to this day we still enjoy the countless benefits reaped from the first space flight. nasa, technologically, is regularly commercialized and can be found in countless things like improved medical devices, bar code scanners and in every computer. so we see that the technology from space flight is incorporated into our everyday lives. it has also allowed us to improve weather forecasting which is extremely important in louisiana, given the threats of hurricanes and tornadoes and what have you in the region. if you were to listen to the former nasa administrator, dr. mike griffith, he wrote, and i quote, i believe that this

budget request advocates a strategy that is frankly disastrous for the u.s. human space flight program. hairson smith, former u.s. senator and apollo 17 astronaut, said it's simply bad for the country system of with the loss of our manufacturing base, many jobs have been moved to other countries. the manufacturing space vehicle is among the very few areas where we still enjoy technical advantage and i think it's extremely unwise to give it up. . the chinese are pushing to put a person on the moon. the russians are continuing their space program and i'm pretty sure they are catching up with us in the technical field

to put a person on the moon and beyond. and we, as one of the most advanced countries in the world, we are scaling back on our space program, one of the few areas where we still have a technical advantage beyond other countries. so simply in my own strict, was to build a component of the module and cargo rockets. we face the prospect of losing thousands of high-skilled jobs. and in a time in which we are trying to preserve jobs, trying to create jobs, this cut will destroy jobs. and we are facing a reduced

workforce, that is 1,000 jobs we can preserve and can retain. we have this world class manufacturing facility in new orleans, which has been used to build the saturn rockets for the apollo program and the space shuttle, among other noble achievements and we will lose all of the experience and all of the manufacturing jobs along with $9 billion of taxpayers' money that could have been spent on the constellation program. some have made the argument that the future of manned space flight is best outsourced to the private sector as indicated in the budget proposal. but i think commercial space flight is promising and exciting endeavor and we need to keep

those programs in our country, in our districts, to provide those good-paying jobs to our people. if we are trying to preserve jobs in the united states, it is unwise to outsource. institution national knowledge of human space flight will be lost under the current budget proposal. and just to close, i just want to quote a statement given by charlie duke, an apollo 16 astronaut and he said we cannot afford to lose our leadership in space. the constellation program must be continued. and you know what, pete? i cannot agree with him more and i'm sure you agree with me on that assertion. thank you for your hard work and dedication to this project. mr. olson: and i couldn't agree

with you more. one of the problems i have with this decision is how it has been sprung upon all of us. i'm the ranking member on the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over nasa. and i found out like you by reading the newspaper. no one ever gave me a head's ip. i don't think the chairman of the committee had any knowledge this was coming. seems to be a small little decision in the white house which has a tremendous impact in our country. there are going to be thousands and thousands of good high-paying jobs that are going to go away. as you alluded to, once those people walk out, they're gone. mr. cao: we are facing ap bunch of cries east in this country and we have to cut costs, but we

have to do it in a responsible manner. cutting one of the few areas in which we have an advantage over every other country in the world seems to me to be a very unwise decision. mr. olson: no reasons why we should give up our decision in human space flight. we worked on it for almost 50 years ago since nasa was formed. referred to president keppedy's speech. we're going to be on the moon at the end of this decade. we were yind the soviets. and because of american percent cyst tense and innovation, neil armstrong and put that foot on the lunar surface and said one

small step for man a giant leap for mankind. we cannot give that up. if you talk to an astronaut from apollo 17 and you talked to him and said we aren't going to be back for at least 40 years, he would have taken money and said we are going to be there back. unfortunately, we are looking at cuts in the program and continuing our domination which the commission that the administration cites as sort of the bible for their actions here, basically said, the front page of the summary said there are no more challenges to our nation. we have to fund a fantastic space station that is delivering science and discoveries to us every day but we aren't challenging ourselves going beyond orbit. and the panel realized that and

it occur tails that. there is no plan to go beyond orbit. that's not what we need. we're number one. and we have been number one throughout history and never give that up. thank you for your comments. i would like to talk about the education perspective and some of the issues involved in promoting our youth and get them in the stem splins -- december palestinians. when you think about the global economy, china and india don't hesitate to encourage their top students to pursue science and math careers. they know that it is this expertise that will discs tate their count -- dictate their countries' futures. america is losing ground on this. calling into question our own future. the problem with test scores in

