[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S
               FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR NASA

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             JUNE 23, 2021
                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-21
                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

                                     
                                     
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                     
                                                                                                               
                                     
       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
       
                              ___________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
44-861PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2022          



              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         VACANCY
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                VACANCY
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas


                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                             June 23, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    13
    Written Statement............................................    14

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    15
    Written Statement............................................    16

                               Witnesses:

The Honorable Bill Nelson, Administrator, National Aeronautics 
  and Space Administration (NASA)
    Oral Statement...............................................    17
    Written Statement............................................    19

Discussion.......................................................    25

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

The Honorable Bill Nelson, Administrator, National Aeronautics 
  and Space Administration (NASA)................................    62

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Question submitted by Representative Brian Babin.................   114

 
                      A REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S
                       FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET
                          PROPOSAL FOR NASA

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2021

                          House of Representatives,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

     The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building and via Webex, 
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] 
presiding.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Chairwoman Johnson. Now the hearing will come to order 
and, without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare 
recess at any time. Before I deliver my opening remarks, I just 
want to say that, since we are in person and virtual today, I 
am delighted. It's been a while since we've been here, and I 
hope that we will continue to expand as we move along. Couple 
of reminders, though. Members and staff who are attending in 
person, and are unvaccinated against COVID-19, must stay masked 
throughout the hearing. Unvaccinated Members may remove their 
masks only during the question and answer, the 5-minute rule. 
And you're on your own to make that determination. Members who 
are attending virtually should keep their video feed on as long 
as they are present in the hearing, and Members are responsible 
for their own microphones, so please also keep your microphones 
muted until you are speaking. And finally, if Members have 
documents they wish to submit for the record, please e-mail 
them to the Committee Clerk, whose e-mail address was 
circulated prior to the hearing.
     We have a--we've done that. We want to say welcome, and 
welcome back to our Administrator. I look forward to working 
with him, and we are all delighted that we have a person that 
is familiar with the work of the Committee, and especially the 
work of space. Senator Nelson served on our Committee. In fact, 
he chaired the Space Subcommittee for 6 years, during which 
time that--he flew into space about--aboard the national Space 
Shuttle Columbia. And now we welcome him back today to testify 
before our Committee as the National--NASA (National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration) Administrator after a 
distinguished career in both the House and Senate. We look 
forward to his testimony, and welcome again.
     It is no secret to our colleagues that I am a strong 
supporter of NASA. It is one of the crown jewels of our 
Nation's R&D (research and development) enterprise, and equally 
importantly, it is a source of inspiration for our young 
people, and indeed for people young and old around the world. 
And I'm a Texan, where President Johnson took the lead, and 
heard the call from President Kennedy to keep going with it. 
Because NASA turns daring aspirations into reality, whether it 
is flying a helicopter above the dusty expanses of Mars, or 
pushing the boundaries of aeronautics research here on Earth, 
working with 14 other nations to build and operate an 
International Space Station (ISS) in Earth orbit, or building a 
fleet of spacecraft to monitor our challenging climate, or 
searching for life elsewhere in the universe.
     I like to say the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 
is the Committee for the future, and I think that is equally 
true of NASA. The dedicated men and women of NASA are helping 
create our future in space and here on Earth, and they should 
take great pride in both what they have accomplished to date 
and in what they are striving to accomplish in the days and 
years ahead. Yet turning NASA's aspirations into reality will 
take more than determination, or even good budgets. For 
example, to execute an ambitious national initiative like the 
Artemis Moon-Mars initiative will require clear goals and 
objectives, thoughtful planning, realistic scheduling, and a 
credible organizational and management structure, and attention 
to the multitude of details that spell the differences between 
success and catastrophic failure.
     And also critical to the success will be finding out as 
soon as possible where the problems are that need attention. 
That is why I have argued that it is an early priority to carry 
out an independent review of the entire Artemis initiative so 
that you can take whatever corrective actions we need as soon 
as possible. The lessons of the past are clear. Failing to 
uncover problems because of arbitrary schedule pressure 
inevitably winds up costing more in both money and delays, and 
increased risk. If Congress is going to be asked to provide 
increased funding, it first will need to have confidence in 
NASA's initiatives, and it is critical that we see a path to 
success. Another issue needing attention in the future of this 
International Space Station. It will not last forever. We need 
to know how long it will remain viably, structurally, and 
operationally. We need a clear plan for transitioning to what 
comes next, and we need to know what the future of the United 
States and its international partners in Low Earth Orbit should 
be, especially given the reality of the new Chinese space 
station.
     I could go on, but as I said, these are very challenging 
times for NASA. However, make no mistake, the Committee wants 
NASA to succeed. I hope that today's hearing will be just the 
start of a continuing dialogue and collaboration with you, Mr. 
Administrator, and with that, I want to again welcome you, and 
look forward to your testimony.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Good morning, and welcome back, Mr. Administrator. I say 
welcome back, because when he was first elected to Congress, 
Senator Nelson served on our Committee. In fact, he chaired the 
Space subcommittee for six years, during which time he flew 
into space aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia.
    And now we welcome him back today to testify before our 
Committee as NASA Administrator after a distinguished career in 
both the House and the U.S. Senate. We all look forward to your 
testimony, Mr. Administrator.
    It is no secret to my colleagues that I am a strong 
supporter of NASA. It is one of the crown jewels of the 
nation's R&D enterprise, and equally importantly, it is a 
source of inspiration for our young people, and indeed for 
people young and old around the world. Because NASA turns 
daring aspirations into reality, whether it is flying a 
helicopter above the dusty expanses of Mars, pushing the 
boundaries of aeronautics research here on Earth, working with 
14 other nations to build and operate an international space 
station in Earth orbit, building a fleet of spacecraft to 
monitor our changing climate, or searching for life elsewhere 
in the universe.
    I like to say the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 
is the Committee for the Future. And I think that is equally 
true of NASA. The dedicated men and women of NASA are helping 
create our future in space and here on Earth, and they should 
take great pride in both what they have accomplished to date 
and in what they are striving to accomplish in the days and 
years to come.
    Yet turning NASA's aspirations into reality will take more 
than determination or even good budgets. For example, to 
execute an ambitious national initiative like the Artemis Moon-
Mars initiative will require clear goals and objectives, 
thoughtful planning, realistic scheduling, a credible 
organizational and management structure, and attention to the 
multitude of details that spell the difference between success 
and catastrophic failure.
    And also critical to Artemis' success will be finding out 
as soon as possible where the problems are that need attention. 
That is why I have urged that it be an early priority to carry 
out an independent review of the entire Artemis initiative so 
that you can take whatever corrective actions are needed as 
soon as possible.
    The lessons of the past are clear: failing to uncover 
problems because of arbitrary schedule pressure invariably 
winds up costing more in both money and delays, and in 
increased risk. If Congress is going to be asked to provide 
increased funding for Artemis, it first will need to have 
confidence that NASA's initiative is on a credible path to 
success.
    Another issue needing attention is the future of the 
International Space Station. It will not last forever. We need 
to know how long it can remain viable structurally and 
operationally. We need a clear plan for transitioning to what 
comes next, and we need to know what the future of the United 
States and its international partners in Low Earth Orbit should 
be, especially given the reality of the new Chinese space 
station.
    I could go on, but as I said, these are very challenging 
times for NASA. However, make no mistake-this Committee wants 
NASA to succeed. I hope that today's hearing will be just the 
start of a continuing dialogue and collaboration with you, Mr. 
Administrator, and with that, I want to again welcome you, and 
I look forward to your testimony.

     Chairwoman Johnson. The Chair now recognizes my 
outstanding Ranking Member, Mr. Lucas.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair, and before I start, I 
want to thank you for holding this hybrid hearing, and enabling 
Members, staff, and Administrator Nelson to participate in 
person safely. After a year and a half of virtual hearings, I 
think I speak for the entire Republican Conference when I say 
it's good to be back doing the people's business in person. So 
thank you, Madam Chair.
     Today's hearing is important and timely. For several years 
NASA's conducted review after review of human space flight 
program. Although the overall goal to return U.S. astronauts to 
the Moon remains constant, NASA's changed its plans on how to 
accomplish that goal several times over numerous reviews. After 
numerous independent advisory groups, like the National 
Academies of Science, and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, 
have highlighted, program stability is critical to ensuring 
overall mission success.
     As Administrator Nelson knows, Congress has provided this 
consistency for nearly 20 years following the Columbia accident 
investigation, the cancellation of the shuttle, and the 
development of deep space capacities. Despite the ebbs and 
flows of each new administration's priorities, Congress has 
maintained a steady course to the Nation's space program. 
That's why I was pleased to see that the Biden Administration 
is continuing the Artemis Program. Keeping our sights on 
returning to the Moon in a manner that enables exploration to 
Mars, and beyond, is paramount at this critical juncture. The 
Orion spacecraft was delivered to the Kennedy Space Center last 
year, and the space launch system was also recently delivered 
to Kennedy Space Center after a successful green run. It's 
exciting to see the SLS (Space Launch System) being stacked 
with boosters in the vehicle assembly building (VAB) as we 
speak.
     NASA's exploration ground systems are working diligently 
to receive, process, and launch these critical national 
systems, but more work remains. NASA's human landing system 
(HLS) procurement is stalled by GAO (Government Accountability 
Office) protests. Everyone wants to get started on this 
critical piece of hardware, but we must first let the process 
play out, and adjust course based on GAO's ruling and available 
funding. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the 
Senate, and on the Appropriations Committees, and in the 
administration to chart a path forward that enables the success 
of our space program.
     The largest unknown looming on the horizon is the budget. 
Finding an extra $10 billion for the human landing system is no 
easy task. While the Senate recently authorized an additional 
$10 billion, and required NASA to select an additional 
contractor, if NASA doesn't get additional appropriated 
funding, this could become an unfunded mandate that could end 
up with NASA having to cut billions of dollars from other 
programs. I'm sure no one wants to see this happen. That's why 
it's important for NASA to propose realistic plans, budgets, 
and schedules, and not rely on Hail Mary passes to save the 
day. Other nations, like China, are making slow and steady 
progress, and are following disciplined plans. We must maintain 
steady support for our national space program so that the new 
frontiers in space will be explored by free nations, not by 
oppressive regimes.
     With that, Madam Chair, it is wonderful to be at the dais 
with you, and I yield back.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

    Before I start, I would like to thank Chairwoman Johnson 
for holding this hybrid hearing and enabling Members, staff, 
and Administrator Nelson to participate in person safely. After 
a year and a half of virtual hearings, I think I speak for the 
entire Republican conference when I say that it is good to be 
back doing the people's business in person - so thank you.
    Today's hearing is important and timely. For several years 
NASA has conducted review after review of its Human Spaceflight 
Program. Although the overall goal to return U.S. astronauts to 
the Moon remains consistent, NASA has changed its plans on how 
to accomplish that goal several times after numerous reviews.
    As numerous independent advisory groups like the National 
Academies of Sciences and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 
have highlighted, program stability is critical to ensuring 
overall mission success. As Administrator Nelson knows, 
Congress has provided this consistency for nearly 20 years 
following the Columbia accident investigation, the cancellation 
of the Shuttle, and the development of deep space capabilities. 
Despite the ebbs and flows of each new Administration's 
priorities, Congress has maintained a steady course for our 
Nation's space program.
    That's why I was pleased to see that the Biden 
Administration is continuing the Artemis program. Keeping our 
sights on returning to the Moon in a manner that enables 
exploration of Mars and beyond is paramount at this critical 
juncture. The Orion spacecraft was delivered to the Kennedy 
Space Center (KSC) last year, and the Space Launch System (SLS) 
also was recently delivered to KSC after a successful ``Green 
Run.'' It's exciting to see the SLS being stacked with boosters 
in the Vehicle Assembly Building as we speak. NASA's 
exploration ground systems are working diligently to receive, 
process, and launch these critical national systems.
    But more work remains. NASA's Human Landing System 
procurement is stalled by GAO protests. Everyone wants to get 
started on this critical piece of hardware, but we must first 
let the process play out and adjust course based on the GAO's 
ruling and available funding. I look forward to working with 
our colleagues in the Senate, on the Appropriations Committees, 
and in the Administration to chart a path forward that enables 
the success our space program.
    The largest unknown looming on the horizon is the budget. 
Finding an extra $10 billion for the Human Landing System is no 
easy task. While the Senate recently authorized an additional 
$10 billion and required NASA to select an additional 
contractor, if NASA doesn't get additional appropriated 
funding, this could become an unfunded mandate that could end 
up with NASA having to cut billions of dollars from other 
programs. I am sure no one wants to see this happen. That's why 
it's important for NASA to propose realistic plans, budgets, 
and schedules and not rely on ``Hail Mary Passes'' to save the 
day.
    Other nations, like China, are making slow and steady 
progress and are following disciplined plans. We must maintain 
steady support for our national space programs so that new 
frontiers in space are explored by free nations, not oppressive 
regimes.

     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. At this time I'd 
like to introduce our witness. Senator Bill Nelson was sworn in 
as the 14th NASA Administrator May the 3rd, 2021. He is no 
stranger to this Committee, and Congress, having chaired the 
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee for six years, and later 
serving as the Ranking Member on the State Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation Committee in the Senate. He's served in the 
House for 13 years, and was later elected three times to the 
U.S. Senate, representing Florida for 18 years. Senator Nelson 
attended the University of Florida and Yale University. He 
received a J.D. from the University of Virginia. After law 
school, he served on active duty as Captain in the U.S. Army. 
He has served in public office over four decades, in the State 
Legislature, as a State Treasurer, and in the U.S. Congress. In 
1986, he flew on Space Shuttle Columbia as a payload 
specialist, orbiting the Earth 98 times over six days, while 
conducting research experiments. After leaving the Senate, he 
continued to be engaged in NASA activities, serving on the NASA 
Advisory Council, until his nomination of the NASA 
Administrator. We are delighted to have him here today, 
Administrator Nelson, and we look forward to your testimony.
     Our witnesses should know you will have five minutes for 
the spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included 
in the record for the hearing, and when you have completed your 
spoken testimony, we'll begin with questions. Each Member will 
have five minutes to ask the question. So now, Administrator 
Nelson, you're recognized.

            TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BILL NELSON,

              ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS

                AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

     Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chair. If it looks like I'm 
smiling, I am. Coming back into these halls brings back so many 
pleasant memories, and so many cherished friendships. Most of 
these portraits of people I have served with, and it--it's an 
outstanding Committee. I want to welcome the new Member of 
Congress, and, Madam Chair, if you're getting folks that are so 
experienced like your new Member coming from Sandia, again, 
it's just an example of the reputation of the Members of this 
Committee to be a very well experienced and very serious 
Committee.
     We're going back to the Moon in preparation to go to Mars, 
and space is hard. A lot of people focus in on the date, about 
2024. We're going back to the Moon with humans in 2023. It's 
going to be following the first launch, which is at the end of 
this year, 2021. The largest, most powerful rocket ever, the 
SLS Space Launch System. We are then going to hitch up with 
whoever is the winner of all the competitions after the GAO 
makes its decision, and we are in a blackout period now until 
August the 4th, when the GAO is going to determine whether or 
not the bid protest is successful. All of this occurred before 
I was there, but I'm here to defend what NASA has done, but 
with regard to what's going forward, we're not going to know 
until August the 4th, when the GAO decides. Pam Melroy, who I 
just swore in on Monday, now is with us as our deputy. Our No. 
3 in the agency is Bob Cabana, also an astronaut commander, as 
is Pam. He's long experienced in the administration in Johnson, 
then the head of Stennis, then the head of Kennedy, and well 
respected, and the three of us already trying to make the plan 
so that when the GAO decides that we can move out quickly, 
depending upon what the GAO decides as a legal matter.
     Now, that's just the human exploration. Look what's 
already happened. What American is not excited about 
Perseverance, and little Ingenuity flying around all over the 
Mars surface? Again, a pinpoint landing. But remember, as the 
Ranking Member said, remember, it was followed by only the 
second Nation to be able to land a rover successfully. The 
Chinese government, the Chinese Space Program did that, and 
they have a very aggressive program, and we've got to beware of 
that. They're putting a series of landers on the south pole of 
the Moon. So are we. It's called the CLPS (Commercial Lunar 
Payload Services) Program. It's--the C stands for commercial. 
We're going to go down there to the south pole why? Because 
there's water down there, and it's frozen. And when you have 
water, that means you've got oxygen, and you've got fuel, 
hydrogen. So both of our nations are going down there, but the 
fact that they are planning this, just beware.
     Look at what's happening in the Earth science and the 
planetary science. We just announced two missions that are 
going to go to Venus. We haven't been to Venus in 30 years. Why 
Venus? You think of it, the Sun, the next planet is Mercury, 
it's hot. The next planet is Venus, and it's covered with a 
shroud of clouds, and that's caused it to heat up so much that 
it can melt lead on the surface. The next planet is Earth. It 
has a habitable atmosphere. The next planet is Mars, and it has 
a very thin atmosphere. Now, what is it about Mars, and about 
Venus? Do they have the chemical compositions that they 
could've had life? Because, after all, this universe has been 
developing for 13-1/2 billion years.
     And I'll conclude with this, Madam Chair. Another part of 
our science, we're sending up, in November, this telescope. 
It's going out of French Guiana on an Ariane rocket. It's about 
a $9 billion telescope, and it is going to peer back to the 
light source 13.35 billion years. That's only 150 million years 
after the Big Bang, which is the beginning of the very cosmic 
systems. And we're going to be able to capture that light that 
has been traveling all those billions of years, and find out 
things that we never found out before. We found out a lot from 
Hubble, which is still up there trying to work. That's the 
excitement of what is going. And finally, Madam Chairman, Earth 
science. In every one of your pockets is that cell phone, which 
I forgot to turn off, and it has a camera that we all use. That 
camera is on a chip, and that camera was developed by NASA to 
observe the Earth, to get the precision measurements because of 
what's happening to our planet. If you want to mitigate the 
climate, you've got to measure it, and that's what NASA does. 
Thank you, Madam Chair.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. We now will begin 
our first round of questions, and I will recognize myself for 5 
minutes.
     Administrator Nelson, you have often discussed your 
concerns about China's ambitions and advancements in space, and 
it is clear that, with sustained planning and methodical 
preparation, they have made steady and measured progress. They 
successfully landed on the far side of the Moon, they have 
returned lunar samples to the Earth, they landed a rover on the 
surface of Mars, and they are establishing a small space 
station on Low Earth Orbit. And they indicated that they are 
planning for human landings and outposts on the Moon. China 
clearly is in space for the long term, and we need to recognize 
that and respond accordingly.
     To me, that doesn't mean undertaking a crash program with 
unrealistic timetables, but it does mean that in human 
spaceflight, NASA needs to focus its efforts, and develop a 
clear plan and program to achieve these goals set by successive 
administrations and authorizations, namely return to the Moon 
as necessary steps toward the ultimate goal of landing humans 
on Mars. NASA needs to develop that plan and program now, 
because there aren't unlimited resources, and we really can't 
afford to pursue nice to have projects at the expense of 
neglecting essential tasks.
     To date the Committee has been--has seen--has not seen 
such a plan for the Artemis initiative, and it's not because we 
haven't asked for it. I am not blaming you, because you've just 
settled in NASA, but what can we expect to see, and when can we 
expect to see the plan of the program, and how do we get--how 
are we going to get to Mars, as well as what specifically we 
will need to accomplish getting to the Moon--on the Moon?
     Mr. Nelson. August the 4th, Madam Chairwoman. Once we know 
the direction legally as a result of GAO, I will have a plan to 
announce, according to what their decision is, in order to try 
to have us there as quickly, and as safely, and as efficiently 
as possible.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Anything else?
     Mr. Nelson. Well, let's be realistic, a lot of people 
don't know that, for example, what the Source Selection Board, 
picking out of the existing competitors--NASA had asked for 
$3.4 billion for that competition. The award of Appropriations 
was 850 million, and so the Source Selection Board, back before 
I came in, decided that they didn't have enough money, and that 
they would award it to one of the three competitors. That 
award--the concept is that NASA's vehicle, the SLS, with its 
spacecraft on top, Orion, will take the crew to lunar orbit, 
and then in lunar orbit there will be the transfer of the crew 
into the landing vehicle, and that will go down to the surface, 
they'll do their mission, they'll come back, and then Orion 
will return with the crew to the Earth. That's one concept. 
There are other concepts to put up a Gateway, which is a mini 
space station in lunar orbit, and that is being planned as an 
international station, that you will take the crew to that. 
They will then transfer into a lunar landing vehicle. So there 
are different plans.
     What was awarded was just for one demonstration, but there 
needs to be a landing each year for a dozen years, so there are 
many more awards to come if you all decide that it's in the 
interest of the United States to appropriate that money. And, 
of course, the appropriation starts right here in this 
Committee, with the authorizations. So that's about as succinct 
as I can tell you, Madam Chair.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is 
expired. I now recognize Mr. Lucas.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. And continuing with the 
Chair's line of questioning--and I acknowledge the Chinese are 
making steady progress on their exploration goals. I think it's 
very important we maintain our momentum. So, in that vein, I 
ask you this, Director. Within the confines of what you've just 
discussed, are you confident that the fiscal year (FY) 2022 
budget request, which has proposed reductions in the HLS 
Program, are you confident that that's capable of getting us 
back to the lunar surface by 2024? And I'll go farther than 
that to say part of our challenge here in Appropriations, even 
if we're successful, there's still that little creature called 
OMB (Office of Management and Budget), and there's still that 
process of the administration pulling as we push. We need a 
little more push too over there, but we're pulling on this 
side. Do you believe the 2022 budget request is enough to do 
what we need to get done? And, by the way, you can strike out 
2024. Give me a number or a date.
     Mr. Nelson. Mr. Ranking Member, in your State and my 
State, we have an expression, there are more ways than one to 
skin a cat. So I've talked directly to OMB about the additional 
money for us to have the robust competition that we want to 
have these sustained landings over a dozen years, and that's 
going to cost some more money. So I've said to them, well, you 
all are going to consider a jobs bill, an infrastructure bill--
and by the way, I haven't even talked about the desperate needs 
of NASA on dilapidated infrastructure, which is also jobs. And 
so if you all put together a jobs bill, that's another way of 
funding. Otherwise, you look at the request, and that's your 
question, is the President's request. It is a very robust NASA 
request. It's over a 6 percent increase, and look at what's 
happened in the increases in science and STEM (science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics) education, in 
aeronautics. By the way, we haven't even talked about the first 
A in NASA, which is aeronautics. Lot of exciting things going 
there. I'll be happy to answer your questions.
     Mr. Lucas. Along that line, NASA has a very vast portfolio 
of programs, and it's always challenging to keep all those 
plates spinning at once. And I'm not sure the general public 
appreciates you've got deep space exploration, you've got Low 
Earth Orbit operations, you've got planetary science, 
astronomy, astrophysics, Earth science, heliophysics, biology, 
physical sciences, and aeronautics. Among many of those 
components, how are you going to keep all those plates 
balanced, Mr. Administrator? Now, I have faith in you. That's a 
challenge with the dollars you have available.
     Mr. Nelson. Well, I agree with you, but I'll tell you, why 
is NASA consistently thought of by the American public as the 
most popular government agency, and why does NASA have very 
little turnover compared to other agencies? It's because the 
people are so incredibly talented, and because of the mission. 
They're fairly happy. And so, obviously, I'm not doing this. 
It's--they are doing it.
     Mr. Lucas. One last question, Mr. Administrator. In your 
time in the Senate, you were an incredible champion of the 
development of the space launch system and the Orion 
spacecraft, part of a course enabling long term sustained 
exploration of deep space, and you advocated for using existing 
hardware facilities, workforces, smooth transition--all very 
logical. Do you envision NASA using SLS and Orion past the 
initial Artemis missions?
     Mr. Nelson. In reality, yes, because Artemis is the 
program to go back to the Moon, but that's just--the goal is 
going to Mars. Because once we get there, we're going to dig 
down into that regolith, and hopefully in the meantime have a 
sample return mission. By the way, that's another thing that 
the Chinese government is trying to do, and is planning to do. 
And to see what happened to Mars, is there still--in that 
water, is there any indication that there was life? So the goal 
is Mars, so the answer specifically on the SLS is it's going to 
be used as the workhouse, probably in lunar orbit, to then 
fashion together whatever this new technology that we develop 
to go to Mars is going to look like, hopefully faster than we 
can go now, which is 8 to 10 months. By the time you get there, 
you've got to be on the surface for a year or two, because of 
the realignment of the planets, in order to get back. If you 
can sprint there faster, you can stay on the surface weeks, a 
month, and then sprint back. But all of those technologies we 
still have to develop. So yes, the answer to your question is 
the--yes, the SLS will be a workhorse for the future.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Administrator, and I'd simply 
note we on this Committee, I think I can say in a bipartisan 
way, are going to pull as hard as we can. You're our guy in the 
administration to push as we pull. With that I yield back, 
Madam Chair.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Beyer is now 
recognized remotely.
     Mr. Beyer. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. And 
Senator, Administrator, I really appreciate your coming. I 
apologize for the noise. I'm at the back of National Cathedral, 
awaiting the John Warner service, but I'm really grateful to be 
moved up a little bit.
     Administrator, we're very supportive of the Deep Space 
Exploration Program as--to Moon as a stepping stone to Mars, 
and you actually asked--answered my first question already with 
your promise after the GAO report on August 4 and your new 
timeline, but I didn't actually ask the question, so let me at 
least get that out on record, that, with the GAO report on the 
NASA lunar programs, they noted several, several challenges, 
that NASA has minimized the requirements for mission success 
for some programs, that NASA lacks top level Artemis 
requirements and associated risks, that NASA is relying on key 
technologies that are still at very immature levels, that NASA 
hasn't defined management roles and responsibilities, or 
documented decisions on management practices, that NASA lacks 
the rigorous systems engineering functions to manage the 
systems integration across divisions. And then, in addition, 
the Aerospace Safety Advisory Council has identified concerns 
regarding systems engineering integration, a lack of clear 
roles, responsibilities, accountability, especially for HLS. So 
are you sure you want this job?
     Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman, that report was written before 
some of the changes that had occurred, so parts of that report 
are dated. And yes, Mr. Chairman, I really am excited about 
this job, and ready to tackle this challenge. And finally, let 
me say that John Warner was a special mentor to me. He was our 
Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I grew to 
love him, and so I'm glad you're there at his funeral at the 
National Cathedral.
     Mr. Beyer. And one more question in the few minutes--
seconds I have left, is one of the big concerns will be on 
space traffic management and orbital debris. It even came up in 
the President Biden/Putin conversations. We know that NASA has 
all the data they're measuring, but that you're not a 
regulatory agency. How do you see NASA fitting into the 
ultimate solution on space traffic management?
     Mr. Nelson. NASA has to be involved because it's our 
astronauts that are at risk. You put up more junk like China 
did 14 years ago, when they blew to smithereens a target 
satellite when they were testing their ASAT (anti-satellite 
weapons)--you put junk like that, tens of thousands of pieces, 
then human life is definitely threatened in Low Earth Orbit, 
which is where our International Space Station is. So, Mr. 
Chairman, NASA's going to be involved one way or another. As a 
matter of fact, we're working on technology that will help us 
get those pieces of debris out, and get them slowed down enough 
so that gravity will take over, bring them back in through the 
fiery heat of re-entry that'll burn them up.
     We work, of course, with the Space Force, used to be the 
Air Force, that tracks all of the objects that are about that 
big or bigger. What I worry about are objects that are smaller. 
I remember we looked outside the window on our flight, this is 
35 years ago, and there was a washer floating right along with 
us as I looked out the window. If something even that small 
were to hit at a different angle on a spacesuit in a spacewalk, 
or even a window of the ISS, it could be catastrophe. So NASA's 
