if i do not have enough money, these little stretches out. it always does. in commercial crew, i did not have to worry as much about the cost because that was a partnership. the companies were also putting in money as necessary to make sure that they stayed on track with their milestones. >> let me ask again and maybe you have it, can you provide to us the independent cost estimate that was done that informs your belief and your confidence in the 2017 date. >> i'm told that that will be available shortly. we will get it to the subcommittee. >> we are counting on that. >> yes ma'am. >> i am concerned about the possibility of a premature set -- selection of a transportation service provider.

aerospace safety advisory 2013, they recommended for that competition be maintained until safety is achieved. with these dealing safety considerations? if we are going keep the process open for competition, how do you inject safety? >> we put the competition in and write contracts that allow us to get into the facilities and levy additional regulations if necessary. we are confident right now. we just went through a contract process. it involves commercial crew capabilities. it is a contract that has allowed us to work with companies. we asked them to demonstrate how

they will meet our safety standards. demonstrate how you will document those standards. show us how you will handle has agreed works. we are doing that with them. we have worked with them for years. our can meet or exceed standards. that is exactly what they will do. they will have their own standards. >> my time is more than expired. let me read to you from this annual report. providerown selects 21 before the selectee has demonstrated that they can be a required level is easy, there is potential that the provider may not be able to meet the requirements for a number of reasons. in that situation, nassau will have few alternatives. they must either move the safety anlpost or they will incur overrun or a schedule slip.

if competition is maintained, nasa may have alternatives other than accepting a less safe design or late delivery. i only share that with the committee and you because it is very clear that if we move one, depending on what our budget numbers are, the likelihood that we are not paying the attention to crew goes out, not down. >> no, ma'am. the likelihood that we will pay less attention to safety is euro. doety is something that i and the commercial crew does. our attention to safety is independent of cost. we may become even more vigilant. the schedule will stretch. we will require additional testing. that is what happens when you don't have competition. they begin to think that they

rely on us. you must have it. that is not the case. we are not going to do that. >> i now recognize the gentleman from texas. bolden, we arer all regretful that we are relying upon the russians to take american astronauts to the international space station. given the term i'll -- turmoil ukraine, our current relations with russia are obviously not good. are you aware of any threat that russia might refuse to take american astronauts to the international space station. -- station? >> i am not aware of any threat. i am comfortable. we speak to the russians every day. there are a lot of people in russia. our partner is not russia.

our partner is the russian space agency. we are confident that they are just as interested and intent on maintaining the partnership as we are. hopefully the problems on earth are not going to accept -- -- we had this type of problem when the russians went into georgia. >> thank you. let me go to my next question. last may, a nasa advisory council chairman testified, i see no obvious connection between the retrieval mission and the technology that would work wire russian exploration. i understand nasa is undertaking a study on the possibility of 2021. is that the case? >> that is not the case.

we have been working with inspiration mars. we have agreed to let them take nasa technology and they can use nasa facilities. we are partnering with them. >> perhaps i misunderstood you. i thought you said that you would review that. >> we are not doing a study. >> are you reviewing the 2018 or the 2021? reviewing any efforts that nasa might make in supporting inspiration mars. >> you are not making any official evaluation? >> this started out as a partnership where they needed nothing from nasa except the mission. class maybe i misunderstood your letter to me. i thought you were undertaking a review. >> we are not undertaking a formal review where we go and

hire an independent firm. >> that is not what i is asking. >> we are constantly reviewing whether inspiration mars is a suitable alternative for us in getting to mars. >> i just quoted the chairman. he said there was no obvious connection. >> if you talk to steve squires today -- i don't doubt you could put political pressure on him. [laughter] >> he testified before this committee and he was pretty clear. >> that was a direct quote. just to be clear, i put no pressure. i cannot put pressure on him. his testimony stands. the quote is still valid. unless you have other information. >> i talked to him weekly.

he counseled me. do not make this seem like he will save the planet. how thisthe committee, is relevant to getting people to mars. we have done that. if you put the chart back up, i will not dwell on it. he said that there is no connection. >> i will take demands were in sight hear from him. >> this regards the james webb telescope and the other program as well. we expect james webb to launch in 2018. information might weekly and from those telescopes that will help us in our understanding of cosmology? >> james webb will allow us to look into the atmosphere of the planets that have been discovered through kepler and other observatories.

james webb will continue to revolutionize our understanding of our universe. hubble has rewritten textbooks. bees webb is advertised to 100 times more potent and powerful. >> what might we learn from astrobiology? >> we might learn about the makeup of xo planet and what s and whetherlanet there is a possibility of life existing. >> thank you. >> i recognize the gentlewoman from texas. >> my apologies. >> thank you very much. >> ambassador bolton, welcome back. thank you for your informative testimony. i want to start dimensioning the importance of investing in earth

science programs. i want to acknowledge the economic impact of that research. i cannot overstate the importance of accurate climate and weather forecasting to my constituency from agricultural to the fishing communities. continued investment helps us understand the climate and it is important and significant. last year nasa inherited climate sensors that were formally a part of the noaa program. nasa only received funding for a small amount of time. >> is in the process. if i remember correctly, we plan to take the two sensors and they will actually become a part of the international space station. we have the option of making them free fires. -- flyers. we worked with a variety of missions.

we are trying to enhance the utilization of stations. we are beginning to put more and more earth science. >> terrific. i want to all while -- follow-up comments made by my colleague. there was concern about investing in education missions. as someone who discussed this issue and that committee and the education committee, it is a priority will stop many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and their constituency -- i want to talk about the nasa base grant for a gram. -- space grant program. i met with the consortium and our conversation august on the importance of keeping didn't engaged -- students engaged in stem. it is very important. at one high school in my district, they are doing a nano lab launch.

