Tom Feeney

Mr. FEENEY

Mr. FEENEY. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I do not rise in opposition to the amendment. I should say I have no objection to the amendment. I have read it very carefully, and I appreciate the language ``when appropriate.'' Of course, it would be the United States that determined, in my view, when international confidence-building measures would be appropriate. I should say there are times when, for example, sharing sensitive technologies with certain countries may be inappropriate, if we don't have confidence what they may use those technologies for or what their long-term intentions are. On the other hand, there are things we ought to clearly explore sharing with every spacefaring Nation; for example, a common docking device with the Shuttle, perhaps, so any nation in the event of emergency may be able to help rescue our astronauts. I should also suggest, as I talked about earlier, that space is developing. It is no longer a bipolar world. Historically, people have out of habit and out of practicality had to rely on asking the U.S. if they wanted to send a satellite, for example, into orbit, to see whether or not that satellite would safely orbit the Earth without colliding into another country's satellite. That is not true because of any international treaty or convention. Anybody can send anything into space. The truth is, in terms of space law, we have really sort of an international anarchy, just as originally when we with had travel by navy or by commerce through the seas and ultimately international air travel. There has to be some way to communicate ultimately in terms of maintaining space traffic. Stopping the creation of space junk or debris that would threaten all peacefaring uses of space would be another example of appropriate times the U.S. should lead in confidence-building measures to advance long-term initiatives for international cooperation. With that, again, I have no objection to the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Chairman, I have carefully read the amendment, and while I may not press my objection, I will state that the amendment, in my view, is unnecessary, that NASA has a policy in place that goes to the very same points expressed in the amendment, and perhaps unintentionally this amendment implies that NASA cannot be trusted to factually in an unbiased manner publicize research results conducted by agency scientists. Several years ago, NASA's Public Affairs Office was accused with inappropriately choosing which NASA scientists participated in specific interviews with the press. Once this interference was brought to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's attention, he quickly and forcefully intervened, assuring Congress, NASA researchers and employees, and the public that NASA will never seek to censor agency scientists. In a letter dated March 30, 2006, and this issue has been addressed over and over again, addressed to former Science Committee Chairman Sherry Boehlert, Mr. Griffin stated, ``I will not tolerate any policy or action where any NASA employee may filter, alter or censor scientific findings and facts, and I want to reaffirm that NASA has always been and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public.'' Mr. Griffin then formed a policy development team comprised of NASA employees with science, legal and public affairs backgrounds to review existing policies, identify ways to improve them, and develop agency practices to maintain NASA's commitment for full and open discourse on scientific, technical and safety issues. The result of their work was a series of revisions to 14 Code of Federal Regulations, section 1213, which guides the agency's public affairs policies, which all Americans can visit. Mr. Griffin then formed a policy development team comprised of NASA employees with science, legal and public affairs backgrounds to review existing policies, identify ways to improve them, and develop agency practices to maintain NASA's commitment for full and open discourse on scientific, technical and safety issues. The results of their work was a series of revisions to 14 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations), Section 1213, which guides the agency's public affairs policies. More recently, the NASA Office of Inspector General concluded an investigation in response to a Congressional inquiry dating back to 2006, requesting a formal investigation about ``political interference'' by NASA public affairs officials. The IG's investigation found that ``. . . during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public through those particular media over which the Office of Public Affairs had control. We also concluded that the climate change editorial decisions were localized within the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs; we found no credible evidence suggesting that senior NASA or Administration officials directed the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs to minimize information related to climate change. To the contrary, we found that once NASA leadership within the Office of the Administrator were made aware of the scope of the conflict between the Office of Public Affairs and scientists working on climate change, they aggressively implemented new policies with a view toward improved processes in editorial decision- making relating to scientific public affairs matters.'' The IG's report also stated: ``With respect to NASA's climate change research activities, we found no evidence indicating that NASA blocked or interfered with the actual research activities of its climate change scientists . . . (W)e found that NASA systematically distributed its technical climate change research throughout the scientific community and otherwise made it available through a variety of specialized forums, such as scientific journals, professional conferences, and public appearances by NASA scientists.'' Additionally, a May 2007 GAO report found ``that NASA policies are generally clear and should help facilitate the dissemination of research results. For example, NASA's recently revised media policy clearly defines the roles and responsibilities for managers, researchers, and public affairs staff; details steps in the process for dissemination via press releases and interviews; and describes a process to resolve disputes about agency decisions regarding press releases.'' In closing, while I have no objection to the gentleman's (Mr. Wu) amendment, I don't want Members to surmise that NASA science findings are being manipulated by agency management. That is not what the NASA IG, or GAO reports found. Madam Chairman, I don't specifically object to the language of this amendment, because I think it is consistent with NASA policy and Michael Griffin's great efforts to explain to the public that he will insist and has insisted on this policy. But I will remind all of us that a May 2007 GAO report found ``NASA policies are generally clear and should help facilitate the dissemination of research results. For example, NASA's recently revised media policy clearly defines the roles and responsibilities for managers, researchers, and public affairs staff, details steps in the process for dissemination of press releases and interviews, and describes a process to resolve disputes about agency decisions regarding press releases.'' In closing, while I do not object to Mr. Wu's amendment, I don't want Members to surmise that NASA science findings are being manipulated by current agency management. That is not what NASA, IG, or GAO reports found. Again, we have no objection to the language that Mr. Wu offers. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. FEENEY. I don't know whether, candidly, I support or oppose the amendment, because it has some very technical effects in its interplay with other portions of Federal statutes and requirements and regulation. Just one of the many questions I have would be that it seems, as I read the amendment, that it establishes different conditions on contracting fuel versus those established in section 526. So I guess one of my questions, maybe the most important, since we don't have a lot of time, do the conditions in your amendment supplant the greenhouse gas emission criteria found in 526, or do they remain in effect, and are these conditions in addition to the 526 regulations?

