Educational objectives that can be achieved at the moon. The case for human a mission to astroid should be visionary the focus on practical applications. This is a reflect did reflection of the values we hold. It is not just our dna. It is our values. Be our nation not defined by blood or religion but a conscious choice. In shaping the International Environment for space activity, the u. S. Should build a more prosperous world in which our values are taken beyond. We should also exercise some humility in facing the unknown. In their time these projects were controversial and criticized. Who today would have said they should not have been done . We have seen these efforts to define us as a nation who pioneers the next frontier. We are all in this together, white house, congress, International Partners and many u. S. Companies that operate the capabilities. In think this committee for holding this hearing today. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. I think all of you for your testimony. The committee limits questioning to five minutes for each of us. I will open a round of question. I do not ever like to say this is my last day. I do not anything last. I do not even like them to call an airport a terminal. I am thinking of the wonderful testimony you have given in the time it took you to get that ensued deliver it to us. It is great and generous. I glean from each of you that there is this need for more funds. They recommended 3 billion additional for nasa. This would not have even brought us up to 1 of the overall budget. Three president s turn their backs on us. Things could be different today. You suggested several modifications. I have a question or so what reaction has your Committee Received with regard to the recommendations you lay out . You said a means to signing a consensus for nasas future. Can you answer that . The report was brief to a nasa administrator. It was well received. We had not breached any other elements besides nasa. I stand corrected. What was their reaction . They speak for the president sometimes. They have not gone through this in detail. We have to wait for their reaction. Your testimony point out potential International Partners confused by space goals and priorities to return to the moon without a viable alternative. . Hy dont you elaborate this seems to me the space station is number one. If we cannot do that we cannot do anything. We lose our International Partners. We need more money. I think it is too late to ask for the addition that would help us that was suggested by a man that has ever been made. You will know whether or not the consensus is needed. It does nasa believe a consensus is needed . Would you like to insurance answer the international or nasa question . Not being with nasa today, i think they do feel frustrated by the disconnect between the white house and congress. They would like to have some clear direction and support. If you ask them as representatives of the administration, i think they would say we have a direction and policy. Were trying to execute that as how. As howe know the policy is disconnected from technical and political reality. I agree with you that the space station is the most vital immediate thing we need to be focused on we have to be looking at what comes after the space station. This is where our partners feel a bit left out. Mars and asturias are very challenging. When they look at themselves and their own agencies, and they do not see a way for meaningful operations. They are left without a way forward to work with us. International cooperation is essential to any exploration be on the worlds orbits. No one thinks the will repeat the Apollo Program going there by ourselves. What can our International Partners do . We have not really provided a hope for our partners in current policy. Have you feel about putting focus on the space station but keeping in your open to going to mars and not to be asking for great amounts of money that it is going to take to do that until we perfect our reach in our own space station. If one does not support the space station well anything else is meaningless. The aftermath of the columbia accident we had very serious conversation with our International Partners as to whether or not they wanted to stop and call it a day. They were very clear that we have to continue with the space station. It was not practical to talk about other International Cooperation if we fail to at the station. I think the number one issue, utilization of the space station is the near term issue. Insuring access to the station with higher reliability is a top issue. One of the concerns is on the sustainability of the station with the fragile logistic support. New commercial cargo capabilities are extremely critical and necessary. If there are any faltering and that, we will be looking at the potential for having to maybe reduce the manning on the space station. We will be looking at our utilization going out. My time is out. I recognize mrs. Johnson for five minutes. Let me thank each of the witnesses for extraordinary testimony. I am in a state of frustration. I think this committee is expected to be the visionary committee. I feel very strongly that our future and Research Development and innovation balm depends on. Hat we do syria we are very mindful of the fact that we have very little money. With the help of experts we can at least lay out what we consider the vision for our countrys research and innovation. And then allow the administration to determine what we can cannot do. Currently there is so much frustration as soon where nasa is concerned that they do not know what is coming next. Just looking at what has happened so far in space, where we are now keen almost exclusively from Space Exploration and research. I