the difference that this is making to the students at his high school, they are thrilled that they have two separate analog going up. they are so excited. we are talking about holding people who want to work in this field and they are looking at someone from work and who -- gonget who -- or gone -- ore who has done this as well. it was an amazing opportunity. he could not have done this otherwise. he said that the opportunity had an incredible impact on his career. it was his first industry experience. it solidified his desire to pursue a career in aeros ace. -- aerospace. as we are trying to inspire people to not only work in the field out for the public to

understand the benefits of space exploration, can you talk a bit about how the space grant row graham is engaged in getting spacecraft program is engaged in getting people into it but also for the public at large, knowing many of us are concerned about reductions. >> for many who may not understand space grant, every state in the nation has a space grant consortium, and it's headquartered in the state. it's a dependable source of education for nasa. we have asked them to extend level,ork into they k-12 where they were very comfortable at first, but as a result of working with us on the summer of innovation, which is probably where the young man in school has learned about stem education

we now have a consortium. they are making sure it is in their states over a time. >> do you expect that is going to be cut? >> no, one of the things i never have to worry about is weuctions in space grant. ask for what we think will be required to maintain them. >> i am almost out of time. i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks. >> inc. you, mr. chairman. i am somewhat astonished by your that shifts responsibility to congress for

america's current inability to astronauts into space. this administration made the cancelral decision to nasa's constellation program, thereby delaying america's spaceflight.an this administration made the mothballto mop fall -- our space program and put them in museums. this administration has grown america's welfare transfer over 750 billion dollars a year, more than 40 times nasa's budget. welfare programs that put a higher priority on buying a collection votes, no matter the funding for nasa or other functions of the government. now i hear testimony this government wants to invest in america. when the space program was

forced on this administration by richard shelby and other congressmen, who believed in american exceptionalism in space. with that as a backdrop, russia is engaged in acts of war .gainst ukraine in the crimea n america's response has been sanctions without any hope of causing russia to leave crimea. recent intelligence shows russia may go beyond and attack eastern ukraine. all of this raises the specter this administration will impose termsanctions, which in -- in turn russia will respond by denying access to the international space station, and they can do that because we are reliant on russia to get to the international space station.

to thisescribe committee what nasa's plan is to put american astronauts on the international space station should russia say they are no longer going to give us a ride to the space station. >> congressman, i am not going to engage in a debate about history. if the fact that the decision to phase out the shuttle was not made by the obama administration. made under the bush administration. washen the space station mothballed, president obama was president of the united states. decisionhave made the to use the space shuttle, or he could have made the decision to keep it available in a state of emergency. he chose not to. >> i was the one who recommended to the president that we face

the shuttle out. i would have recommended we phase it out quickly. we were spending $12 billion over the same time that we have spent $12.5 billion. >> let me interject again. you said you were not going to go over history. you were able to divert from my question to history. if russia cuts us off today what isof of vents, nasa's plan? >> we engage in contingency planning every single day. refusing at the international space station is not something i consider feasible because russia upon the united states to operate the international space station. russia has one thing we need -- access.

back to my question, is it your testimony america has no plan? fax this is like asteroids. we have a plan. the plan is commercial crew. this nation has no plan. writtene looked at your statement that says basically we are looking at the end of 2017, which is three and a half years away. is that the plan if russia decides to terminate our access to the international space station? oni am confident that based my conversation with russian counterparts that they are equally worried about terminating activity on the international space station. i am not going to deal with suppositions. i don't expect our partners will abandon the international space station. >> i see my time is expiring. i appreciate the inside, but if all i hear is that the plan is

three and a half years away i have to worry about what happens if russia does cut us off. thank you for indulging me. you.ank let's not dwell on the past. let's look to the future and think about where we want to go. we were informed by the council, but we also plan for the future. just playing off what my colleague talked about, it's my impression that we also have leverage with regards to the space station. >> exactly. in a partnership, we have that leverage. they have leverage, but the end goal is commercial space travel and moving folks forward. when i look at the building blocks and our conversations

previously, we have a long-term goal to have human space travel to mars. you are laying out some steps here and so forth. i had a chance to visit southern california recently, and it does look like they are quickly advancing. they have been able to take supplies up to the space station, and they are now advancing fairly quickly on space travel. can you give us an update on the partnership between nasa and commercial entities? >> i think we should all be proud that during the time i have been the nasa administrator, we have stood with commercial cargo dependability. we are not dependent on anyone else on getting cargo to space. we are diligently working to

bring about the capability and the united states to have a commercial crew capability. nasa does not deal with lower orbit access, or should we, because we have to use that money to execute a deep base -- deep space exploration. block going tog deep space as well as returning? >> there are things we need if we want to go to mars. i hope all of us in this real will agree with me -- in this the will agree with me that world ultimate goal in our lifetime is to see humans on mars. if i can get the chart up because it would be helpful. in order to get to mars, there are things we don't have. we don't have sufficient for colston to take cargo there. -- don't -- rope pulls and we don't have sufficient propuls

there.get cargo we need increased capability and something like solar propulsion. our proving ground is the earth moon system, where we intend to take the asteroid so we can interact with it. we can develop procedures for activity. things we cannot do in lower orbit because that system is different from what we know. i need a proving ground. the moon is two days away. if something goes wrong there, he can come home. if something goes wrong, the crew is eight months away. apollo 13. the crew survived because it was a loop around the moon and nature took care of it, to be honest. 13-like incident,

part of the model blows out right after liftoff, we are going eight months to mars and another eight months or more to come back. we have got to get it right. we can develop life-support systems that are robust. we cannot have a cooling system that fails. ofcannot have the kinds things that happens sometimes in the international space station. that's why u.s.-based nation is used to develop technologies. they have got to be more robust. >> if we stick with wanting to .e forward and wanting to dream we dreamt big, and we went out and did it. that's what we have to do now. with this goal, we don't know how we are going to get there just yet, but we have to think and wehese technologies, have to start making these

investments. is that accurate? wax i would ask people to start thinking about we are approaching 2013. we are getting ready to go to mars. what should we be thinking about now? we haven't even started talking about landers. we haven't started talking about service systems. that's where international service partners are going to be vital. this is hard. if you look at earth reliant, we cannot get too deep space if we have to come back to earth every time to pick up stuff. we go through this all the time. we need things like cryogenic propellant storage. we don't need that right now. we are in the just-in-time business. the reason i don't spend the

money you would like me to spend a 31 tone i don't need metric vehicle. i do need to send my astronauts to lower orbit. hopefully everyone agrees to going to mars. if we do, hopefully everyone agrees we have to crawl, walk, run. we have got to have a proving ground to develop the technology. >> i now recognize the gentleman from california. perhaps a crawl, walk, orbit would be -- how did you know what i was going to ask? would,s hoping you because i need people to be consistent with what they ask emma and you have been consistent. >> all these great complements. truth. to speak the >> i have two issues i wanted to talk about. one is what you brought up,

refueling in space. for the record, not all of us believe that putting people on mars should be our number one goal in space right now. expensive, and making that our number one goal reflects taking away resources from other project that might be more justtant to humankind than what is a symbolic vision of putting a human being on mars, considering we have rovers and other things on mars already, but let's go to that. we are talking about the option of refueling in space. wouldn't that give us a great deal of leverage to accomplish other missions in space, perhaps on the moon, perhaps other goals we would like to achieve at a much more cost-effective rate

because we wouldn't have to rocket that isge going to cost tens of billions of dollars? we don't know that it would be much more cost-effective. to get the kind of people in space, we have talked about this before. the number of flights required to get the number of people in space we need is extensive. while it may cost significantly less, by the time you fly 10, 12 atlas fives or five falcon nines, you have exceeded the so forgetting humans into space, getting large scientific halos into space, you want something like an sos so we don't have to do these venous flybys to jupiter. we want to be able to go direct. sls will give us the capability.