got to be involved in space debris. Thank you----
     Mr. Beyer. Madam--thank you, sir. I yield back, Madam 
Chair.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Mr. Posey.
     Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this important hearing today about NASA's Fiscal Year 
2022 budget proposal. Administrator Nelson, we'll help NASA 
remain a leader in our Nation's future space endeavors, 
including our Deep Space Exploration Program that will return 
American astronauts to the Moon and beyond on American 
hardware. I'm also delighted that Administrator Nelson 
appointed NASA Kennedy Space Center's director Bob Cabana to be 
the new Associate Administrator. And congratulations to you, 
again, Administrator Nelson, on your unanimous confirmation to 
your job.
     As a former Senator from Florida, you're keenly aware of 
the importance of NASA centers. In 2010 you were one of the 
leading champions of using existing shuttle hardware, 
workforce, and facilities to develop SLS after the cancellation 
of the shuttle. Your rationale at the time was to prevent an 
exodus of talent, and smooth the transition from one system to 
another. While the Space Coast certainly experienced its share 
of hardship during that period of time, we've seen significant 
progress made at the Kennedy Space Center in many areas. 
Exploration ground systems are preparing for the first launch 
of SLS, and the Center has adopted a multi-user spaceport 
approach to accommodate multiple commercial users, which many 
people never imagined could possibly happen not that long ago. 
Can you speak to what progress has been made, and what you see 
for the future at the Kennedy Space Center and our Human Space 
Flight Program?
     Mr. Nelson. Congressman, my home Congressman, representing 
the Space Coast, and it's a place that I grew up. It's a place 
that my grandparents, under the Homestead Act, in the early 
part of the last century, actually homesteaded, worked the 
land, and under the Homestead Act, if you worked the land for 4 
years continuously, the government would deed you 160 acres. I 
have a copy of that deed signed by Woodrow Wilson to my 
grandmother, and that 160 acres today is at the north end of 
the space shuttle runway at the Kennedy Space Center. So thank 
you, Congressman, for your representation.
     The Kennedy Space Center, and the Cape Canaveral Space 
Force Station, has unlimited possibilities. The place is 
throbbing with excitement. All those old abandoned launch pads 
from the early days of Gemini, and Mercury, and Apollo, and all 
the various other military missions, abandoned pads, they are 
coming to life. They are launching new rockets. In addition, it 
is, as you stated, a multi-use spaceport. And we are seeing the 
blending of the commercial operations along with the government 
operations, both military, intelligence, and civilian. And I'll 
give you as much detail as you want, but it's an exciting 
future. And that's happening at all the NASA centers and 
facilities. Take, for example, Wallops Flight Facility in 
Virginia. Most of the people live in Maryland. It is just 
exciting, with all of the medium-weight launches that they are 
doing from there. So there are unlimited possibilities all over 
the United States.
     Mr. Posey. With the recent achievement of getting a core 
stage vertical and stacked between the solid rocket boosters 
and the VAB, has NASA been able to use that as a major 
milestone to help set a launch date for Artemis?
     Mr. Nelson. Artemis is going to go in November. That's the 
schedule.
     Mr. Posey. OK.
     Mr. Nelson. We know that space is hard, and you don't want 
to do it not in a safe manner, so it's always possible there's 
going to be delays, but--by the way, Madam Chair, I think you 
all ought to have a--go down--to come down and see the most 
powerful rocket ever. This rocket is as tall as the Saturn V, 
but it puts a punch out of much greater liftoff thrust than 
anything that's ever launched on Planet Earth.
     Mr. Posey. Thank you for your leadership, Administrator 
Nelson. Madam Chair, I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Bonamici?
     Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Johnson, 
Ranking Member Lucas. Thank you, Administrator Nelson, for your 
leadership. We have the opportunity and the imperative to 
implement bold, comprehensive, science-based policies to 
address the climate crisis, and NASA can play an important role 
in that work. Earth science observations are essential for 
mapping and monitoring hazards from the climate crisis, 
including the drought conditions, extreme heat, and wildfires 
we experience in the Pacific Northwest today.
     I'm particularly alarmed with a recent study from NASA and 
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) that 
found that the amount of heat the Earth traps has roughly 
doubled since 2005. So, as co-Chair of the House Oceans Caucus, 
I know that without bold action to address the climate crisis, 
the ocean will continue to take the heat for us, and the 
warming temperatures, as you know, Administrator Nelson, are 
resulting in more frequent weather--extreme weather events, 
ocean acidification, and the loss of biodiversity. So during 
your time in--your tenure in the Senate, I'm grateful for your 
work to expand scientific research, monitoring, and adaptation 
measures for harmful algal blooms, HABs, and hypoxia. We've 
seen this issue in the warm ``Blob'' off the Pacific Coast, in 
Lake Okeechobee in Florida, and lakes and rivers across the 
country. We need more accurate information to help predict and 
mitigate HABs, so how can the PACE (Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, 
ocean Ecosystem) mission help accelerate our understanding of 
harmful algal blooms, and how can these observations contribute 
to the goals to the U.N. Decade of Ocean Science for 
Sustainable Development?
     Mr. Nelson. May I give you some additional information in 
addition to answering PACE?
     Ms. Bonamici. Yes, of course. I do have another question, 
so I want to leave time for that. Thank you, Administrator.
     Mr. Nelson. You want to ask your next question? I'll----
     Ms. Bonamici. No, I'll wait until your----
     Mr. Nelson. OK.
     Ms. Bonamici [continuing]. First one----
     Mr. Nelson. First of all, you cannot mitigate what's 
happening to the climate unless you can measure it----
     Ms. Bonamici. Correct.
     Mr. Nelson [continuing]. And we are uniquely situated--a 
lot of people don't know that NASA--all of that--those assets 
up there, NASA designs them, builds them, launches them, and 
NOAA operates them. And, of course, look at the accuracy of 
weather predictions now, and it's going to get a lot better, 
because not only are we relying on the Earth sensing spacecraft 
that are up there now, over the next 10 years we're putting up 
five great observatories. It's a $2-1/2 billion project over a 
decade. They're going to measure anything that is happening 
with the land, the water, the ice, and the atmosphere, and 
they're going to put together a 3D composite of all this 
information, interrelated with all the other assets we have up 
there, to help us fine tune our understanding of what is 
happening to our planet.
     Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. I look forward to working with 
you, and Dr. Spinrad at NOAA, on that important issue. Thank 
you, Administrator Nelson. And I know NASA recognizes the need 
to invest in our next generation, and also the importance of a 
diverse workforce, so this budget would strengthen the Office 
of STEM Engagement, after the previous administration tried 
multiple times to terminate the program. I'm the co-founder of 
the STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and 
mathematics) Caucus, and also a fan of Cady Coleman, the 
astronaut who played a flute duet from the International Space 
Station, so I want to recognize NASA for the recent partnership 
with LEGO Education to distribute STEAM curriculum, because 
integrating the arts into STEM curriculum has shown to improve 
academic outcomes, and engagement, and boost creativity. I urge 
the Office of STEAM--STEM Engagement to continue developing 
similar initiatives, and I want to ask how--if you could please 
talk about how that Office of STEM Engagement will foster a 
future innovative workforce, and also improve diversity at 
NASA?
     Mr. Nelson. Thank you to the Congress that, when it was 
zeroed out in previous budgets, you all always restored the 
education for science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics. What is happening is this particular proposed 
budget has a very robust increase in that. Every one of your 
congressional districts has a university, or a community 
college, that has got some STEM grants for students. It's 
especially--now, NASA's not the only agency that does that, but 
NASA is unique in our STEM projects because what gets kids 
excited about those subjects? Space flight. And so we are 
uniquely positioned, and that's why we utilize our astronauts 
so much not just to fly in space, and do all of the critical 
stuff, but to go out to colleges, universities, and high 
schools to talk to kids, to get them excited. And so we are 
really--between Pam, and Bob, and me, we are really going to 
push STEM education. And I think you'll be pleased. And again, 
thank you for restoring it every time it got zeroed out in the 
past.
     Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Administrator. My time has 
expired. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. That was good 
news to hear. Mr. Babin?
     Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank 
you, Senator Administrator Nelson. Appreciate you being here. 
President Biden's first budget--you've already addressed some 
of this, but I'd just kind of like to get it on the record. His 
first budget request is 445 million lower than the Trump 
Administration's last budget request, 2.39 billion below what 
the Trump Administration proposed for fiscal year 2022, and 
7.757 billion below the fiscal year 2022 to 2025 budget 
proposed by the Trump Administration.
     The proposed cuts from exploration are very staggering. 
While the Biden Administration expressed support for continuing 
the Artemis Program to return U.S. astronauts to the Moon by 
2024, this year's request cuts 14.5 billion over the next 4 
years from the Exploration, Research, and Development Account 
that would fund the human landing system and necessary lunar 
surface capabilities. Specifically, the budget request cuts 
3.193 billion from the HLS budget proposed by President Trump 
for fiscal year 2022, and a total of 10.05 billion from the 
Trump Administration's fiscal year 2021 request for HLS for the 
fiscal year 2022-2025. Now, I know what you said about the old 
saying, and we have that same old saying in Texas too. There's 
more than one way you can skin a cat, but just for the record, 
are you saying there will be no cuts of any programs in the 
program itself for Artemis because of these cuts?
     Mr. Nelson. If we are the beneficiary of your generosity, 
there definitely won't be. Remember what I said a few minutes 
ago, it was a $3.4 billion request for human space flight for 
the exploration part. The Congress appropriated 850 million. 
And so you can only get so many pounds of potatoes out of a 5 
pound sack.
     Mr. Babin. Amen, yeah.
     Mr. Nelson. And if you all are generous, whatever vehicle 
you use, and--including the jobs bill, as an alternative, then 
we're going to try to rev it up, Mr.----
     Mr. Babin. All right.
     Mr. Nelson. --Mr. Ranking Member.
     Mr. Babin. All right, sir. Thank you. In the late 1990's 
Congress passed the Commercial Space Act of 1992. This was 
before my time here on the Committee, and a little after your 
time. The law contained a provision called anchor tenancy, that 
allowed NASA to enter into multi-year contracts for the 
purchase of a good or a service if the administrator determines 
that the good or service meets the agency mission requirements, 
the commercially procured good or service is cost-effective, 
the good or service is procured through a competitive process, 
existing or potential customers for the good or service, other 
than the United States Government, have been specifically 
identified, the long-term viability of the venture is not 
dependent upon a continued government market, or other non-
reimbursable government support, and private capital is at risk 
in the venture. Has NASA specifically identified other 
customers for our human landers or spacesuits that would make 
these commercial ventures viable without NASA funding?
     Mr. Nelson. We always value competition, because you get 
the best product the most efficient way at the least cost. All 
those other procurement things that you just talked about, I 
don't know about those, but I'll find out.
     Mr. Babin. OK.
     Mr. Nelson. But I know what I just said is the goal.
     Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. OK, No. 3, I think I've still got 
time. I proudly represent the Johnson Space Center in Houston, 
home to Mission Control, the ISS Program, and Astromaterials 
Acquisition and Curation Facility, and where the world's 
leading experts in spacesuits reside. You served as the 
Chairman of the Space Subcommittee here in the House, and 
represented the Kennedy Space Center in the Senate, so I am 
assured that you understand how centers play a unique role in 
your space enterprise. Can you give us assurance that NASA will 
not attempt to relocate, outsource, or degrade any of these 
world-class, irreplaceable capabilities?
     Mr. Nelson. Remember, I looked at my role in the Senate 
was I not only represented the Kennedy Space Center, I had to 
represent all of NASA, and indeed have spent a good bit of time 
training at the Johnson Space Center. And yes, I can give you 
some information that'll reduce your heartburn. And, indeed, 
the spacesuit program is intended to stay at Johnson.
     Mr. Babin. Sounds good to me, Mr. Administrator. Thank you 
very much, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Stevens is 
recognized.
     Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. 
Administrator, for your just very lovely oral testimony. I also 
very much enjoyed your written testimony. And just for the 
record here, I want to quote the quote that you provided, which 
was, in your conversation with our President on a phone call to 
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the President said, ``We 
can land a rover on Mars, we can beat a pandemic, and with 
science, hope, and vision, there's not a damn thing we can't do 
as a country.'' And here we sit, back in this room, with our 
Proverbs quote, ``Where there is no vision, the people will 
perish.'' And so, Mr. Administrator, we are so grateful and 
blessed for your tremendous vision of NASA, and your 
understanding of the assets, and the things that make it go 
round, and that are going to continue to help our country to 
lead into the future.
     And even before the COVID-19 crisis, Mr. Administrator, a 
2020 NASA and Inspector General report stated that the U.S. 
industrial base is not as robust as it used to be, making it 
difficult to find qualified technicians and suitable suppliers. 
Could you tell me how serious of a problem this is for NASA and 
NASA's supply chain, and if you've thought about coming to 
Michigan to see our incredible supply chain assets, where we 
brag not only do we put the world on wheels, we are helping to 
send men, and eventually a woman, into outer space and the 
Moon? Thank you.
     Mr. Nelson. Ma'am, if you will invite me, I will be there.
     Ms. Stevens. Sounds like a plan.
     Mr. Nelson. And I'm looking forward to going to many of 
your districts, because the strength of our country, indeed, 
that is reflected in an organization like this is out there, 
and your specific thing about suppliers, that's a huge 
strength. Now, we've got to be careful, because some of our 
supplies we are now dependent on of getting internationally, 
and some rare metals and materials we are finding are in other 
countries that may not be necessarily friendly to us. That's a 
supply chain not only for NASA, for the whole of government. 
But--let me just put it this way. If you think back, when we 
were challenged before, and the Soviets took the high ground, 
and they shocked us out of our wits with Sputnik, and then with 
Gagarin first in orbit, and they even got Titov in before--and 
we could only get Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom into sub-orbit. 
And then that all changed with John Glenn, who knew that he had 
a 20 percent chance of failure on that Atlas ICBM 
(intercontinental ballistic missile), and it worked. And then 
the Nation said, we've got a goal, evoked by a very young and 
inspirational President, and we did it. And what happened to 
the country was extraordinary, because--we talk about STEM 
education, for generations the excitement of achieving that 
goal not only rippled through our society in spinoffs, but also 
