will be another shuttle stack ready for launch in 
case a rescue. is needed. This amendment would authorize the flight of 
that final shuttle stack, upon the completion of STS-134.
    The first part of my amendment deals with the need for such a 
flight. It would authorize the NASA Administrator to determine if this 
flight is necessary and if it is safe. Although I have been informed 
that both are true, those are not the purview of Congress to decide. 
Paying for this flight, however, is.
    And in that regard I had a very difficult time determining how we 
can free up the resources. The exercise of scouring this budget for 
funds was a stark reminder of the extremely limited budgetary 
flexibility this agency has and it frankly saddens me that this agency 
that has achieved so much has such limited means to achieve its 
mission.
    My amendment would use funds from Earth Science. This bill calls 
for an increase above the President's request of $500M. The agency's 
earth science budget is already robust, and growing. Funds would also 
come from the 21st Century Launch Complex, an area that I feel can be 
absorbed in the increased Exploration budget, and defers the Loan 
Guarantee program for Commercial Crew of $100M for one year.
    One of the smaller pay-fors in this amendment to me is one of the 
most egregious. We have $40 million for post-shuttle workforce 
transition. Now make no mistake, I do not disparage these efforts, but 
I frankly feel it is offensive that this money is coming from the 
Agency's budget. There are funds at the Department of Commerce, for 
example, and unspent stimulus funds at that, that should be made 
available to assist the workforce. Forcing the agency to use scarce 
resources this way is fiscally irresponsible.
    Make no mistake, I considered using funds from Exploration and 
Space Operations, but the Exploration funds are there to provide the 
follow on generation of vehicles for this workforce. And to take money 
from Space Operations to pay for this flight seemed counterintuitive 
when their budget is as tight as is.
    Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to fall into the ``take from science 
to pay for human space flight'' conundrum. I'm asking that we recognize 
across the agency that authorizing this flight has benefits worthy of 
our consideration. I'm asking you to support this flight with the 
understanding that although it's the last flight, it won't be the final 
contribution to the International Space Station.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Olson, and thank you for 
your continued constructive role you are playing in this 
important bill.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu. Are you ready to proceed 
with your amendment?
    Mr. Wu. I am, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 051, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Wu of Oregon.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Wu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment makes a very 
simple but very important improvement to the bill, and it 
directs NASA to take into account geographic diversity when 
competing out where to locate retired space shuttles.
    The space program is a truly national treasure that belongs 
to each and every American. I believe that the process for 
selecting locations for the retired shuttle fleet should 
reflect this national interest in space and in our space 
shuttle. The shuttle has played a central role in our Nation's 
aerospace history, and I know that there are deserving 
institutions across the country that have expressed strong 
interest in having one of these unique vehicles.
    I think that it is very, very important that NASA's 
selection process be an even playing field for all institutions 
hoping to host a retired shuttle. My amendment is aimed at 
bringing the underlying bill closer to achieving that ideal.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that although some parts of 
the country do not have a substantial direct space connection 
and do not have personnel there or facilities there, that the 
support for our space program comes from the taxpayers of this 
country across the country, regardless of whether these 
facilities exist and that a fair competition for these 
vehicles, even without winning the award, but just a fair 
competition maintains that interest, maintains that support for 
American human spaceflight. And I think that that is absolutely 
crucial in this day and age of constrained resources.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. I support the gentleman's amendment. It directs 
NASA to consider ``geographic diversity'' among other 
considerations as it seeks to find permanent homes from the 
retired orbiter fleet. This is a subject that is really 
discussed a lot. It has been within this Committee and on the 
streets. I agree with his premise that the orbiters needed to 
be located among different regions of the country. It would 
give our citizens some ease of access to visit these very 
marvelous machines. East Texas, West Texas, Northeast Texas, 
even the 4th District of Texas, even the panhandle would make 
excellent homes for the orbiter fleet.
    I believe his amendment makes good sense, and I urge 
members to support it.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
    I support the gentleman's amendment.
    It directs NASA to consider `geographic diversity' among other 
considerations as it seeks to find permanent homes for the retired 
Orbiter fleet. I agree with his premise that the Orbiters need to be 
located among different regions of the country to give our citizens 
some ease of access to visit these marvelous machines. East Texas, West 
Texas, even the Panhandle, would make excellent homes for the Orbiter 
fleet. I believe his amendment makes good sense, and I urge Members to 
support it.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, all in 
favor say aye. Oh, excuse me, Ms. Kosmas is recognized.
    Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak only 
on behalf of the workforce in the Kennedy Space Center who have 
processed and launched every shuttle launch that has taken 
place, and I would like to say that they have the shuttle 
system in their DNA as they have been doing it for literally 
generations, and I think it is most appropriate that one of the 
orbiters stay in Central Florida. You can call it Central 
Florida, North Central Florida, West Central Florida, Kennedy 
Space Center, whatever suits Mr. Hall is fine by me.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Kosmas. As I understand it, 
this amendment would not rule out that likelihood.
    Is there further discussion? If no, all in favor of the 
amendment say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment 
is agreed to.
    Now we have here the 22nd amendment, the next amendment on 
the roster, is offered by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Wilson. 
Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Wilson. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is 
at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 033, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Wilson of Ohio, Ms. Fudge of Ohio and Mr. Wu of 
Oregon.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dayton in my home 
State of Ohio is known as the birthplace of aviation. I am very 
proud of the contributions that some of our state heroes have 
made to flight, including Wilbur and Orville Wright, John 
Glenn, Neil Armstrong. Given NASA Glenn's significant 
contributions to space flight as well as the contributions of 
numerous Ohio companies, I think that Ohio strongly deserves 
consideration as the permanent location for one of the space 
shuttles once they are permanently retired.
    However, I am concerned that language contained in this 
mark would effectively eliminate any chance Ohio has of 
competing for one of the space shuttles. The language included 
at the end of Section 223 appears to give preference to 
locations with an historical relationship in either the launch, 
flight operations or processing of the space shuttle orbiters.
    I believe that the inclusion of some of this language would 
negatively impact states such as Ohio, California, Washington, 
Illinois, Oregon and New York, and the supposedly competitive 
process to obtain a space shuttle. Either this is a competitive 
procedure as said in line 17 and 18 of this mark or it is not. 
And I believe that inclusion of this language would unjustly 
penalize Ohio and many other states in efforts to bring a 
retired shuttle orbiter to their state.
    Therefore, my amendment would remove the priority 
consideration language for organizations with a launch flight 
operations or processing role and once again level the playing 
field for this competition. I thank the Chair and yield back 
the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment?
    Mr. Olson. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Olson is recognized.
    Mr. Olson. I speak in opposition to the amendment. I admire 
and respect my colleague's position, Congresswoman Fudge and 
Congressman Wilson, but I believe that striking this language 
is unnecessary.
    I don't feel that it is unreasonable to consider the 
efforts of over 30 years of launching, processing and managing 
the shuttle program to determine the final location of an 
orbiter once the flights are complete. It should come as no 
surprise to anyone that I believe that people of Houston in 
particular have earned the right to house one of these 
orbiters, and every member of the Texas congressional 
delegation agrees with me. And so do the students of the Clear 
Creek Independent School District, the school district that 
serves the Johnson Space Center. Every student from 
Kindergarten to 12th grade was invited to draw a picture or 
write a letter to Administrator Bolden extolling the virtues of 
Houston as the home for an orbiter.
    Chairman Gordon. Would the gentleman yield for just a 
moment?
    Mr. Olson. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Gordon. I see that I have a bill across the hall. 
I am going to have to leave. Let me just say that reluctantly I 
have to oppose this amendment. I think it undermines a good 
balance that we have had in this bill, and the current language 
is not mandatory to go anyplace. But I think it is a good 
balance, and I yield back.
    Mr. Olson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully disagree 
with him, and even though I grew up nearby, again I was struck 
how exploration is a part of their everyday lives. These people 
interact with their neighbors every day, and because they are 
their neighbors, they are coaches. And for many, they are moms 
and dads. They grew up with the program that began before each 
one of them were born, and I am not going to go on further 
because I know we can go down the line and every member can 
talk about the merits of an entity or school or museum in their 
district. I ask my colleagues to remember what the first word 
that has been said on every significant space mission we have 
had, Houston.
    And so with great respect for my colleagues from Ohio, I 
oppose this amendment. The original language does not restrict, 
it rewards.
    Ms. Giffords. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Olson.
    Mr. Olson. I yield back.
    Ms. Giffords. The Chair recognizes Ms. Fudge.
    Mr. Wilson. I would just like to respond to the statement 
of the first word said, and you are right, it was Houston. But 
the guy who said it is from Ohio.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Ms. Fudge, please.
    Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, would support 
this amendment because it does strike certain language in the 
competitive considerations for the disposition of the 
decommissioned orbiter vehicles. It amends the priority 
consideration given to locations with a historical relationship 
with the launch, with flight operations or processing of the 
orbiters to allow for priority consideration for all locations 
with a historical relationship with the orbiters.
    And with all due respect to my friends from Florida and 
Texas, I think the rest of us would like a fair opportunity to 
compete. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. The Chair will 
recognize Ranking Member Hall.
    Mr. Hall. I thank you, and I am willing for you to compete. 
I think under the language that is in the bill you certainly 
would get to compete, and you quote Wilbur and Orville. I knew 
both of them, and I really believe they want it in East Texas.
    But to help this Committee and to help us all stay together 
and to help us try to keep down so much talk on each of these 
amendments and so much red tape. I would report to you that 
Wilbur and Orville's first contract with the government was one 
page handwritten, the tilt rotor, the tilt wing, that you don't 
fly straight up and out. Just the paperwork alone weighs 22,000 
pounds on that. So maybe we are letting it get away from us. 
Whether it is in East Texas, North Texas or wherever it is, I 
think we have a good program for it. This amendment strikes key 
language in the bill that is intended to give priority 
consideration for the disposition of the shuttle to eligible 
applicants who can demonstrate a historical relationship with 
either the launch, flight operations or processing of the 
orbiters. It only makes sense that in deciding the fate of the 
orbiters, the NASA administrator should give special 
consideration to those eligible communities whose livelihood 
has depended on the program for decades. While the shuttles are 
a national treasure, they hold special value for the people who 
built, operated and launched them into space. These are the men 
and women who work day and night to ensure that our astronauts 
were able to safely travel in space and assemble the incredible 
International Space Station.
    We honor them, their families and their efforts through 
this provision that is on the books. I join the Chairman and 
urge the members to vote no on this amendment.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Hall. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to express 
how strongly I feel about this amendment. I have been a strong 
proponent of American human spaceflight, and that is with no 
connection for the constituents that I serve, other than the 
vision of Americans going into space. It is important to our 
Nation as a whole, and the dream that it breathes in every 
child in America and for a lot of adults also. Those regions 
that have current facilities, that have a lot of employment, 
that have workers who have served America well, they have been 
well-rewarded for those efforts. Taxpayers across this entire 
country have paid for these efforts. The economic benefits have 
been concentrated in a few places. Surely the opponents of this 
amendment would not begrudge the rest of America some 
participation in the dream, and that is what it is about.
    A lot of development occurred in Huntington Beach, 
California. But are you going to deny Southern California a 
fair shot at having an orbiter? I don't know how much taxes New 
York pays, but I suspect that it is substantial. But I think 
that denying folks in New York an opportunity to have an 
orbiter is unconscionable. And I admit that the chances of 
having an orbiter in Portland or Seattle or in Oregon are maybe 
a little bit slight, but I think my constituents would like to 
believe that they have a fair shot at this because they were 
denied an opportunity to work on the shuttle in the first 
place. This is a travesty. This is an absolute travesty.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Hall. Was he for it or against it?
    Ms. Giffords. The Chair will recognize Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let me identify myself with that 
last outburst.
    Mr. Wu. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
    Mr. Wu. I have learned from the best.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Let me just note that 
California did play a major role in the development of the 
orbiter and the space shuttle. I remember when I was a young 
reporter, one of the first stories I covered was going to Downy 
where they had the very first mock-up of the shuttle, and there 
it was, right there, in the heart of Southern California. I 
walked into this big facility, and there it was. And Senator 
John Tunney was having a press conference to announce his 
support of the shuttle program. And as my colleague noted, many 
of the components not only were from Southern California but to 
my hometown as well, Huntington Beach, very much involved with 
developing the technologies in parts of the shuttle. And for us 
to be, say, fenced off from having this honor of hosting what 
was left of this program, I mean, it is unconscionable. And I 
think that all states should have a say, and as my colleague 
stated, all the taxpayers participating in financing this. And 
I know that the people in California, a lot of people in 
California have played a role in actually building it and 
developing the technology. So I would be very much in favor of 
this amendment because I think it is fair to everybody and 
certainly it is unseemly to have certain states say no, we are 
going to have the leverage on saying who gets some of the 
credit or who gets to show their children the shuttle now that 
the program is over.
    Thank you very much.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. The Chair will 
recognize Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I do not agree with the 
outburst. I recognize the sincere emotion, but I want to say 
that the space exploration has been some of the most important 
and productive research for this Nation. Every single living 
human being has gained from it. People move from all over the 
country in various places where all of this work was going on. 
All of it didn't go on in the same place.
    So I don't know why we are doing all this talking about 
where these unused pieces of metal will be. We all can read. We 
all know that we all had a hand in the development, and I think 
it is an unnecessary waste of time to be fussing over this. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Is there any further 
discussion?
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, one final comment 
please.
    Ms. Giffords. Yes.
    Mr. Olson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just want to----
    Ms. Giffords. Actually, Mr. Smith, would you consider 
yielding to Mr. Olson? Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you.
    Mr. Olson. Thank you to my colleagues from Texas, Madam 
Chairwoman. I just want to point out, again, I really 
appreciate my colleagues' comments in opposition to it, and I 
don't want to be something where we are not being fair to other 
states, and I don't think that is the case with the language 
that launch flight, operations and processing should be 
considered.
    I also ask you to consider the value of the shuttle being 
at a place like we have at Space Center Houston because you can 
see the entire history of human spaceflight right there. I mean 
you can take children, your grandchildren to the facility. You 
can see the Mercury Redstone. You can see the Gemini rocket. 
You can see a Saturn V in a hanger, an unbelievable sight. And 
to have a space shuttle there complementing that, it gives the 
American public just a complete appreciation for how far we 
have come in human spaceflight. You see that little, tiny 
Mercury rocket and realize that we actually flew our first 
astronauts in space on that thing and what we have evolved to 
with the shuttle, again, you can't underestimate that. There is 
going to be a competition. We are just asking for consideration 
for the Johnson Center, the Kennedy Center, the Marshall 
Center, all the centers, California as well, what they have 
done. But I think it is important if you look at it in the big 
context. It really is something that matters to the American 
people. We can give to our youth a real understanding of how 
far we have come, and they can feel the pride we felt on July 
20, 1969, when the man who testified here a couple of months 
ago, Neil Armstrong, put that foot on the moon and said, ``One 
small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,'' and I know 
where he was from. Thank you.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Olson. 
This Chair recognizes Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. I want to associate myself with remarks of Mr. 
Wu. You know, there has been a lot of talk in this institution 
about the need to do away with earmarks, the idea being that 
earmarks somehow prejudice spending in one direction or another 
and unduly restrict competition in favor of powerful 
individuals, be they in the House or Senate. This language as 
currently exists that would be corrected by the gentleman from 
Oregon's amendment, the underlying language sounds sure an 
awful lot like an earmark to me. And I just would question how 
those who are opposed to earmarks can in good conscience 
support this. You know, there is a little place called Boeing 
up north that had a fair bit to do with the history of 
aviation. They have got a magnificent air and space museum. It 
is proximal to a whole lot of Americans, and there is a long 
history of flight there as well.
    And in contrast to the underlying language, the language 
Mr. Wu is offering is not an earmark. It is calling for fair 
competition. He is just saying we ought to have a real fair 
competition, not some very cleverly drafted language. He, Mr. 
Wu, to his credit, does not offer language saying it shall go 
to a particular aviation museum located in a Pacific Northwest 
state. He hasn't done that. He has just said, let us have a 
fair and objective competition, and I think that is right and 
there are hosts of areas in this country. And I agree with 
geographical diversity. I want my kids to be able to go home 
somewhere and see a space shuttle nearby, and if the underlying 
language passes instead of this amendment, I think that is 
going to be improbable. And I respect the long and proud 
tradition of all my colleagues who represents districts where 
these were constructed, but I will tell you, with respect to 
the gentlelady from Texas, I don't consider the space shuttle a 
hunk of metal. When I go to the Smithsonian Institution down 
the street here and I can look at the Mercury capsule and the 
Gemini capsule, it blows me away. It literally takes my breath 
away to think a human being got in that and went into space.
    I was just there two weeks ago with my family who flew out 
for the 4th of July celebration, and I took all my nephews and 
nieces and we walked there and we looked at that, and I told 
them the story. And I want to be able to do that at least 
somewhat more proximal.
    With that, I commend the gentleman from Oregon and urge the 
passage of his amendment.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Baird. Is there any further 
discussion on the amendment? No further discussion? The vote 
will occur on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Those 
opposed say no. The no's appear to have it.
    Mr. Wu. I ask for a recorded vote.
    Ms. Giffords. Okay. The Clerk will call a roll call vote.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon?
    Chairman Gordon. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon votes no.
    Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes aye.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Ms. Woolsey?
    The Clerk. I just want to be clear. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. No? Okay.
    Ms. Woolsey?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes aye.
    Mr. Baird?
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird votes aye.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes aye.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    Ms. Giffords?
    Ms. Giffords. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords votes no.
    Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes aye.
    Mr. Lujan?
    Mr.  Lujan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes no.
    Mr. Tonko?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson?
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson votes aye.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Chandler?
    Mr. Chandler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chandler votes no.
    Mr. Carnahan?
    Mr. Carnahan. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carnahan votes aye.
    Mr. Hill?
    Mr. Hill. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hill votes aye.
    Mr. Mitchell?
    Mr. Mitchell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mitchell votes aye.
    Mr. Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
    Ms. Dahlkemper?
    Ms. Dahlkemper. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Dahlkemper votes aye.
    Mr. Grayson?
    Mr. Grayson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes no.
    Ms. Kosmas?
    Ms. Kosmas. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Kosmas votes no.
    Mr. Peters?
    Mr. Peters. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Peters votes aye.
    Mr. Garamendi?
    Mr. Garamendi. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garamendi votes aye.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lamar Smith?
    Mr. Smith of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lamar Smith votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert?
    Ms. Biggert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes aye.
    Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. Inglis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Diaz-Balart?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bilbray?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Adrian Smith?
    Mr. Smith of Nebraska. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Adrian Smith votes no.
    Mr. Broun?
    The Clerk. [No response.]
    Mr. Olson?
    Mr. Olson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Olson votes no.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Rothman is not recorded.
    Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as 
aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes aye.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there anyone else that would like to be 
recorded? If not, the Clerk will report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have 18 members voting aye and 
14 members voting no.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