in time. we are not ready yet. to develop thet technologies, and we are trying to do that. tasks --ing ground tests right now. we are not going away from it. >> i am watching this. let me say that presents a much more cost effective way of achieving sufficient goals, rather than achieving a goal that is so expensive it would drain other projects in space. let me ask you this. are you confident that if an object from space that was discovered or there was an object that threatens to cause massive damage on our planet, are you confident that object will be detected and we can deflect it? >> i am highly confident we can detected.

if there is an object larger than a kilometer that threatens earth we probably have already identified it, and it's in the 98% that have already been identified. nothing in the next 100 years in that category. if it's less than 140 meters, i'm less confident. i know we have not identified it yet. we are developing the >> we are to do that. trying. the asteroid redirect you should will inform -- i don't want to fool people. we are not going to save the planet with the redirect mission. it will inform our capability to answer his question and your question, which is does the united states have the capability to protect the public if we can develop something fast future, whene near we fly the redirect mission,

that will inform our ability to say, i am very confident we can .eflect anything down for earth it will inform us and give us capability. >> the word can and will are two different things. we will deflect an object that could murder millions of people. >> we will have that capability, i am confident. >> is there an established procedure and chain of command to take the actions that would be necessary if we do spot this three percent chance that there is a huge object heading towards ,s, is there a chain of command and necessary procedures to make the decisions and get the job done? >> there are procedures in place. there is a definite chain of

command. i am going to be traveling to langley research center next week. aery year we practice continuity of operations nationwide or governmentwide, so i will be moving with my chief of staff to langley because something bad is happening to washington. fema becomes a critical player in the role. the national command authority springs into action. the president is the guy who makes the big decisions in the national security council. nasa is a tiny player. as we continue to do. >> of the near earth object were coming? >> that would be a pending natural disaster, and there are distinct procedures in place for what fema would do with the nation to get prepared. something like a near earth object we don't ethically have

the capability like a hurricane to give you a percentage probability it is going to strike new york. it's going to strike earth. to prepare.e >> i now recognize the gentle man from texas. >> good morning. i wanted to touch on russia very quickly. most recently one of the official sanctions because of the ukraine crisis is dimitri, deputy defender. you have stated if we provide the president's request for a commercial crew, so my question how do we ensure launch capability returns to america? >> the way to assure that is more money. i cannot tell when a company thinks they are going to fly,

but all of our partners have given us schedules. sierra nevada has a flight for themselves. i want to say it is 2015 or 2016. the companies are moving as rapidly as they can based on the funding we have given them to be able to fly as soon as they can. i would be hesitant to say we can accelerate it more than a year, but we could potentially accelerated by a year if we were given adequate funding. i can say that companies are poised. >> the heat of funding, what are the impacts of reducing nasa's education programs -- speaking of funding, what are the impacts of reducing nasa's education program ques? >> has to spend $6 billion on education.

i don't think people get it. i spend a lot of times in classrooms. i spent a lot of time on skype because i cannot go to every school. i don't make a trip anywhere, particularly outside the united states that i don't do an outreach event and try to help nations with their stem programs. everyone is concerned about the reductions we see in the office but it's making us hungry to find new ways to collaborate with other agencies. we did a program with the department of education. the 21st-century and learning program. nass the program for them because we can bring astronauts via downlinked tv to the space station. we were paid to put it together. they invested. are learning how to

collaborate with each other. i know everybody is worried about losing money. we are finding that synergy among federal agencies is working for us. for ages and every single county 4h is in every-- single county in this nation. compare nasa. we are talking about working .ollaboratively with four h that is going to magnify the amount of kids we are able to reach with enrichment. i am not worried about our ability to do our jobs. stem outreach we do that every day. opinion, is there any way to evaluate -- >> yes. >> are there real ways to evaluate whether the cuts have an impact on future achievement,

or we talk about being able to inspire people who want to reach totain goals as it relates jobs? >> without a doubt. nasa's education program this year is outcome based, which means you have got to have metrics. now we are not allowed because of privacy -- we can't map a child from elementary through college. the department of education can. the national science foundation can because they are authorized to do those things. with thelaborating department of education and the national science foundation, they can do the metrics that tell us how many kids participated in the summer of innovation last summer 10 years or lawyers? doctors those are the metrics from which use be. i can get it now based on collaborations.

it has taken time. we just started something now. i think it has been around for years. we are now seeing factual data, not anecdotal data. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> inc. you, mr. chairman. seth andhance to thank bob for the commonsense, no-cost outreach nasa did to reach who now seem to be enthusiastic. i haven't had a chance to thank you personally for that, and i think it's great. that's how we help spread the message. think anying, i don't of us are where we would like to

be with funding. i think we are in a whole lot better place than we were a year ago with sequestration. i am trying to look at the glass half full in that regard. a deep space plan, moon and mars. we also need low orbit options. i know it's tight balancing i hope we will continue to understand we need both and go forward like that. a concern that i have, he department ofe energy based on the fuel supply. i wonder if you can update me. plutoniumoduced

pellets we need. we are still in negotiations trying to help them understand how do they improve their facilities, just the infrastructure needed to prep .or propulsion we have enough in our stockpile to be able to fly the mission's presently on the books for us. but we have to work better with doe to make sure they make improvements to infrastructure so they can efficiently make the s we need. fuel, but it's old, and it needs new fuel to make it good. >> they are not in the process of destroying any or getting rid of it or using it for anything other than space? fax i don't know the answer to that. >> will you find out? i would like to have that assurance it is not being used elsewhere.

