brought her a measure of fame? judging by the media reaction to my report, smart's hiring made a lot of people uncomfortable. that's it for this edition of "reliable sources." i'm howard kurtz. join us again next sunday morning. "state of the union" with candy crowley begins right now. > speaker boehner balks as a big deal, but tonight's white house meeting is still on. today, the debt deal in peril with republican whip kevin mccarthy and democratic leader chris van hollen. then the economy in 2012 with rick santorum. >> we have a president who's in denial. >> and after the space shuttle with nasa administrator charles bolden. i'm candy crowley, and this is "state of the union."

hope for a grand debt deal got buried last night in a blizzard of status quo rhetoric. speaker boehner writing -- out of the white house, communications director dan pfeiffer responded -- joining me now to try to make sense of where things stand, house republican whip, kevin mccarthy of california. if i am out there listening to all of this, i want to strangle all of you. why can you not get this deal? this looks to me like a strategic bargaining ploy rather than where we're actually going to end up from speaker boehner. >> i don't see that at all. boehn boehner's been very clear there are no votes for a tax increase. you look at the jobs data, only

18,000 jobs. canada has fewer people that live in california created more jobs than america. you would not increase taxes on the small business, which is what the president wants to do. all that boehner said was you've had a negotiation with cantor, with kyl, with biden. they've gotten to $2.4 trillion in cuts. so what he's saying is, let's go there. there's no taxes, there's cuts right there. why don't you also get a balanced budget. >> you could also being looking at trying to help with medicare, and the republicans say they want to do. take a look at medicaid and look at social security. in exchange, it seems to me what has occurred or what has reported to have occurred is speaker boehner went along with the idea that you would end the tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and then an overhaul with tax reform and what is wrong with that? >> a lot of things are wrong with it. for one is, who are you going to

tax as small business? think for one moment -- no, no. >> these are individual tax rates. yes, some businesses, but only a small portion of small businesses file individual tax a rates. >> look at the data. if you look at the data from the end of the last recession to this current one, 2001 to 2007, companies with 500 employees or less added 7 million jobs. companies with 500 employees or more cut a million. all the job growth starts with small business. look at the policy -- >> how many of those file individually? >> the majority. look at the data. if you look at the data that you have, small business creates the job. you go 200,000 and over, s-corp.s, they're putting their money back in. job growth in america today, startups is lower than in 17 years from the policies of this president and administration. he created a stimulus plan that spent more than a trillion dollars. it costs $278,000 for every single job. i think we have to do a new direction.

>> the stimulus plan was about $800 billion -- >> no, with interest, it was $1.1 trillion. >> the problem, if we step back away from the numbers, which you know get disputed a lot, and we have to say we're talking about individual tax rates and not small business rates. right? >> what does a small business person do? they take their money and get taxed upon it and reinvest it in. that is where 77% of all jobs are created, and you're going to punish them. look from the standpoint of startups. the lowest in 17 years. because of the uncertainty out there. why if america could only create 18,000 job last month would they raise the tax now when you've had -- >> let's put it that way. i think when you're looking at this, it looks as though -- as least we are led to believe the president said fine, i'll put entit entitlements and medicare on the table, and you all said no to anything on the revenue side sort of consistently.

what are you willing to do that will get these things back on track? >> well, you want to know what we're willing to do? we're willing to set out a framework that puts america back on the track where it has tax reform, where it reforms the process. >> taxes between now and the 2nd of august with this debt ceiling thing. >> we can reduce the budge net four months. this democrat-controlled senate more than 100 days. back to 2009, they floefr deuced a budget. we laid out a reform to social security and medicare to save them. the president has not. so from the premise that where republicans have been in the short time they have been in the majority, we've laid out a framework to put us on a new path. energy reform policy where we spend and create the jobs here. we passed nine bills that would create more than half a million jobs that have been lingering in the senate. i don't think the premise of where we have been has always been out in front. there are no votes on the republican side, but even when the democrats -- >> so the speaker could not, even if he wanted to and we're led to believe that he was willing, the speaker cannot let go of, for instance, the bush