    Chairman Gordon. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed 
to.
    The next amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson. Are you ready to proceed 
with your amendment?
    Mr. Grayson. Yes, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 079, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Grayson of Florida.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a 
continuing effort on my part to get a simple answer to a simple 
question which is where are these commercial entities that seek 
to supplant NASA in doing launches of human beings into space, 
where they will begin those launches from? I asked this 
question of the NASA administrator a few months ago. He told me 
that he had been assured by every single commercial launcher 
that the commercial launches that they would want to do would 
take place from the Kennedy Space Center in Central Florida. 
That makes perfect sense to me. The government has invested 
tens of billions of dollars in development manned space 
programs in Central Florida. There are thousands and thousands 
of people who devoted their working lives to the manned space 
program in Central Florida. So I think that is the logical 
answer, but when I pressed to get specifics or even some sort 
of written confirmation of that, the NASA administrator left me 
hanging.
    So this amendment is my effort to follow up on that. I see 
some hope, Mr. Chairman, that this may not need to come to a 
vote because I am still hoping that the NASA administrator will 
give me the specifics that I am looking for.
    So I intend to take this up later on in the legislative 
process, but for now I withdraw this amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Grayson, and you had given 
notice earlier that you had to--I think you were asking 
questions in your other committee. So if there is no objection, 
since you are here, we will go back to your earlier amendment.
    Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, would you refresh my time?
    Chairman Gordon. Does the gentleman have an amendment at 
the desk?
    Mr. Grayson. Yes.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 080, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Grayson of Florida.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are now facing 
what has been referred to as the dual track, the two tracks, 
two different ways to go forward with manned spaceflight under 
NASA's wing. One way is to continue what we have been doing for 
half-a-century which is to have government operations launch 
man into space. The other is to try to develop that capability 
through commercial entities.
    I think that both are possible, both are conceivable. Only 
one of those is actually proven and demonstrated, but I can 
imagine the possibility of it happening in the future that 
commercial entities will one day have that capability.
    What I don't understand is why we should load the dice in 
favor of those commercial entities. The government frequently 
comes across this distinction. In the Defense Department it is 
known as the make or buy decision. Do you make something or do 
you buy it? For 50 years now, we have been making manned 
spaceflight at NASA, and now the possibility apparently is 
arising that we might conceivably one day be able to buy it. 
That is the decision that has been made over the years in 
accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's Circular 
A-76 which basically says if it is better to make it, you make 
it. If it is better to buy it, you buy it. And that is the rule 
throughout the government, including the rule right now in 
NASA.
    As I read this bill, this bill would change that rule. It 
would put a thumb on the scale in favor of commercial entities 
which frankly don't seem to deserve it. As I said before, they 
may or may not ever develop this capability. Why we should be 
biased in their favor is something I find hard to understand 
but I see in four different locations in this bill that is 
exactly what is happening. For instance, if you turn to page 
25, you will see the language is follows. If one or more United 
States commercial entities are certified to provide ISS crew 
transportation and rescue services, the crew transportation 
system developed under this section shall be available as a 
backup ISS crew transportation rescue service as needed but 
shall not be utilized as the primary means of ISS crew 
transportation and rescue or otherwise compete with the 
commercial system for ISS crew transportation rescue services.
    So what this means in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, is that as 
soon as any commercial entity is simply certified to provide 
ISS crew transportation and rescue services, and the program 
that has stood us so well for the past half-century goes by the 
wayside permanently. I just don't get it. I don't understand 
why we would want to do that. We have all heard the phrase, if 
it ain't broke, don't fix it. It seems through this bill and 
these provisions that I have identified what we are really 
saying is if it ain't broke, throw it away. And it just doesn't 
make any sense to me. I am perfectly willing to see a level 
playing field, a fair competition between government program 
and commercial entities doing the same programming. That is 
fine. I don't see any harm to that. But why we would say that 
the minute any particular commercial entity, merely is 
certified in order to provide ISS crew transportation, rescue 
services, and that in itself means the demise of the Government 
program. That I don't understand at all. I have identified 
three other places in the bill that also tilt the playing field 
in favor of the commercial entitles that are entirely unproven. 
Again, as I said earlier today, these are entities that have no 
sales, they have no profit, they have very little capital. They 
have no experience, and in fact, they have no product. They 
don't even have something that would launch human beings into 
space at this point. And we are saying that as soon as one of 
them is simply made qualified, then we throw out the entire 
manned space program as we know it and as we have developed it 
from the past century. If you turn to page 47 in the bill, you 
will see that Congress by this bill would be affirming the 
policy of making use of the United States commercially provided 
crew transportation and crew rescue services to the maximum 
extent practicable, which under this bill means limiting to the 
maximum extent, the use of the system developed under Section 
202 which in fact, a government alternative practicable to non-
ISS missions, once commercial crew transportation and crew 
rescue services that meet safety requirements to become 
operational.
    I want to see a fair competition. We have been led astray 
many, many times by government contractors who overpromise and 
then don't deliver. There is not a single country in this 
entire world with the manned space program that does this the 
way that this bill dictates. All I want to see is a fair, level 
playing field between whatever commercial alternatives develop 
and the program that has stood us so well for the past 50 
years.
    Therefore, I respectfully ask people's support for this 
amendment to level the playing field. Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. 
I think the existing bill itself strikes a good playing ground, 
strikes a very good balance between ensuring that we can meet 
our obligations to the Nation, encouraging commercial 
development of our space in a measured and rational way. If 
commercial crew entities can deliver on their claims and do so 
to NASA safety standards, there is no reason why they should 
not be included in NASA's mix of space transportation. This 
amendment takes that away. I oppose the amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Garamendi is recognized.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment does 
allow for commercial human spaceflight, but what it does is to 
change the prioritizations. I think Mr. Grayson is absolutely 
right in what he is proposing. I also asked staff a while ago a 
definition of a commercial company. Apparently in existing law, 
a commercial company can in fact be a foreign-owned company, 
that is, one that has more than 50 percent ownership. It can 
also be a company that has something less than 50 percent 
ownership by a foreign--the language in the current bill says 
United States commercial company, and I am quite curious as to 
which definition applies and exactly what United States 
commercial company is. It seems to me that we may in fact be 
opening a door to commercial companies that are not majority 
owned in the United States and not controlled by United States' 
interests. And therefore not only is Mr. Grayson's amendment 
appropriate, but it may be even supercharged by a question of 
who controls the commercial company. And I would recommend the 
passage of his proposal.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let me just suggest that I don't 
agree with the fundamental logic of what Mr. Grayson, who I 
respect his intelligence and I respect that he has a point of 
view, but I don't think his argumentation actually is 
consistent.
    The fact is, we are not loading the dice. If anything, the 
dice have been loaded in favor of having a government-run space 
transportation system. That is the way the dice have been 
loaded. All of the money goes through the government and 
through NASA and goes into this type of government approach, 
and that is one of the big debates around here. This is a, you 
know, Luke Skywalker versus Han Solo debate here, and I mean, 
there are two fundamentally different approaches to people in 
space. Do we want entrepreneurs in space? Do we want 
businessmen in space? Do we want government employees to be the 
only ones who get to go into space and have these activities? 
We are just laying the foundation so that the commercial sector 
can play a role.
    We did the same thing with the railroads. And let us just 
note. In the beginning of our country's history, there was some 
people who wanted us to build all of the American ships. The 
ships would be built by the government, but instead, the people 
who founded our country had a very good understanding that no, 
we are going to leave this transportation across that great 
ocean to the private sector. We thus developed in the private 
sector the clipper ships which became the dominant force for 
commerce and the whole world, and America was playing that role 
and we were the ones who did this without government having to 
approve of everything and co-opt all of the funds that were 
necessary.
    And when we wanted to develop a railroad, yes, the 
government played a role. The government provided a certain 
amount of wealth, meaning land, on either side of the track to 
promote the commercial activity. I think we would have a far 
different country today had we decided early on in our 
country's history simply to have the government running all the 
transportation systems, and all the people in the 
transportation systems working as government employees. It 
would be a different world, it would be a different country.
    I think we are better off by the direction that we took. 
What is going on here is an attempt to ease us away from what 
had been co-opted by a total government approach to now going 
into a more private sector approach. And there are companies in 
the private sector who, I disagree with Mr. Grayson, who have 
great track records in building space transportation 
technology. Boeing and Lockheed, you look at the Delta system 
and the Atlas system. These are very good systems, yes, and 
they were done in cooperation with government. But now, let us 
see if we can attract by definition more money from the private 
sector into this whole arena of space transportation. If we do 
not do that, it will be the government's job and it will be 
only taxpayer money. And what is the problem with allowing the 
commercial people to come in and spend some of the money that 
we would otherwise be spending from the taxpayers? So I would 
oppose this amendment, and I would hope that we all agree that 
it would be a good thing to have commercial investment in space 
and to encourage that, and that would be a boon to the 
taxpayers.
    Thank you very much.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, for number 
three. And Ms. Giffords is recognized.
    Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have to speak 
in opposition, respectfully, of the amendment. When looking at 
the language, the bill actually does not require that the 
government system be shut down if a single commercial provider 
is qualified for launch. Whether the provisions just allow that 
the commercial provider can fly U.S. astronauts to the ISS, 
they actually don't prohibit NASA from developing or flying its 
government program. And in fact, if the bill had, I wouldn't 
support the language myself.
    What we are saying is that we don't want the government 
unfairly competing with the private sector once they satisfy 
all of NASA's requirements, and that said, as in the case with 
many other government make or buy decisions, the bill itself 
makes clear that the commercial systems can't cost more than 
the government provided on a dollar-per-seat basis. And of 
course, as Mr. Grayson knows, OMB's circular A-76 is actually 
not law. It is an executive branch directive.
    So be that as it may, we will not be giving an unearned and 
undeserved preference to commercial entities as was asserted in 
the Dear Colleague that he circulated. They are going to have 
to meet all their requirements laid out in the bill before they 
can be considered for contracts with the Federal Government.
    And again, as we have been saying, it is that balance 
between government, private sector and I think this strikes a 
fair balance.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Giffords.
    If there is no further discussion, then all in favor say 
aye. Opposed, no. The no's have it. The amendment is not agreed 
to.
    I think we have time for two more amendments, and so the 
next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the 
gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Fudge. Are you ready to proceed with 
your amendment?
    Ms. Fudge. Yes, I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 070, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Fudge of Ohio and Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment directs 
the administrator to conduct a study with the National 
Academies on the feasibility of a commercial space market as we 
have yet to see a Federal study on this industry.
    We need to determine the market demands for commercial 
human spaceflight, both home and abroad. Additionally, though, 
this is only a five-year authorization. It is crucial that we 
have the financial data to determine whether a commercial 
spaceflight sector can sustain itself for the long term.
    Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that you see value in 
conducting a study like this one described in my amendment. I 
look forward to working with you on the language and 
incorporating a commercial market study requirement before the 
Committee brings this bill to the Floor, and I withdraw my 
amendment at this time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. Let me just remind 
members, we have one more amendment to go before we are going 
to go to vote, or maybe we might even have more.
    If we get this bill out today, as we are going to, then 
there is a reasonable chance that maybe next week, if there is 
a lull, that we could get this on the floor, which I think 
would be very beneficial for us in trying then to go to 
conference.
    So we are going to move forward, and the next amendment on 
the roster is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah, 
Mr. Matheson. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Matheson. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Oh, the Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 065, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Matheson of Utah.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Matheson. Thank you. I will take less than five 
minutes. Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment clarifies NASA's obligation to the 
requirements that are in the bill. What my language would do is 
simply requires NASA to use the money that is authorized in 
this bill to perform work on the program spelled out in the 
bill.
    The underlying bill requires NASA to come up with a 
spaceflight plan within 180 days of enactment of the law. In 
the meantime, there is nothing to prevent NASA from continuing 
to fund the programs that are authorized. My amendment requires 
NASA to continue to fund programs and not use that money at a 
later date for terminating these same programs.
    Now, this is an amendment that is a result of bipartisan 
discussions within this Committee. I appreciate the help of 
both majority and minority staff to develop this amendment, and 
it is more a perfecting amendment than anything else in terms 
of the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides 
to support it. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Matheson.
    Is there further discussion on this amendment? If not, the 
vote is on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment say 
aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    Mr. Rohrabacher is up next, and since Mr. Rohrabacher is up 
next, we know this might take a while. So we will adjourn at 
this time to come back, this time five minutes after the last 
vote. Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Gordon. The committee is called to order again, 
and I will put folks on notice. It seems we are going to have a 
vote in about an hour, and so I think we have an opportunity to 
complete this in an hour. It may be a contradiction of terms to 
say that at the same time to call on Mr. Rohrabacher, but the 
next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by Mr. 
Rohrabacher from California. Are you ready to proceed with your 
amendment?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 045, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain this 
amendment.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. This amendment requires NASA to provide 
reports to Congress on the current--in the current areas, that 
is the current laws prohibiting cooperation with the People's 
Republic of China. We need a report on exactly what those laws 
are, what the restrictions are. We need a report from NASA on 
the level of transparency required by a nation in order to join 
the ISS Coalition. We need to see that in black and white, what 
would be required of any nation and this, of course, is aimed 
at China. If they don't have a certain level of transparency, 
we need to know whether or not that will mean they can still 
become a member of the team and participate in the 
International Space Station.
    Number three, we need a report from NASA on the military 
uses of the Chinese Space Program. China supposedly has a 
civilian space program, but like all things look very closely 
in China you will find so much of it tied to the People's 
Liberation Army, and we would like to see what military uses 
are being put to play by the Chinese and their space program.
    And last, we need a report on the danger that is posed to 
the International Space Station by a mission that the Chinese 
flew and what they did is they launched a very--a micro 
satellite near the International Space Station. It was on the 
path of the International Space Station, and we have never had 
an explanation of why this little satellite was launched, and 
we need to get a full report on that particular incident. And 
so far there has been no investigation, and I think that we 
need explanations of what that was all about and did that and 
has that put the Space Station in jeopardy?
    And as the Space Station goes around in its orbit, this 
Chinese little miniature satellite could well be a threat to 
the safety of the Station. We need to know whether that is the 
case or not, and I think it is fairly non-controversial. It is 
just asking for reports on those areas, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield, and I am not 
trying to be catty or anything here, you--later you have an 
amendment that says there can be no contact with China, so, I 
mean, how do we sort of, you know, how do we make those two fit 
together?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. You mean how we can investigate without 
actually having a relationship with them?
    Chairman Gordon. It says you can't even talk to them.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we are basically not talking to 
them. We are asking them questions. If the other one is passed, 
by the way, if the other amendment is passed, I will gladly 
withdraw this amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Well, again, if the gentleman will--I will 
claim my own time, I think this investigation is something that 
would better be left to CIA or some other agency. I am not sure 
that NASA has this ability, and so for that reason, and, again, 
and I am--maybe you can cure it later by saying you can talk to 
them, but this just doesn't seem to be the right business for 
NASA.
    So is there further discussion?
    If there is no further discussion----
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Yes. Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. If Rohrabacher talked to them enough, then they 
would have a different opinion about us over here. I support 
his amendment. It simply asks for a report. Why not?
    Chairman Gordon. Well, why not would be because it would 
take resources from NASA that could be used for, you know, a 
number of other areas, as well as it just doesn't seem like 
NASA--this is like, you know, asking the National Department or 
the Department of Defense to look into something with, you 
know, hogs in Texas. I just don't think it is the right 
location.
    Is there further discussion on this amendment?
    Mr. McCaul. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. McCaul is recognized.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, let me just note that there is 
a lot of movement going on now about furthering our cooperation 
with China, a lot of it, space cooperation. People are talking 
about bringing them into a space relationship perhaps like we 
are with Russia, and let me just note for everyone here there 
has been no reform in China as we have seen in Russia. You 
know, the churches are filled in Russia, there is opposition 
parties and newspapers. Obviously they have not reached the 
level that we would like, but in China they have actually 
retrogressed, and they are an incredibly repressive society, 
and I don't like to see the idea that we can just nonchalantly 
sort of ease into a high-tech, space-related partnership with 
the Chinese. And this report by NASA, who knows this, you know, 
the people in NASA, you know, know what issues are involved 
here and how they would want to cooperate.
    It seems to me that that makes all the sense in the world 
for us to have an understanding on these particular issues 
about the level of transparency that we would require of the--
of any member of the coalition running the International Space 
Station. Why is that not a report that we could expect, and 
what is it about the laws that are currently in place that 
prohibit certain cooperation with Communist China? NASA would 
know that, their legal counsel would know that, and what are 
the military uses of the Chinese Space Program? There is no 
reason why NASA cannot ask our Defense Department and the CIA 
and others to help them prepare that report.
    And, of course, the danger to the Space Station by that 
Chinese probe, that is something that NASA would actually be 
the lead agency in. So I think this is an important issue 
because we are easing into what I consider to be a very 
unhealthy relationship with the world's worst human right 
abuser.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. McCaul. 
If there is no further discussion, then all in favor of the 
amendment, say aye. Opposed, no. It looks like the no's have 
it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
    Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes. Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 125, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry. I got so 
shook up over Mr. Wu trying to break the desk. I do have an 
amendment at the desk, and I want to thank you and the Ranking 
Member for considering it.
    This amendment is pretty straightforward. This really 
clarifies Section 405 of the bill. We need to ensure that NASA 
has a clear plan in place to put NASA on the aeronautical 
structure, infrastructure back on track to fill the U.S. and 
long-term aeronautics research needs.
    In order to ensure that NASA develops a plan to stabilize 
and reverse the deterioration of NASA's aeronautics ground test 
facilities, my amendment specifies that this report be 
completed within one year after the enactment of this Act. 
NASA's aeronautics test program ensures the capability, 
availability, and accessibility of testing facilities to meet 
the U.S. aeronautics needs for NASA, other government agencies, 
and commercial customers. These facilities provide vital 
testing and demonstrate new technologies, materials, 
structures, and flight concepts bringing understanding to the 
aeronautical behavior.
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate your 
considering this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for that excellent 
amendment.
    Any further discussion?
    If there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on 
the amendment. All in favor, say aye. All in favor, no or 
opposed, no. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. 
Thank you.
    Let us see. I think Mrs. Fudge might be--she--okay. Well, 
she has been pretty attending all today, so we will see if she 
is going to be coming back. And Mr. Wilson.
    So the next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Wilson. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Wilson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 036, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
    Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I am most 
pleased about with this mark is the inclusion of----
    Chairman Gordon. Excuse me. If the gentleman will suspend, 
which amendment did you----
    The Clerk. 036.
    Chairman Gordon. 036? Okay. Mr. Wilson's. Okay. Excuse me.
    The Clerk. Are we okay?
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that 
I am most pleased about this mark is the inclusion of adequate 
funding for evidence-based programs to improve STEM education 
in our country. If America is to remain the world's leader in 
the space and aeronautics industry, we need a brilliant 
workforce of scientists and engineers at NASA.
    I represent a rural part of Ohio. Not many people know that 
former astronaut and Senator John Glenn grew up in a rural part 
of Appalachia just west of my district in Ohio.
    I know that many of my constituents have been inspired by 
Senator Glenn's many accomplishments, as well as while watching 
various NASA rocket or Shuttle launches on TV.
    Sadly, too many of our rural students are struggling to 
receive the adequate STEM education they need to become a NASA 
astronaut or engineer, and too many of our teachers lack the 
resources needed to provide the STEM education necessary for 
students to look to enter NASA, the NASA workforce.
    My amendment asks that NASA also consider students in rural 
schools as they look to increase awareness in NASA and improve 
STEM education at all levels of schooling. I urge my colleagues 
to support my amendment.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. As the son of two 
farmers and someone who represents a large rural area also, I 
think this is an excellent amendment, and I think maybe the 
gentleman from the smallest county in Texas might have 
something to say about that also.
    Mr. Hall. I agree with the Chairman. Yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. All in favor of the amendment, say aye. 
Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    If there is no objection, Ms. Fudge was the amendment 
before and so we will bring her up again at this time and so 
will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 071, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Fudge of Ohio and Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this 
amendment is very simple. It will ensure that we perform not 
only research and development for the technologies of the 
current mission but also the research, development, and 
demonstration of the technologies needed for future missions.
    It will be quite awhile before we put a human on Mars, but 
if we don't start now, the technology R,D&D that will get us 
there, it may never happen. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Fudge.
    Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to support the 
gentlelady's amendment. It establishes an enabling technologies 
development and demonstration program under the Space 
Technology Program, and it is unclear to me what the program 
contributes to the overall Space Technology Program, but I am 
told it will add technologies that are needed to support the 
exploration program.
    Will the gentlelady help me understand just a little what 
she expects this program will accomplish and how it helps our 
overall exploration effort for the record?
    Ms. Fudge. For the record, Mr. Ranking Member, it is 
exactly what you said.
    Mr. Hall. It is what? Okay. In that case I yield back my 
time.
    Chairman Gordon. If there is no further discussion, since 
Ms. Fudge has educated Mr. Hall, then we will ask for a vote. 
All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The 
amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment is offered by the gentleman from New 
Mexico, Mr. Lujan. Are you ready to proceed with your 
amendment?
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 064, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Lujan of New Mexico.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now more than ever we 
must invest in educating the next generation of scientists, 
engineers, mathematicians, and innovators. The continuing 
under-representation of Latinos and other minority students in 
mathematics, engineering, and science fields will only 
contribute to the shortage of professionals available to work 
in these important industries.
    My amendment amends the STEM education and training section 
of the bill to ensure that participants in NASA's STEM 
education programs include minority and under-represented 
groups, including students from high-needs local school 
districts. We must make sure that NASA is participating in 
active outreach to these communities of students who for too 
long have suffered from a STEM achievement gap.
    My amendment also allows for a special consideration to be 
given to minority-serving institutions when NASA is 