>> i would. for the record, i don't know. >> any other comments you would like to make about keeping on track? >> it's a balance. i come to this hearing, and i feel better about where we are than ever before. i wanted to commend theand ragef the way they are working together. we have got to do better. i don't want to sit here and say what was the responsibility of the bush administration, what was the responsibility of the obama administration. what's done is done. we can't undo that. difference for the future. none of us are going to be sitting around here in charge. i have some young people who had to leave mid-level leadership programs.

young and growing leaders, and they wanted to see how we do this stuff. deep space exploration is hard. we cannot jump to mars. we have to develop technologies. we have got to be confident our system is going to work. that is why the chairman asked about the mars flyby. it's great, but it doesn't do anything in terms of deep space exploration. and i have survives, doubts. that's why i'm not a fan of a one-time mars flyby. apollo was, and it was awesome, we never stayed on the surface of the moon for more than days. if we are going to the surface of the moon, we better stay there for months or two months or we are going to learn anything about the effect of less than one gravity on the .rain >> do we agree that unless at some point there is the ability

to leave this earth, the survival of our species is threatened? >> i am not a fatalist, but we knew deep -- we do need to learn how to be a multi-planet species. days -- you and i won't see it, but one of these days our son is going to burn out. it would be nice to become a multi-planet species by them and we are just on mars. by then people will be living in other solar systems because the solar system will go away. we have got to get beyond. says, you areer thinking about mars. i am going way beyond that. she's right. when the sun gives out, this solar system goes away. qwest we have to think about planting trees -- >> we have to think about planting trees for other generations.

space is truly the only investment we make for future generations. >> i agree. >> i now recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> take you. .- thank you part of what i want to have a quick dialogue about is just the mechanics, how you set priorities and decision-making and those things. you have a lot of voices and people tugging on your coat saying, we want this or we want that. that was like sophia, really coming online in the last .ix months or so is that correct? >> sephia has been under development for probably 10 years. and tobeginning to fly fly well.

>> internally, when you are doing prioritization's or mechanics, tell me the review on how you prioritize a program like that, that you have . decade of time and money >> i forget what they call their counsel, but every year they get the wise people of the science community, and they evaluate our programs to see, what i have asked them to do right now is we have a lot of programs that have been flying for a long time, long past their planned lifetime. they are expensive. we have to pay for those. what we areritize going to get from our portfolio, we try to make sure we have a balance. sophia ended up in prioritization -- sophia was down here.

you talk about other sources very similar to what sophia gives us. unique asset. >> i don't want to put words in your mouth. it may have been a year or so ago, but you were actually a fan of sophia. >> i am a fan of anything that has wings. memechanically, share with the internal process under your authority on how they would sophia and how it ended up where it is. >> we would go to the science community and ask him based on from ourxpect to get budget, what do you want to continue to operate, and one thing i keep cautioning is if we are going to put new systems online, if we are going to bring that wetter sensors

have today, what are we going to become? >> does that more of a conversation of let's enhance what we have, or is it more to cancel? >> you never say, what are we going to cancel. the question is how do we within our budget and provide responses to the scientific objective set by the outside by advisory committee, set by congress. >> right now you understand your budgetary request. tell me where sophia sits. >> low in that. >> it is low priority. >> it is not low priority. i should not have said that. comparison with other projects, sophia did not rise to the level where we decided we were going to terminate another program.

we have options with sophia. what the 2015 budget is going to be. we could end up with enough money. we have not stopped flying sophia. everyone is panicking. we are working with our german partners to find ways we can enhance sophia for the rest of this fiscal year. we may not put it into upgrade, for example. >> when you are doing your initiatives and those, i am trying to get an understanding of how something like this falls. andf you look at our list the opportunity growth security everyone ofalmost them is something in existence right now and i am trying to bite down risk. congress grant

our request. that is buying down risk. >> do you think the germans would be willing to take on more of the heavy lift on the cost? >> that's one of the alternatives. to be candid, they don't seem to be willing to do that. >> if we put their flight first on the airplane. >> we are looking at all alternatives for sophia. sophia is a joint object. assume allble to responsibility for sophia. my skill set.side space station. unmanned?an it go curve,e is a maintenance i am curious if there is a data point. >> if you really want me to tell you how long we can go --

>> let's say it set up there for 36 months. >> if you had it up there for 36 months unoccupied, the ammonia that was annt out, emergency. that was a contingency for which we had to do a contingency spacewalk. if there is no crew, that doesn't get done. you talk about leverage. everyone is excited because the russians have leverage on transportation. when you talk about navigation, communications, power, the united states has significant leverage. >> i am so sorry. i just looked at the clock. i was having fun here. thank you for your patience. >> great question. >> we welcome the gentleman from new york. >> there is nothing wrong with .aving fun

>> around here there is. >> i question surrounds the chart you have already shown and andn exploration roadmap the authorization bills in the senate and the house as well as that we needvirgin -- minority version that we need to help us. this does not address the requirements for the surface of the proficiencies the house version asked for. it doesn't include information on plan intermediate destinations or potential risk of emigration approach is required by the bill. it does not include a description of an extended human toward enabling

missions to orbit. until the administration provides detailed information including how it fits into a broader exploration architecture, i assume congress is going to continue to view some of these projects skeptically, which brings the question. nasa's budget request includes $180 million for the mission. i was in here, but i have been informed you told the committee to review would be done over the summer, but now it's been a year since the mission was announced. nasa has not completed the review. i was told last week he released a broad agency announcement for information and held an open for him yesterday to solicit even more input.