in science, and technology, and engineering, and mathematics 
that led to the technological revolution that we are now 
beneficiaries of.
     Ms. Stevens. Yeah.
     Mr. Nelson. I suspect that what's going to happen, if we 
can get people really excited about us going back to the Moon, 
and on to Mars, that we're going to see a similar kindling of 
that excitement that will produce an educational revolution 
again.
     Ms. Stevens. Sure. And we're certainly already seeing that 
diversification in a place where I call home, where the 
companies that produce the tubes that went into the auto 
engines are now producing the tubes that go into our rocket 
ships, so--I gave him extra time to answer because I like 
listening to the Administrator talk so much, but I will get 
back to you on questions for the record, and yield back the 
remainder of my time. Thanks, Madam Chair.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Gonzalez?
     Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member, and 
the Honorable Mr. Nelson, for being here. And I do want to 
thank the Chair and Ranking Member for showing an example of 
how Committees should operate. It's always a pleasure to be on 
this Committee because we actually work together quite 
productively, so I appreciate their leadership.
     Administrator Nelson, I have the pleasure of representing 
Northeast Ohio, and the Glenn Research Center is just outside 
my district. I hope to host you there someday. And, as you 
know, they've been working hard on the power and propulsion 
element for Gateway with their technology, and development in 
solar electric propulsion, which will be demonstrated on 
Gateway, and will be critical for future Moon and Mars 
missions. Gateway is also a key catalyst for bringing our 
international partners to the Moon, much as the ISS has done 
for Low Earth Orbit. With the recent announcement from China 
and Russia on their active efforts to court international 
partners for their lunar research station, I believe Gateway is 
more important than ever. Can you please discuss the budget 
request for Gateway, and how this request will keep Gateway on 
schedule to remain a key part of Artemis, and how NASA will 
continue to partner with both industry and our international 
allies on Gateway?
     Mr. Nelson. The budget request for Gateway is pretty good, 
and why Gateway? Because when you put, in effect, a small space 
station in lunar orbit, then you can do a whole bunch of things 
in our preparation to go to Mars. No. 1, it becomes a way 
station for us to go down to the Moon and do all the things 
that we're doing down there, and all of that is necessary in 
the preparation of making us able to sustain human life to go 
all the way to Mars and come back. But on Gateway you can 
continue research in addition to what, in the future, will be 
commercial space stations in Low Earth Orbit that will 
supersede the International Space Station, which I hope will go 
on until 2030, and I request that of you, that you extend the 
life of the ISS to 2030. But Gateway will have additional 
research related to further deep space.
     But then what it does also, it allows us to prepare to go 
to Mars, because it is quite likely that we would then, outside 
of the lunar space station, be the area where we would put 
together the components of whatever is the new technology that 
would take us as a spacecraft all the way to Mars, and land 
with humans, and return. So it's going to have a number of 
functions, and it's important.
     Mr. Gonzalez. Excellent. I want to shift toward auditing 
and China investments. I know this is a big priority, of yours 
as you've shared repeatedly, your concern about the rapid 
development of the Chinese space program, and the challenges 
this will present to U.S. leadership. Some of this includes 
China's efforts to work around our laws and leverage their 
investments into companies to give them additional insight, 
such as board observer seats into technology being developed in 
partnership with the U.S. We've seen that across a number of 
industries, but in particular here. My question is, as we 
continue to invest more resources into NASA and other R&D 
agencies, how is NASA ensuring that new startups to the space 
market who are seeking government investment haven't already 
received funding from the Chinese government?
     Mr. Nelson. Well, I certainly hope that we have the 
consultations with the Department of Defense and the 
intelligence community. I have been surprised. I thought I knew 
a lot about NASA coming in, but what I found out is we are much 
more involved in understanding the--and participating in the 
protection of our assets from foreign intrusion than I knew 
about before, and it is certainly important that we continue 
that. The threats from abroad now are so multiple, and 
happening every day, not the least of which are the cyber 
threats as well, and that is a daily concern.
     Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, sir, and I look forward to continuing 
this conversation, hopefully, offline. I think we have to do 
everything we can to make sure that whatever we are funding at 
the Federal level, whether that's at the universities or at 
NASA, is not being appropriated and moved over to our foreign 
competitors. And with that, I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Bowman of New 
York?
     Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, 
Administrator Nelson, for your testimony today. As you just 
discussed with Representative Bonamici, the work that NASA does 
is so important in capturing the imaginations of our young 
people. I saw it all the time as an educator, where I spent 20 
years of my career before coming to Congress, and I continue to 
see it in Congress. In fact, I just heard from a rising high 
school senior in my district named Nathaniel, who talked about 
how important it is for him--to him that NASA has an adequate 
R&D budget. He wants to make sure we're staying on track to get 
to Mars, and asked me to think of the students who may become 
the next generation of aerospace engineers. Can you tell us a 
little bit more about your approach to expanding NASA's STEM 
engagement work? How do we make sure that we're reaching out to 
students like Nathaniel in every community, including 
marginalized communities, and nurturing their aspirations?
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir, Congressman. Right off the bat, the 
President's budget is a robust increase in STEM, and this 
particular public servant, joined by Pam and Bob, have this as 
one of our main drivers because of the value to our country. 
It's the value to our agency as well. We have a very highly 
educated agency. We are--in an extension of your question, we 
are constantly out looking for diversity as well. I want to 
commend to your attention a good example of that that occurred 
in the past. As you came out of Mercury, and Gemini, and 
Apollo, almost all those astronauts were White men test pilots. 
But coming along with the space shuttle, you didn't need to 
have test pilots for every astronaut position, and NASA 
actually went with a lady who advised them how to go about and 
recruit women and minorities. Her name is Nichelle Nichols, and 
she was the actress that played Lieutenant Uhura on ``Star 
Trek.'' And as a result, the African-American community had a 
tremendous identification with her. And, as NASA was recruiting 
astronauts for the space shuttle program, she reached out to 
the minority institutions, the HBCUs (historically Black 
colleges and universities), to women, and that first class of 
space shuttle astronauts, 1978, was suddenly an astronaut class 
that looked very diverse, especially compared to the previous 
test pilots. And it was successful. And so we are now extending 
that. And I can go into the detail on that further, if you'd 
like.
     Mr. Bowman. Well, not at this time, but I appreciate you 
sharing that, and I really want to encourage you to think 
younger. You know, we have kids who--African-Americans, and 
Latinos, and people of color dreaming about being astronauts in 
places in my district like the Bronx, and Mount Vernon, and 
Yonkers, and if we begin to think of STEM through the lens of--
beginning in middle school, from grades six through 12, and 
putting kids on the pathway beginning at that time, I think 
that would be tremendous. And please target Title I schools, 
and the communities that surround them. I think you would get a 
great diversity there.
     I have one quick--last question, Mr. Administrator. Can 
you speak a little bit about NASA's work with private 
contractors? We got to the Moon without private contractors, if 
I'm not mistaken, and now it seems like a lot of things are 
being contracted out to private institutions like SpaceX. Can 
you talk about just--so the--the balance there, and reliance on 
private contractors versus NASA continuing to serve as a public 
good, if you will?
     Mr. Nelson. In the Apollo program, Mr. Congressman, we got 
to the Moon with American corporations. They did all the work. 
NASA supervised. NASA had a reason to supervise, because NASA's 
responsibility is to make sure that it is safe, particularly 
when you put humans strapped in to all of that explosive 
potential. And we're just continuing in a different way. Now, 
why are it--why is it a different way? Well, back in 2010 I had 
the privilege, in a bipartisan way, with Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison, of--NASA was kind of at a dead still, not knowing 
where it was going, and we said, we ought to have a NASA 
program, a government program, but we also ought to have a 
commercial program, and it ought to be dual track. And that was 
the NASA bill of 2010 that was passed unanimously in the 
Senate, and it was passed in the House by a 3/4 vote. And 
that's the track that we're on. You see that already 
implemented, that we now have commercial carriers of both cargo 
and crew to the International Space Station. That has been 
going on for years now. Now we're going to have a blending of 
the government and the commercial as we go back to the Moon, 
and eventually as we continue out into the cosmos.
     Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much. Madam Chair, I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Waltz?
     Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 
Administrator for being here today. Over here, sir.
     Mr. Nelson. There you are.
     Mr. Waltz. There we go.
     Mr. Nelson. There you are.
     Mr. Waltz. All right. I just want to talk to you for a 
moment about the growing and very concerning Chinese dominance 
in space. As I'm sure you know, the Chinese Communist Party is 
openly talking about replacing the United States as a pre-
eminent space power. They've launched more rockets and 
satellites into space last year than the rest of the world 
combined, including the United States. They just manned its 
space station, brand spanking new, and openly talking about 
replacing the International Space Station. 10,000 satellite 
constellation, are on track, an agreement with Russia to put a 
research station on the Moon, growing anti-satellite 
capabilities. Would you agree that we--the United States cannot 
continue to be No. 1 on Earth if we're No. 2 in space?
     Mr. Nelson. First of all, Congressman from Florida, thank 
you. Thank you for your representation. The United States ought 
to be pre-eminent in space. We----
     Mr. Waltz. Just in the interest of time, I couldn't agree 
more. That's what has me scratching my head why we have a half 
billion cut in the President's proposed NASA budget, a three--
75 percent cut to the Human Lander Center--to the Human Landing 
System, excuse me. Have you spoken with the Vice-President 
about when her first meeting with the National Space Council 
will occur? Do you know when that's going to occur?
     Mr. Nelson. May I answer your former question----
     Mr. Waltz. Yes, sir.
     Mr. Nelson [continuing]. First?
     Mr. Waltz. Absolutely.
     Mr. Nelson. We have a 6.4 percent increase in the overall 
NASA budget, and the cut to which you refer is a result of the 
Congress making the decision that the request was, for the 
Artemis Program, $3.4 billion in last year's--in this current 
year's budget, and you didn't give 3.4. The appropriation was 
850 million. So, given the eggs that I'm presented in the 
basket, I'm trying to get us there, and get us there quick. And 
so I had said earlier in the hearing that there are more ways 
to do it. If you're all considering a jobs bill, there's an R&D 
component of the jobs bill, as well as infrastructure, and it 
would be very, very helpful if you could consider those 
increases.
     Mr. Waltz. Absolutely. I think you'll see certainly 
support from this foxhole. We have to put the first American 
woman, and the next American man, on the Moon. And to do that, 
we need a viable landing system, so I certainly think you'll 
see the support in this Committee. Fight will be ongoing with 
the appropriators, but I want to see NASA support for that as 
well.
     Mr. Nelson. And yes, Congressman, I have spoken to the 
Vice-President, and I look forward to her leadership in the 
council. I'll be meeting with her next week, and I expect that, 
as the NASA administrator, that I will take a very active role 
on the National Space Council.
     Mr. Waltz. Mr. Administrator, do you support the Wolf 
Amendment, which, as you know, prohibits bilateral cooperation 
with the National Space Council, including NASA, with China, 
Chinese-owned companies? Do you support sustaining the Wolf 
Amendment, and if so, making it permanent?
     Mr. Nelson. It is the law, and I support it.
     Mr. Waltz. That is fantastic to hear. And, finally, do you 
support making it permanent, Mr. Administrator?
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir, and that doesn't mean that we can't 
find areas of cooperation, and those areas are deconfliction of 
space assets running into each other, trying to get them to 
participate in getting rid of all that space junk. That's why I 
was very--rather abrupt in my comments about when they had the 
return of a whole big rocket, and it wasn't controlled, and it 
threatened populations. Now, fortunately, it ended up falling 
in the Indian Ocean, but it could've fallen in Europe or 
somewhere in the Middle East, so I have been very harsh in my 
commentary about the Chinese not doing those kind of things, 
including the space debris.
     Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield my time.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. The chair now 
recognizes our newest Member, Ms. Stansbury
     Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, 
Ranking Member, and to all my colleagues. It's truly an honor 
to be here to serve on this Committee with you all. Thank you 
for allowing me to serve. And I'm especially excited and 
honored to be able to be here today with our Administrator/
Senator, and also I wanted to say, as a former Federal 
employee, thank you to NASA employees, staff, and researchers 
for the important work that you do. We so appreciate you. 
NASA's work is critical, of course, not only to taking us to 
the far reaches of space, but also for understanding our planet 
here at home, and particularly our understanding of our 
planetary systems and climate change, and how that's 
transforming our communities. And in New Mexico, my home State, 
that of course is being manifest in terms of chronic drought, 
extreme fires, and really an uncertain future, and so I am 
tremendously excited to see the increases for the Earth 
Sciences Program at NASA in this budget because I think they're 
extremely important.
     But NASA, Madam Chairwoman, is also extremely important as 
an economic engine for all of our States, and particularly in 
New Mexico, where we have a very large aerospace industry that 
is growing daily, and that we are working hard to grow, and is 
a powerhouse in its own right in aerospace. Also, of course, 
NASA is a leader in advancing research, and innovation, and 
American competitiveness in general, and in growing our STEM 
workforce. And I believe, Madam Chairwoman, that we are at a 
critical inflection point in our country, in our history, and 
in our future in restoring science to its proper place in 
informing our decisionmaking, and growing and diversifying our 
STEM workforce and our economy, and in deploying science to 
tackle our biggest challenges, especially in global climate 
change.
     And so, Madam Chair and Mr. Administrator, my question is 
really focused on NASA's view of our home planet, and 
particularly the role that NASA plays in climate change. Madam 
Chair mentioned in her opening that I'm a former employee of 
OMB, and one of my duties there was actually working on the 
Landsat program, and one of the significant tensions that we 
always found with NASA's budget was in balancing the space 
missions and the Earth-based missions that NASA has. And so, as 
I said, I was very pleased to see the increase in Earth 
sciences. And so, Mr. Administrator, I'd like to hear more 