tax hikes for the wealthy because you don't have the votes to back that up. is that correct? >> speaker pelosi did not have the votes when they were in the majority. >> so you don't have the votes for it either. >> speaker pelosi did not have the votes when they controlled the house, the senate, and the white house. why didn't they raise them then? because they know it is bad policy, especially in a down economy. >> so i guess the problem remains, regardless of what has happened in the past 18 months, the problem remains, july 10th, now you have until august 3rd, and there doesn't seem to be middle ground here. how far are you willing to walk from your current position to get democrats on board so you can pass something? >> look, what we laid out from the beginning this is not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. discretionary spending has gone up 73% many the last three years. you tell the small businesses. economists will tell you if you raise taxes on small businesses, which are not growing right now,

you harm the economy more. >> is the answer nothing, pretty much? you've laid out what you'll agree to and that's it? >> no, the answer is, we have sat in the room with the vice president and the democratic leaders, and they agreed to $2.4 trillion in cuts. the speaker laid out at the beginning of this negotiation, if you want to raise the debt ceiling, you have to cut as much as you're willing to raise the debt ceiling, at least. we have a format to get there. the other thing about there, you have -- that's short term. what about long term? if we are serious about doing something long term, why don't we pass the balanced budget amendment? 16 years ago we were one vote short of doing that in the senate. we had the opportunity to actually do something right for this country. >> you also have the opportunity, a golden opportunity, perhaps, to look at medicare, which you all have said will bankrupt the country and look at social security, and you will pass that up at this point. >> we're not passing it up. we put it in our budget. you've got the senate democrats -- >> you will pass it up in these

negotiations because the speaker said we will not do the big deal we have to do a smaller deal. by the way, you all -- at least eric cantor walked out of the biden talk, saying that they were insisting on tax cuts. i am not altogether certain that that's a done deal, is it? >> the democrats know nothing else than wanting to spend more. the policies of the american public that have seen, this has failed the last two years. this keynesian view that government spending is going to get this economy back on track, we've gone through it. winston churchill said you can always count on meshes to do things right after they've exhausted all the other options. i think this president and his administration needs to change course and grow the private sector. if we cut spending and given enhancements, it creates more revenue. unshackle the regulations.

incite the employer to hire people so you have more people working, creates more revenue. >> let me ask you a couple quick questions. the first is republicans only run one house in congress. >> yes. but we take all the blame. >> you take all the blame. but the thing is, there just seems to me there has to be some willingness to give, and i have not heard anything from you, yeah, if we could get a deal that would cut $2.5 trillion in savings, i would agree to this on the revenue side. there's nothing on the revenue side you will agree to. >> candy, i never found a tax increase that created a job. i have watched our economy sputter downward. i've been out across the american public. then to go back to work. i know those policies will fail. so in principle, no, we're not going to go there. but i also do know that government has spent too much. they have increased spending 73% in discretionary in the last three years. i don't know any american household that has the done that. so you know what, this

government needs to live like the american household. i'm tired of the gimmicks and the budget tricks and accounting tricks that go forward. this has to be an honest approach. we're at a threshold. we're not losing jobs because our credit card didn't have a higher limit. we are losing our jobs because we are spending too much. it's not that difficult to do. we have sat in the room honestly with the democrats. we have moved forward with them all the way. but they keep saying one thing -- they want to raise more taxes. >> and you keep saying no. i have to leave it there. >> even when they were the majority, they said no. because it is bad policy for the american public. >> congressman kevin mccarthy, whip over on the house side, you have your work cut out for you. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> up next, congressman chris van hollen. u pick a price that works for you. perfect. only one thing could make this better. both: '80s montage! ♪ progressive '80s montage ♪ he drops some boxes, but it's okay ♪

♪ we keep dancing ♪ hey! it's that guy! ♪ progressive "name your price" tool, yeah! ♪ helping you save. now, that's progressive. call or click today. a living, breathing intelligence that's helping drive the future of business. in here, inventory can be taught to learn. ♪ machines have a voice. ♪ medical history follows you. it's the at&t network -- a network of possibilities...

committed to delivering the most advanced mobile broadband experience to help move business... forward. ♪

joining me now, the top democrat on the house budget committee, congressman chris van hollen of maryland. the speaker of the house says i don't think i can do this deal and let's go back to the biden talks. you were in the biden talks, and everyone says that's a little over $2 trillion in savings. let's do that. is that a done deal? >> not a done deal at all. the vice president said we identified a trillion in savings.

