Pete Olson

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today in support of H. Res. 1103, introduced by a fellow Texan and colleague, Congressman Mike McCaul, honoring the life and accomplishments of Sam Houston for his historical contributions to the expansion of the United States. Sam Houston lived an amazing and vibrant life. Shortly after moving to Tennessee from his home in the State of Virginia, Sam was drawn to the Cherokee Indians, a tribe that would have a profound impact on his life. At the age of 19, Sam Houston enlisted in the military to fight the British in the War of 1812, where he distinguished himself for his bravery and was wounded several times in battle. After the war, his attention shifted to the study of law. In 1823, he was elected to the first of two terms here in this body, the United States Congress, before being elected Governor to the State of Tennessee in 1827. In 1828, Houston resigned from Tennessee politics, returning to live with his longtime friends, the Cherokee Indians. In 1835, Sam Houston left the Cherokee and his life in Tennessee and moved to Texas, where he quickly gained notoriety for his leadership in seeking independence from Mexico. In the wake of defeat at the Alamo on April 21, 1836, Houston rallied the armies of Texas to victory, decisively defeating Santa Anna and the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto, securing independence for Texas and his heroic place in the Nation's history. Shortly after securing independence, Sam Houston was elected the first President of the Republic of Texas, beginning a long and successful career in Texas politics. He went on to serve a second term as President of the Republic before being elected as a United States Senator after statehood in 1845. In 1859, Houston continued his public service when he was elected Governor of the State of Texas and became the only person in U.S. history to serve as Governor in two States. Though sometimes embroiled in controversy, Sam Houston was a passionate, dedicated statesman who played an important role in shaping this great Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and honor the accomplishments of this important, if not heroic, figure in American history and the history of my home State, the great State of Texas.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4861, designating the facility of the United States Post Office, located at 1343 West Irving Park Road in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Steve Goodman Post Office Building.'' Born on July 25, 1948, in Chicago, Illinois, Steve Goodman began his lifelong musical career as a teenager. After graduating from Maine East High School in 1965, Mr. Goodman entered the University of Illinois and started a band called The Juicy Fruits with friends from the Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity. After 1 year, he left college to pursue his musical career full time. He was a regular performer in Chicago, and often supported himself by singing commercials. He often performed, but he was known as an excellent and influential songwriter. Known more prominently in folk music circles than in commercial venues, Mr. Goodman's music represented a chronicle of the times, including his many, many humorous songs about Chicago. His legendary creation of the ``City of New Orleans'' got the attention of top recording artists, such as Arlo Guthrie, Johnny Cash, Judy Collins, Chet Atkins, and Willie Nelson, who all recorded this much-loved song. He was also known as a diehard Cubs fan, and his songs were often played at Wrigley Field. In 1984, his beloved Cubs won the Eastern Division title in the National League for the first time. Sadly, Mr. Goodman died of leukemia before he could sing the ``Star- Spangled Banner'' for that first divisional post-season game. He was 36 years old. Jimmy Buffet filled in, dedicating the song to Mr. Goodman. Subsequently, some of Mr. Goodman's ashes were scattered at Wrigley Field. I appreciate the opportunity to recognize this man of Chicago, Steve Goodman, who is world renowned for his many musical accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make Americans aware of a contest being held by the Environmental Protection Agency. In an attempt to explain how the bureaucracy works, the EPA has announced a video contest to encourage citizens to create videos that explain the Federal rulemaking process. The reward for showing how your government operates is a prize of $2,500. To some, I realize that might not seem like a lot of money, but as my friend Marsha Blackburn astutely pointed out, $2,500 is the total tax contribution for a working American making just under $30,000 a year. Do we really want to ask any American to hand their total tax payment over to someone who made a YouTube video? Mr. Speaker, we must restore fiscal discipline in the Federal Government, and ending this kind of spending is a good place to start.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, before I left for the Easter district work period, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee held a hearing on the proposed changes to NASA's exploration program. The administration is advocating an extreme change by canceling the Constellation Program, which I feel would be a mistake especially since the Constellation Program has passed their preliminary design review, a significant technological milestone. Back in 2008, the media portrayed thrust oscillation as a ``serious concern,'' but the program design review, the team spent about a minute on the issue of thrust oscillation. Why? Because the problem had been solved. To me, this is just another indication of why cancellation would be a mistake. It wouldn't just be throwing money, money already spent, $9 billion, hardware already built, a workforce already in place, but a process in standard of doing business and fixing problems that NASA has developed for over 50 years. America has been the leader in human space flight for half a century, and this administration's budget proposal puts that at risk.