about how you see NASA's role in the Earth sciences, and 
advancing our understanding of climate change, and how that 
fits into the Biden Administration's overall climate science 
agenda.
     Mr. Nelson. There is a $300 million increase in science in 
this NASA budget. Earth science is a major part of that. That, 
in addition to the present unbelievable instruments that we 
have up in orbit, measuring very precisely what is happening to 
the Earth's climate. It was just announced that we are going to 
put up a series of five great observatories over the course of 
the next decade. The first is a joint one with India that will 
occur in January of next year. And these five great 
observatories are all going to collate their information, and 
talk to each other, in a 3D dimension of what's happening to 
our Earth by looking at land, water, ice, and the atmosphere. 
That is going to bring us a new dimension of information in 
addition to our very precise instruments that are remotely 
sensing what's happening on the Earth. So the scientific world 
is quite excited about not only what's happening in planetary 
science, as we project out, but what we are doing with regard 
to understanding what is happening here, our own planet.
     Ms. Stansbury. Thank you. And, Madam Chairwoman, and Mr. 
Administrator, in the interest of time, I would just like to 
also echo many of the words that we heard today about 
diversifying our STEM workforce and our aerospace workforce. A 
recent study issued by this Committee showed that--the ratio of 
men to women in aerospace, and that NASA is still three to one, 
and persons of color are still outnumbered three to one in our 
Federal workforce in this space as well, and I think it's 
critical that we get more women and people of color serving in 
our Federal agencies and in the industry. And with that, thank 
you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
     Mr. Nelson. Madam Chair, may I just point out that the 
next two Senate confirmed positions in NASA, the deputy, Pam 
Melroy, and the CFO (Chief Financial Officer), Margaret Vo 
Schaus, are both female.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Baird?
     Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to 
everyone, and thank you, Ranking Member Lucas, as well as 
Administrator Nelson. We really appreciate you being here and 
participating in this meeting.
     You know, I'm fortunate enough to have Purdue University 
in my district. It has a strong history of educating 
astronauts, and producing scientists and engineers that work at 
NASA, so it is--as you mentioned earlier, it is extremely 
important that the United States remain a leader in science and 
innovation, particularly in space. As China and Russia team up 
and build their space programs, the necessity to remain 
competitive has also become a point of national security, so 
I'd like to go to Russia first.
     They've indicated that they may withdraw from the 
International Space Station partnership if sanctions are not 
lifted against that Nation. You recently had a conversation 
with Dmitry Rogozin, the Director of the General of Roscosmos 
and the Russian Space Agency. So my questions are do you merely 
believe--or do you feel that Russia will remain in the 
International Space Station if these sanctions are not lifted? 
Second question, do you have any idea what the cost to operate 
the International Space Station might be? And then, in the 
final years of the Russian Mir Station, efforts were made to 
privatize the platform. What would prevent Russia from 
privatizing their segment of the International Space Station?
     Mr. Nelson. Congressman, thank you for that question. I 
want to address it comprehensively. First of all, you said you 
represent Purdue. Purdue, back in my day, produced almost as 
many astronauts as did the U.S. Naval Academy, and I wouldn't 
be surprised if it hadn't surpassed all other universities.
     Mr. Baird. We appreciate that recognition. Thank you, sir.
     Mr. Nelson. I have had three conversations with Dmitry 
Rogozin last week. I was quite concerned, as you have expressed 
in your question. Was there--because of these comments that 
were coming out of Russia, were they going to about-face and 
break the partnership that we've had with Russia when it was 
the Soviet Union in 1975, when an American spacecraft and a 
Soviet spacecraft rendezvoused and docked, and they lived 
together for 9 days in space. And we've had that cooperation 
ever since, and it's very evident on the International Space 
Station because there's always a Russian crew, there's always 
an American crew on board.
     So the first indication was actually in the NBC (National 
Broadcasting Company) interview of President Putin, when he 
spoke glowingly about--and that came a day after I had my first 
conversation with Rogoz, and Putin spoke glowingly about the 
cooperation in space, particularly on the space station. So, in 
the second conversation with Rogozin, he confirmed that. And in 
the third conversation, we had actually participated, I 
virtually, on a panel--international panel, but they were 
having the conference in St. Petersburg, Russia. And we had 
additional information from that conference that confirmed what 
we were seeing. And then the final thing is they're getting 
ready, in just a couple of months, to put up a major--another 
major Russian component to the space station. So why would they 
be doing that, and just a few years going to abandon it? It 
didn't make sense. And so I have a much changed attitude 
about--I think we are going to see the continued cooperation.
     However, your question is further. What about Russia and 
China teaming up? And I think we've got to watch that. I think, 
as I said in my opening comments, China is very aggressive in 
its Chinese government space program. And, as a result, we've 
got to be concerned about that. And if Russia is giving them a 
lot of their technology on rockets, that's something we've got 
to be concerned about. And they're talking about going to the 
south pole of the Moon, and that's where the water is, the 
water ice. So--indeed. Thank you for raising that, Congressman.
     Mr. Baird. Thank you for your response, appreciate it very 
much, and I yield back.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Madam Chair. Mr. Administrator, 
good to see you.
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
     Mr. Perlmutter. I don't want you to forget about the 
University of Colorado that has produced a lot of astronauts as 
well. I----
     Mr. Nelson. Very true.
     Mr. Perlmutter. So, obviously, you've been involved with a 
lot more appropriations than I have over the years, but I think 
the challenge--the competition with China, potentially Russia, 
offers us some opportunities not to really mix civilian and 
military, but to find some other pockets that might want to 
support our space program, and all the phases of it. So, you 
know, for me, I don't want to see this as a zero sum game, that 
human exploration takes from Earth science, and Earth science 
takes from planetary science, and everything takes away from 
heliophysics. And I do think the fact that there is some 
serious competition now will give you a lot of opportunities, 
and I just want to raise my hand. I'd be willing to work with 
Armed Services, or anybody else, to help you have the budgets 
that will allow us to be pre-eminent--continue to be pre-
eminent in the space program, because--I already gave you one 
of these bumper stickers, and this Committee, I drive them 
crazy, because I talk about getting our astronauts, our----
     Mr. Babin. Amen.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Amen. Getting our astronauts to Mars by 
2033, and as you said, the orbital mechanics make that a very 
good time to do it, saves a lot of travel time. So can you 
explain to us how you see the Artemis Program helping 
facilitate us getting to Mars by 2033, or in that timeframe?
     Mr. Nelson. Congressman, I don't think the United States 
wants to be second in anything. And although we were on the 
surface of the Moon about 52 years ago, we said we're going 
back, and it is part of a greater mission to go further, and 
that's to Mars. But mindful that we are seeing competitors that 
are being very aggressive. That, I think, is going to create 
the juices flowing, and I believe competition is always good. 
And that means we better be trained, and disciplined, and 
ready.
     Mr. Perlmutter. So you've mentioned, and I think you've 
answered in a couple questions, having NASA, in effect, 
participate in the infrastructure bill, that it be part of the 
jobs plan, or something. How do you see--and I agree with you, 
by the way. How do you see NASA fitting into, say, an 
infrastructure plan?
     Mr. Nelson. NASA, at a minimum, has $5.4 billion of 
desperate infrastructure needs. The building down at Michoud, 
which is a part of the Marshall Space Flight Center, but this, 
located in New Orleans, that's where we're assembling the first 
stage of the SLS rocket. The building has holes in the roof, 
and so it's emblematic of infrastructure that has--and it's not 
just NASA, it's everything. Look at the roads and the bridges. 
NASA has a need for that. And if you all do a jobs bill, I hope 
you would consider NASA in that jobs bill.
     Mr. Perlmutter. And I think you're going to find this 
Committee, despite them--you know, me making them all crazy 
with some of the things I have to say, we work very well 
together, and I think you're going to get a lot of support from 
us, both sides of the aisle, in--whether it's an infrastructure 
issue, or, you know, putting the building blocks into place to 
get to Mars. Let me ask you one last question, heliophysics. So 
we passed a space weather bill signed by President Trump last 
year. I was a little bit disappointed to see sort of the 
heliophysics part of the budget reduced in this year just as 
we're getting this new legislation in place, and would like to 
see that plussed up in some fashion or another. Any comment?
     Mr. Nelson. But that heliophysics is part of a budget that 
was increased by 300 million. That's the science part of the 
budget. And planetary science is a big part of that, and we've 
got to understand a lot of the stuff on heliophysics, because 
when we send astronauts back to the Moon, you have a solar 
explosion, and all that radiation's coming, we've got to have a 
way to know in advance, well in advance, to save our astronauts 
so that they don't get fried. Same thing on the long trip to 
Mars. We've got to be able to understand what's coming. And, on 
Earth climate science, we need to better understand the effects 
of the Sun with regard to delicate measurements of our climate 
in order to be better stewards of our planet.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Thanks, 
Madam Chair. I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Sessions?
     Mr. Sessions. Chairwoman, thank you very much. 
Administrator, thank you for taking time to be with this 
important Committee. I want to thank the leadership of this 
Committee, not only the gentlewoman from Dallas, but also Mr. 
Lucas, for their leadership.
     Sir, there is a big discussion about jobs, a big 
discussion about need of jobs. Pending the final decision by 
GAO, is there a document or something that's going to be 
released from you that will lay out perhaps--I don't know about 
a visionary statement, but the thinking of NASA about moving 
forward?
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. I don't know that I can pinpoint it 
to how many jobs it's going to be. We can look into the past of 
NASA, we can tell you how much money has rippled through the 
economy as a result of the space program, how much money on a 
specific part of the space program has rippled through the 
money, and give you an estimate in the past of the jobs that 
were created. We----
     Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir.
     Mr. Nelson. We clearly know that that's the case, 
particularly when you're doing cutting edge technology, and 
you're developing new things, and suddenly you've got a whole 
new line of employment. And that's going to occur as we develop 
the technology to go to the Moon and Mars.
     Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir. Let me move away from perhaps the 
word ``jobs,'' and go to the word ``document.'' Is there a 
document that you're waiting to produce to release that, in 
essence, I think would provide some specificity toward NASA's 
thinking about what they're talking about of not just 
competition, but actually what would be on the Moon, how they 
might move forward? Is there a document which you're preparing 
that would be available soon after the GAO decision?
     Mr. Nelson. We'll prepare that document once we know what 
the path is forward as a result of the GAO decision.
     Mr. Sessions. OK. And that's where it then comes to the 
word jobs. You and I both know we have Blue Origin, we have 
Boeing, we have Lockheed-Martin, we have, back in the district 
that I represent in Central Texas, McGregor, Texas, SpaceX. 
There are a lot of people in this area. I would say to you that 
I find intriguing, and really essential, the thinking of this 
administration, through your service, sir, about what that 
future looks like, because I think that the development of jobs 
has a lot to do with the ability that a company has to know not 
just of the funding, but of the strength of these mission to 
have long term employment, to have long term decisions about 
what kind of people they have employed.
     I spent a few years at an old organization that changed 
names a number of times, but essentially it was Bell Labs. And 
Bell Labs needed to know about where they were headed to to 
where they could make longer term decisions, and I would say to 
you that I think that your mark on that vision statement about 
what would be competition, where we're going to land, whether 
we're going to put a space station up, whether we're going to 
put something on the surface, and playing that out, I think 
you've indicated you've got a pretty good handle on that. NASA 
has an idea about where they want to go, and the specificity of 
that, when available, will enable these companies, like SpaceX 
and others, to then make a determination about where they're 
going to head not just with jobs, but how they're going to 
recruit, how they're going to retain. And, as you know, there's 
a very aggressive schedule of flights, and moving forward, and 
I think that is part of the vision statement.
     It's a joint exercise that you're doing, public/private 
partnership, so to speak, but with the vision of NASA, so I 
really want to thank you. I remember back to Dan Golden very 
well, and Mary Ellen Weber, who was one of his favorite 
astronauts. Jim Bridenstine I think did a great job, as Dan 
Golden did, and I think you stand at that doorway of being able 
to give a great vision and statement, but I would say back to 
you, these companies that have these leading edge scientists 
need that viewpoint, and so last question, what do you think 
about timeframes of that release?
     Mr. Nelson. Shortly after the GAO decision. And, 
Congressman, further, I would say that the past is prologue. 
Look what happened to the jobs in this country in the field of 
STEM as a result of the Apollo Program, where a major goal was 
set, and the Nation decided collectively, the whole of 
government, the whole of American free enterprise, that we were 
going to accomplish that goal, and look at the jobs that came 
out of that that then revolutionized that. Look at the 
microtechnology that came when you had to develop small in 
size, low in weight, and highly reliable instruments for the 
Apollo Program, and look what that did. Everything from watches 
to computers, and we're seeing that today, and we'll see more 
of that as we get on down the road on--going back to the Moon, 
and on to Mars, as well as all these other things in science 
that we've been talking about.
     Mr. Sessions. Administrator, thank you. Everyone else has 
had a chance to put in a plug. I too would like to have you 
come to Waco, Texas, and visit McGregor, Texas, where SpaceX 
is. I think you'll be, once again, reinvigorated by the free 
enterprise system of bright people, and I want to thank you for 
your service, not just in the U.S. House and the Senate, but 
also your service now, and good luck, and Godspeed. I think we 
will salute to a great plan, and thank you. I yield back my 
time, Madam Chairman.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. His invitation to 
Waco will only follow one to Dallas. Ms. Moore? Mr. Foster?
     Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, first thank you, 
Ranking Member Lucas, Administrator Nelson, for joining us here 
today. I believe the documents that my Republican colleague Mr. 
Sessions was requesting are known as the technical design 
report, and a resource loaded schedule and budget, will--which 
will be required for the Artemis mission, the Gateway project, 
and the mission to Mars. When can we in Congress expect a 