we're nowhere close to $2.4 trillion. so to go back to that process, i think it's setting the motion all over again. >> how long have you been negotiating for that trillion? >> we had at least ten sessions. and let me say this -- and even that trillion was contingent on an overall agreement which meant the republicans had to agree to some revenue component. let me go to to failure of the big talks. >> tax hikes. >> here's the issue. at the end of the day, what we're seeing is the priority of the republican colleagues is not to get a deficit reduction deal, it's to protect special interest tax breaks for big corporations. we had the corporate jet loophole and the big oil and gas companies, and then the folks at the top of the income ladder. and i listened to my friend kevin say they were all small businesses, and as you pointed out, just isn't not true. the joint tax committee has said about 3% of businesses fall in the top category that we're talking about. and those businesses include things -- companies like kkr,

price water house, fortune 100 companies, anyone that files as an s corporation. those are good businesses but not mom-and-pops. i looked into this. they are the businesses, those 3% are the ones that create the most jobs. but carry on. >> what we're talking about here are big businesses. we're talking about any business that files as an s-corporation. we're talking about big washington law firms. we're talking about lobbying firms, and things like pricewaterhouse. good companies, but to say that you're protecting small businesses and mom-and-pops is just dead wrong. it's counterfactual. i think we should put an end to that myth right now. what they're protecting are big corporate special interests, oil and gas company, corporate jets, those kind of entities. >> their argument is, look, we -- a lot of republicans say, fine, we think some of these loopholes ought to go but in order to do that we have to have tax reform which we can't get really get between now and august 2nd.

if they would agree to that in exchange for some sort of deal that would say we have to have tax reform by date certain, would you go for that? >> we're all for tax reform. we think we should bring down the corporate rate, expand the base -- >> it's part of the price of getting them to agree to something. >> yeah, and part of that could go to debt reduction. here's the republican position. but not one penny of closing tax loopholes can go to reduction. every penny has to go to reducing the rate. now, we saw some help a little while ago with the ethanol rate. >> do you want to raise taxes? you know what a lousy jobs report we just got. do you think it's a good idea to raise taxes on anybody when the jobless rate is 9.2%? >> all the proposals we're talking about would kick in after 2012, number one. number two, yes, i think it's a good idea to close corporate tax loopholes because we have to reduce our deficit to insure long-term economic growth. we all i thought recognized that's a big problem. >> can you have growth if no

jobs with being produced? >> of course you can. we're not proposing these changes go into effect immediately. we're talking about phased in over a ten-year period. number one. number two, we know during the clinton administration when you had higher tax rates for the folks at the top, we had a booming economy, 20 million jobs were created, and the rub is this -- the most important factor for economic growth are not small changes in the top tax rate. there are many other factors in the economy. no, we would not put these changes in place right away. but you have to reduce the deficit. >> well, what if in 2012 the unemployment rate is still high, would you still want to do it? >> again, i would close the loopholes for corporate jets sooner rather than later. but in terms of the overall approach, we should also look at the spending side of the equation. in other words, our first principle in all these talks should be do no harm to the economy. and what's really worrisome is the republicans are saying if

you don't give us deficit reduction our way, end the medicare guarantee, slash medicaid benefits and protect corporate interests, then we'll allow the united states to -- >> that's not in the biden -- >> no, but that's in their budget. kevin mccarthy said they had an answer to that. >> in terms of the debt reduction package, they're not asking for that? >> they have never taken that off the table. that's their position. you just heard it from kevin again. that's their approach to this problem. we said we're not ending the medicare guarantee and are willing to have a balanced approach, in terms of the framework, not every detail. that has got to be the way we go forward. it's very disappointing that we may lose this opportunity to do something significant on deficit reduction because of this priority of protecting special interest tax breaks. >> if you have to, will you go to the medium deal, as they say, the biden talks? if you do, if you can find $2 trillion in tax cuts, will you