establishing or expanding degree programs in space and earth 
sciences, aeronautics, engineering, and other STEM disciplines.
    My amendment will support the creation of leaders and 
innovators within our minority and under-represented 
communities who will be prepared to carry on NASA's mission for 
many years to come.
    I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank 
you very much for your consideration.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Any further discussion on the amendment?
    Governor Garamendi.
    Mr. Garamendi. Just a quick question. The--I think the 
present language is both for all levels of education?
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Garamendi. Well, let me just finish my question. If 
that is the case, then typically minority-serving institutions 
are the higher level of education or the highest level. If that 
is a modification to only go to highest level, then I think we 
may not want to do that.
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Garamendi. Sure. I will yield.
    Mr. Lujan. Well, if you look, Mr. Garamendi, at page 77 of 
the bill, there is within the section here we are targeting 
minority-serving institutions for higher education, but the 
subsequent amendment and the language that goes on to follow is 
outreach to students from under-represented groups as well to 
make sure that we are going out, and we are recruiting over and 
beyond, enabling legislation around the education section is 
reaching out to education of all levels, and I think it was 
purposely written that way, taking into consideration that NASA 
does have programs K through 12 and post-secondary education.
    And this would only emphasize that we need to make sure 
that, again, as we are looking at some of the programs that do 
exist that we are paying attention to all parts of the country. 
There is backgrounds coming from the National Science Board, 
science and engineering indicators from NSF and from others 
that have compiled reports showing where degree programs, STEM 
bachelors degrees earned by minority students is 17 percent, 
much lower than representation from other minorities in the 
country.
    Mr. Garamendi. I am not debating that point. I just want 
to--thank you for yielding back. I am not debating that point. 
I agree entirely with it. I just want to make sure that we are 
not in this language inadvertently directing the money only to 
higher education, but apparently that is not the case. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. I have concerns about the amendment, and my 
disagreement or concerns don't stem from the intent to reach 
out to minority students. Rather this amendment makes several 
wholesale revisions to statutory references contained in the 
bill, but my main question is when we first looked at the bill, 
it had a general definition of institution of higher education, 
and it goes one through five and that additional purposes.
    That is stricken from the bill. I was just wondering why.
    Mr. Lujan. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hall, that was 
actually a recommendation from legislative counsel. That is 
something that could be added back. I asked that very question 
when we were giving the suggestion, looking at this provision, 
and I would be happy and I would be very supportive to ask 
unanimous consent that the language that was stricken which 
reads, ``(as defined under Section 101A of the Higher Education 
Act from 1965 (20 USC 1001)(A) and then closed triple time),'' 
be added back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Well, first, let me say that we have in a 
number of hearings during the COMPETES reauthorization it 
became clear that minorities, women, underserved, were our best 
areas to bump up in those areas, and so that is what we are 
attempting to do. If there is some--so I support the 
gentleman's amendment. If there are some improvements that can 
be made between now and the Floor or in conference, then we 
need to continue to work on that.
    So if there is no further discussion, all in favor say----
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Yes, sir. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. I would like to make another inquiry. If he is 
willing to put that A through 1001 A, the general definition of 
institutions of higher education, back in those five 
definitions there would be a lot easier for us to support it. 
Or if he would consider that from here until the time it goes 
either in report language or otherwise.
    Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the 
Ranking Member and yourself to make sure that we are able to 
get language that was suggested by legislative counsel and see 
what is most appropriate to get back in.
    Chairman Gordon. I know there is a great deal of effort 
that has been put into this, and if there is more effort that 
needs to be put into it, then we need to do that.
    If there is no further discussion, all in favor, say aye. 
Opposed, no. The ayes have it.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 
the gentlelady from Texas. Are you ready to proceed with your 
amendment?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Johnson. I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 126, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for 
considering this amendment.
    As you are aware, Section 601 of this bill focuses on 
improving STEM education and training at NASA. This section 
also instructs the NASA Administrator to consult with the 
Secretary of Education and the Director of the National Science 
Foundation to improve STEM education and training.
    My amendment includes the gross under-representation of 
minority teachers in the United States classrooms as part of 
its discussion. The best to improve elementary, secondary, and 
undergraduate and graduate level STEM education in our country 
is by addressing the absence of minority teachers who are well 
qualified.
    The achievement gap for minorities is staggering, but I am 
convinced it can be mitigated through the interaction of 
minority role models and minority youth, with minority youth. 
If children see someone who looks like them succeeding and 
encouraging them to achieve, then the prospects of those 
children to believe in themselves and fulfill their own 
potential are far greater.
    Put simply, believing is seeing. The best way we can 
strengthen our Nation's scientific enterprise is to strengthen 
diversity so all Americans can compete in the 21st century. 
According to the Secretary of Education 200,000 new teachers 
are hired each year nationally, and less than two percent or 
4,500 are black males. This is unacceptable.
    To quote Secretary Duncan, ``our graduation rates have gone 
up dramatically, and our dropout rates have gone--have to go 
down,'' but to get there I am convinced we have to have more 
people of color teaching, being role models and mentors.
    In my State of Texas well over half of the student 
population is minority, but nearly 77 percent of the Texas 
teaching force is non-minority. The same diversity found among 
students is not found among teachers. This shortage of minority 
teachers is a serious problem.
    This is a serious problem, but my amendment to the section 
of this bill which tasks the NASA Administrator to consult with 
other agencies is a good place to start.
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate your 
considering this amendment to ensure this discussion does not 
end here today, and I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Once again I think 
all you said was very well documented in our hearings on the 
America COMPETES Act.
    Is there further discussion?
    If no, all in favor of the motion, say aye. Opposed, no. 
The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
    And let me see. Ms. Edwards is next, and she put us on 
notice earlier that she--oh, are you going to do it? Okay. She 
will be back. She had a press conference. She has been very 
attended today. So I understand that Ms. Fudge will offer that 
for her, so the next amendment on the roster is an amendment by 
the gentlelady from Maryland, who will be offered by the 
gentlelady from Ohio. Are you ready to proceed with your 
amendment?
    Ms. Fudge. Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 064, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Edwards of Maryland.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, Ms. Edwards' amendment adds a new section to 
Title VI of the bill establishing a pilot program for hands-on 
space science and engineering education and training related to 
aeronautics, exploration, science, space operations, and human 
spaceflight that serve to stimulate and engage students in 
science engineering and that foster skills including 
engineering, teamwork, project management, and problem solving.
    The emphasis of the pilot program will be on technology-
related education and training. The whole point of this 
language and this pilot program is to get our young scientists 
engaged and active.
    The pilot program will have an emphasis on underserved and 
under-represented minority populations because we are losing 
our minority populations when it comes to math and science, and 
we have to aggressively make sure that we capture them and make 
sure they are included.
    I understand that there is an issue with the appropriations 
language in this amendment. I am fine with changing this 
language to, ``such sums from within the funding authorized for 
NASA's Education Program.''
    I encourage everyone to support this important amendment 
that will benefit our young folks by engaging them in science 
and technology and making our future stronger.
    Mr. Chairman, I urge support and yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. You did an excellent 
job as a stand-in for Ms. Edwards, and once again, this is a 
very good amendment as we would expect from her.
    Is there further discussion?
    If not, all--the vote occurs on the amendment. All in 
favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment in 
agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered in 
person by the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Fudge. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Ms. Fudge. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Oh, excuse me. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 072, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Fudge of Ohio and Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentlelady has five minutes to explain her amendment.
    Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much. This amendment adds a 
provision to the institutional management section that will 
ensure that our unique and state-of-the-art facilities receive 
proper consideration for modifications.
    In addition to maintenance repair, upgrading, and 
modernization, the Administrator will include an assessment of 
what structural modifications must be made to maximize the 
usage of our strongest assets and significant financial 
investments.
    I urge passage. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mrs. Fudge, for improving this 
bill.
    Is there further discussion?
    If no, the amendment occurs on the amendment. All in favor, 
say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is 
agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you ready 
to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I am. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 048, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. This amendment reaffirms the policy that 
already exists basically with respect to near-earth objects as 
a threat to our Nation, and yes, to all of humanity. It 
restates the direction that we have given the Administration to 
recommend a Federal agency or agencies to be responsible for 
designating those agencies by October 15, and those agencies 
that be designated with the responsibility of how to cope with 
a near-earth object that is--that might be observed and then 
would be charted and would perhaps be colliding with the earth.
    And then also the Administration needs to designate what 
would be done and who would be responsible for the campaign and 
the efforts to deflect any major near-earth object that was 
seen and observed heading towards the earth.
    This is not a--this is actually reaffirming policy that 
already exists, and I think that it is very responsible, and we 
are just asking--making sure the Administration reaffirm that 
October 15 deadline.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. You have been 
a champion in this area.
    Mr. Bartlett is recognized.
    Mr. Bartlett. There is an old adage that says, ``What is 
everybody's business is nobody's business,'' and somebody has 
to have responsibility for this. It was a near-earth object 
that became a really near-earth object that spelled the end of 
the dinosaurs. Then you could do nothing about it. Today we 
might be able to do something about it.
    It is very obvious with the capabilities we have today that 
somebody ought to be watching out there to see what is out 
there and to avoid a catastrophe if it is possible.
    So I support the amendment. Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett.
    If there is no further discussion on the amendment, all in 
favor of the amendment, say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have 
it. Thank you. The amendment is agreed to.
    And the next amendment on the roster is also from the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I am. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 049, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. This amendment, of course, is tied 
to the amendment that we just passed, and it reaffirms the 
policy in respect to the role of the Arecibo telescope and the 
part that it plays in the identification of threats of near-
earth objects.
    Let us just note that without the Arecibo telescope, we 
will not be able to track a distant object that is headed 
toward the earth and chart its course in time for us to have a 
response. So the Arecibo telescope is essential if we are 
serious about the idea that if a near-earth object is observed 
and we would then be able to chart its course to see if it 
actually was a threat.
    So, again, this is reaffirming policy that exists.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Another good 
amendment.
    Is there further discussion?
    If not, all in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. They ayes have 
it. The amendment is agreed to.
    And the next amendment on the roster is offered by the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 044, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. This is an issue that I am very 
serious about, and it is one we all need to consider very 
seriously because it goes to the heart of the world that we are 
going to create in the future. I happen to believe there are 
major threats to our national security and to the future of the 
world. The one that is on us right now is radical Islam, but 
the other is very close by, and that is within a few years we 
will see the emergence of an incredibly powerful China that has 
had no, and I say zero political reform.
    We were told over the years that if we just engage China 
and are more active with them in various ways economically and 
exchange programs and things like space programs and such that 
they would evolve into a more democratic country because of the 
contact that they had with the west.
    This has been proven to be a horrendous mistake. This 
theory of getting close to an evil force, and that is going to 
make it--some of your goodness is going to rub off has not 
worked out. I call that the hug a Nazi, make a liberal theory, 
and it has not worked.
    The bottom line is what we have got now is we have had 
these exchanges with China, and it has led to nothing but a 
stronger, more aggressive, more threatening, and yes, at home, 
more totalitarian government that threatens the rest of us as 
well as its own people.
    Let us note that believers in God who are being thrown into 
jail today, most of them, the majority of them are in China. 
China is the world's worst human rights abuser, throwing Falun 
Gong members, people who refuse to file and to register with 
the government as a church under their direction are persecuted 
in that country still. No opposition parties, no freedom of 
speech, no unions, et cetera. Well, the last time we decided to 
cooperative with China in terms of lifting, letting them lift, 
for example, our satellites on Chinese rockets, there was an 
incredible transfer of technology that has done nothing but 
weaken us and strengthen this horrible dictatorship.
    So this amendment prohibits any exchange or contact between 
NASA programs or personnel, including contractors, with the 
People's Republic of China or any entity that is headquartered 
in the People's Republic of China.
    As I say, China continues to be aggressive in their stance 
on space issues, and they have already laid down their marker. 
They have, as I mentioned earlier, they launched a--some sort 
of a probe near the International Space Station which actually 
threatens the safety of that station, and we have never had any 
explanation of it.
    Well, we shouldn't be cooperating with a country that has 
such belligerent, you know, and provocative actions as that, 
and they recently shot down another satellite, spreading debris 
over an already dangerous environment. One of the things I 
would like to see is cooperation on an international scale on 
debris, but are we going to let the worst offender of all 
become part of that partnership? I don't think so. So there are 
no existing treaties or trade agreements between the United 
States and China that would be affected by this amendment.
    NASA has one agreement with the Chinese Academy of Sciences 
involving geo-dynamics, some sort of research that is going on 
there, and NASA and China have had several unofficial 
information exchanges, particularly on lunar data.
    But I would--this amendment would basically prohibit us and 
prohibiting NASA from expanding a relationship with this 
vicious dictatorship. I think that it will do nothing but--and 
every time we have had this, as they say, it has resulted in a 
transfer of knowledge not from them to us but from us to them 
in a way that strengthened the government of--this is repulsive 
to the values that we hold dear as Americans.
    So I would ask--I know this is rather controversial or 
whatever, but I would ask my colleagues to join me in making 
this declaration that we are not going to enter into a 
partnership with the Communist Chinese, at least until we see 
some reform on their end, and then we can resend this 
restriction on NASA.
    I yield back my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher----
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. --for your consistency. I think the 
amendment goes more than says that we can enter in an 
agreement. It says that we can't even discuss agreements with 
them.
    I remember--or anything else. I remember former Secretary 
of State Jim Baker on one occasion was asked about not having 
any kind of discussion with a particular country, and his 
response was we should not be afraid to talk with anyone. If we 
are concerned about their debris, we got to talk to them about, 
you know, about that. So I think that you have some legitimate 
concerns, but I am afraid that this amendment goes too far.
    Is there----
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr.--Dr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of 
staff, if we pass this amendment, would it trigger sequential 
referral to international relations?
    Chairman Gordon. Counsel would answer the question, please.
    The Counsel. I don't believe so. No.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. So that is a definitive maybe? Okay. Or 
maybe not, I guess was more like it.
    Is there further discussion?
    Dr. Bartlett, did you have anything else you----
    Mr. Bartlett. I was just concerned that talking to other 
countries is really the--that whether you do or not generally 
resides in International Relations Committee, not in other 
committees, and I was just concerned that if we pass this, 
would it trigger a sequential referral.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bartlett. I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The gentleman is making a very good point 
because this is only restricting NASA from talking about 
specific programs of cooperation. We are not talking about 
approaching them. The State Department has every right to 
approach them and talk to them as to whether or not they are 
willing to move forward. It just--and so if you want to open 
doors, that is the way to do it.
    NASA's response, that is not our job to open doors like 
this, so we are actually just saying NASA shouldn't be leading 
the way to a new relationship with China if there is that type 
of problem with communicating. It could be done by the state 
department.
    Chairman Gordon. Once again, as I read, it says that adds a 
section to the bill prohibiting NASA personnel or contractors 
from any exchange or contact with the People's Republic or any 
identity who is headquartered in the People's Republic of 
China.
    So this is more than just entering into a contract.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. As up to the State Department.
    Chairman Gordon. No, but, I mean, but your amendment goes 
further. It says there can't be any contact.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. That is correct.
    Chairman Gordon. Okay. I just want to be sure we knew.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I would hope that we didn't do it with 
Herman Goring as well, you know.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Wu is recognized.
    Mr. Wu. Well, I have deeply appreciated, I do deeply 
appreciate the gentleman's strong, passionate, consistent 
commitment to human rights regardless of location, regardless 
of the size of the entity that the gentleman is taking on, and 
I have worked with the gentleman on many of those human rights 
issues.
    I part company with the gentleman on this particular 
amendment. I think that there may be some limited opportunity 
for bringing the Chinese into a broader family of space-faring 
nations, but, you know, even short of that potential future, I 
think that it is worth pointing out that we began our work with 
the Russians when they were the Soviet Union, and as I recall 
that process started in the early to mid '70s when the Russians 
and we had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other, 
and there was very, very limited technology transfer per se, 
but we did as I recall have an Apollo-Soyuz docking in space, 
and there was some controversy about that, and you know, 
whether it should have been done, but it led to several decades 
of in my view worthwhile space cooperation and sometimes the 
international relationship has been testy, and the Soviet Union 
was not an exemplar of respect for human rights nor did we 
share a lot of foreign policy interests.
    I want to note also that----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Wu. Well, let me finish this point, which is that I 
was--I believe there was a foreign affairs hearing where 
Secretary Gates I think at that time as Defense Secretary for 
the Bush Administration came in and testified that he favored 
sharing some space activities with the Chinese, substantially 
to enhance our security interests because that better 
understanding both their intention and their capabilities was 
inherently in our interest and having some confidence building 
so that we could put pressure on them to not target satellites 
as most countries have done so that we don't put a bunch of 
particles, debris into earth orbit that, you know, that is one 
thing to be avoided and the confidence building and 
determination of capability and intent in Secretary Gates' view 
was well worth the risks of contact with the Chinese.
    And with that I would be happy to yield to the gentleman 
for a moment.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, for a few points let us just note 
this, that when we had that space cooperation with the Soviet 
Union, I was opposed to that then, and so--and let me just note 
that that did not make the world safer. That, in fact, was 
coincided with a massive buildup of Soviet weaponry in which 
they put a huge number of new missiles in Europe. And so that, 
while it made people feel good, it was just the opposite impact 
in terms of the potential that it had for peace on this planet 
and what eventually----
    Mr. Wu. Reclaiming my time. I would like to ask the 
gentleman----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. Wu. --if he thinks that those early efforts at space 
cooperation made any contribution to subsequent cooperation 
with respect to the International Space Station?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. In cooperation with the International 
Space Station, let me think about that because it is a specific 
question as to that end, and by the way, I have been supportive 
of International Space Station cooperation since the reform has 
taken place in what was the Soviet Union, which is now a 
reforming and potentially democratic Russia.
    But what changed the Soviet Union, what brought down the 
Communist dictatorship had nothing to do with the cooperation 
that made people feel good at the time.
    Mr. Wu. As my time is expiring, let me reclaim, that I 
think that confidence building is very, very important, and 
that is certainly a worthy goal for our defense as well as for 
our space----
    Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired. If there 
is no further discussion----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman give me, indulge me 
with one more minute?
    Chairman Gordon. Of course. With unanimous consent.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. About this--because this is 
something I have lived, and look. At the time when we were most 
cooperating with the Soviet Union and hoping that would have a 
beneficial affect, it had a negative affect, and at that very 
time that we were cooperating with these type of programs, they 
were pumping money into various countries of the world to 
create revolution. They were dramatically expanding their 
military capabilities.
    That is what has happened with China as well, let me note. 
When we were cooperating with them in the Space Program, what 
has--what was the result then? No. We have given them 
technology now that threatens the United States. What brought 
down the Soviet Union and made it a more peaceful world. What 
brought us to the point where Ronald Reagan reached an 
agreement to dramatically reduce the nuclear weapons in our 
arsenals, and by the way, I am supportive of the current 
efforts to reduce our nuclear arsenals.
    But what brought us to that point was when we supported 
those elements who were in opposition to the Soviet 
dictatorship, whether it was Afghanistan or Nicaragua or 
wherever or Poland. That is what eventually brought about a 
more peaceful world, not these very symbolic things, 
cooperation into space----
    Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment?
    If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. All opposed, say no. The no's have it, the----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I am sorry to have to call for a roll call 
vote.
    Chairman Gordon. You want a roll call vote or show of 
hands? You want everybody to come back?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I want a roll call vote.
    Chairman Gordon. All right. We will have a roll call vote.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. This is going to mean a lot to the people 
in their districts.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will record the vote.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon?
    Chairman Gordon. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon votes no.
    Mr. Costello?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
    Ms. Woolsey?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes no.
    Mr. Baird?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords?
    Ms. Giffords. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords votes no.
    Ms. Edwards?
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes no.
    Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes no.
    Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes no.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
    Mr. Rothman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson?
    Mr. Matheson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chandler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Carnahan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hill?
    Mr. Hill. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hill votes no.
    Mr. Mitchell?
    Mr. Mitchell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mitchell votes no.
    Mr. Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wilson votes no.
    Mrs. Dahlkemper?
    Ms. Dahlkemper. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no.
    Mr. Grayson?
    Mr. Grayson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes no.
    Mrs. Kosmas?
    Ms. Kosmas. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Kosmas votes no.
    Mr. Peters?
    Mr. Peters. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Peters votes no.
    Mr. Garamendi?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lamar Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes aye.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. I support----
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bilbray?
    Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Bilbray votes aye before----
    The Clerk. Mr. Bilbray votes aye.
    Mr. Adrian Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Olson?
    Mr. Olson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Olson votes aye.
    Mr. Rothman is not recorded.
    Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as 
no, please.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rothman votes no.
    Mr. Baird is not recorded.
    Mr. Baird. If I knew how to say no in Chinese, that would 
be my answer.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there anyone that has not had a chance 
to vote?
    Mr. Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, am I recorded?
    Chairman Gordon. You are not recorded. Would you like to 
be?
    Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Yes, I would like to be.
    Chairman Gordon. And so would you like to tell us what that 
would be?
    Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Adrian Smith votes aye.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there anyone else that has not been 
recorded? If not, please report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have 6 members voting aye and 20 
members voting no.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


