Excerpt from the opening statement of Chairman Alan B. Mollohan, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, & Related Agencies, to Acting Administrator Christopher Scolese of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, regarding general program details effecting their new budget.

"But the larger, looming question remains: can NASA do all that it is asked to do within its budget allocation? Although this Administration has requested nearly $1 billion more for NASA over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, the out-year profile for NASA is straight-lined over the next five years, signaling little change in the budget profile from the last Administration.

Unlike previous years, today NASA is asked to reinvest in observations of Planet Earth and to reinvigorate its aeronautics research. These programs suffered at the expense of the Constellation program, so this is a welcomed change. NASA is to continue with its development of the existing "vision" and the new generation of US human space flight capabilities - the cost of which, as I commented earlier, continues to mount and the timeline for initial operating capability gets pushed further and further into the future.

The Shuttle is to be terminated in 2010, creating a gap in US human space flight of at least five years before Orion and Ares are available. The Space Station continues to fly, used as a platform for far less research than supported by its original justification, until 2015 at which time its fate is uncertain. If the decision is to cease the use of the Station at that time, we could be developing portions of the Constellation program for a one-way trip to low Earth orbit to take the Station from orbit. Is it any wonder that it has been so difficult to find an Administrator for this agency?

At some point, it seems clear that the walk must match the talk, and that funds must follow policy. But the problem is not mid-level career staff at the Office of Management and Budget: the President, the Administrator and the Congress are responsible for defining NASA's missions and then ensuring that funds are there to support those missions. However difficult it is, the appropriate choice is one of two things - to put more money on the selected missions, or to select and fund fewer missions within a constrained budget. We can't have our cake and eat it too with NASA. Let me be clear - I'm all for putting more money on missions. I would hope that the new Administration and the new Administrator share my view."