Mr. FEENEY. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. FEENEY. If I have any. I don't know that we have any more time. Could I ask unanimous consent that each side have an additional 2 minutes?

Mr. FEENEY. I thank the gentleman. This amendment may be very positive. The problem is that it conflicts with other statutes and regulations. It is very complicated as we read it. What my friend says is a clarifying amendment actually creates a lot more ambiguity in our minds about the interplay of these different standards. I talked about the interplay with 526, and I still don't know which set of rules will govern, the set of rules in the gentleman's amendment or section 526. We also seem to cite a section of the Energy Independence and Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 17142. There is currently no section 526(a) nor a 42 U.S.C. 17142(a) in the law, and yet I believe the gentleman's amendment cites these sections, as I read it, that do not exist in current law. I have a concern about the amendment's intention. Do you want to create an exemption under 526 for generally available fuel that is not predominantly produced from a nonconventional petroleum source, or does it create a broader exemption for all alternative or synthetic fuels as referenced in section 526? So I guess I have a number of very complex questions. I wish this is something we might have dealt with in committee where we have a number of experts, both members and staff. While I don't know that I object, it is because I just don't understand all of the different regulations and statutes and the interplay, and this seems to be one more additional attempt at dealing with whether NASA can or can't do things, and I really have no idea whether this is in addition to, or whether it is consistent with, or whether it may be mutually exclusive with provisions in other portions of the law, and I wish we could spend some time with technical staff to iron out these difficulties. With that, having expressed concern and not necessarily opposing the amendment because I don't really understand all of the ways it will be enforced given other statutes and regulations.