science, math and engineering fields are well publicized. students lack well beyond their indian and asian counterparts and we risk losing excellence that is necessary to meet the needs of our future. harvard university and many others recruit top students from china to be educated here in america. why? because chinese students are focused on a top education and test scores reflect that. after those students receive a top-tiered degree, they go back home and we'll not benefit that from that knowledge. and here at home, we have american students graduating from high school needing remedial math courses to start college-level math. we have de-emphasized the

difficult problems and soon to choose the path of least resistance. while solutions may require an epiphany, we see important steps taking place. the johnson space center hosts several programs and they volunteer their time to mentor students in math, science and engineering. just recently, after this past monday, i was pleased to be present when a student at a local high school in the district i represent won a spot at the nasa high school aerospace scholars program. hannah is a junior there at the high school and told me all they wants to do when show grows up is become an aerospace engineer and work in human space flight

exploration. part of this program, she designed things i was stunned. she designed an exploration vehicle, a lunar rover and designed parts for the international space station all as part of this program. hannah is the kind of student we want to get the math or science degree and channel her intellect towards great achievements. we cannot take that inspiration and opportunity away from our students. and we do exactly that by killing the constellation program. the program allows students to design upgrades to the international space program like hannah did and among other projects. it is coordinated through the johnson space center and serves as a valuable tool to encourage

students to pursue degrees in math and science. and these innovative initiatives encourage and inspire students to be the path finders we want when we show the way forward. these young leaders will scale greater heights and their critical careers that will help develop new technologies in science, engineering and health care. there is another opportunity for our nation, through the government to have a role in this solution. but to do so, we must fully commit to our nation's human space flight program, the constellation program is that program. a robust national program like constellation maintains our global leadership in human space exploration and inspires generations of young minds like hannah's to create the next level of american superiority. as we speak, china and india are

demonstrating their commitment to human space exploration and they have students graduating with degrees to get the job done. again, the chinese plan to be back to the moon between 2025 and 2030. the united states has no plans to go back to the moon at this time. space exploration has always been a primary motivator for students to pursue careers in math, science and engineering. children stair up -- stare up at the stars or watch footage of the moon or watch a shuttle and a future astronaut or engineer is born. as it stands now, the administration's budget is putting the u.s. the global leader in human space flight exploration firmly in fourth place. with our manned space program, we will be forced to pay russia over $50 million per astronaut

to gain access to the international space station. the united states has been a beacon of cutting-edge technology when it comes to math and science and space exploration. we were the first to step foot on the moon because we made a national commitment to being first and being the best. that is what america does. we must continue that investment so our next generation reaps the benefits of excellence in science, math and engineering. human space exploration is part of that national plan. there is still time to correct our national decline in both education and space exploration. they go hand in hand. madam speaker, a strong human space exploration program is a key motivator for american students to pursue careers again in science, math and engineering that we need to compete globally

and requires a national commitment both public and private. that is america at its best and that's where we want to keep and we do that by maintaining the constellation program. and my colleague from utah would like to speak to some of these issues, i yield the floor to him. mr. bishop: i thank my good friend from texas yielding me some time on this significant issue. i have read some of the comments that have been made in the past saying you're a conservative. nasa is saying in this new budget that they want to commercialize and privatize the program. why aren't you supporting that? and i have to admit that i think it comes down to an issue of see man particulars. when i make three assumptions, it will cost the taxpayer less money, there will be a smaller government force in use and there will be a better product. and i think as the gentleman from texas would agree with me,

this plan that nasa has put forward doesn't do any of those. indeed, it costs more for the nasa budget and increases that the taxpayer will be spending on nasa, there will be no federal jobs eliminated, only private sector jobs, to the tune of 30,000 jobs nationwide of scientists, engineers, those kinds of jobs we don't want to lose and we are trying to encourage young students to go into. and there is not a better product. . as the gentleman from texas said the other day, the constellation program passed their preliminary design review, which means after extensive engineering and technical check they passed. there is nothing technically wrong with constellation, it is ready to go forward. ironically enough, on that very same day, one of the