    Chairman Gordon. The ayes have it. The amendment--excuse 
me. The no's have it. Pardon me. Brainwashed by those folks. 
The no's have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is the amendment offered 
by the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. Are you ready to 
proceed with your amendment?
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 063, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Ms. Edwards of Maryland.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also thank you to 
Ranking Member Hall because I think sometimes we hear about 
how, you know, horrible it is around here and Members can't 
work together across the aisles, and I always think that this 
committee really disproves that little rumor, and I appreciate 
what we are trying to do here to make sure that we cover a lot 
of different bases and concerns with the NASA Reauthorization.
    My amendment concerns retaining highly-skilled and talented 
NASA workers for the new NASA future. As you know, in my 
service on this committee I have always raised the question 
about what I believe is the need to retain the internal 
capacity at NASA so they have the ability to oversee, to 
manage, to direct, and influence the many talented contractors 
who do so much of the work for the agency, and I believe that 
sustaining and building upon that talented reserve should be 
our first priority as we move forward with this authorization 
because nothing in this bill can happen really without our 
skilled workforce.
    We should recognize that the new authorization is itself a 
transition. It lays the groundwork for the future, and it is 
about the expertise and oversight that we could potentially 
lose, and so what my amendment does is merely extend the 
current moratorium against reductions in force that has 
received unanimous, really nearly unanimous bipartisan support 
since 2004.
    This policy was embraced in 2005, and 2008, reauthorization 
acts controlled by both parties, and given the looming 
retirement of the Shuttle this language is particularly 
important for upwards of thousands of NASA employees, 
particularly at Johnson Space Center and at Kennedy Spaceflight 
Center that will be caught up in the transition over the next 
few years of this new reauthorization.
    The language is also important for all NASA employees, 
however, those who are at Goddard Spaceflight Center in the 
county that is my home would be impacted, and I know that some 
have suggested that the moratorium keeps workers and jobs that 
shouldn't exist with a changing mission, but I think it is 
really to the contrary. The NASA workforce is very fluid and 
adaptable, and it is skilled, and in this important transition 
filling those functions the way that the agency needs to will 
help the agency transition now during this authorization 
period.
    The key point here is that we need internal capacity for 
technical oversight of the agency, and I think also the 
psychological impact already of what we are doing in this 
period has been really tremendous on all of the NASA workforce. 
In fact, you know, pretty demoralizing sometimes from what I 
can hear. Everyone feels targeted.
    So we need to make sure that our workers know that they are 
supported, that we value what they are doing, that they have 
something important to contribute, and continue a policy that 
we have had for the last several years, and obviously the 
amendment is endorsed by a number of the representatives of 
workers at all of these NASA facilities.
    I encourage my colleagues to support the continued 
moratorium through this authorization period and to support our 
workforce.
    And with that I would yield.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to support the 
gentlelady's amendment. I don't like to protect only civil 
service employees while thousands of contractor's jobs are 
being eliminated, but we do need to do everything we can to 
ensure our talented workforce remains intact.
    For that reason I support the amendment.
    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Let me, first of all, 
I would agree with Ms. Edwards that we have a very talented 
NASA workforce, and I would certainly like to see that 
maintained at full strength and expanded, but let us be 
realistic here. This is a five-year moratorium on past 
moratoriums.
    We simply have to give the agency more flexibility than 
that. Clearly if there--we are looking at a change in direction 
in many ways for NASA. If there is someone in NASA that can do 
another job, it makes no sense that they are going to fire them 
and hire somebody else. Of course NASA's going to move all the 
employees that they can into these new jobs.
    I just think that we need to provide more flexibility to 
the agency. Otherwise, we could have a workforce that then does 
not allow you to hire new people that have these new skills, or 
it just is not in my opinion on top of all the others it 
doesn't give adequate flexibility for NASA. So I would 
reluctantly have to oppose this amendment.
    Is there further discussion?
    If not, all in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Could we do it by hand?
    Ms. Edwards. I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Gordon. We will do a recorded vote. The clerk will 
call the vote or, I mean, will call, and I hope the clerk will 
move along with good rhythm because we have just a few minutes.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon?
    Chairman Gordon. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Gordon votes no.
    Mr. Costello?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson?
    [Inaudible.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes aye.
    Mr. Wu?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird?
    Mr. Baird. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird votes no.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. No.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Miller votes no.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords?
    Ms. Giffords. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Giffords votes no.
    Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Fudge?
    Ms. Fudge. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Fudge votes aye.
    Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes aye.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes aye.
    Mr. Rothman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chandler?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Carnahan?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hill?
    Mr. Hill. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hill votes no.
    Mr. Mitchell?
    Mr. Mitchell. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mitchell votes aye.
    Mr. Wilson?
    Mr. Wilson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wilson votes aye.
    Mrs. Dahlkemper?
    Ms. Dahlkemper. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Dahlkemper votes no.
    Mr. Grayson?
    Mr. Grayson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Grayson votes aye.
    Mrs. Kosmas?
    Ms. Kosmas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Kosmas votes aye.
    Mr. Peters?
    Mr. Peters. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Peters votes no.
    Mr. Garamendi?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lamar Smith?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert?
    Ms. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no.
    Mr. Akin?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
    Mr. Inglis. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Inglis votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    Mr. McCaul. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McCaul votes no.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bilbray?
    Mr. Bilbray. Bilbray votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bilbray votes no.
    Mr. Adrian Smith?
    Mr. Smith of Nebraska. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Adrian Smith votes no.
    Mr. Broun?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Olson?
    Mr. Olson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Olson votes no.
    Chairman Gordon. How does Mr. Rothman vote?
    Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as 
an aye, please.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there--Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. No.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Matheson votes no.
    Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Wu votes aye.
    Anyone else?
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson, how are you recorded?
    Mr. Matheson. I would like to be recorded as no.
    The Clerk. No.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Who was after Mr. Matheson?
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Wu.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu. He votes aye?
    Chairman Gordon. Did you get Ms. Johnson?
    The Clerk. No.
    Chairman Gordon. Ms. Johnson, how would you like to be 
recorded?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there--oh, Mr. Lipinski.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski is not recorded.
    Mr. Lipinski. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
    Chairman Gordon. We have 2 minutes and 44 seconds to the 
next vote, so the clerk will report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I have 12 members voting aye, and 
18 members voting no.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