believe that to stop in decide we cannot afford it is saying to our future that we will not be there. We are just going to take a back seat and watch the rest of the world. We will not need to educate our young people i guess my question is how would you help us. How would you help us come to a real of recommendation that speaks to be need or future rather than just the money . We have got to make some real serious decisions. We have got to decide that were going to invest in our future and eliminate the need for food stamps are whether we will continue to pay for more and more. I am very concerned i know were very sensitive to the costs. We are not the appropriators. What ourking to see nation needs. I need to know if you give me some of your opinions on where you really think we ought to be if we were brave enough to say this is what we need, take it or leave it, mr. President. I agree with your premise. I think the role the government has to play in nasa is to ensure that its commissions are future oriented. I think we have spent an awful lot of money on operational issues. This committee could give us a sense of direction. You have to commit yourself to highrisk technology. You reduce the time it takes to go to mars. You do it. We can develop technologies along those lines. It will take the committees decision to give nascent those kinds of instructions to move it forward. There are ways to reach out for some of the other things we are doing. Since i Left Congress ive been involved with the ffrdc. They recommend that at least some of the nasa centers near to that kind of model. You can have both a government funding stream going into the operation as well as outside money coming in to do other things. That allows you to have some other streams of money that is not depend on the appropriations process. Seems to me this committee could come up was someone along those lines. That allows you to look forward as well as find the resources necessary. That is what im trying to suggest. Think that is possible. Ive worked with these Companies Looking to do exciting things. They would love to have nasa as a partner. You have to find out a way to find the ways for nasa to be able to do that partnership on a very routine basis. I know my time has expired. Our study task stated that any recommendations will be predicated on the assumption that the nasa budget will be restrained. We look at a budget constrained environment. We do believe we concur with what youre saying in terms of the long term view. Objectives are starting points. There is a consensus about those goals and objectives. As we had any witnesses and did our work, we found little erroids areat astrids little excepted. It is important. It is important there is clarity in terms of the direction. The plan can identify what the trades are in that portfolio Going Forward. There is a starting point upon which some choices can be made. I think you will find industry joining. There is the ability to bring together the public and private sector international. It is certainly an excellent step in the right direction. There the upcoming reauthorization process, it is not so far away that you will have to attack kelltackle it. There are conflicting views about this. Lets keep in mind that building the capabilities to get into deep space, the ability both in terms of heavy launch as well as microcapsules and tackling some of the research. We do not have all the answers are in deep space radiation and bone density. This Critical Research has to be continued. When they supported the rockets in the 50s they did not know where they were going to go in and made all the difference. This provides handson experience. It is the crucial thing to give them a sense of the future. When they say we have been to the moon already have to say my fathers generation went to the moon. We have not. That generation is passed. Queenie to real be rebuild people. There is this opportunity to provide opportunity for real hardware in Flight Experience for which there is no substitute. The building of capabilities, none of that is possible without handson expertise. I thought my colleague really nailed that one. The gentle lady yield back her time. I think that was a very good question that he asked. I am sorry that was not put to the president of the United States before. The funds we need it and were requested were turned down. This time i recognize mr. Simpson for five minutes. Nasa was created in reaction to the launching of sputnik 1. Nasa is focused on putting humans into space on arguably the most exciting facet of the agency. Mission oriented Space Programs have been the prism through which we judge the agency. Mission orientation excited a Group Students to go in to Stem Education and got as a generation of scientists and engineers. The Space Shuttle flew its last mission in 2011. We rely on the Russian Space agency. The Bush Administration began the program to serve as the shuttles success are. President obama successor but president obama closed the program. Congress has continued to see the importance of the system in mandated the space system in the zero ryan program. I appreciate your comments that the stimulus act appropriated moribund in 1 act in this country has spent on nasa since its creation. Budget in spending are an example of priorities. In terms of having to continue the United States preeminence, not just in the Space Program but in terms of science and Everything Else that goes along, it ended up being washed away in stimulus funds. As this hearing has highlighted, the approach to this lacks clear mission. He is relying on the success of commercial space. I strongly support a Public Private partnership for our space policy. It is up to now said to develop the heavy lift rocket