alternatives the nasa administration would like us to find was having a test on their engine and it was a total failure. ironically, nasa didn't publicize either of those event the engine failure or the complete success in the preliminary design review of constellation. so let me just spend a moment and talk about these commercial startup enterprises that nasa administrators are telling us they want to transfer all american taxpayer money into going in this direction. these are like kissler's rocket plane, which after a 14-month review, or alliance with nasa, was terminated because it failed to meet any of its goals or space x, which over eight years working with nasa and being funded by taxpayers had a 40% success rate. the falcon 9 was supposed to be ready for flight in 2009. it's not there yet. it's now scheduled for sometime

in 2010, but that was the engine failure i talked about that happened this very week. they are behind. they have received $150 million of tax money but obligations of nasa to this company run in the multibillions of dollars. orbital, another of those companies, is seven months late on all of their assignments. which means if you actually look in the proposed budget, there's $312 million assigned to a category called additional incentives for commercial car go providers. if you want to -- cargo providers. if you want to take a spin off it, it's a bailout for companies not meeting their deadlines. after $600 million to these company, nasa can say they have no hardware to show for it, no service that was been delivered with it, there is no intellectual property rights and this is what certain administrators within nasa call the bold new direction for this

country? it is ludicrous. when the columbia accident occurred, and that was a tragic event all of us mourned, there was an intense study to find out what went wrong and how to prevent it. they came up with two goals. if there's an entity to be successful, they have to have a clear goal of what their mission is and second, they have to have an ultimate emphasis on safety. let me talk about safety for just a moment. the report, as much as we may not like it, clearly said the federal government's supervision in this area produces a safer product. but in that report as well, there was a mandatory report given by the aerospace safety advisory panel after that colombia accident. in the report of 2008 in which the current chairman, as well as this year's report, at no time were they supportive of making entrepreneurial commercial options the primary means of u.s.-human space flight.

so what were they supporting? constellation. "time" magazine, this year, actually, i'm sorry, end of last year, came up with their 50 great inventions of the year. what was the one rated number one? aries. the aries rocket which is part of the constellation program. in the official report for nasa it says the sophisticated aries design makes the aries 1 superior to all other vehicles regardless of choice method. aries 1 is superior to all other options with more than a 90% confidence. in short, results suggest that the aries 1 launch vehicle is clearly the safest launch vehicle option and the only one that can meet the goal, post-colombia, of having --

post-columbia, of having a launch vehicle 100 times safer than the space shuttle, which it's designed to replace. what they're doing is, constellation is meeting the goals. once again, the goals are somewhat nebulous. if you don't have a goal, almost anything you appropriate can meet your goal. and i am suggesting that the nasa administrators right now don't have a clear goal. deputy administrator garver gave a speech today in maryland in which she said the president's budget should be abriveed congress because it will enable nasa to align with the priorities of the nation and those priorities, these key national priorities i am referring to, are economic developments ending poverty, hunger and creating jobs, international leadership in geopolitics or world peace, education and environment. now i hate to say anything, but in 1958, when nasa was started, their goal was to, and i will

quote, provide for research into problems of flight within and outside earth's atmosphere and ensure the united states conducts activities in space devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of humankind. nearly 50 years later, nasa proudly pledges to redefine what is possible for the benefit of all human kind by using nasa's unique competencies in scientific and engineering systems to fulfill the agency's purpose to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and err naughtics research. i'm sorry -- i think ms. gavinner needs to explain what she meant as this is the priority of nasa now when in reality this is what should have been the priority of nasa. once again if you have those goals, i think it makes sense to take away the program that

everyone who knows what they're talking about says is clearly the best innovation we have and the only way of supplanting the space shuttle with safe vehicle mechanisms for the future and for manned space flights. but once again if your goals are to eliminate anything that deals with the traditional roles of nasa, perhaps those goals aren't significant whatsoever. i have one last area and if the gentleman from texas has time, i'd like to go into that, or i could wait. mr. olson: yes, sir. mr. bishop: we talk a lot about the industrial base, a term not a lot of people understand. as i define the industrial base, i want to say that the kinds of people, the kinds of jobs that put a man on a rocket and shoot him to the moon are the same kinds of people and the same kinds of jobs that build our missile defense against those who wish to attack this country. that is our industrial base.