    Chairman Gordon. The no's prevail. The amendment is--does 
not pass, and let me announce that we have two more amendments, 
and I would appreciate--three amendments? Oh, we have three 
amendments, so we will come back immediately after this vote to 
finish the bill. Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Gordon. Back to order. Let us see. The next 
amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul, the patient gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. McCaul.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Are you ready to proceed?
    Mr. McCaul. I am, and I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 002, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. McCaul.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me--I don't 
think this has been said enough today. Let me commend you and 
the Ranking Member and Ms. Giffords and Mr. Olson for a fine 
job in a bipartisan piece of legislation that not only 
reauthorizes the Human Spaceflight Program but saves, restores, 
and advances human spaceflight, and I want to thank you 
personally for that and with that my amendment basically 
provides for a sense of the Congress that NASA should attempt 
to carry out the top recommendations of the decadal survey 
where possible.
    The decadal survey puts forth recommendations for NASA 
research which is developed by the top scientists in their 
fields, and in the past years NASA experienced dramatic funding 
shortfalls when the budget and appropriations did not 
adequately fund the agency. The NASA Administrator had the 
authority and exercised his authority to move large funding 
amounts from the science missions, including the top 
recommendations of the decadal survey mission areas in order to 
cover the budget shortfalls in other areas.
    As a result this hurt the progress of emissions and put 
them behind schedule. At a minimum NASA should be given 
priority to planning, designing, funding, and executing the top 
recommendations from the decadal survey in each mission area.
    And while the current amendment language is a sense of 
Congress, I would like to be able to work with the Chairman and 
the Ranking Member to strengthen this language as the bill 
moves to the Floor.
    And with that I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McCaul follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Michael T. McCaul