preliminary version of these documents?
     Mr. Nelson. After the GAO report.
     Mr. Foster. So within the year? By the end of the year?
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
     Mr. Foster. OK. Thank you. You know, you also mentioned in 
your remarks the importance of developing new technology as 
part of the realistic ways of getting to Mars. You know, also 
you mentioned the very difficult problem of radiation 
shielding, for which, you know, it's--for both the mission to 
Mars and the Gateway Project, which I believe there aren't 
really satisfactory solutions yet, a part of which is to make 
very high performance propulsion systems so you can get to Mars 
and back quickly.
     Now, the National Academies recently released a report, I 
think in February of this year, entitled ``Space Nuclear 
Propulsion for Human Mars Exploration'', which looks at a lot 
of the technical details for really, you know, getting a higher 
performance mission to Mars--propulsion system for the mission 
to Mars, and it recommended that if you're--in order to support 
human missions to Mars as soon as--well, they were planning on 
the late 2030's, that NASA needed to invest money now in a very 
aggressive technology development program for the propulsion 
that addresses the fundamental challenges both for thermal 
nuclear and electric nuclear propulsion. Congress has 
maintained an interest in space nuclear power and propulsion 
through both the authorization and appropriation language, 
including $110 million in the FY 2021 appropriation. Could you 
comment on why NASA's FY 2022 budget does not propose any 
funding for either nuclear electric propulsion or nuclear 
thermal propulsion technology development and demonstration 
activities?
     Mr. Nelson. Congressman, it's going to have to in the near 
future, because the alternative is to go to Mars with 
conventional technology, which is going to take us 8 to 10 
months to get there, and then you're going to have to be on the 
surface for 2 years before you would bring the crew back for 
another 8 to 10 months, and that's because of the alignment of 
the planets, so that you could get back in that short a period 
of time. So is it realistic that you could send a crew all the 
way to Mars and sustain them on that distance of millions and 
millions of miles? I think--my personal opinion is--now, I am 
not a scientist, so we're going to have to listen to the 
propulsion folks, but my country boy understanding of this is 
that we are going to have to speed up one way or another, try 
at least to get it down to a year on the surface.
     Mr. Foster. Um-hum.
     Mr. Nelson. And you can do that with one of those 
nuclear--I think it's nuclear thermal.
     Mr. Foster. Yeah, nuclear thermal. That--my physicist 
understanding is that it's nuclear thermal, and that the solar 
options will be mainly useful for getting cargo there with low 
mass into Low Earth Orbit. But I'm really--you know, I would've 
expected a more aggressive budget proposal if that's going to 
be a serious option. You know, one of the very positive things 
that's happened is that there seems to be a convergence on the 
use of low enriched uranium for these missions, because there 
had been previous discussion both for surface power reactors 
and propulsion reactors using ion enriched uranium. This is, to 
my mind, a very dangerous future, where multiple countries will 
have large amounts of weapons-usable uranium as part of their 
propulsion reactors because of the ease at which they could be 
converted to nuclear weapons, and the world, and space, will be 
much safer if we standardize on that. It's been a real step 
forward, I think for the world that we're focusing on the low 
enriched uranium designs for both the surface and the 
propulsion reactors. But I urge you to really, you know, give 
that program a healthy kick, because it's going to be essential 
to get the performance we need for a Mars mission on the 
schedule we hope to see it happen.
     Mr. Nelson. Congressman, you obviously are skilled in this 
very technical area, and I might say, I think you're correct 
that we're not going to be handling a lot of highly enriched 
uranium, because it's very important in another part of our 
government that that doesn't get out of our control, and into 
somebody's hands who can use it to build a bomb.
     Mr. Foster. No. Absolutely. And the advanced nuclear 
reactor concepts for--that are looked--being looked at for 
commercialization are also moving toward high enriched--well, 
low enriched, high assay material, which is much safer. And so 
I think the convergence of NASA and the commercial reactor 
world is a very positive trend that we should encourage. My 
time is up----
     Mr. Nelson. And nuclear electric, Congressman, offers new 
possibilities. We're just not there yet. You could develop a 
rocket, like one that's being experimented on VASIMR (Variable 
Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket), it'd get us there in 39 
days. It'd go--accelerate halfway, and decelerate the remaining 
half. Once you're there in 39 days, the planets don't get out 
of alignment, and you can stay a week or two, a month, and you 
can sprint back 39 days. But the technologies are not there. 
These are the things that we're going to have to develop before 
we end up with the technology we're going with in the 2030's to 
Mars with humans.
     Mr. Foster. Thank you. And I'm over time, and I'll yield 
back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Garcia?
     Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member 
Lucas, for both of your leadership and partnership on this. 
Administrator, it's good to see you again, sir.
     Mr. Nelson. Thank you.
     Mr. Garcia. When we last spoke--well, first of all, let me 
commend the achievements from last year. I mean, to be able to 
send the Mars missions up, launch Americans from American soil, 
in American-made hardware, and to have SpaceX recover safely 26 
flights in 1 year, which is about three times what the space 
shuttle was able to do in 1 year during its best years, is a 
massive achievement in any year, but especially during a 
pandemic. I think we have proven out the government and 
commercial partnership aspects, and the model works. I think we 
need to figure out how to continue to accelerate that, 
incentivize industry, keep industry interested in these 
programs, and not grind them to a halt on contracting issues. 
To that point, you know, I hope that is something that NASA's 
looking at, is how do we get folks on contract quicker, how do 
we maintain the fixed price incentive fee contracting, rather 
than cost-plus incentive fee type contracts. There's a lot of 
ways to skin a cat, but, as you know, there's a lot of ways to 
kill programs, and these are the barriers to entry that we 
sometimes see on the defense side.
     I want to just put a bow real quick on the HLS 
conversation. There's been a lot of discussion. The problem 
that we have with the August 4 decision is that, between now 
and then, we're actually going through markups within the 
Appropriations Committee that I sit on as well, so I just want 
to put a bow on the acquisition strategy. You mentioned in the 
Approps conversations a couple weeks ago that this first HLS 
award was effectively a one-off demonstrator for the first 
mission. You used the word demonstrator again today. The 
inference of that would be that there are follow-on 
competitions, and that represents, effectively, your 
acquisition strategy, but that's not reflected either in the 
fiscal year 2022 budget request, nor the 5 year plan. And so, 
just to make sure we're all on the same page--because there 
really is only two scenarios coming out of August 4, either the 
protest is upheld or it's not. If it's upheld, we still have a 
massive funding gap, to the tune of 5.4 billion. That--your 
plan is to use the JOBS Act to get healthy enough, either 
directly or indirectly through other programs, to pay for the 
follow-on HLS programs?
     Mr. Nelson. Well, that's up to you. That's up to you, if 
you decide to appropriate the money in order to have these 
follow-on competitions, and many landings, one a year over a 
decade. And, by the way, they will be fixed price.
     Mr. Garcia. Good. OK.
     Mr. Nelson. Fixed price contracts.
     Mr. Garcia. Good. I just want to make sure that that ask 
is on the table, and that, not only the authorizers, but the 
appropriators are aware that that is the plan to get whole on 
this overarching acquisition strategy, and if that's the case, 
that we need to codify that as we move through the next couple 
of weeks before August 4.
     I resonate with the--competition is good. We need to keep 
pushing in that direction, and I think NASA's doing a good job 
of that. More horses in the race is always good. I want to dive 
down into a couple specific programs as well, if you don't 
mind, Administrator? The Mars Sample Recovery, you mentioned 
early on that that was still something we were chasing. We have 
the rover now on the planet. We have it collecting samples 
here, but we don't have necessarily the program of record or 
the funding to bring back the samples. That could be a large 
bill. Where is that captured in the strategic plan or in the 
budget request?
     Mr. Nelson. It's being designed right now----
     Mr. Garcia. OK.
     Mr. Nelson [continuing]. And as soon as we have--I've seen 
one concept. It's a very complicated concept. They want to make 
sure that the material is not contaminated once it comes back. 
All of this is done in a very elaborate instrument that they 
land on----
     Mr. Garcia. Um-hum.
     Mr. Nelson. --Mars----
     Mr. Garcia. Um-hum.
     Mr. Nelson [continuing]. Taking the sample that will be 
collected by this rover, Perseverance, transferring it to the 
other, preparing it, and then putting it, in effect, in a 
capsule that then launches from the surface of Mars, and comes 
back, and then comes back through, with a heat shield, through 
the entry of the atmosphere.
     Mr. Garcia. OK. So we're still characterizing the price 
footprint of that design, and----
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
     Mr. Garcia [continuing]. It's going through design 
reviews? OK.
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
     Mr. Garcia. Last, in the remaining 10 seconds, we have a 
program in my district called SOFIA. This is a 747-based 
infrared instrument, just upgraded with a new instrumentation 
system recently, partnership with Germany, lots of money being 
spent on that, that's set to be terminated within this budget 
request. I would request that you look at that, at least wait 
for the senior review in fiscal year 2022 before we make any 
decisions, and happy to support you in those conversations, and 
host you in our district for that as well. Thank you, Mr. 
Administrator.
     Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Congressman.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Moore? You're 
muted.
     Ms. Moore. Thank you so very, very much, Madam Chair, and 
thank you, Mr. Administrator, for your patience during this 
very long hearing. Mr. Bowman raised a point, and you didn't 
get a chance really to respond. You're putting 20 million extra 
dollars into STEM education, and he proposed that it ought to 
start like, at K-6, and I'm thinking maybe that's too old. And 
I just want to know specifically what you're doing to--in the 
K-12 space in particular in regards to education. I don't think 
that you give somebody their first slide rule when they're a 
freshman in college that you're going to do very much in terms 
of that space.
     Mr. Nelson. I understand your concern, Congresswoman. I'm 
going to try to affect that, because education doesn't start 
once you enter the university. It starts----
     Ms. Moore. Exactly.
     Mr. Nelson [continuing]. A lot earlier. And I think you 
will see that, in addition to the STEM grants which go to 
universities, I think you will see us try to expand the efforts 
of educating kids. We can only do with STEM grants what the law 
allows, however, we have other ways of getting this word in to 
even elementary and secondary schools.
     Ms. Moore. That's where they need to be. Mr. 
Administrator, you have--you've spent a lot of time talking 
about equity, and gender equity, and what we've noticed on this 
Committee is that not only were women in low level jobs, like 
restaurants, suffering through this pandemic with a loss of 
job, but we noticed that women published less papers than 
before the pandemic. And I just want to know if there--can you 
tell us what the pandemic has done to NASA in--personnel?
     Mr. Nelson. Well, fortunately, our personnel were the 
first to be able, of any government agency, to adapt quickly by 
remotely being able to work.
     Ms. Moore. Good.
     Mr. Nelson. We are governed, on a return to the offices, 
by the decision of the White House, and we will be governed 
accordingly. But I can tell you, I'm tired of roaming around in 
an empty headquarters building basically by myself, now joined 
with Pam and Bob, so I'm looking forward for everybody getting 
back.
     Ms. Moore. Absolutely. Mr. Administrator, I just want to 
point out that I'm from Wisconsin, so this is a long way from 
Florida. I know how much you admire Florida. But a great 
example of the partnership with NASA is the partnership that 
they have--the University of Wisconsin and Boeing partnered 
under the University Leadership Initiative, and students got to 
study robotics, advanced aviation manufacturing, which I know 
you're interested in, and there's a lot of scientific inquiries 
regarding the Great Lakes system, on the climate of the eastern 
United States, and even the science behind the formation of 
tornadoes. Do you anticipate having a bigger footprint in 
places like Wisconsin during your tenure?
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, ma'am, and I've been to Wisconsin. I went 
there with Tammy Baldwin, not for NASA, but for the U.S. Coast 
Guard. You've got a station there just south of Milwaukee. And 
I--if you'll invite me, I'll be happy to come back.
     Ms. Moore. Consider yourself invited. At--because we 
there--our--there's a great nexus between what we're doing and 
NASA, so we'd be happy to have you, so consider yourself 
invited. We'll follow up. And, Madam Chair, I yield back the 
remainder of my time.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Feenstra?
     Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and Ranking 
Member Lucas. Administrator Nelson, I appreciate you taking the 
time today to speak to our Committee on NASA and the 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2022 budget proposal. As you know, 
China is a significant competitor in space exploration and 
efforts to militarize space. Last week I introduced an 
amendment to the NSF for the Future Act, along with Congressman 
Waltz. It was added with bipartisan Committee support during 
the markup. The amendment related to prohibiting participation 
in maligned foreign talent recruitment programs, such as 
China's Thousand Talents Program. The question is, does NASA 
have an active program in place to assess employees from 
foreign influence, or prohibit their participation in maligned 
foreign talent recruitment programs?
     Mr. Nelson. If we don't, we will.
     Mr. Feenstra. That's good. It's so important. I think it's 
critical to our country that we focus on those around the 
communist world that have concerns about our country. Another 
question I have, moving on to the issue of agriculture, the 
future of sustainable aviation fuel may provide a new market 
for biofuels produced in Iowa. Looking at your budget, how does 
biofuels play out in sustainable aviation fuel, and related 
research and development, in your budget for fiscal year 2022?
     Mr. Nelson. The first A in NASA is aeronautics, and we're 
looking at all kinds of fuels. Basically, NASA aviation has got 
to do our part in lessening the pollution of putting CO2 
and methane up into the upper atmosphere. So we are getting 
ready to fly a demonstrator on an all-electric aircraft coming 
up this year, and that's just one trying to look at alternative 
fuels. Now, how the biofuels work into this, I can't tell you 
off the top of my head. I know before we've seen biofuels into 
the American automobile industry, because most of us are at 
least getting 10 percent ethanol when we pump at the gas pump. 
I know the Air Force in the past had had a program that was 
going to be directed at mostly biofuels. When you launch 
rockets, you've generally got to have something that's really 
got a kick, and usually that's something like kerosene, or 
hydrogen, or methane. So--but getting back to aeronautics, we 
are doing that, and doing it aggressively.
     Mr. Feenstra. That's great to hear. Relating to 
agriculture, NASA's applied sciences and NASA's Harvest Program 
work to advance the use of satellite observations to benefit 
agriculture and food security. Can you talk about NASA's 