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out a growing concern within the community of supporters for a strong human space flight program--American exceptionalism lagging behind Russia and other countries. Just yesterday in the Washington Post, a special advertising section on Russia had a front page story about their growing investment in human space flight. The headline read, ``American Astronauts are Hitching a Ride with the Russian Space Program. Russia Makes Space for the U.S.'' Additional comments in the story included: ``Russia will fuel space exploration once again, while the U.S. vision appears dampened. As the United States reprioritizes its programs, the country will rely on Russia to take its astronauts into space.'' Under the President's proposed budget, the Russians will be the only game in town for getting our astronauts to and from the International Space Station. The United States of America should never have to depend on another foreign nation to ``make space'' for our astronauts to get to the Space Station that the American taxpayer has largely paid for. Mr. Speaker, that should be a concern to all Americans.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, we had a significant event happen in this hall last night. And I don't have a lot to say about it. I'll let the numbers speak for themselves. Over $500 billion in Medicare cuts for seniors. Over $500 billion in new taxes for small businesses. In my home State of Texas, over $24 billion in unfunded Medicaid mandates. This is not the health care reform that the American people want. They want us to work together and come together in a bipartisan manner to have real solutions for their problems. We want every American to have access to quality, affordable health care. Unfortunately, the majority didn't want to deal with us. But this isn't over. They've got to get it passed through the Senate. There are going to be multiple lawsuits across the country and they're going to have to answer to the American people in November of this year. I found it very telling at the end of the Speaker's speech last night that she had shifted her conversations from health care reform to health insurance reform. This debate isn't about health insurance reform. It's about giving every American access to quality, affordable health care. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve that when this bill comes back to the House of Representatives.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health bill.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I rise today in support of House Resolution 1027, recognizing the 50th anniversary of the historic dive to the Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench, the deepest point in the world's oceans, on January 23, 1960, and its importance to marine research, ocean science, and the future of human exploration. Human curiosity about our world is one of the driving forces that compels exploration, and looking at the achievements of the last several hundred years, the accelerated pace of exploration has been propelled by our technological ingenuity and sheer courage. However, as we rush towards conquering the next challenge, such as further manned explorations into space under the Constellation Program, it is valuable to occasionally stop and remember the great achievements of our past. Only 5 percent of the ocean floor has been explored to date. The Mariana Trench is the deepest known part of the world's oceans. It is the meeting point of two tectonic plates underneath the Pacific Ocean. This geologically active area reaches a maximum depth of over 36,000 feet below sea level. The lowest part of the trench, which itself is over 1,500 miles long--nearly twice as long as my home State of Texas-- is called the Challenger Deep, so named after the vessel that explored its depth. To put this in perspective, imagine that if you were to take Mount Everest, all 29,029 feet of her elevation, and place it at the bottom of the Challenger Deep, the top of Mount Everest would still be over 7,000 feet below sea level. The Challenger Deep was first discovered in 1875 during the expedition of the HMS Challenger. Technology at that time prevented any substantial investigation of this region of the ocean, but such constraints have only encouraged humans to find new and innovative ways to break through these barriers. Eighty-five years after discovery, two brave men had the courage and conviction to descend 5 hours in a converted submersible to reach the very bottom of the trench. U.S. Navy Lieutenant Don Walsh and Swiss oceanographer Jacques Piccard spent nearly 20 minutes at the bottom of the Earth before they had to begin their ascent. This feat has been accomplished twice more since that day 50 years ago but with unmanned vehicles and far more advanced technology. Today we stand in awe of their achievement and honor the courage they have demonstrated in pushing the limits of human exploration. This act encouraged further expeditions to explore the Earth's oceans just as Alan Shepard's ride as