        
  In past years, NASA experienced dramatic funding 
        shortfalls when the budget and appropriations did not 
        adequately fund the agency.

        
  The NASA administrator had the authority, and 
        exercised his authority, to move large funding amounts from the 
        Science missions--including the top recommendations of the 
        Decadal survey mission areas--in order to cover the budget 
        shortfalls in other areas.

        
  This hurt the progress of the missions and put them 
        behind schedule.

        
  At a minimum, NASA should give priority to planning, 
        designing, funding and executing the top recommendation from 
        the Decadal survey in each mission area.

    Chairman Gordon. I thank you, Mr. McCaul, and thank you for 
your endurance today. You have a good amendment, and I think 
the committee should support it.
    Mr. Hall is recognized.
    Mr. Hall. Commonsense amendment, and I support it.
    Chairman Gordon. If there is no further discussion, the 
vote is on the amendment from the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
McCaul. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. 
The amendment is passed.
    The next amendment on the roster is an amendment by Mr. 
Sensenbrenner and Mr. Miller, a bipartisan amendment, and I 
think Mr. Miller is going to carry that.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 041, amendment to H.R. 5781 
offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Mr. Miller of 
North Carolina.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sensenbrenner and 
I disagreed about an amendment earlier today, but this 
amendment restores the happy harmony that usually exists 
between Mr. Sensenbrenner and me.
    In our work on the Investigations and Oversight 
Subcommittee we have been, Mr. Sensenbrenner and I have been 
disappointed in the role of the NASA Counsel, Office of General 
Counsel. What I think we want a general counsel to do is advise 
government agencies to follow both the letter and the spirit of 
the law.
    It appeared with respect to two instances that we know of 
that instead of doing that the General Counsel's Office or the 
General Counsel determined that what management wanted to do 
was something other than what the letter and spirit of the law 
allowed or required, and instead of telling them to do what the 
law required it seemed to help them think through a strategy 
for to do something different and get away with it.
    This amendment requires ethics training for the members of 
the counsel's office, the licensed attorneys in that office, 
and it moves the position of ethics officer away from the 
counsel.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
    NASA's General Counsel's Office has behaved like a defense lawyer 
for the mob--more intent on enabling and even covering up misconduct 
than on ensuring lawful actions.
    NASA's general counsel publicly testified that he destroyed video 
records from a meeting between NASA's Administrator and the staff of 
NASA's Office of the Inspector General because he wanted to prevent the 
recordings from becoming agency records that would be subject to FOIA 
and Congressional requests. He was aware at the time that the recorded 
meeting pertained to a matter that this Committee was actively 
investigating. He destroyed the recordings by breaking the compact 
discs over his knees and discarding the pieces in the trash.
    This amendment attempts to instill greater accountability in NASA's 
General Counsel's office by clarifying that counsel's role is to ensure 
that staff behaves lawfully--not to help them avoid repercussions when 
they break the law. urge my colleagues to support it.

    Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Miller, and thank you, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, for bringing this excellent amendment.
    Is there further discussion?
    If no, all in favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed, no. 
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The--I think the last amendment is a modified amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Peters. Are you 
ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Peters. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 050 to H.R. 5781 offered by Mr. 
Peters of Michigan.
    Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the 
amendment.
    Mr. Peters. I will be very brief because I explained it 
beforehand, Mr. Chairman. Basically this amendment requests 
that the Administrator conduct a study on the use of radiation 
research on non-human primates. It was mentioned in my initial 
comments. This is research that has been done for 40 years, and 
there are now other ways of conducting the same sort of 
radiation experiments without using non-human primates. The 
European Space Agency, for example, no longer uses non-human 
primates. The U.S. Air Force has put out a fairly detailed 
report as to why they have moved away from this as well.
    This will also--this amendment simply asks NASA to present 
a report before any additional research. If they have anything 
that they are doing now, they can continue, but they need to 
provide justification and rationale for any additional 
research, and I would urge adoption.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further----
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Gordon. Dr. Bartlett is recognized.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. I was part of the 
research team that put the first primates in space. It was more 
than half a century ago. I was a school physiologist at 
Pensacola Florida. We had an Army monkey and a Navy monkey--
their monkey was a rhesus monkey, ours was a spider monkey, the 
ones they are anticipating using here, and it was a suborbital 
flight, so I am not apriority opposed to appropriately using 
animals.
    But I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think 
that the--if they did this research they are talking about, it 
would be duplicative, and as a scientist I have some real 
concern about the validity of this kind of research.
    Radiation is a stressor, but these animals are already 
enormously stressed. These are not the affectionate spider 
monkeys that the organ grinder uses, although they are the same 
spider monkeys. These are monkeys that have forced 
incarceration which they keenly resent, and they are enormously 
stressed. I don't know how you pretend that you are going to 
measure the effects of an additional stress radiation when you 
already have animals that are enormously stressed.
    And as Mr. Peters mentioned, we now have pretty much moved 
beyond this. We don't need whole body exposures anymore because 
we know the target organs. We do a lot of tissue culture 
research, and so I think not only would these experiments be 
duplicative, they are needed because today we have moved beyond 
that, and we are doing tissue culture studies and so forth.
    I rise in strong support of this amendment. I hope that it 
can be passed. I think it sends the right message. Thank you.
    Chairman Gordon. Mr. Wu is recognized.
    Mr. Wu. I do agree that a study is in order, and I support 
the amendment. Mr. Garamendi, would you--I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment?
    If not, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, 
say--on the modified amendment. All members say aye. Vote, nay. 
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments?
    If no, then the vote is on the bill as amended. All those 
in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The--let me 
make sure that I was just saying no as an option for someone. I 
was not voting no. I was voting aye so there will be no 
misunderstanding.
    I now recognize Mr. Hall for a motion.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee favorably 
report H.R. 5781 as amended to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that 
staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make 
necessary technical and conforming changes and that the 
Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the 
House for consideration.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Gordon. The question is on the motion to report 
the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify 
by saying aye. Those opposed. The ayes have it. The bill is 
reported favorably.
    Without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the 
table. Members will have two subsequent calendar days in which 
to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the 
measure.
    Let me say to Mr. Hall, Ms. Giffords, Mr. Olson, job well 
done. Let me particularly say to the staff that has put so much 
time into this, we thank you for that. I will be the first to 
say this is not a perfect bill because we did not have the 
perfect amount of money, but we are going to move forward to a 
conference to the Floor, and we welcome additional improvements 
to the bill as we go long, and again, thank you all.
    And this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


        H.R. 5781, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster





<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

               Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 5781,
                   the National Aeronautics and Space
                Administration Authorization Act of 2010

Sec. 1. Short Title

    The ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization 
Act of 2010''.

Sec. 2. Findings

    Congress finds that the agency is and should remain a multimission 
agency, and 16 other findings.

Sec. 3. Definitions

    The terms ``Administrator'', ``ISS'', ``NASA'', ``NOAA'', and 
``OSTP'' are defined.

TITLE I. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 101. Fiscal Year 2011

    Authorizes NASA at $19,000,000,000 for FY 2011. That amount is the 
same as that in the President's FY 2011 request.
    The authorization includes the following breakdown:

         Science: $5,015,700,000, of which

                 $1,801,800,000 is for Earth Science

                 $1,485,700,000 is for Planetary Science

                 $1,076,300,000 is for Astrophysics

                 $646,900,000 is for Heliophysics

                 $5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation

         Aeronautics: $579,600,000

         Space Technology: $572,200,000

         Exploration: $4,535,300,000 of which

                 $215,000,000 is for Human Research

                 $14,000,000 is for the commercial cargo COTS 
                demonstration program

                 $50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-
                related activities

                 $4,156,300,000 is for the restructured exploration 
                program

                 $100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee 
                program

         Space Operations: $4,594,300,000, of which

                 $989,100,000 is for the Space Shuttle program

                 $2,804,800,000 is for the International Space Station

                 $60,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce 
                Transition Initiative

                 $740,400,000 is for Space and Flight Support

         Education: $145,800,000

         Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,111,400,000

         Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: 
        $407,300,000

         Inspector General: $38,400,000

Sec. 102. Fiscal Year 2012

    Authorizes NASA at $19,450,000,000 for FY 2012. That is the same 
amount as is projected for FY 2012 in the President's FY 2011 budget 
request. The authorization includes the following breakdown:

         Science: $5,278,600,000 of which

                 $1,944,500,000 is for Earth Science

                 $1,547,200,000 is for Planetary Science

                 $1,109,300,000 is for Astrophysics

                 $672,600,000 is for Heliophysics

                 $5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation

         Aeronautics: $598,700,000

         Space Technology: $1,012,200,000

         Exploration: $4,881,800,000 of which

                 $215,000,000 is for Human Research

                 $50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-
                related activities

                 $4,516,800,000 is for the restructured exploration 
                program

                 $100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee 
                program

         Space Operations: $3,930,300,000, of which

                 $86,100,000 is for the Space Shuttle program

                 $3,033,600,000 is for the International Space Station

                 $40,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce 
                Transition Initiative $770,600,000 is for Space and 
                Flight Support

         Education: $145,800,000

         Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,189,600,000

         Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: 
        $373,800,000

         Inspector General: $39,200,000

Sec. 103. Fiscal Year 2013

    Authorizes NASA at $19,960,000,000 for FY 2013. That is the same 
amount as is projected for FY 2013 in the President's FY 2011 budget 
request. The authorization includes the following breakdown:

         Science: $5,569,500,000, of which

                 $2,089,500,000 is for Earth Science

                 $1,591,200,000 is for Planetary Science

                 $1,149,100,000 is for Astrophysics

                 $734,700,000 is for Heliophysics

                 $5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation

         Aeronautics: $609,400,000

         Space Technology: $1,059,700,000

         Exploration: $4,888,500,000 of which

                 $215,000,000 is for Human Research

                 $5,000,000 is for the Exploration Technology and 
                Demonstration program

                 $5,000,000 is for the Exploration Precursor Robotic 
                Missions program

                 $50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-
                related activities

                 $4,513,500,000 is for the restructured exploration 
                program

                 $100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee 
                program

         Space Operations: $3,993,300,000, of which

                 $3,179,400,000 is for the International Space Station

                 $40,000,000 is for the Post-Shuttle Workforce 
                Transition Initiative

                 $773,900,000 is for Space and Flight Support

         Education: $145,800,000

         Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,276,800,000

         Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: 
        $376,900,000

         Inspector General: $40,100,000

Sec. 104. Fiscal Year 2014

    Authorizes NASA at $20,600,000,000 for FY 2014. That is the same 
amount as is projected for FY 2014 in the President's FY 2011 budget 
request. The authorization includes the following breakdown:

         Science: $5,794,800,000, of which

                 $2,216,600,000 is for Earth Science

                 $1,635,100,000 is for Planetary Science

                 $1,158,700,000 is for Astrophysics

                 $779,400,000 is for Heliophysics

                 $5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation

         Aeronautics: $615,100,000

         Space Technology: $1,063,900,000

         Exploration: $5,106,800,000 of which

                 $215,000,000 is for Human Research

                 $10,000,000 is for the Exploration Technology and 
                Demonstration program

                 $10,000,000 is for the Exploration Precursor Robotic 
                Missions program

                 $50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-
                related activities

                 $4,721,800,000 is for the restructured exploration 
                program

                 $100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee 
                program

         Space Operations: $4,062,600,000, of which

                 $3,271,900,000 is for the International Space Station

                 $790,700,000 is for Space and Flight Support

         Education: $145,800,000

         Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,366,500,000

         Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: 
        $403,500,000

         Inspector General: $41,000,000

Sec. 105. Fiscal Year 2015

    Authorizes NASA at $20,990,000,000 for FY 2015. That is the same 
amount as is projected for FY 2015 in the President's FY 2011 budget 
request. The authorization includes the following breakdown:

         Science: $5,899,000,000, of which

                 $2,282,200,000 is for Earth Science

                 $1,654,400,000 is for Planetary Science

                 $1,131,600,000 is for Astrophysics

                 $825,800,000 is for Heliophysics

                 $5,000,000 is for Suborbital Augmentation

         Aeronautics: $625,300,000

         Space Technology: $1,217,900,000

         Exploration: $5,157,900,000 of which

                 $215,000,000 is for Human Research

                 $30,000,000 is for the Exploration Technology and 
                Demonstration program

                 $30,000,000 is for the Exploration Precursor Robotic 
                Missions program

                 $50,000,000 is for commercial crew transportation-
                related activities

                 $4,732,900,000 is for the restructured exploration 
                program

                 $100,000,000 is for the loan and loan guarantee 
                program

         Space Operations: $4,030,500,000, of which

                 $3,232,800,000 is for the International Space Station

                 $797,700,000 is for Space and Flight Support

         Education: $146,800,000

         Cross-Agency Support Programs: $3,462,200,000

         Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: 
        $408,500,000

         Inspector General: $41,900,000

TITLE II. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

Subtitle A. Exploration

Sec. 201. Reaffirmation of Exploration Policy

    Reaffirms the support of the Congress for the exploration policy 
articulated in Secs. 401 and 402 of Public Law 110-422.

Sec. 202. Restructured Exploration Program

    Directs the Administrator to develop a plan to restructure the 
current exploration program and develop, test, and demonstrate a 
government-owned crew transportation system and evolvable heavy lift 
transportation system in a manner that enables a challenging 
exploration program, minimizes the human space flight ``gap'', seeks 
efficiencies in program management and reductions in fixed and 
operating costs, requires a high level of crew safety, contains a 
robust flight and ground test program, facilitates the transition of 
Shuttle personnel, makes maximum practicable use of the work completed 
to date on the Orion, Ares I, heavy lift, and ground support and 
exploration enabling projects and contracts, and is phased in a manner 
consistent with available and anticipated resources.

Sec. 203. Space Radiation

    Directs the Administrator to develop a space radiation mitigation 
and management strategy and implementation plan, and to transmit the 
strategy and plan no later than 12 months after the date of enactment 
of the Act.

Subtitle B. International Space Station

Sec. 211. Extension of ISS Operations

    Directs the Administrator to take all necessary measures to support 
the operation and full utilization of the International Space Station 
(ISS) through at least the year 2020 and to seek to reduce ISS 
operating costs.

Sec. 212. ISS Research Management Institution

    Directs the Administrator to designate an independent, not-for-
profit U.S. institution for the management of research carried out on 
the ISS.

Sec. 213. ISS Research Management Plan.

    Directs the Administrator to have the designated institution 
prepare a management plan and transmit the plan no later than two years 
after the date of enactment of the Act.

Sec. 214. Outreach Plan for U.S. ISS Research

    Directs the Administrator to have the institution prepare a plan 
for broadening and enhancing the outreach to potential U.S. government, 
academic, and commercial users of the ISS no later than two years after 
the date of enactment of the Act.

Sec. 215. ISS Cargo Resupply Requirements and Contingency Capacity 
                    Through 2020

    Directs the Administrator to conduct an assessment of the ISS Cargo 
Resupply capacity required to support extended operations of the ISS 
through 2020 and explore options with its partners for ensuring upmass 
and downmass needs are addressed in the event that adequate U.S. 
commercial cargo resupply capabilities are not available during any 
extended period after the Shuttle is retired.

Sec. 216. Centrifuge

    Directs the Administrator to assess innovative options for 
deploying a variable-gravity centrifuge and to transmit the assessment 
no later than one year after the date of enactment of the Act.

Sec. 217. Exploration Technology Development Using the ISS

    Directs the Administrator to develop a plan for carrying out 
prioritized activities that support NASA's long-term plans for 
exploration beyond low-Earth orbit that require the capabilities of the 
International Space Station and to transmit the plan no later than 270 
days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 218. Fundamental Space Life Science and Physical Sciences and 
                    Related Technology Research

    Requires the Administrator to designate a responsible official and 
to develop a strategic plan for carrying out research in space life and 
physical sciences and technology consistent with the priorities and 
recommendations established by the National Academies in its decadal 
survey of life and microgravity sciences and to transmit the plan 
within one year of the enactment of the Act.

Subtitle C. Space Shuttle

Sec. 221. Expanded Scope of Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office

    Renames Space Shuttle Transition Liaison Office to Post-Shuttle 
Transition Liaison Office and extends life to two years after the last 
grant is awarded.

Sec. 222. Post-Shuttle Workforce Transition Initiative Grant Program

    Authorizes the Administrator to make grants for the establishment, 
operation, coordination, and implementation of aerospace workforce and 
community transition strategies.

Sec. 223. Disposition of Orbiter Vehicles

    Provides for the disposition of the remaining Space Shuttle orbiter 
vehicles upon the termination of the Space Shuttle program and provides 
for priority consideration being given to eligible applicants to 
display the orbiters at locations with the best potential value to the 
public, including where the location can advance STEM disciplines, and 
with an historical relationship with either the launch, flight 
operations, or processing of the Space Shuttle orbiters.

