David Vitter

Thanks, Madam Chair, and thank you again General for your leadership.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

There is a 98.7 percent probability of safely executing each flight.

Well, nothing is impossible, but if something becomes triply expensive, it might as well be impossible.

If we can follow up just so that I can frame the question, this is from NASA yesterday about WARN Act notices...

We will work with you to double check that, but that clarification would make sense. I just want to make sure that is what is going on and there are not new notices starting in June or July.

It seems to me there have to be options that fit within the budget, but that in and of itself is a very constrained question.

To the Administration's credit, they have initiated a review of the country's human space flight programs, and they have selected the right man to lead that effort in Norm Augustine.

I am very concerned about the constraint he was formally given.

I continue to believe that the space program represents one of the best uses of taxpayer's dollars, because it is an investment that we can expect will return even greater value to our economy.

What assurances can you give us that that new directive has gone to the contractors and they are being asked to stop any actions in the next few months?

I hope it is not acted upon in that spirit, but that is what it says.

What I believe is clear to most of us, however, is that the projected funding levels provided in this proposal for the 5-years following FY 2010 represent a virtual no-growth budget that likely would not even keep pace with inflation.

I applaud the appointment of Norm Augustine who has enormous background and credibility to lead the current review.

It is truly penny-wise and pound foolish.

Exactly my point. It, as a practical matter, would be impossible.

We do not anticipate a loss of work force. We anticipate a shift of the workforce as we move from Shuttle to constellation.

Specifically at Michoud in Louisiana--and I bring that up because I know a lot about it not because it is the only important thing, but just as an example.

I hope in practice the review is a little different than the directive on paper because on paper the review basically says ignore anything above this arbitrary dollar line.

NASA is at a critical stage in its history and the actions the White House and the Congress take on this Budget request will likely have repercussions for many years to come.

I was just suggesting, earlier, that logically it seems pretty clear to me we shouldn't finish a new START before the NPR is finished.

Secretary Gates has said that, without testing, it will, 'become impossible to keep extending the life of our arsenal.'

I don't care what the current START says. You can sign a new treaty that's the same as the old one, with one comma missing, and it can last 6 months if you want to, if that's the smart thing to do.

I just want to make sure we do it right and don't set deadlines or timetables or goals with PR in mind, versus substance, and basically put politics and PR ahead of substance.

I would love thoughts from any of you, including the GAO, about the suggestion by some that we do not have enough focus...