when is nasa going to have a plan the committee can review, and how can you be sure the mission is in fact a stepping without a roadmap? >> my estimate would be over the next year we will continue to refine the concept. potential waysig we can do it right now, and that's what we are evaluating. that's why we continue to go to the industry, academia, and entrepreneurs, trying to determine whether we want to use a small -- small is a relative term, where we grabbed the asteroid and thrust against it or whether we go to a large asteroid and take a large boulder from it. determine the specifics of the mission. we are into

propulsion. we have identified that as a ardle to being able to do redirect mission. is what we are going to use for cargo. would say the more information you can provide to congress, the more likely you can get by. if things start to slip or commitments are made and not met, i think you can understand it is viewed problematically. yesterday when nasa presented to the scientific ofunity, it was the opinion some that it was a broader set of information than has already been shared with this committee or with congress. in a priority setting i would encourage nasa to give us more are than we asked for so we

not feeling as though we are left out of the loop or we are not important, because you can .nderstand the result >> i appreciate and intend to respond to that request. i am told we have been regularly briefing with the redirect mission. if that's not true, somebody shake their head, and i will go back. >> i think the staff should be shaking their head no, because somebody asked me to probe this because they don't feel like it has been so. >> they have not been getting any information or not been getting sufficient information? >> not sufficient. if you are not getting sufficient information you might as well not. it's insufficient information it's because we don't know. if it's no information it's because i am being misled. >> i don't think anyone would

suggest it's no information. insufficient information means decisions can't be made. >> it means we don't have enough information to make an informed decision. that's all it means. >> i would encourage you, the more information you can get to this committee, the more likely you will see. my i will go back to comments earlier. there are big things happening. i would encourage people, part of getting ready is having a vehicle to take a crew. you will see a o'brien. --s a spacecraft. -- o'brien orion. it's a spacecraft. you will see components under construction. that's real hardware. we are not talking about drawings anymore.

of getting toart the asteroid redirect mission. that may not he sufficient, but that's all we have is hardware. if that's not sufficient, i don't know how to do better. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> that's fine. great questions by all the members of the committee. this time you aren't going to get off without a second round of questions. i will open it up for myself. ups is similar to the follow with commercial cruise. last year the associate administrator said 90% of all the development costs for the commercial crew is being paid the american taxpayer. we know the commercial crew contract is going to be similar to what the cargo was, anywhere from 7 billion to $11 billion. or greater. we are just taking you mentioned if we don't get the funding the

schedule will slip beyond 2017. is there anything nasa can do to entice these companies to put more skin into the game? >> i am confused by the number you just gave. our total expenditure, unless my charts are wrong, the total yearsiture over the five i have been an nasa administrator from the taxpayer is we were appropriated $782 .illion, and we obligated 780 >> i am talking commercial crew. >> i am talking about the value of the contracts these companies are going to receive. a $11 million. the estimated value for flying cargo and crew, so i am saying we are basically paying 90% of the development cost. is there a way to get them to

money into the program? >> they do. mentioned earlier when you said how have we managed to stay on schedule that you haven't given us what we asked for. it's because the companies have given more than they would normally pay. we only paid them what we have. i would have to go back. we are be surprised if paying 90% of the cost of commercial crew development to this date. i would be really surprised. >> that's from a hearing we had september 14, 2012. i am told the information is proprietary, but i will take that for the record. >> this time i recognized the ranking member. >> i do want to follow this up because earlier i thought you had misspoken when you said the

industry participants of the commercial crew program were providing more money than nasa. that doesn't seem to be the information we have. is it possible to provide the amount eachth the of the industry participants is putting in with nasa so we can see that? otherwise i think all of us are under the impression that the taxpayers are providing the bulk of support for commercial crew. wrong? >> i will take that for the record. >> i don't think we have coordinated our question for you, but what you can hear is concern around the asteroid retrieval mission. i wonder if you would be prepared by a date certain to provide the committee with a

roadmap and an analysis of the various options there would be with different types of technology for this plan to mars . some of us have thought, maybe the moon makes sense as a test bed. for others the iss and others the asteroid retrieval mission and may be some other youination, but when would be able to provide a roadmap with the analysis comparing and the technology that would be derived for the committee? that we my impression have two matrices. ,ne shows human performance human concerns. the other shows technology gaps. i have been looking at that for a couple years.

i thought we made that available for the committee, which shows these are things we are accomplishing on the international space station. these are things we will accomplish with the asteroid redirect system. i will make sure we have shared those matrices with your staff and with you. >> what about lunar? here is what we are wrestling with. we have different ideas about what makes sense, but you are providing us with a real roadmap that outlines technology and may be says, here is our scientific analysis of why this makes sense over the other. it would help us make a more informed decision from a budget perspective and from an wehorizing of of what it is need to look at. i think the questions you have heard on the committee though to it would help the chairman and i very much to have that on hand. it would help for you to say,

here is a date certain by which nasa can give that to us. i want to incorporate that date to do authorization because then we can evaluate what makes sense going forward, and that deeply impact budget. don't leave the moon out because you can hear concert. quest we won't leave the moon out. >> we will leave the moon out. the reason we don't talk about that is because there is no technological advantage to go to the moon. there is no advantage accept money. >> in providing something to this committee, it would be very helpful to have that analysis, to have a scientific basis for also to have and

the buy-in collectively from the community about the direction. i think if we have that we would make some very important decisions. hoping theo caution, , if you are talking about the science community, hopefully by and will never happen. the lunar community. they are not in favor of anything. now we are talking about ideologues. >> give us an analysis and let us know who is for and against. what nasa needs is for this committee to be on the same page about the direction. that will help you as much as it will help us.

>> now i recognize the gentleman from alabama. mr. brooks. >> enqueue. you.ank back to the issue of russia and the ability to get to the international space station, what would be the consequences if within the next year russia chooses to deny us access by no longer allowing us to hitch a ride on their rockets? >> as i mentioned before, we provide navigation, and wouldions, power, probably -- i hate to deal with conjecture, but the partners would probably have to shut the space station down. thinking the russians would continue to operate the international space station, it can be done. station is shut down for an extended time?