Subtitle D. Space and Flight Support

Sec. 231. 21st Century Space Launch Complex Initiative

    Directs that the Administrator, in carrying out the 21st Century 
Space Launch Initiative, give priority to activities supporting the 
restructured exploration program.

Subtitle E. Commercial Crew Transportation

Sec. 241. Affirmation of Policy

    Reaffirms the policy of making use of United States commercially 
provided International Space Station crew transport and crew rescue 
services; limiting the use of the government system to non-ISS missions 
once commercial crew transport and crew rescue services meeting safety 
requirements become operational; and facilitating the transfer of NASA-
developed technologies to United States commercial orbital human space 
transportation companies.

Sec. 242. Commercial Crew and Related Commercial Space Initiatives

    Directs NASA to seek opportunities to make use of commercially 
available crew transportation services provided that service providers 
meet applicable NASA safety requirements, have completed crewed flight 
demonstrations, and per-seat cost is not greater than the crew 
transportation system of the restructured exploration program.
    Directs the Administrator to establish requirements for the human-
rating of space transportation systems that are equivalent to NASA 
safety processes and procedures and requires the Administrator to make 
available NASA-developed technologies and NASA facilities and equipment 
to assist in the testing and demonstration of commercial crew 
transportation systems.
    Requires that any company seeking to provide commercial crew 
transport services to NASA enter into an arrangement with NASA that 
allows NASA to obtain ongoing insight into the design methodologies, 
processes, technologies, and other information employed in the 
development and production of a commercial crew transportation system.
    Requires the Administrator, before entering into any contracts for 
the use of commercially available commercial crew transport or crew 
rescue services, to certify that each commercial provider has 
demonstrated the safety and reliability of its systems.
    Prohibits the Administrator from proceeding with a procurement 
award for a commercial crew transport and rescue services until 
sufficient flight experience has been demonstrated and accrued; directs 
the Administrator to develop and communicate NASA's human-rating 
requirements to commercial space companies; and directs the Aerospace 
Safety Advisory Panel to conduct a review.
    Prohibits the Administrator from entering into any agreement for a 
U.S. commercial ISS crew transport or rescue service until all 
indemnification and liability issues associated with the use of such 
systems by the U.S. government have been addressed and the 
Administrator has provided a report describing the indemnification and 
liability provisions.
    Directs the Administrator not to proceed with a procurement award 
for a commercial ISS crew transport system service if the provider's 
crew transportation system has a predicted level of safety that is less 
than that predicted for the restructured exploration program's crew 
transportation system.

Sec. 243. Federal Assistance for the Development of Commercial Orbital 
                    Human Space Transportation Services

    Directs the Administrator to establish a program to provide 
financial assistance in the form of loans or loan guarantees to 
commercial entities for the costs of development of orbital human space 
transportation systems.

TITLE III. SCIENCE

Subtitle A. Earth Science

Sec. 301. Earth Science Applications

    Directs the Administrator to develop a process for entering into 
arrangements with other government agencies that seek to benefit from 
ongoing NASA capabilities related to Earth science applications and 
decision support systems.

Sec. 302. Essential Space-Based Earth Science and Climate Measurements

    Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with the 
National Academies for a study, to be completed within 18 months after 
the enactment of this Act, to develop a prioritized list of essential 
earth science and climate measurements that can be collected with 
space-based means.

Sec. 303. Commercial Remote Sensing Data Purchases Pilot Project

    Directs the Administrator to initiate a pilot project for 
purchasing commercial remote sensing data to address state, local, 
regional, and tribal needs.

Subtitle B. Space Science

Sec. 311. Suborbital Programs

    Directs the Administrator to designate an individual responsible 
for leading near-term and long-term strategic planning for the 
suborbital and airborne program; and provide, within one year after the 
date of enactment of this Act, a strategic plan to support the full and 
productive use of NASA's suborbital and airborne assets.

Sec. 312. Explorer Program

    Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with the 
National Academies to conduct a review of the Explorer Program not 
later than 120 days after the date of enactment of the Act and to 
submit a plan for responding to the recommendations of the review no 
later than 16 months after the date of enactment of the Act.

Sec. 313. Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator Material Requirements 
                    and Supply

    Directs the Administrator to conduct an analysis of NASA 
requirements for radioisotope power system material needed to carry out 
planned, high priority robotic missions in the solar system and other 
surface exploration activities beyond low-Earth orbit; and to transmit 
the results of the analysis no later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of the Act.

TITLE IV. AERONAUTICS

Sec. 401. Environmentally Friendly Aircraft Research and Development 
                    Initiative

    Amends Sec. 302 of P.L. 110-422 by directing the Administrator to 
develop a plan and associated timetable for this initiative, including 
projected flight test demonstrations, and to transmit the plan within 
270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 402. Research on NextGen Airspace Management Concepts and Tools

    Directs the Administrator to review at least annually the alignment 
and timing of NASA's research and development activities in support of 
the NextGen airspace management modernization initiative.

Sec. 403. Research on Aircraft Cabin Air Quality

    Directs the Administrator to initiate research on aircraft cabin 
air quality, including research on innovative aircraft cabin air 
quality sensors, that complements research conducted by FAA.

Sec. 404 Research on On-board Volcanic Ash Sensor Systems

    Directs the Administrator to conduct a study to assess the 
feasibility of establishing a project focused on the development of a 
low-cost, on-board volcanic ash sensor system.

Sec. 405. Aeronautics Test Facilities

    Directs the Administrator to develop an agency-wide plan to 
stabilize and where possible reverse the deterioration of the agency's 
aeronautics ground test facilities.

Sec. 406. Expanded Research Program on Composite Materials Used in 
                    Aerospace

    Directs the Administrator to expand NASA's research program on 
composite materials used in aerospace applications to address such 
topics as progressive damage analysis and ways to mitigate how the 
environment interacts with composite materials over time.

TITLE V. SPACE TECHNOLOGY

Sec. 501. Space Technology Program

    Directs the Administrator to establish a space technology program 
to enable research and development on advanced space technologies and 
systems that are independent of specific space mission flight projects, 
including such areas as in-space propulsion, power generation and 
storage, liquid rocket propulsion, avionics, structures, and materials; 
enter into an arrangement with the National Academies for a ``decadal 
survey'' study to make recommendations on research and development 
priorities for NASA's space technology program over the next decade; 
and transmit the results of the study no later than 20 months after the 
date of enactment of the Act.

TITLE VI. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Sec. 601. STEM Education and Training

    Directs the Administrator to develop, conduct, support, promote, 
and coordinate formal and informal educational and training activities 
that leverage NASA's unique content expertise and facilities; and 
designate a Director to oversee and coordinate all NASA programs and 
activities in support of STEM education and training.

Sec. 602. Assessment of Impediments to Space Science and Engineering 
                    Workforce Development for Minority and 
                    Underrepresented Groups at NASA

    Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement for an 
independent assessment of impediments to space science and engineering 
workforce development for minority and underrepresented groups at NASA 
and transmit a report of the assessment not later than 15 months after 
the date of enactment of this Act.

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

    Directs the Administrator to enter into an arrangement with the 
National Academies for a review of the National Space Grant College and 
Fellowship Program and to transmit the results of the review no later 
than 18 months after the date of the enactment of the Act.

TITLE VII. INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITIES REVITALIZATION

Sec. 701. Institutional Management

    Directs the Administrator to develop a strategy for the 
maintenance, repair, upgrading, and modernization of the agency's 
laboratories, facilities and equipment and to transmit the strategy and 
an implementation plan no later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of the Act.
    Authorizes the Administrator to establish a capital fund at each of 
NASA's Centers for modernization of facilities and laboratories.

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

    Authorizes the Administrator to establish a national Cooperative 
Education Program that will complement existing NASA Center-
administered cooperative education initiatives. As the ``best of the 
brightest'', ten finalists will be selected annually as James E. Webb 
Cooperative Education Distinguished Scholars.

TITLE VIII. ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT

Sec. 801. Prohibition on Expenditure of Funds When 30 Percent Threshold 
                    Is Exceeded

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization of 
2005 is amended to clarify the starting point of the period at the end 
of which NASA is prohibited from expending further funds on a project.

Sec. 802. Project and Program Reserves

    Directs the Administrator to transmit not later than 180 days after 
enactment of this Act a report describing NASA's criteria for 
establishing the amount of reserves at the Project and Program levels.

Sec. 803. Independent Reviews

    Directs the Administrator to transmit not later than 270 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act a report describing internal entities 
that conduct independent reviews of projects and programs at life cycle 
milestones and how NASA ensures the independence of members prior to 
their assignment.

Sec. 804. Avoiding Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Major NASA 
                    Acquisition Programs

    Directs the Administrator to revise the NASA Supplement to the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation not later than 270 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act to provide uniform guidance and tighten 
existing requirements for organizational conflicts of interest by 
contractors in major acquisition programs.

Sec. 805. Report to Congress

    Directs the Administrator to transmit a report to Congress on April 
30th of each year that provides an estimate of the total termination 
liability as of the end of the second quarter of the fiscal year for 
all NASA contracts with a total value in excess of $200 million.

TITLE IX. OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 901. Cloud Computing

    Directs the Comptroller General to transmit a report detailing 
whether sensitive but unclassified and classified NASA information was 
processed on a non-Federal cloud computing facility and if so, how NASA 
ensured the safeguarding of NASA's scientific and technical 
information.

Sec. 902. Review of Practices to Detect and Prevent the Use of 
                    Counterfeit Parts

    Directs the Comptroller General to transmit the results of its 
review of NASA's processes and controls to detect and prevent the use 
of counterfeit parts in NASA mission projects and related assets no 
later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 903. Preservation and Management of Lunar Sites

    Directs the OSTP Director, in cooperation with the Administrator 
and others, to enter into an international dialogue to identify the 
questions and research needed to understand the potential adverse 
impacts of various uses of the Moon on scientific activities and on 
lunar areas of historical, cultural, or scientific value, and how to 
prevent or mitigate the impacts. Directs the Administrator, in 
cooperation with other relevant Federal agencies and stakeholders, to 
establish a grants program and to provide a report on the results of 
the international dialog and the establishment of an international 
framework within two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Sec. 904. Continuity of Moderate Resolution Land Imaging Remote Sensing 
                    Data

    Reaffirms the finding in Section 2 of the Land Remote Sensing 
Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-555, regarding the continuous 
collection and utilization of land remote sensing data from space.
    Requires the Director of OSTP to take steps to ensure the 
continuous collection of space-based medium resolution observations of 
the Earth's land cover and that data are made available to facilitate 
the widest possible use.

Sec. 905. Space Weather

    Directs the Director of OSTP to prepare a long-term strategy for a 
sustainable space weather program and develop a plan to implement the 
strategy, to enter into an arrangement with the National Academies to 
assess the status of capabilities for space weather prediction, and 
transmit the results of these activities no later than 18 months after 
the date of enactment of the Act.

Sec. 906. Use of Operational Commercial Suborbital Vehicles for 
                    Research, Development, and Education

    Directs the Administrator to prepare a plan describing the 
processes required to support the potential use of commercial reusable 
suborbital flight vehicles for carrying out scientific and engineering 
investigations and educational activities; assess and characterize the 
potential capabilities and performance of commercial reusable 
suborbital vehicles for addressing scientific research; and transmit 
the plan and assessment within one year after the date of enactment of 
this Act. Prohibits the Administrator from proceeding with a 
procurement award for the provision of a commercial reusable suborbital 
vehicle launch service until all indemnification and liability issues 
have been addressed and the Administrator has provided a report 
describing the indemnification and liability provisions that are 
planned to be included in such contract(s).

Sec. 907. Study on Export Control Matters Related to U.S. Astronaut 
                    Safety and NASA Mission Operations

    Directs the Director of OSTP to conduct a study to examine the need 
for a process for granting real-time, limited waivers to export control 
license restrictions or regulations on matters related to U.S. 
astronaut safety and NASA mission operations and to transmit the 
results of the study no later than one year after the date of enactment 
of this Act.

Sec. 908. Amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958

    Amends section 202 to permit the Administrator and Deputy 
Administrator to be retired commissioned military personnel.

Sec. 909. Near-Earth Objects

    Reaffirms the direction codified in P.L. 110-422 and directs the 
Administrator to designate a responsible official for coordinating 
NASA's near-Earth object observation activities; directs the 
Administrator to transmit a plan for carrying out the reaffirmed 
direction within 270 days after enactment; and authorizes funding for 
specific activities.

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>