the first American in space on Freedom 7 inspired us to reach for the stars. Mr. Speaker, we honor these men and the many who have come before and after by courageously taking the next step in exploration. This resolution is as much about remembering our past as it is looking toward the future, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. H. Res. 1133 recognizes the African American contribution to U.S. innovation and competitiveness. There is no doubt that the American transportation system is better off thanks to the contributions of African Americans like Richard Spikes, Joseph Gambol, Garrett Morgan, and Elbert Robinson. Our cities' skyscrapers are accessible thanks to the work of Alexander Mills. Modern medicine, particularly cardiology, may not be as advanced if it were not for the work of Drs. Otis Boykin, Daniel Williams, Charles Drew, and Ben Carson. And our work lives would not be as simple had it not been for Will Purvis, Lee Burridge, and W.A. Love, or our personal lives more comfortable had it not been for Frederick Jones, Lewis Latimer, George Sampson, and John Standard. And our children know that the sky is not the limit because of pioneering astronauts like Fred Gregory, Mae Jemison, Bernard Harris, and Charlie Bolden. It is in part due to the contributions of these brilliant men and women that we as a Nation need to continue encouraging all Americans, male and female, from all socioeconomic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, to become interested in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines so that our next generation of Americans will know there are no barriers to innovation, and United States competitiveness will continue to be unsurpassed. I want to acknowledge and thank my good friend from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for her tireless dedication and efforts on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, the process which the Democratic majority will reportedly use to ram their costly government health care program through this House is truly deplorable and likely unconstitutional. Article I, section 7 of the Constitution clearly states that both Chambers must pass their bills by a vote. Then the bill is sent to the President for his signature before we can reconcile a bill here in Congress. It's unconscionable to disregard these principles after the American people have clearly said ``no'' to this plan. They've told Congress to go back to the drawing board and find a solution. It's wrong to flaunt the Constitution and the will of the American people by forcing this proposal down their throats. Madam Speaker, it will be a sad day for this institution and our great Nation if a proposal of this nature comes to the floor of the House under these circumstances.

Mr. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Would my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. OLSON. Very briefly, I would like to thank my colleague from Texas for all her support of the Johnson Space Center. True hero back home. And I couldn't agree with you more about every American has benefited from the human spaceflight. I thank all my colleagues for coming here tonight.

Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, tonight, my colleagues and I would like to share with you and the American people our deep concern with the effects of the President's budget on NASA. By overwhelming concern with the decision to cancel the Constellation program, there are several reasons why this is bad for America, about which my colleagues and I will go into more detail over the next hour. Madam Speaker, Constellation was and is the right path forward to maintain America's leadership in space. Just this past week, the Constellation program successfully completed its preliminary design review. This is a milestone towards future development. This is a major programmatic milestone that should be noted and applauded by all of us in addition to the successful test launch of the Are's I-X rocket back in September. Madam Speaker, I am going to talk tonight about a couple of issues: national priority; national security and how important NASA and human spaceflight is for that; inspiration for our youth; and our educational purposes, particularly in the discipline of STEM--science, technology, engineering, math--and the technological benefits that every American, every person in the world, has gotten from NASA and human spaceflight. America's global dominance in space exploration has always been for so much more than just the race to be first. It has signaled a commitment from our Nation to forge a path. Previously unimaginable scientific and technological discoveries are born both from necessity and from risk-taking. They are born out of unexpected consequences. It has been said many times before that it is not just the destination but the journey. The journey on which our space exploration program has taken the United States has given rise to our global leadership on many, many fronts. Our Nation's global dominance in human spaceflight has coincided with our status as the world's only superpower, which is not by accident. The national commitment to be the best in national security and in space exploration goes hand in hand. That is precisely why there is always such strong bipartisan support for NASA and for human spaceflight. Abandoning the enterprise of space exploration is a striking decision because it violates something that makes us human--the desire to know new things through personal experience. As Americans, our heritage is about