>> i will go to the president and recommend we terminate because without the international space station i have no abilities to do the .evelopment everyone agreed if we want to do this global roadmap to which 12 different nations sign up, we have to have the international space station. that's the reason the president said, i will agree to extend it. i don't want anyone to think i orion if i don't have the international space station. >> let me make sure i understand the sequence of events.

if the russians deny us access to the international space station, it's your testimony that because of the services we provide you would have to shut it down, and if the international space station is shut down you would see no reason to have the space launch system or a o'brien, so is it fair to infer you would so is it -- or orion, fair to infer you would recommend those be shut down? >> i don't know that the russians denying us access -- you are assuming they come to us today and say, we are not going anymore, and we are not going to help them get home. i don't think those contingencies are going to happen. >> i understand. there are probabilities involved. >> i don't accept that. >> i am one who believes in planning for all contingencies. effort tolike the

acquire an asteroid. i don't think the odds of an asteroid hitting us are very big , but that is an interesting mission because of the risk associated with one of eventually hitting the earth and are having the capability to eventually work that. the russians may not shut us off from access to the international space station. all they have to do is deny us the ride. if they are willing to attack other nations it doesn't seem ealm ofthe r possibility that they would deny american astronauts access to the space station. however, if the space station was shut down for a time, can it be resuscitated? >> anything can be done. assumptions.g for >> i am asking for your assessment. >> i will take that.

in termsno either or rion andnd o commercial crew. i don't know how many ways to say that. >> you answered my question. the chairman will give me another minute. >> if i don't have commercial crew and i can get to lower orbit i don't need sls and orio n. go to my final , andion, there was a study it concluded in part that income inequality contributes to the classless society. it has come to my attention that the study also states this work was partially funded through grant and that nasa

contributed $26,000 to a study on income inequality. money that spending should be related to space income inequality issues? >> nasa did not request such study. we have not reviewed sets ready. the study was done at the university of maryland as an offshoot of a study we did request on another subject. we don't control what a principal investigator chooses to do if they can get additional studies in. nasa funding. in are you telling me nasa doesn't is beinghat the money spent on? >> and investigator performs the study we request, and if they choose to amplify the study with additional information or additional data for their own

use, we don't prohibit them from doing that. it is not endorsed or requested by us. >> but paid for by nasa. >> time is expired. at this time i want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter. at this time i recognize the gentlewoman from oregon. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for staying for another round of questions. follow-up on international cooperation, which we have talked about a lot in this subcommittee, and we'll all appreciate the importance of it. had discussions this morning. what i want to talk about is in light of the proposal to shut down sophia, what are the risks of international partners coming to view nasa as not a reliable partner?

what has been the response from the international community when they found out about the proposal? so far had been the germans because that is our principal partner. before we announced the budget, dr. berner and i had a long telephone conversation, and that's where we decided we would working groupired to look at options for sophia. a final decision on sephia has not been made because we don't know what the 2015 budget is going to say. as congressman brooks we would then have to phase out. >> to follow-up, even though germany may be the only partner that has expressed concern, what kind of message does that send

to the community? have you had any response from others about questioning why this might happen. everyone was up in arms when we announced we were having to step back from the initial alomar's.on x times were better. we were going to provide launch vehicles for the 2016 mission. when the 2013 budget was about to come out, i talked to the european partners and said we have teams in paris. this was leading and christmas. i said this doesn't make sense. we have teams working on all of this stuff. i don't know what the budget is going to be. i cannot allow the teams to keep working toward something we not support. give us time. let us look at the budget. then we will determine what happened. we couldn't provide the launch vehicles we had promised.

they negotiated in russia as a partner, and agreed they would do that. we agreed we could hold up our end of the bargain on communications package. a very important scientific package. they go through the same thing. when they don't make a payment, it doesn't make the front page of the new york times. >> i asked you about earth science. i would ask you about monetary science. could you talk about the continued cuts being proposed for nasa science programs, and whether that is consistent in light of the work that nasa plans to take on the 2012 rover? are holding to a planetary havece portfolio that we

brought for a long time. we have to find ways to do missions when budgets are reduced. our budget has been reduced over time. the president requested a certain amount. the misappropriated has always been less. that is forgotten by most people. we have taken the of appropriations and figured out alternative ways to do things. sometimes you have to cancel it. we have canceled very few missions in the time because we have found alternatives. >> thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the general millon -- the gentlewoman yields back.

>> may get a copy? could you remind me? i get all kinds of -- >> we will get you a copy of the letter. >> is a good or bad? >> both. >> they want more money. >> do they like europa? [laughter] thank you for your testimony. committee may the have additional questions for you. we will ask you to respond for those in writing. open.cord rule main the witness is excuse. the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

[no audio]

rearranging your schedule for the hearing. we are having vote for get away day so i appreciate you working on this. welcome to fiscal year 2015 budget hearing for the environmental protection agencies. we are joined by gina mccarthy and mary ann forlic to discuss

the budget. i believe this is ms. mccarthy's first meeting. thank you for being here. we look forward to the budget and discussing your ongoing work. the budget proposal is a level of 7.89 million which is 3.8% below the enacted level. the budget is reduced for the fifth consecutive year. the budget proposal is good bringing the budget in line with historic level and in line with the levels under sequestration but avoids employees furloughs and other things with across the board cuts.

we make targeted cuts about how we spend the money as we rein in the deficideficit. i apprec appreciated eyeate the agency's payroll tax being investigated. this has been a priority for the subcommittee since 2011. i am glad to see we are aligned. i am pleased to say that the fy 2015 fte reduction compared to 2011. previous budgets often proposed payroll levels above the onboard personal leaving us to wonder how epa would use the funds. as we move forward, i have concerned about the state of the aging water infrastructure and

the california drought. we had a hearing to discuss of ways to finance the water structure needs. there are options out there to compensate the clean water drinking water funds. it is important from a security and economic standpoint that we have a protective and efficient water structure system. we discount the value of clean drinking water whenever we need it. that is until it isn't there. the budget is full of tough choices but one proposal i will let you know is unacceptable proposed elimination of the diesel grants that support the r retro fit of the old diesel engines. as the program is important as diesel engine power over 95% of

commercial trucks. according to the epa's own estimates every $1 spend on upgrades resulted in $13 worth of health and environmental benefits. so i don't understand why the administration would propose to eliminate this program with such a high return on investment particularly when it aligns with the environmental benefits while creating jobs. the budget eliminates funding for the rural water protection grants and state raid-on grants where 22, 000 people a year die from cancer from raid-on. the administration proposes other programs we don't have the funding to pay for in a con strained budget. these are the wrong priorties to

cut. they achieve results without the heavy hand of top-down regulations. the budget proposes increase funding for the overzealous enforcement agenda. it doesn't lend to building partnerships or policies that lead the economic growth. the epa serves to kerry out that agenda. when the president issues a directive stating the epa must regulate a rule to regulate the existing power plant gas it is care the whitehouse doesn't care what the rule says or the impact to the jobs. whether the whitehouse directs you to veto a mining permit before a company had the opportunity to apply it is clear the administration isn't serious about creating jobs. and the latest example was