Mr. FEENEY. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

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

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

Mr. FEENEY. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I think it is very well-intentioned. I do not intend to object to the language. I do believe it is designed to help NASA distribute its space images and multimedia records to the public. I share that goal; but I should say that I think this amendment is superfluous. I think it is already contained in the bill language itself. Now superfluity is not necessarily an awful thing. Sometimes the best thing we do here is just to repeat what we have already done, and it probably does very little harm. But I would point out that section 407 clearly instructs NASA to develop a plan, to identify opportunities to leverage the very same technologies Mr. Arcuri references in his amendment. The gentleman's amendment seeks NASA to develop a plan and examine the feasibility to ``broadcast electronically, including via the Internet.'' The language in the bill talks about already ``rapidly delivering the content through extended high bandwidth communications networks.'' So I think Mr. Arcuri's concerns are already adequately addressed in the bill. I would simply argue that they are unnecessary. Having said that, I would not object to them being included. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Chairman, I appreciate and I don't dispute the intentions that the gentleman has. I agree with that, and I believe that the current language in the bill requires NASA to rapidly deliver this content that you are talking about through high bandwidth communications networks, and I think that includes universities in the private sector, et cetera. Having said that, because the intent of the language clearly is not something I object to, I will not oppose the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FEENEY. I think all of us want to know the cost of every government project. That certainly includes Constellation. As Mr. Wu pointed out, on behalf of Mr. DeFazio, the GAO just gave us a very comprehensive report. We had a full hearing on the matter of the progress of the Constellation program. I can tell you that there are some 56 annual reports that NASA has to give to Congress, and dozens of others that it has to give to other agencies, regulatory agencies and other governmental agencies. This is not a request that NASA add to their 100 or 150 reports an additional report. It's asking CBO to take an outside look. And I'm never opposed to transparency in government, especially cost. I should point out that the amendment singles out Project Constellation for particular scrutiny. Project Constellation is our follow up to the Space Shuttle Human Space Flight Program which is clearly a top priority for NASA, and has been established in this Congress as a top priority. The shuttle will be retired roughly at the end of this decade. Without Constellation, NASA will have no choice but to buy assets from other nations if we intend to maintain access to our own international space station. We're going to be dependent on the Russians right now under a very bad plan, but the only plan we have for 5 years. Without Constellation, all hopes of accessing, through American capabilities, the international space station or venturing the moon or other planets or asteroids will simply disappear. Not all of our colleagues pay as much attention as those of us that are on the floor here today to space. I think one of our colleagues recently suggested that the first manned lunar outpost in space be named after Neil Armstrong, the great first American ever on the Moon. My question, in response, was why would the Chinese, who are going to get back to the Moon before us, give us permission to name their lunar outpost after an American? We've got to remind our colleagues that this is now an internationally competitive environment in more ways than one. Constellation is a technology-driven program that will achieve its initial operational capability roughly in the Year 2015, hopefully earlier. NASA has worked hard to maintain their schedule. They give us reports every day. We had a GAO report. Having said that, if the gentleman feels compelled to support the DeFazio amendment, and we have one additional report on the budgetary status, I don't have any objection to transparency in government. But at some point you're doing so many reports that it's hard to send people back to the moon if you're doing 150 or 200 reports for Congress and other agencies and spending all your time filling out paperwork. These are really bright engineers. I want to get into the business of flying rockets and not doing more paperwork. With that, I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Chairman, not only am I not in opposition, but I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse the Harman-Ehlers amendment. And I should point out as she mentions the trouble in getting new people into the workforce and an aging and retiring workforce. By the way, one of those young engineers that works in the space field is my wife, and she remains eternally young. But she's the exception. I've talked extensively about the competition, both civilian and commercial, coming from China. I can tell you that I recently visited CASC, which is the Chinese Civilian and Commercial Space Agency. They have 160,000 employees. About half of those are dedicated to space. And we asked the question, what the average age, because we were startled by the engineering manager that addressed us on their program, what the average age of the managers were in the Engineering Department. The average age of the managers was 40. We were stunned. We asked, what's the average age of your engineers that are doing space work. And the answer is 30. Madam Chairman, nothing could be more important to science and technology. And with that, I want to yield the balance of my time, to, as the gentlelady said, a great advocate for science and space and technology, and for young people getting into these fields, Mr. Ehlers.

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

Mr. FEENEY. This really is an amendment that we're enthusiastic about. NASA currently conducts weather research in cooperation with NOAA, although through the U.S. Weather Research Program, the gentleman's amendment emphasizes the importance of this research as we cope with predicting and dealing with the aftermath of violent weather systems. It's a terrific amendment, and with that, I would urge its support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FEENEY

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

Mr. FEENEY. Again, this is an amendment we enthusiastically support. NASA does a great deal to incentivize education programs for women engineers and scientists, but a lot of us Americans remember exactly where we were the moment that Ms. McAuliffe and her colleagues perished. It reminds all of us that human space flight is an inherently risky venture and especially for teachers throughout America and school children who were contemporaries of the Challenger disaster. I think the gentleman's amendment makes a really good point and with that, I would support the amendment and urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FEENEY. Madam Chairman, I will not necessarily oppose this amendment. I will point out that I think the amendment provides some confusing requirements on NASA. On the one hand, for example, it says, ``The administrator shall work to ensure that NASA's policies on the sharing of climate-related data respond to the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office report on climate change research and data-sharing policies.'' But then the amendment goes on to direct the administrator to also align the agency's policies to recommendations contained in a National Academy report on Earth Science Applications and ``other relevant National Academy reports.'' It doesn't seem to provide any discretion at NASA to determine amongst a whole bevy or multitude of academy reports from all over the place as to which ones are meritorious or more meritorious than others. There seems to be some confusion here in terms of what NASA ought to determine. Most importantly, I think we want NASA to make determinations based on good science. That's what they've been charged with. NASA has long been a leader in promoting both domestically and internationally the full and open access to science data to all. I would also point out that NASA data and information are accessible to the public, on the Web through the NASA Web site. And finally, we've already discussed the fact that NASA has a set of policies about data and information sharing that I think are comprehensive and are working today quite well. With that, I would indicate again that I have no objection to the language; although I do think it creates some ambiguity and confusion. I yield back the balance of my time.