exploration. Our nature is to seek out the unknown and to explore. The administration's decision to kill the Constellation is an affront to that heritage. America cannot escape the irrefutable fact that to fly regularly into space is the most difficult technological challenge that we know is possible under complicated and expensive scenarios. Even when done successfully, it is difficult and dangerous. In the half century we have been putting human beings into space, we have lost three brave crews. The support that is needed requires an overarching vision that requires political courage. As he stood on the football field at my alma mater, Rice University, President Kennedy had that political courage when he made the commitment to go to the Moon by the end of the decade. A person either believes that expanding the range of human action is a noble undertaking, worthy of the cost and the risk, or a person does not. I fundamentally believe that this goal represents the heart of American entrepreneurialism. It is what sets our Nation apart from the rest of the world. It is why Russia, China, and India are making the investments necessary to catch up or to even surpass us. Is human exploration worth the cost? If Americans question this, then we should ask why other nations are desperately ramping up their human space exploration. What do China, India, Japan, and Russia know that we don't know? They clearly know what America has known for years, which is that the direct investment alone is worth the cost and that the indirect benefits have provided economic drivers and scientific discoveries that have far exceeded expectations. Think about what human spaceflight has done for America. There is the Hubble space telescope, one of the greatest pieces of technological advancements in our society. Unfortunately, when it was launched, it was launched in a flawed vehicle. It had a flawed refractory mirror on it. It was basically a $2 billion piece of junk that we put into orbit. Yet, because we had a human spaceflight capability and because we had men and women who were willing to take the risk to go into space, they went up and repaired the Hubble telescope four times. They brought it back, and made it one of the most incredible pieces of technology in our society. They brought back images from across the solar system and the universe. It wouldn't have happened without human spaceflight. We risk losing this with the President's budget. The President's decision of NASA's role in human spaceflight is not only a step back for America; it is a calculated decision that says we aren't up to the challenge. Yes, our Nation is in a fiscal situation that should force us to examine our spending priorities. We may disagree on how our limited resources should be spent, but there are fundamental national priorities that are worth the investment. Abandoning human space exploration isn't the tough decision that America needs. We need leadership that clearly states we will not cede our leadership in human spaceflight to any other nation on Earth. We should not hand over space to the Russians, to the Chinese, or to India. If we stay on the path the President's budget lays out, the United States faces the very real and very humiliating prospect of paying billions of dollars to Russia for years to hitch rides to the international space station, which has been largely built by American taxpayer funds. We used to pay the Russians just over $20 million to take one of our astronauts to the space station. They have learned capitalism very well; and now, this year, it is going to cost us $50 million, which is more than double the price that it was last year. That contract only extends through 2013. So, in all likelihood, we are going to have to renew another contract with them in the future. They have got a monopoly. They are going to charge us whatever they want, and we are going to have to pay it if we want access to the space station, which, again, the American taxpayers have largely funded. This is unacceptable. We need to stay the course with the Constellation to make sure that we minimize that gap and to make sure we get our astronauts delivering our people to the space station and beyond--to the Moon and beyond. Even more unsettling is knowing, when we finally have the ability to get there on our own, we may find the Chinese are already there and working it. Their goal is to be to the Moon by 2023. The United States' goal: question mark. We don't know when we're going to be back to the Moon, if at any time in the near future. Americans have rightly grown accustomed to serving as the global leader in human space exploration. Sadly, we will be in for a huge shock when reality sets in that we no longer hold that title. NASA has long been a cradle for innovation. Without human spaceflight, where is the incentive for future scientists and engineers to take up these careers? Human spaceflight is so much more than the basis for an inspirational movie. It is the heart of American ingenuity; and in our pioneering nature as Americans, we say, Place our Nation at the forefront of technology and science. Madam Speaker, we must make the commitment that America will always stay number one. I urge my colleagues to look closely at what our Nation has achieved through our leadership on human space exploration and to think about what is at stake if we walk away. I have some of my colleagues here tonight whom I would like to recognize. One is my good colleague from Louisiana, Congressman Cao. Thanks for coming tonight, Anh. I look forward to your comments.