revealed tuesday when the epa proposed the greatest expansion over land and water resources in the history of the 42 years of the clean water act. every small business and farmer could be subject to epa fines if they disturb a puddle on their land. epa stated that science would support tuesday's ruling. but the associate science study on streams and wetlands to downstream waters has yet to clear the review boards. the administration is wanting to go alone without the cost of impact on rules, jobs and without care for what the scientific community has to say. this subcommittee will continue to take whatever actions are necessary to inject common sense into the rulemaking process and

provide certainty to farmers and small business so they will not have to look over their shoulder fearing the epa. so the sum of the trends point to the right direction, devil is in the details and i look forward to working with you on the details and keeping the line of discussion open. with that, i will save buy my additional remarks until after your testimony. now to yield to mr. moran. >> thank you mr. chairman. we may have a couple points of disagreeme disagreement on the bill but we will remain friends. welcome administrator mccarthy. this is your first hearing and

we want you to know we greatly respect your dedication to public service and that of your staff particularly taking on this role which is about as difficult a role as any in the entire administration. but you have a long record of protecting the public's health and environment which is presumed to be an unpartisan objective. and you worked for the then governor mitt romney. so i would trust this is a non-partisan, non-contentius hearing. i understand you came from the air side of the epa, but i expect we will send a

considerable amount of time on the water regulations that were released on tuesday. they have been a long time coming and i do support and appreciate the fact you have taken the initiative to do what has needed to be done for a long time. i want to say thank you for listening to my colleagues and issueing a proposed rule instead of just guidance. we hear the guidance skids the rulemaking. so hopefully that complaint is off the table now. i am sure i don't have to remind you that epa has done more than it's share of deficit reduction. it cost about $2 billion 2010

and it is disturbing that epa would be the first in line for additional spending reductions and that your request would be $7.9 billion this year with all of the environmental challenges we have. i share the chairman's concern about the deteriation of the aging water structure. i wonder if we should have o&ber up here so we can under why the administration is gutting state funds and proposing staffing reductions to 1500 full-time equivalents. 200 less than you will have on board this year. i appreciate your request to add over $35 million for federal and

air regulation but we have seen what happened to those in the past. the reductions are mostly accepted and the increases are denied. so i appreciate your fiscally responsible request. but i question the ramifications it will have for the environment. year after year, when you propose cutting something, that is accepted when you propose increasing something it is rejected. but your mission remains as important as ever: while we debate over climate change in congress, we should bear in mind ronald reagan getting the montreal agreement done. he had a conservative and clear

and successful record on deregulation. but he was stirred by the whole in the ozone and the montreal protocol was meant to save the layer and there are evidence that it may have been not what slowed down global warming as the chemicals might have caused the global warming. we have a good leadership that faces the facts of environmental trust. a million people died as a result of air pollution exposure. we have made approvemeimproveme the clean air but there is more to do to reduce particlets and

mercury. i tried to start a tradition of quoting republican presidents like nixon, roosevelt, and lincoln on the need to protect the environment. but it hasn't done a wit of good. look at the bills. anyways, it doesn't seem to have produced much in the way of divdeneds so i am going to suspend this practice. even though i have a great quote. do you want the quote? what is that chairman? >> say it. >> we stand where two roads diverge, but unlike the roads in robert frost poem, they are not

equally fair. the road we have been travelling is disceeceptivdeceptively easy. we progress with spreed but it ends with disaster. the other fork that is lessly travelled offers the path that preserves the earth. the point being the regulations are going to be tough. i know you have gotten pushback around the country. but the road less travelled is the one we need to chose. i look forward to your service, hearing your testimony and working with you. thank yap -- you -- administrator. >> we are joined by the appropation chairman rogers. thank you for taking time to contribute to this important conversation.

>> we are moving quite quickly along on the hearings this year. we have begun earlier than we ever have to my knowledge becauseee didn't have to wait on the budget committee or anything else. i want to do 12 bills this year and so does my counter part in the house and senate. so these hearings are proceeding than every and earlier than usual certainly. so we have proven we can get the job done if they give us the equipment to do it. when they gave us there common number from the ryan-murray budget deal, we were able to n construct with this committee, the bill in 30 days, including the two major holidays.

so we can do the job and we are proving we can and that is where we're now. madam chairman, unfortunately, i found myself at odds with our agency every since i have been here and certainly ever since you have been here. and that is not changed today. for years, it seems the epa has worked hard to devise new regulations that are designed to eliminate coal mining, coal burning, useage of coal period and that means jobs where i live, especially in my district. there has been a relentless attack by your and your predecessors on jobs in the coal industry. these are jobs that are critical to the local communities where these workers live.

they are their only jobs there. i have had 8,000 of my miners laid off. they went from $80,000 to trying to find a job at mcdonald's to support a family. and i don't find any heart beat up here concerned about the well-being of these americans. i just don't see it. i see relentless on-going attack, not just from the epa, but all of the agencies that have to do with coal mining. it is sad. it is tragic. it also makes me mad. and so don't look for any friendship out of this seat. now having said that, the nation

needs this inexpensive electricity from burning goal. you are going to need it. there is not enough wind, sun, or nuclear or anything else that can produce the power that is in place by burning coal. so whether you like it or not, and i know you don't, you are going to have to use coal to keep your lights on. and so the uncertainly driven by the bureaucratic overreach that the courts have severely cautioned you on several times, this overreach that we see coming on, beats all of the others by ten lengths. you are going to push businesses overseas. we will have job losses not just

in the coal business because inexpensive electricity is one of the biggest attractions america has for creating fa factories and jobs and your policies will drive up the cost beyond belief. we almost have a burn out with the extreme cold and weather, especially in the northeast, the industry all but crashed. and you are going to see that again except more frequently. and you are going to pay a heavy price out there in the country when your policies have caused the problems that we are going to see. but i don't see anybody in your agency that is even thinking about that or thinks about it or

cares about it. i was disappointed on monday to read that the supreme court decid decided not to hear a case in which the epa was retro activeally denying permits that were approved years before. all that does is continue the cycle of uncertainty that the industry feels never knowing if a government operator is going to shutdown a mine operation m simply because they don't like coal. they are creating standards the epa knows are impossible to meet with commercially available technology. this shows how serious the

president is about one campaign promise of 2008 -- the bankrupt anyone who plans to buy new coal power plants. that undattitude underlies all the administration efforts. mining permits are almost impossible to aa -- obtain -- ad p productive minds are idle. it is time for the burrirurr tow

for all of the above energy policies which the president is paying lip service to and it should include coal. it is time for the senate to step up and pass the bills that will protect coal jobs that the house sent to them. i am dismayed at this week's news as well that despite years of concern by this committee and others, the epa and core of engineers are working to create new rules that will place strict new standards on thousands ou ouch -- of -- so-called streams in the country even thou. by creating this new definition,

the administration again is striking at kentucky and others economy and workforce every hollow and valley in my region has a stream running through it. sometimes dry or intermitant what have you will be in your jurisdiction. no economic active, no road construction, no coal mining, nothing will occur on those lands without the say-so of the people in washington, d.c. another layer of tape will be added to the knot that already has a stranglehold on the people since the administration declared a war on coal. this is unbelievable.