last year this country engaged in some significant, and i think unwise, decreases in our military missile defense system and it had the effect of putting our industrial base in disarray. however, if now nasa goes through with this, i think unwise and nay eve approach of canceling constellation, it's going to destroy that industrial base which means you will no longer -- not only will you not have the ability of putting man in space quickly with a program that works, if indeed our projections of the threat of countries like north korea and iran are underestimated, we will have no capacity to ramp up for a missile defense future. now what that simply meanings is, and the pentagon has recognized this, last year, three different reports came to us. in april of last year, the defense department report to

congress on the solid rocket motor industrial base said if there was a delay in constellation, it would have a negative impact on our defense system. next month after that, there was another report that said the solid rocket capabilities report to congress which had a different conclusion. it said if there was a delay in constellation, there would be a significant negative impact on the military capabilities of this country. later, the assistant secretary for defense for acquisitions sent us a letter in which he said the technological base in the world is not a birth right, which means several years ago, the air force dropped all its military missile plans to build these products. we are relying on the private sector. and it is not a birth right. it's about certain kinds of jobs, very rare kinds of skills, that are not easily

replicated in the commercial world and if we allow them to erode, it would be difficult to rebuild. mr. olson: may i interrupt for a question? mr. bishop: please. mr. olson: i heard a press report that said there was little and d.o.d. woke up and saw what had happened and had not had any opportunity to let the powers that be, the administration, know that you're putting our national security at risk and i'd ask my colleague if you've heard anything along those lines. mr. bishop: if you'll yield, i will try to come up with that the deputy administrator of nasa said she had consultations, but one she consulted is one that said if it's allowed to erode, it would be difficult to rebuild. we had the opportunity of questioning secretary gates when he came in, i asked if there was any consultation, he

said no. i asked the same thing of the air force chief if they'd had any consultation. his response was over this entire issue and i added the minuteman three issue as well we recognize not just the minuteman challenge going forward but a broader industrial-base issue, which we're going to have to wrestle with this year. so we do not right now have a long-term solution to that in hand. which means, defense department was caught unaware. there was no communication between nasa and defense, if indeed there was, then clearly nasa was not listening to what was being told them because we have had a year of comment from the defense department and from the pentagon saying that this is a significant issue, that if indeed north korea and iran have the greater xmasity than we think and you destroy the industrial base, we do not have the capacity to react to it and defend this country. what we are simply doing in this program is not just dismantling our manned space

mission, we're not just losing the ability to go up to the moon and beyond, we are also destroying our defense capability at the same time. and that is a consequence of this rash and naive proposal that has to be fully explored and this congress needs to address because it is the future of this country. this nasa opinion, in my estimation, is nothing more than managing america's decline in the world and that is not the role we should be doing. that's not the purpose of this country. that's not the purpose of this congress this congress needs to make it clear statement that nasa is going on the wrong approach, it has to have a proper goal for its mission, it has to properly fund its goal for its mission, this, the constellation, is the solution to the space shuttle and beyond. mr. olson: i couldn't amore with my colleague from utah.

talking to my people back homing one thing i heard being at the johnson space center, numerous people came up to me and said, what's our plan? what's our mission? this is an organization that's been focused on a mission for 40 years. right now, they have no idea what they're working toward. and some stuff about global warming research, climate change research, developing the private sector, doesn't do anything to inspire them. these are the best, most qualified engineers, propulsion people, defense as well, in the world. we give them no mission and tell them, possibly letting them walk out the door. once they walking they're gone. mr. bishop: it is not wise to take our 30,000 best scientists and engineers and give them pink slips. but let me emphasize one thing you said as well. when john kennedy gave us the challenge to go to the moon, those people who started to study science and math and