Mr. OLSON. Thank you for those very kind comments, and I couldn't agree with you more. One of the problems I have with this decision is how it was sprung upon all of us. I am the ranking member on the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over NASA, and I found out, like probably all of you, everybody here in the Chamber, by reading the newspaper. No one ever gave me a heads-up that this was coming. Nobody ever gave our ranking member a heads-up this was coming. I don't think even the chairman of the committee had any knowledge that this was coming. It seemed to be a small little cabal in the White House that made this decision that has a tremendous impact on our society. You mentioned the loss of jobs. There are going to be thousands and thousands and thousands of good-paying, high-tech jobs, the kind of jobs we want here in America, that are going to go away. As you alluded to, once those people walk out, they are gone.

Mr. OLSON. Again, there is no reason why we should ever, ever, give up our leadership in human spaceflight. We have worked for it from the onset, over 50 years ago now, almost 50 years ago since NASA was formed. Again, you referred to President Kennedy's speech. The ultimate called shot; we are going to be on the Moon by the end of this decade. And we were behind the Soviets, as you remember, at that time. We hadn't done anything. Yet because of American ingenuity, American persistence, and American innovation, on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong backed down that ladder, put that foot on the lunar surface, and uttered the famous words that every American knows, ``one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.'' I agree with you, we cannot give that up. I think if you could talk to Astronaut Schmitt, Apollo 17, that was the last Moon mission, and if you could have talked to him when he got back home and said, Well, you know, sir, we are not going to be back for at least 40 years, he would have taken money and said, No, we are going to go back. We are going to be there over and over. We are going to be at Mars by 40 years from now. Unfortunately, we are looking at cutting the program and continuing our domination of low-Earth orbit, which the Augustine Commission that the administration cites as sort of the bible for their action also here basically said, the front page of their summary, we are done with low-Earth orbit. There are no more challenges for our Nation in low- Earth orbit. We have got to fund a fantastic space station up there that is delivering science and discoveries to us every day, but we are not challenging ourselves from an exploration perspective going beyond low-Earth orbit. We have to do that, and the Augustine Commission recognized that, and killing the Constellation just completely curtails that. There is no plan to get beyond low-Earth orbit. And, quite frankly, that is not what our country wants. That is not what we need. As you alluded to, we are number one, we have been number one throughout history, and we should never give that up. Thank you for your comments. Very briefly, I would like to talk about sort of the education perspective, some of the issues involved with promoting our youth and getting them involved again in the STEM disciplines, the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. When we think about the new competitive global economy, we know that 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 dictate their countries' futures. Unfortunately, these are the careers which America is losing ground on, calling into question our own future. The problems with U.S. test scores and recruiting teachers in science, math, and engineering fields are well publicized. U.S. students lag well behind their Asian and Indian counterparts, and we risk losing the level of excellence in science, research, and innovation 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 laser- focused on a top education, and their test scores reflect that. Unfortunately, after those students receive a top-tier degree at an American school, they go back home and return to their country and we will not benefit from that knowledge that they got here in America. And here at home we have some American students graduating from high school needing remedial math courses to begin college level math. We have a shortage of teachers to inspire young minds and we have deemphasized the pursuit of solving difficult problems and seem to choose the path of least resistance. While the solutions to those problems may require a great national epiphany, we do see small but important steps taking place every day across America. The Johnson Space Center in the district I'm fortunate to represent in Houston hosts several programs in which employees volunteer their time to mentor students in math, science, and engineering. Just recently, just this past Monday, I was pleased to be present when Hannah Gorse, a student at Pearland High School in the district I represent, won a slot at the prestigious NASA High School Aerospace Scholars Program. Hannah is a junior there at Pearland High School. She told me that all she wants to do when she grows up is become an astronaut or an aerospace engineer and work in human spaceflight exploration. As part of this program, she designs things. I was stunned. She designed a CEV--a crew exploration vehicle. A lunar rover, for those of you who have been following the space program. She's designed parts to a shuttle; she designed components for the international space station, all as part of this program. Madam Speaker, Hannah is the kind of student we want to get the math or science degree and channel her intellect toward great achievements in human spaceflight. We cannot take that inspiration and opportunity away from our students. And we do exactly that by killing the Constellation Program. The NASA High School Aerospace Scholars Program allows students to write essays, solve math problems, design upgrades for the international space station, like Hannah did, among other projects. It's coordinated, as I said, through