budgeting to develop applications to assist precision 
agriculture, and provide data in support of agriculture and 
land use issues, such as drought forecasting, or flood plain 
mapping control?
     Mr. Nelson. So--I'm an old country boy, so--as a matter of 
fact, I can even remember my grandfather plowing a mule, but 
think about today. The farmer gets in an air-conditioned 
tractor, and he's got a GPS (Global Positioning System) system, 
and it's telling him exactly how to furrow that row. Now, what 
about all the scientific instruments that we have now that can 
examine the crops from space and see what's diseased, or what 
about the ones that are going to be able to predict drought in 
the future to help the farmer? Or what about the desert 
community that suddenly, under the soil of the desert, we can 
locate deposits of water? All of those things are bound to be 
helping agriculture and country folks. And I think it's 
exciting.
     Mr. Feenstra. I do too, and, Administrator Nelson, I 
greatly appreciate listening to you today. It's an honor and a 
privilege for a farm kid in Iowa to listen to you. And, with 
that, I yield back. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. LaTurner?
     Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and Ranking 
Member Lucas. Administrator Nelson, it's a pleasure to get to 
interact with you today. Of your many accomplishments, my 
favorite is that you're a fellow former State Treasurer, so 
it's great to see you here today.
     Now that the Commercial Crew Program is fully underway, 
NASA will have the ability to add additional crew members to 
the ISS, how will NASA and international partners' crew time be 
impacted by the private astronaut mission?
     Mr. Nelson. Well, I think that's a concern, and I think we 
constantly have to monitor that. And what I have suggested, as 
a newbie, but one who is responsible, is that they have the 
same training that our professional astronauts have, they go 
through the same medical checks, the same kind of psychological 
checks, and that you have an experienced astronaut with them. 
Thus you see that the company that's going to do the first 
private astronauts to the space station has Michael Lopez-
Alegria, one of our very experienced astronauts, that is 
conducting the training. They're even going out in the desert 
for, like, a week in order to create the bonding of a crew. And 
they have also named Peggy Whitson, who has spent more time in 
space than anybody else, at some 800 plus days, is going to be 
the astronaut that will accompany the second group that's much 
further on out. So you raise a very valid concern, and I have 
been trying to address that.
     Mr. LaTurner. I appreciate that. NASA continues to propose 
transferring specific space communication efforts over to the 
private sector. What progress has NASA made on this front?
     Mr. Nelson. On which front?
     Mr. LaTurner. On transferring specific space communication 
efforts over to the private sector. I'm curious about the 
progress you made, and also the response that you've received 
from the private sector.
     Mr. Nelson. Well, everything that, really, NASA does is 
the private sector. The private sector that you're referring to 
is the commercial part of space flight, where we give a request 
for a proposal, and companies come back and bid, as we have 
done so successfully, on commercial crew to the space station, 
as well as commercial cargo. Those are fixed price contracts. 
But, when it's involving humans, including the docking of cargo 
missions to the space station, NASA's going to be all over it 
to make sure that it's meeting the safety standards that we 
have to have on anything having to do with humans in space. 
Does that answer your question?
     Mr. LaTurner. It does. I appreciate it, and I appreciate 
your time, and I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Ross? Is----
     Ms. Ross. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I hope you can hear 
me. This is a wonderful hearing, Chairwoman Johnson, and thank 
you to Administrator Nelson for joining us today. I met you a 
couple times before, including in my home State of North 
Carolina, and, as you know, North Carolina has contributed to 
NASA for decades. Christine Darden, one of NASA's hidden 
figures, broke barriers in the STEM industry, and in gender and 
racial equality, and she's from North Carolina. She was the 
first African-American woman to be promoted into the Senior 
Executive Service at NASA's Langley Research Center. We also 
have Christina Koch, a three-time graduate of NC State, in my 
district, who served as a flight engineer on the International 
Space Station for three expeditions, and set a record for the 
longest single spaceflight by a woman, with a total of 328 days 
in space, and she was a participant in an--in the all-woman 
spacewalk. And the 62 astronauts, including those on the Apollo 
11 mission, trained at the University of North Carolina's 
Morehead Planetarium.
     I believe that inspiring the next generation to reach for 
the stars well before they earn advanced degrees, and qualify 
to join NASA, is a crucial, crucial mission both for Congress 
and for your agency. And in North Carolina, in Research 
Triangle Park in particular, we're a major STEM education hub, 
and we've grown our STEM education at a higher rate than the 
national average. I'm thrilled to see that, for the first time 
in many years, NASA's budget request includes funding for its 
Office of STEM Engagement, and so I'd like to know how the STEM 
engagement activities are building stronger ties with NASA's 
mission, including its flight programs.
     Mr. Nelson. And Mike Smith, who gave his life for the 
country in the terrible tragedy of Challenger, was from North 
Carolina as well, and thank you for the contributions from your 
State. STEM is--we've had some discussion here already, 
extensively, about the importance of STEM. You can't be a 
society that wants to do all of these gee-whiz technological 
achievements that are giant leaps if you don't have the 
educated populace. And what better to stimulate the interest of 
kids in science, and technology, and engineering, and 
mathematics than the space program? And so we're really going 
to try to rev up STEM education. It got a big boost in the 
President's budget, and we're going to try to manage it in a 
way that it really does have an effect. STEM grants are not the 
province just of NASA. They're every agency of government. And 
you will have an opportunity, as you go through these 
authorization bills and appropriations bills coming on, to 
affect STEM throughout the whole of government, but we're going 
to try to do our part.
     Ms. Ross. Well, thank you so, so much. One of the other 
things that we do well in the Research Triangle is have a very 
innovative Cleantech Cluster, and advancing clean energy. And 
can you elaborate on how your agencies work on--research and 
work on climate change and innovation, can contribute to our 
domestic clean energy sector, including manufacturing and 
supply chains?
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, ma'am, and we've had considerable 
discussion on that issue as well. Climate science in NASA is 
getting a major emphasis. Not only with the very delicate 
instruments that are on orbit right now measuring all kinds of 
things, and you have seen the result, for example, in the 
National Weather Service. Well, NASA's the one that designs 
those instruments, their satellites, those spacecraft, builds 
them, and launches them, and NOAA then operates them. But we've 
got a future that is very exciting. Over the next decade we are 
going to put up five great observatories, and they are going to 
give us measurements of what's happening on land, on water, on 
ice, in the atmosphere in a way that we never had, and then 
collate all that into a three-dimensional understanding of the 
subtle changes that are occurring, and what we need to do about 
that, as well as advise us on a daily basis of what we ought to 
be looking out for. All of that is around the corner. That's a 
$2-1/2 billion project over 10 years. Five missions, the first 
of which will be January of next year. Yes, ma'am.
     Ms. Ross. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Administrator. 
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Gimenez.
     Mr. Gimenez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member 
Lucas. Senator, Administrator, good to see you again.
     Mr. Nelson. Mr. Mayor, good to see you.
     Mr. Gimenez. Thank you. Senator, Administrator, do you 
think that China is in a race to the Moon with us?
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir, Congressman.
     Mr. Gimenez. Why?
     Mr. Nelson. Because of what they've already done, and what 
they've announced they're going to do. And, by the way, if you 
look back on the history of the Chinese program, they announce 
what they're going to do, and then they do it. And so--we've 
already seen they've been on the Moon successfully. We clearly 
saw what they've done, as only the second Nation to ever be 
able to land a rover on Mars. We did so back in the 1970's, and 
have had several since, but they're the second Nation to be 
able to pull this off, and it's no minor feat. They are 
preparing a sample return mission from Mars, so this is 
demonstrating extreme capability.
     They've announced that they're going to send about three 
missions to the south pole of the Moon. We're sending three 
commercial probes, overseen by NASA, all looking at water ice, 
because from that you can get fuel----
     Mr. Gimenez. Correct.
     Mr. Nelson [continuing]. And oxygen.
     Mr. Gimenez. Right. So--I hate to interrupt you, I only 
have about 3 minutes. I have a couple other questions for you. 
Do we know that there's water ice on the south pole?
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
     Mr. Gimenez. Do we know how much there is on the south 
pole?
     Mr. Nelson. That's why we're going.
     Mr. Gimenez. OK. And so if you have water ice on the south 
pole, then you can create fuel, which then you can take off 
from the Moon a lot more efficiently than taking off from the 
Earth, and that's why you want to get there. What happens if 
the United States and China arrive--or somebody's there at the 
south pole already, and somebody else comes there, who owns, 
who gets that water ice?
     Mr. Nelson. Well, I think you raise a good question, and 
that's why have something known as the Artemis Accords, which 
we are getting other nations to sign, Brazil being the most 
recent. And what the Artemis Accords say is that our 
exploration of the Moon is going to be transparent, it's going 
to be peaceful. Nations are going to cooperate together, and 
there's nobody who's going to be exclusive.
     Mr. Gimenez. Has China signed that?
     Mr. Nelson. No. Neither has Russia.
     Mr. Gimenez. That's interesting.
     Mr. Nelson. It's a data point.
     Mr. Gimenez. Look, I raise those questions--I knew the 
answers, but we are in a race with the Chinese to get to the 
Moon, and it's a matter of national security that we win that 
race. It's also a matter of national pride that we win that 
race, just like it was back in the 1960's when we beat the 
Russians to the Moon. It's a demonstration to the world of who 
is the pre-eminent power in the world. People don't understand 
that, but that's exactly what's going on. And so, you know, 
you'll find in me somebody who will fund, or try to fund, NASA 
to the greatest extent possible to make sure that we're the 
first ones back on the Moon.
     Related to that, the lander that we just awarded the 
contract to, when do you expect delivery of the first lander?
     Mr. Nelson. Well, that depends on what GAO says on August 
the 4th.
     Mr. Gimenez. Well, if they say that there's going to be 
competition, then there's a $10 billion shortfall in your 
budget, right?
     Mr. Nelson. And that's up to you, then. We'll see, and 
I've suggested here, before you arrived, that there are more 
ways to skin a cat than one, and you're going to have a jobs 
bill in front of you that's got an R&D component, and that 
would be a good place.
     Mr. Gimenez. Well, I agree with you that, with all the 
trillions that are being bannered about, that we should spend 
some of that on NASA, and assuring that the United States 
remains, and will always remain, the pre-eminent force in 
space. You go back in history, it was the countries that were 
exploring that were always the dominant countries, and so we 
need to keep on exploring, and we need to be the first, and we 
need to be the first out there. I know my time is up, and I 
yield back, but again, thank you for being here, and, again, 
pleasure seeing you again, sir.
     Mr. Nelson. America never wants to give up its DNA as 
explorers, adventurers, because always we've had a frontier, 
and we've been successful in capturing that frontier. Now our 
frontier is up.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Kildee?
     Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, or 
afternoon, I guess, now, Administrator Nelson. Thank you for 
being here, and let me just say this, thank you for the various 
forms that your service to this country have taken. It's very 
much appreciated, and I'm thrilled that you're in the position 
that you're in right now.
     I'd like to talk to you a bit about NASA's Earth Sciences 
Division, specifically the Earth Applied Sciences Develop 
program. I understand the program has worked with the Great 
Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative for a number of years 
on projects designed to protect the Great Lakes. I come from 
Michigan. The Great Lakes are our lifeblood. It literally 
outlines our boundaries, it defines who we are as a State. The 
lakes are also critical to our livelihood. According to the 
Great Lakes Seaway Partnership, shipping on the Great Lakes and 
St. Lawrence Seaway supported $35 billion in economic activity 
in 2017.
     So, in my time in Congress, I've been working on this. 
I've introduced and passed legislation that prioritizes and 
updates Federal mapping of the Great Lakes. We talked--you 
know, you were just mentioning how we have such an explorer 
character in our DNA. We continue to need to do more research 
and exploration even here at home, and the Great Lakes is one 
area where we can do that. I have asked, in past legislation, 
to prioritize the mapping of the Great Lakes, introduced 
resolutions to oppose building nuclear waste repositories in 
the Great Lakes Basin, introduced legislation to prevent Asian 
carp from reaching the lakes, continued robust funding for the 
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. As you can see, this has 
been a priority. But the pressure on the Great Lakes as a 
result of climate change only raises the importance of research 
and work in preserving what is really an international 
treasure. So I wonder if you might comment or discuss how the 
FY 2022 budget would continue the work that your agency is 
involved in preserving the Great Lakes?
     Mr. Nelson. Congressman, I had the privilege of serving 
with your dad, and it was a great privilege to know him as a 
colleague. When you have these Earth observations satellites or 
spacecraft, they give us all kinds of measurements to address a 
number of the things that we also address terrestrially here. 
For example, the invasive species in the Great Lakes, that is 
just a terrible bane to the existence of marine industry in the 
Great Lakes, that kind of muscle that clogs up all the drains, 
that comes in in the ballast water. You know, that's one thing, 
but what about the algal blooms, or other invasive species, or 
stormwater runoff, or the coastal flood risk, the wetlands? All 
of those things we can help the dangerous--the dangers that are 
facing your constituents by the observations we are making from 
space. And--then that goes into what I had explained before 
about these five great observatories that are going to just 
refine that data, and make it so much more comprehensive. So 
I'm with you, Congressman.
     Mr. Kildee. I very much appreciate that. I mean, the 
agency obviously has a lot on its plate, and I will say that I 
do support your goal of us continuing to lead in this space, 
literally and figuratively, but to not forget that the agency 
does have a robust agenda as it relates to life right here on 
this planet, and I do appreciate your effort, and particularly 
your continued support for research related to the Great Lakes. 
It's a critical asset, and it's one that I'm happy to hear that 
you also appreciate and support. So, with that, thank you again 
for your service to our country. Madam Chair, I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Kim?
     Mrs. Kim. Thank you, Chairwoman, and Ranking Member. Thank 
you for holding this hearing. And, Administrator Nelson, 
welcome. Thank you so much for being with us to discuss the 
budget request for NASA.
     Back in February I had the opportunity to go to JPL to 
witness the launching and the landing of Perseverance rover, 