pass that without anything on the revenue side in order to meet that august 2nd deadline? do you have to have something on the revenue side? >> we made it clear as part of the biden discussions that you have to have a balanced approach to this. >> there has to be revenue. >> and that means -- well, we don't think the oil and gas companies should be getting big subsidies while we're making deep cuts in parts of the budget. the republican budget says end the medicare guarantee and their budget would provide a 30% tax break in the rate for the folks at the top. >> and back to the debt deal, which is the most urgent thing that needs to be done. >> yes. absolutely. >> owe all, meaning democrats, you think, would allow that august 2nd deadline to pass without a deal if it meant that you had to do only budget cuts? >> let me be clear. we never said we will hold the united states full faith and credit hostage in the

discussions. the president said that's a priority. we need to move forward. if you don't lift the debt ceiling, every economist out there said the economy will tank. what is really appalling is to see our republican colleagues essentially providing a form of extortion, if you don't agree to deficit reduction the way we want it, we'll put all the jobs at risk, because we will allow the united states to default on its debt. that's irresponsible -- >> you won't let that happen? in other words, you would pass just cuts, just spending cuts, in order to get a deficit -- >> no, no, that's not what i am saying. what i am saying is we want to do deficit reduction but we also recognize we have the responsibility to prevent the economy from tanking. >> right. meaning raise the debt ceiling. >> i would personally support raising the debt creeling if we're not able to reach an agreement. i would prefer to reach an agreement. but unlike our republican colleagues we're not saying if we don't get the talks in our

way, we're prepared to let the whole economy -- >> i see. but that won't pass the house as far as we can tell. >> that's because that's they're position. we're not the party saying we'll put the economy at risk not paying the bills if you don't do deficit reduction our way. we're not taking that position. they are, and their way is, again, slashing medicare and medicaid to protect corporate tax breaks. >> again, not in the debt talks. but let me ask you this as a bottom line question and about half of the a minute, how is this going to end? >> well, we'll have to find out tonight whether the republicans will reconsider their position. this is a huge missed opportunity for the country to get a significant deficit reduction package in a balanced way. and if they refuse to do that, then we're really back -- not at square one, but we're really -- it's a major setback. because while we made some progress in the biden talks, our

republican colleagues are -- they're dreaming if they think we had $2.4 trillion in cuts. we were nowhere close to that. and, again, they walked out because they did not want to take away the tax breaks for the corporate jets for the purpose of deficit reduction at oil and gas companies and folks at the very top. >> but you are willing to go back to the biden talks if that is where it goes? >> we're willing to work to solve this problem, but we are not taking the position we're going to allow the economy to go down the tank and put jobs at risk if we don't get it done our way. >> chris van hollen, thank you for your time. up next, republican presidential candidate, rick santorum, tells us how important social issues will be this cycle and his reaction to a new pledge on marriage. >> when i first read it i was taken aback. [ kimberly ] when i was 19, i found myself alone

with two children and no way to support them. people told me i wasn't going to do anything. and i just decided i have more to offer than that. i put myself through nursing school, and then i decided to go get a doctorate degree. university of phoenix gave me the knowledge to make a difference in people's lives. my name is dr. kimberly horton. i manage a network of over a thousand nurses, and i am a phoenix. [ male announcer ] find your program at phoenix.edu. ♪ [ doug ] i got to figure this out. ♪ [ dr. ling ] i want to spend more time with my patients. [ jim ] i need to build a new app for the sales team in beijing.

[ mrs. davis ] i need to make science as exciting as a video game. ♪ [ jim ] i need to push out a software upgrade. [ dr. ling ] review ms. cooper's history. [ doug ] i need to cut i.t. costs. [ mrs. davis ] i need to find a way to break through. [ jim ] i need to see my family while they're still awake. [ dr. ling ] see if the blood work is ready. [ doug ] i need to think about something else when i run. ♪ [ male announcer ] every day, we set out to do more than the day before. at dell, everything we do, from solutions to services, gives you the power to do just that. ♪ so i.t. professionals can be more productive... business leaders, more innovative... doctors can be more connected to patients... and teachers have the power to make a difference. dell. the power to do more.

joining me now, republican presidential candidate, rick santorum, former senator from pennsylvania. thanks so much for being here. >> great to be here. thank you, candy. >> if you were the president of the united states right now dealing with the debt issue, what concession would you make with the democrats to entice them into a package with major spending cuts?