there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, creaks and streams and dry beds that would be subject to your oversight and no one can do anything on the lands without getting your approval. that ain't going to happen, madam administrator. right here is where a good part of the fight is going to take place: in this subcommittee. >> thank you. and we are joined by ms. loyd who is here. do you have an opening statement? >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman rogers, ranking member moran, welcome administrator mccarthy. it is pleasure to welcome you to the first meeting. to be blunt the fy '15 request

of $7.89 billion is unacceptable at $310 million below current levels. last year i voiced concern that americans don't see the importance of the epa' lives. despite existing environmental programs, the epa's successes in improving the environment with the passage of the clean water act amendments of 1990s and the laws of the 1980s establish the super fund program address the most aagraze grnlgs threats to our well-being. my colleagues and friends, although we may have

disagreements, they don't value your purpose. the house votes on a bill to roll back the epa's ability every week to pull back and democrats opposing them overwhelming and republicans supporting them overwhelming. this budget request seems to indicate that epa doesn't fully value the importance of it's -- its -- own work in the lives of millions. i am concerned about the cuts to the state revolving loan funds that support drinking and waste water. according to the american society for civil engineers in new york that has the oldest infrastructure in the country, there is a 56.7 billion need for

drinking and waste water upgrades. in 2011, drinking water infrastructure survey, epa found that 384.2 billion in drinking water upgrades are needed over the next 20 years. and in 2008, epa reports that approximately $300 billion is needed for waste and storm water infrastructure. the price tag has grown while the epa investments have declined since this started. i am also disappointed by cuts to the long island sound, great lakes, staffing levels at the epa which strongly suggest a decrease in inspection and enforcement efforts by the agency and an increase in self-regulation by industry.

the recent chemical spill in west virginia and coal ash release in north carolina clearly demonstrate the potential dangers of self-regulation. madam administrator, i look forward to hearing from you about the future of the epa and i will do everything i can do ensure you have adequate resources when the committee writes their bill. >> thank you again and thank you administrator mccarthy to be here. share with your proposed budget for fy 2015. thank you. >> chairman rogers, and ranking member, it is great to be here and thank you, the members of the committee, for having me

here. i have an opportunity to talk about the epa's 2015 budget and i am joined by the chief acting financial agent. $7.89 billion is the budget request for the epa 2015 year. this nets the challenge of domestic spending and fulfilling the public health and environment mission. the fiscal year 2015 budget reflects the plan to take advantage of technology, regulatory and non-regulatory approaches and it recognizes that the epa is part of larger network of environmental partners in states, tribes and communities. this budget will provide the support for a smaller workforce by focusing on real progress in priority areas and that is communities, air quality, toxins

and clean safety and clean water. we are asking for 7.5 million in staff to provide green infutruckture and technology assistance for a hundred communities and cost-effective plans for water management. and we will do more to partner with states, tribes and local governments and other federal agencies. funding for state and tribal assistance grants is one of the largest part of the budget. $199.5 billion is saved for the global warming and $10 million in fiscal year to support the president's climate action plan with $2 million for adaptation planning. the agency will focus resources

on the development of common sense and achievable greenhouse gas standards for power plants. the single-largest source of carbon pollution. when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the budget provides budget for states to implement the clean water act. and we are requesting $24 million to support activities under the president's executive order on chemical safety and the agency's effort on vol till organic in the drippinging --

drinking water. e-enterprise is a greway to loot new business practices that look toward the future. the benefits of implementing e-ente e-enterprise is many. the agency is requesting 3.3 billion to continue to work on

underground storage tanks and other programs. this will ensure land is returned to beneficial use. and increase of work and increase of 9.2 million dollars for response and removal. within that total is $96 million for tribal programs. 18 million in increase for pollution control, 16 million increase for environmental information grants and a 15 million increase for state and local air quality management. science is a foundation of the work at epa and science is supported by the president's request of $537.3 million dollars. and lastly, across the

administration, we recognize the importance of the budget deal the congress agreed on in november. for that reason, congress the federal government the budget pulls a $56 billion initiative that is fully played and within that is a climate resilliance fund that will protect and enhance coastal wetlands and $5 million for urban forestry enhancement. thank you for your chance to qualify >> i want to make a point before i recognize the chairman. it is one thing to share two different perspectives on a policy. but it is another thing to mislead the public and i believe the talking points that describe

tuesday's meetings were false. i cannot agree with quote the proposed rule will not add or expand to the waters under the clean water act unquote. this is the greatest expansion in control over water and resources in the 42 history. the mount of acres will expand as more waterways are subject to permitting. it is the biggest power grab i have seen and should make every landowner fear the epa knocking on their door. epa claims the rule provides more certainty but sound like the certainty comes in the form of more mandatory permits and more jurisdictional waterways. i recognize the chairman with that. >> thank you, mr. chairman and

that sentiment expressed in your statement which is correct. this is the biggest land grab of any question in the history of mankind and the supreme court this one i think is ripe for the picking and i think the courts will say as we have said we have reached beyond the authority given by the congress. and we will see about that as time passes. just yesterday, the epa and the core announced they are work together on this new regulation system for what is called the waters of the united states and it would expand as the chairman says the miles of waterway that you would have jurisdiction over including thousands of miles of

streams that are considered seasonal, rain dependent and in essence you are saying you would have authority on streams on private property even when there are not streams. that is proof in and of itself of the malintent of this administration toward the private sector. the economic impact of that would be profound. a community needing to build on private land that had on it one of these so-called streams that you considered a waterway under the new rule would have to travel thousands of miles to washington, d.c. to get