and that was quite an experience, and I was honored to be one 
of the few Members that were able to do that.
     Mr. Nelson. Did you meet Mimi? She is the lady that 
handled the little helicopter.
     Mrs. Kim. I don't think I personally had the opportunity 
to meet her. But, you know, that was, like, oh, my goodness, it 
was after 292 million miles and 7 months preparation, right? So 
it was really, truly, an amazing experience. During that visit 
what I did was, as soon as I knew I was invited, I reached out 
to the school districts in my district, and Rowland Unified 
School District, invited the eighth graders to join me 
virtually, so I was able to take my laptop, and turn it around, 
and show the scale model of the rover, and that was quite an 
experience for the students. And I think that's exactly what we 
need to do to encourage our young students to take an interest 
in STEM-related education, and provide the opportunities for 
them to be encouraged to perhaps dream about being the next 
engineers, next scientists. And perhaps one of these days they 
may be the ones taking on that human lander, and go back and 
retrieve the samples that our astronauts are currently working 
on to bring back.
     And so I'm really excited about that opportunity, and in 
my view, and I know you share this, we need to keep our 
students engaged from an early age, and some of my colleagues 
on both sides before me talked about the importance of 
providing the educational opportunities from early on, not when 
they are ready to go to college, from pre-K to eighth grades. 
Which is why I'm so excited--and I want to give a plug in for 
my legislation that I introduced, Innovations in Informal STEM 
Learning Act, and this will create a grant opportunity, and 
also allow nonprofit organizations to give, you know, STEM 
related programs before, after, and even out of school 
programs. So, you know, it's a good plug in for my colleagues, 
if they're not aware of it, to please sign on and become a co-
sponsor of that bill.
     So can you please elaborate on how the additional $4 
million the budget provides for the next generation STEM 
project will be utilized? And, obviously, we can talk about the 
importance of NASA supporting the type of programming that my 
legislation will call for for our pipeline of scientists, 
engineers, and astronauts, and so forth.
     Mr. Nelson. First of all, thank you, Congresswoman. You 
have sat here the entire time, so thank you very much. Thank 
you for your interest. There's a $4 million increase that you--
--
     Mrs. Kim. Um-hum.
     Mr. Nelson [continuing]. Talked about, and it is for the 
emphasis on learning opportunities in K through 12.
     Mrs. Kim. Awesome. I think we agree that we need to ensure 
that today's students have the skills needed to join the STEM 
workforce, because this is the pathway for job creation, which 
affects our American economy, and we are going to be ready to 
boost the Nation's challenges to, I mean to boost the Nation's 
competitiveness abroad. Thank you so much for that. And I've 
heard from many small contractors located in my district, which 
is California's 39th Congressional District, about the 
importance of space exploration for the region that I 
represent, so I look forward to working with you, with the 
Committee, to ensure that our space programs are appropriately 
funded. With that--obviously we understand. So it's not a 
question, I look forward to working with you, and I will yield 
back the balance of my time.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Sherman?
     Mr. Sherman. Thank you. My first question I'm sure has not 
arisen, in that--because it relates to my district. The Santa 
Susana Field Lab was used during the Cold War, in the early 
parts of the Cold War. Various contaminants, chiefly nuclear, 
remain. The facility--or the acreage is immediately adjacent to 
the city limits of Los Angeles, surrounded by populated 
suburbs. Some 451 acres of this is the responsibility of NASA. 
The adjoining property is subject to the responsibility of the 
Department of Energy and the Boeing Corporation. So the 
contamination affects hundreds of thousands of people. There 
are 700,000 people who have signed a signature demanding a full 
cleanup of the site. The prior Secretary of the--of Energy, 
Governor Perry, at my request, made at a Science Committee 
hearing, visited the site, and yet we still don't have any 
significant cleanup. A few old structures were removed. I'd 
like to bring to your attention a documentary, and arrange to 
get it to you, called ``Dark of the Valley'', about how 
hundreds of thousands of people are affected by this 
contamination. I want to know whether I can count on NASA to 
work to comply with the consent decree, and actually start 
cleaning up the facility relatively soon?
     Mr. Nelson. Congressman, we take the environment very 
seriously. As to making a commitment to you, I've got to know 
the details, and I just simply don't have those. But I can say 
this, you can tell a lot about a fellow, where he's going, by 
where he's been, and look at my environmental record over a 
lifetime of public service, and I think that'll give you some 
degree of comfort.
     Mr. Sherman. We will get you fully briefed, and then we 
will get you a copy of this documentary, which should be 
available soon. You've noted that the SLS could be used for 
multiple missions besides sending humans to deep space. Can you 
discuss your plan to keep a regular cadence for the SLS 
mission? And you had spoke to my colleagues on the national 
security of space using SLS, using the Delta IV Heavy, which is 
being retired. Can you comment on that?
     Mr. Nelson. Well, basically, on the Delta IV, you're 
having the Atlas V and the Delta IV, which have been the 
mainstay workhorses of getting a lot of commercial, but 
especially national defense payloads, over time, into orbit, 
into protection of our country, and those are being replaced as 
we develop new rockets. And there is a specific timetable. I 
don't have that on the top of my head.
     With regard to the regular cadence of landing on the Moon 
with Artemis, that is what I hope is going to occur. If we can 
get a robust competition, and have a decision on what the 
lander should be, and to have those landings once a year, so 
thus the cadence that you talk about, have them once a year 
over about a dozen year period, all of which is for the purpose 
of getting ready to go to Mars. Learning what we can, the 
preparation, the systems, the new technology, and dealing in an 
environment on a surface of a celestial body that is 1/6 the 
gravity, and we're getting ready to go to a celestial body 
that's 1/3 the gravity of Earth.
     Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I hope the Chairwoman will allow 
me to sneak in one more question. Can you share your 
perspective on how the Gateway is a critical element of our 
effort to further explore not only the Moon, but ultimately 
expand our space exploration to Mars?
     Mr. Nelson. I won't go into the detail that I did before 
to spare the Committee, but----
     Mr. Sherman. Um-hum.
     Mr. Nelson [continuing]. The Gateway, in essence, is a 
small space station in lunar orbit that will do many things. 
It'll be a way station for us to go down and back from the 
lunar surface. It will be a research station. It's 
international. We've already got a number of partners. And it 
will be the place that is likely to be the embarkation point 
where we will assemble a spacecraft, technology to be 
developed, that will go to Mars.
     Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Webster?
     Mr. Webster. Thank you, Chair. Senator, good to see you.
     Mr. Nelson. I think you all have more Florida Members on 
this Committee than any other State, maybe outpaced by 
California.
     Mr. Webster. We had a big interest. I've been listening--I 
heard, and it kind of expanded as we went along, all of the 
amount of information that you're gathering just from being in 
space, collecting data. And that certainly is useful data. I 
was wondering how does NASA partner with other government 
agencies, even local and State agencies, to utilize that from 
hurricanes in our area, but also there's wildfires, floods, and 
all kinds of other natural disasters.Just tell me, what's going 
on right now with that?
     Mr. Nelson. The extensive sharing of data among U.S. 
Government agencies with NASA is just unbelievable. I didn't 
realize, until I got into this position, how extensive it is. 
Now, I'll give you a good example. We in Florida, of course, 
are concerned about the direction and the ferocity of an 
inbound hurricane. All right. You've got all these assets up 
there that are measuring all kinds of different items that 
affect the intensity and the direction of that hurricane. These 
are all, in large part, assets that are in space. We have the 
buoys on the ocean that help us, and we have airplanes that fly 
through and above the hurricane, but we've also got these 
assets in space that are giving us all kinds of new 
measurements. And that's just one example on the sharing of 
data.
     Mr. Webster. I was thinking about in Florida we have, 
speaking of hurricanes, these emergency operation centers all 
over, and there's police and fire, and everybody has a--a lot 
of people have a seat at the table, and I'm sure you've been to 
one before. And they're all moving, and working pieces as let's 
say hurricane or some other disaster's coming. Are those pieces 
of information shared there, or can they be, or should they be?
     Mr. Nelson. The data of----
     Mr. Webster. Yeah, the data that they have--it's in 
action, it's happening, it's a live storm, and these people are 
reacting locally to--there's going to be a local flood, or 
there's going to be a local windstorm problem of some kind. Is 
that information shared even with those local EOCs (Emergency 
Operations Centers)?
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir, and let me give you another example. 
Some of the spacecraft that we have, for example, will measure 
the amount of moisture content in the atmosphere, and this is 
going to be even more evident in these great observatories that 
we're going to put up. Because measuring what's happening in 
the atmosphere--now, moisture content of the atmosphere is a 
major component when we're trying to figure out what that 
hurricane is going to do in the future, and the direction, and 
the intensity, and the temperature of that atmosphere, and the 
temperature of the surface of the ocean, and even the 
temperature underneath the surface of the ocean. And a lot of 
that is coming from the very instruments that NASA has 
designed, built, and launched, and then turned over to NOAA to 
operate.
     Mr. Webster. I could see that. Even the moisture content, 
when it comes to flooding and other things, because that's also 
a problem, an aftermath, a lot of times the wind's already 
gone, the news story's already gone, and then our rivers filled 
up, and later on, even sometimes a week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks later 
is the surge of what happens. That's probably pretty awesome--
well, I've learned something today. That's a lot more 
information than I even knew about, so thank you for coming. 
Congratulations on your new position. I know you do a fantastic 
job. We really appreciate you coming today. Good to----
     Mr. Nelson. Thank you, Congressman.
     Mr. Webster [continuing]. See you again.
     Mr. Nelson. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Bice?
     Mrs. Bice. Administrator Nelson, I have good news for you. 
I think I may be the last questioner of the afternoon.
     Mr. Nelson. Well, you have been, ma'am, very, very 
patient.
     Mrs. Bice. Well, thank you for joining us today, and thank 
you to the Chair and Ranking Member for allowing us the 
opportunity to speak with you about the budget. First, I hail 
from the great State of Oklahoma, and there are some great NASA 
ties, including your predecessor, who was from Oklahoma, as 
well as General Thomas Stafford, who has a museum in Ranking 
Member Lucas's district.
     Mr. Nelson. Who I saw yesterday, Tom Stafford, a personal 
friend, who lives in Satellite Beach, Congressman, and I will 
see Jim Bridenstine for supper tonight.
     Mrs. Bice. Well, tell him I said hello.
     Mr. Nelson. Yes, ma'am.
     Mrs. Bice. First, you mentioned earlier in the hearing 
that you were concerned about supply chain, and I am honored to 
be a member of the Supply Chain Task Force, which is looking at 
the critical infrastructure that has been impacted specifically 
over the last 18 months because of COVID-19, but also as it 
relates to the Department of Defense, and what we can do as a 
country to ensure that we don't have any supply chain 
disruptions moving forward. And you specifically mentioned rare 
Earth minerals, and those come from foreign entities, and I 
think that we have to be mindful, as we look to the future, to 
figure out how do we prohibit the possibility of not having 
access to those, which is incredibly important to many of the 
things that we're doing at NASA, as well as within the 
Department of Defense. That is something that I know the 
administration is also focused on, given their 100 day Supply 
Chain Task Force memo that was put out a couple weeks ago.
     In addition, Congressman Waltz made the comment that he's 
concerned about China, and, as a Member of the House Armed 
Services Committee, I echo those concerns as well. I think 
hearing and seeing some of the things that we have seen over 
the last couple of months particularly, with the landing of a 
rover on Mars, it's very clear that China is looking to outpace 
the United States, and it is imperative that we do everything 
we can to invest in research and development, in exploration, 
to ensure that that doesn't happen.
     In your budget you ask for 101 million for commercial Low 
Earth Orbit development, and I very much appreciate the 
collaboration with the private sector and NASA to do that. My 
concern is how do we prevent another situation like we have 
seen with HLS? Because currently we are on hold with that 
particular program until the decision in August comes, and 
we're on a timeframe here. And so my fear is that we're doing a 
great job at investing in LEO (low-Earth orbit), partnering 
with the private sector, but we cannot have delays. It is not 
in our best interest as a country. How do you prevent that from 
happening in the future?
     Mr. Nelson. Remember, there were delays on the Commercial 
Crew Program. That was contested as well. As it turns out, it's 
been a very successful program. It's a fixed price contract, 
and the second commercial provider for commercial crew is just 
getting ready to launch their vehicle at the end of next month, 
and then a crew on that vehicle at the end of the year. So the 
law provides that someone can contest an award, and we're not 
going to be able to avoid that. And we have, indeed, had to go 
into neutral for the past 100 days because of the big protest, 
but this is our system. This is the rule of law. And once we 
get a result, we will move out as quickly as we can.
     Mrs. Bice. And thank you for that answer. I appreciate the 
fact that we do live under the rule of law in this country. The 
concern I have is that our adversaries don't pay attention to 
the laws of this country, and they're willing to sacrifice to 
be able to move forward and advance at a very quick pace, so I 
think we, as a country, need to be mindful of how we navigate 
these waters in signing these contracts, and putting these 
private sector companies--creating these partnerships with NASA 
so that we're not behind the eight ball. At the end of the day, 
that's the most important thing, is to ensure the 
competitiveness of the United States.
     Mr. Nelson. Well, remember, you're a big part of this, and 
all you have to do is look back at Apollo. And--we were way 
behind, and the American people and the Congress supported a 
young President's vision of going to the Moon and back 
successfully within the decade, and it happened. And it was 
because everybody in the whole of government came together, 
supported by the American people. So, as we are looking into 
this adventure that we are all joining in, you are very much a 
part of that.
     Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Administrator, and, Madam Chair, 
I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, and thank you, 
Administrator Nelson, for being with us, and spending this time 
answering all of the questions. The record will remain open for 
2 weeks for additional statements from Members, and for any 
additional questions the Committee may have or ask the witness. 
The witness is now excused, and the hearing is adjourned.
     [Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by the Honorable Bill Nelson

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record

            Question submitted by Representative Brian Babin

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                 [all]