because the private sector does the not have enough funds to do it by itself. That rocket means a net to overcome the administrations shortsightedness. They supported a mission to the moon. President obama has taken a been there done that approach. We have not been there for 40 years. The partners would have helped us. They have never been there. This will fill the void be left behind. That will have a trickle down of that on the number of people that we train as scientists and engineers to keep americas pre eminence in practically Everything Else. Would you please discuss the problems caused by the cancellation of the program and what is needed from congress in this current fiscal environment to insure the success of the space launch system . Thank you. That is a tall order. One of the cruel things it was supposed to do was provide a transition for the work force. We have lost that. We have lost that. The deep integration between lower orbit and farther destinations that were hoped for is now gone. 2012 is not to thousand eight. We are in a new situation today if is not 2008. We are in a new situation today. Increasing risk to the International Space station. While we hope for and want to see the private sector take over that work, if there are delays or problems we do not have a fallback option. We are down to a few critical paths. The complementary nature eyespots was one of its strengths. The lack of a clear rationale for human exploration be on the International Space station is another serious problem. The approach of being capability driven also has a lot of vulnerabilities. I think a more strictly geopolitical approach such as a postcold war approach would be a better approach for the United States. There are others that one could take. Talking about capabilities is absent a strategic rationale. I think that is a very fraught path. Thank you. My time is now expired. Thank you. Funding for nasa is very important for many reasons, but it creates jobs. We have got to speed up our nations economic recovery. I have a couple of bills i believe provide a very Cost Effective way to strengthen our economic competitiveness. That would be to invest in the city that symbolizes bow at the u. S. Many urge both the u. S. Manufacturing and assets to help both u. S. Manufacturing in the assets to help our economy grow stronger. It is facing its own fiscal cliff. I will soon be introducing a bill that will allow the city to refinance its considerable debt at a lower interest rate, saving it. Furthermore, i am proposing eliminating Capital Gains taxes on investment. It is a way to spur investment. Saying that, in the city of jewish right we have an extraordinarily high number of people who have lost hope because they are not working. Theyre out the metropolitan region throughout the metropolitan region we have thousands of job better going unfilled because they cannot find people qualified to be hired into those jobs. We have a skills gap in detroit as well as in this country. I know you understand these economic challenges we are facing. How you feel investing in assets innovation would help us close that gap . I in the First University graduate in my family. The only reason i studied science and came to this country because the commitments this committee has made. I believe that power of investments that come from these have a tremendous effect on the youth on the Young High School student who is making decisions for her career and the future that she has in front of her. I do believe the inspiration aspect of nasa is an important part. Once we get them through the high schools and universities, i believe the defers portfolio explains to our students that technology and progress talks about ideas. Something like 5000 students in entrepreneurial activities, aerospace is the third most common theme. They have mentioned the tremendous power of the ability of putting these companies out there trying to have new approaches of lansing while we are on mars. I believe the handson experience are a second aspect in a very important solution that you were mentioning. The jobs are coming. Some of the surprisingly changes from technology is developed on the auspices. They are investigating sewer systems using Robotics Technology that was involved in nasa. General motors is having a tremendous economy Lesson Learned in collaboration with nasa through these Public Private partnerships. I believe there are multi pronged aspects that lead directly to the top line to what our economy does. Thank you. Do you have time for another question . I beg your pardon . I yield back my time. The committee recognizes chairman smith. Let me address my first question to you. It shows there is not much supports and the scientific and Space Committee for a near earth astroid in 2025. Is this helpful in getting us to mars . Are there alternative missions that can replace that mission . Theres a mission to an asteroid that is in the 2010 National Space policy of the u. S. In addition to not having been widely accepted, there were some shortcomings noted. As we look back in time, and there have been several president s that have talked about mars. The rhetoric toward that was noted by the committee. There are different paths that one could go if that was the chosen destination for a Human Mission. It will maybe look at integrating some of the other aspects of nasas work. For example, if that was the strategic goal then you will look at the Robotic Missions that would support going there. The do you think we should reconsider that mission to the nearearth asteroid . The committee did not address that directly. There are many questionquestion. It could be focused on the strategic goals. Thank you. What do you think the American People would like for us to do in