the Johnson Space Center, and serves as a valuable tool for students like Hannah to encourage them to pursue the career degrees in math and science. These innovative initiatives encourage and inspire students to be the pathfinders we want when we show the way forward. These young leaders will scale greater heights in their critical careers that will help develop new technologies in science, engineering, and health care. There's 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 spaceflight 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 Gorse 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 the students graduating with the 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 stare up at the stars or watch grainy footage of the first man on the Moon or watch a shuttle blast off at nighttime, and a future scientist, astronaut, or engineer is born. As it stands now, the administration's budget is putting the U.S., the global leader in human spaceflight exploration, firmly into fourth place. Without a manned space program, again, we will be forced to pay Russia over $50 million per astronaut to give access to the international space station. The United States has been a beacon of cutting-edge technology when it comes to pioneering the path in science and space exploration. We were the first to set foot on the Moon because we made a national commitment to being first and being the best. That's what America does. We must continue that investment so our next generation reaps the benefits of excellence in science, math, engineering. Human space exploration is part of that national plan. There's 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 America's students to pursue careers, again, in science, math, and engineering that we desperately need to compete globally. It requires a national commitment, both public and private. That is America at its best--and that's what we want to keep. We do that by maintaining the Constellation Program. If my colleague from Utah would like to speak to some of these issues, I yield the floor to him.

Mr. OLSON. If my colleague would yield for a quick question. So economic development, international global leadership and education?

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLSON. You raise some great points. Again, $51 million to put our astronauts on facilities to get up to the international space station. As I understand it, that contract has been signed through 2013, and it is highly unlikely given the current situation, and certainly a cancellation or with the attempted cancellation of the Constellation Program, that we will have the capability to get our astronauts up to the station by 2013. It will probably be 2015 or somewhere in that window. The Russians were a communist country when I was born. They have moved over to capitalism. They have figured it out. They have it down. It was $20 million last year. Now that we are in the throes of this, getting rid of the Constellation and having this gap, it is up to $50 million, and who is to say what it is going to be after 2013 when the contract expires. So we've got ourselves in a big pickle, and we need to stick with the program of record. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me here tonight, and I saw my colleague from Houston, my fellow Texan come here. It's just stunning that this decision has been made, and again, the manner in which it was made. No one at the NASA centers--not the director of the Johnson Space Center, he was not consulted--had any input into this decision. Across the center, again, Congress, no one that I'm aware of, had any inclination of what was going to happen until he got up and read the paper and saw that the Constellation Program had been canceled. And again, if it's allowed to stand--and we're going to do everything we can here in this Congress to ensure that it doesn't stand--but if it's allowed to stand, it condemns the United States to being an average country in terms of human spaceflight, giving up the leadership that we've had for almost 50 years now. It will ensure that we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs here in America, good paying high-tech jobs, the kind of jobs we are trying to generate particularly in this economy. And it will take away the inspiration--you can't put a dollar value on this, but the ability to inspire America's youth to get into science, technology, engineering, and math degrees. The Constellation Program is the right program for our human spaceflight efforts at this time in our history. We can't cancel it. We need to go forward and do everything we can to minimize that gap. To my colleague from Texas, from the 18th Congressional District of Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), thank you for coming out tonight, Congresswoman.

Mr. OLSON. What kind of consultation went on with DOD, with NASA and this decision? I heard press reports that said there was little, if none. DOD, just like you and I, woke up and read the paper and saw what had happened had not had any opportunity to let the powers that be, the administration know that you are putting our national security at risk by cutting the Constellation program. I wonder if my colleague has heard anything along those lines.

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir, I couldn't agree more with my colleague from Utah. And just to reinforce some of your things for my people back home, one of the things I heard being at the Johnson Space Center this past Monday, numerous people came up to me and said, What's our plan? I mean, what's our mission? This is an organization that has been focused on a mission for 40 years. And right now, they have no idea what they're working towards. Some nebulous stuff about global warming research, climate change research, developing the private sector doesn't do anything to inspire them. Again, these are the best, most qualified engineers, propulsion people, defense, as well, in the world. And we are giving them no mission and possibly letting them walk out the door. Once they walk, they're gone.

Mr. OLSON. My colleague, getting into the safety issue, which is a big issue, has NASA published any safety regulations or requirements for the commercial spaceflight operators? I have had many come in my office and say they are working towards that, and I have gotten information from other people who say, no, NASA has not published anything yet. Have you heard anything?

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. And there was an issue with that as well. The administration put out, as I understand it, the test was supposed to be in your district. It was supposed to happen in April, and there was a notice to cease and desist, and we contacted the administration, a bipartisan letter, saying I'm sorry, Constellation is the law of the land. You don't have the ability to cut and choose programs that you don't think are going to be valuable or project into the future, because the President only has a voice in this. Congress is the final authority. I thank my colleague for coming here late because you speak the truth. It is a battle that we can win. The American people get this. Thank you again for your time tonight. Finally, I would like to finish up with talking about some of the technology issues associated with Constellation and its cancellation. The administration's budget plan again cancels NASA's Constellation to develop vehicles that will ensure America has access to space and capabilities to go beyond low-Earth orbit. But what they have done, they have eliminated Constellation which does that in favor of undefined ``game-changing technology efforts'' without clearly defined goals and metrics. This is exactly what my constituents back home are saying: What is our goal? What is our mission? In my experience, whenever someone, whether it is a company or government agency, proposes that some new radical breakthrough is just around the corner and will provide the solutions to all of our problems, I want to immediately grab my wallet, button my back pocket, and hunker down. Spaceflight is governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, and there are very few game-changing technologies. I want to say that I am an avid supporter of NASA, and I think technology development is an important part of what we have gotten from NASA. New technology is one of the many benefits we get from human spaceflight, but that technology development must be the result of a mission-driven pursuit with clearly defined goals and objectives. Like my colleague mentioned, the difficulty of the mission is what forces the development of technology. The proponents are always ardent and sincere in their desire to make a difference, but history shows that it is not an effective way to manage programs. I want to explain how the misguided quest for game-changing technologies and flexible paths similar to what is currently proposed have led to wasteful and ultimately futile spending efforts over the past 18 years. This is a chart of NASA's human spaceflight development programs from 1992 to 2010. The red areas are cancelled programs; blue, completed programs; ongoing, yellow. As you can see, we only have two ongoing programs out there right now, and they are the commercial private programs. We have got the international space station still rolling strong, probably going to go beyond 2015 to 2020. We have completed a superlightweight tank, completed the X-43A, but then ran into the X-43B and cancelled that program. And then the only other thing we have was the DARPA program, which failed. This is one of the challenges of NASA. We have gone through all of these programs and changes with different administrations, and we are looking to do that right now, another change, a huge change in our human spaceflight path by shifting gears to the program of record, the Constellation Program, and going to some unknown, unproven technology from the private sector. I support the private sector. I think they have a role in certainly some cargo resupply of the space station, but they need to prove that they have the capabilities, and they are not close. As my colleague from Utah alluded to earlier, they had a firing of an engine, and I believe some of the fire came out towards the side. Everybody here knows that rockets, it needs to come out the bottom and generate propulsion up. Coming out the side is not something that you want to see. That is what we are dealing with right now. That is what the administration has chosen to hang our future in human spaceflight on. I think it is an incredibly poor decision. Congress, we have seen a number of game-changing proposals over the years. Again, this graph shows all of the different programs that have been ``game changers,'' and the blue ones are the only ones that actually came to fruition. What this represents are billions of dollars being spent without anything to show for it. Again, the Constellation is on track. We have had a very successful test launch of the Ares I-X. We passed our PDR this week. This program is the program of record. It deserves to go forward. It is in America's best interest, and we need to stay the course, put Constellation, bring it up and put U.S. astronauts in space again, get rid of that gap with the space shuttle being retired, get our astronauts up there again, going to the space station and going to the Moon and going beyond. It is up to Congress to remember the lessons of the past and ensure that the administration's ill-conceived proposals are thoroughly reviewed. We should not agree to open-ended, unproven, unconstrained technological demonstrations. Anything we agree to must be clearly defined. NASA must show us how and why it is included, and it should be part of an as yet to be defined broader goal for human spaceflight exploration. Would my colleague like to add anything?