>> you know, i would be making the case is that not being made right now by this president, that we're in a severe crisis, and it's a crisis of spending. when you see spending at almost 50% more than what it normally is since the second world war, and you see taxes down slightly because we're not creating jobs and the economy is slowing, so the problem is not a tax problem but a spending problem. i would say that it's -- that the place where most people would be if we had a leader who was out telling the american public the truth as to what the nature of the problem is, we can get democrats to go along with bigger spending cuts than they are now. we have a president in denial, in denial that we have entitlements out of control and spending dramatically increased and government that's grown too big. >> he has been saying or at

least intimating that, yes, we can look at medicare and social security, but the fact is he has bring his democrats with him. when you look at what they are asking, they are asking for something on the revenue side. what would you do? is there anything you would give up? because while the polls show a number of things, they also show they want washington to work. >> yeah. >> and the only way washington works, you know, you have been in the senate, is compromise. so where would you compromise with democrats? >> my sense is i would be willing to do less spending cuts now in exchange for a balanced budget amendment in the future. i think that's really what we need is a backstop. and that's what i hope republicans will stand firm on. you know, candy, you have been around long enough to know that nothing gets done in washington unless there's a crisis or their backs are to the wall. no bill passes in the senate until friday on the weekend when everybody wants to go home.

>> fsh wants to go home. >> but you have to have that wall. we need a wall in washington, d.c. we need to have democrats and republicans have the wall in place, seven or eight years down the line, which is what implementation would be on a balanced budget amendment, and then the whole dynamic in washington changes. you have a dynamic that everybody is running for office knows you have to have a balance. that's how washington will change. >> so on specifics, no way no how would you agree that oil companies who are looking at some record profits and have in the past should let go of their subsidies, u.s. taxpayer money. you would not agree to that? >> no, i would say if we're looking at subsidies for industries, i already proposed a phasing out of energy subsidies and would continue to propose a phasing out of some of those? >> would you agree to that as part of a debt ceiling package? >> i could put on the table certain tax incentives but not put any rates on the table, and anything i would do with respect

to incentives i would try to lower rates in commensurate with that. >> let me ask you about a group called the family leader out of iowa that is asking candidates to sign a pro-marriage pledge. it includes a lot of things we're familiar with that you would only appoint conservative judges, you would remove anti-marriage provisions in the tax code. but the ceo of the family leader, bob vander plaats, had this to say about the pledge. first, would you sign this pledge? >> the answer is yes. i mean, i certainly -- i pledged personal fidelity to my wife when i was married to her and pledged the same that i would not involve myself in any other relationships with anybody else who's married. that's a pledge i've taken and i take every single day as a married person and feel very comfortable making that statement.

>> this is a pledge you would sign. >> in fact, i did sign it. i did re-sign it. >> and do you find it intrusive? >> you know, look, the answer to that question is when i first read it, i thought, well, you know, i can say that because it's true. should politicians be held to that standard? you know, if you look at the amount of disrespect or disregard members of congress have because of some of the things just like that, the infidelity and not keeping your vows to people that you love, it undermines -- >> it does. but doesn't that go a little over the top? >> when i first read it i was taken back, but i can't argue that i wasn't, and i understand why they are saying that. it does undermined peoples' respect for the institution. if you cannot be faithful to the people you are closest to, how can we count on you to be

faithful to those that you represent? i understand why they are saying it. would i prefer it to be in there or not? i was not expecting it to be in there, but i felt comfortable signing it. we'll be right back after this and talk a little politics. even though i'm a great driver, and he's... not so much. well, for a driver like you, i would recommend our new snapshot discount. this little baby keeps track of your great driving habits, so you can save money. [sighs] amazing. it's like an extra bonus savings.

[ cackling ] he's my ride home. how much can the snapshot discount save you? call or click today.

welcome back. our guest right now, presidential candidate rick santorum, former senator from pennsylvania. let's take a look at some of the polling. you have been on iowa more than anybody out there in the race. >> starting to charge me income taxes. >> i bet they are. let me show you the iowa poll that shows mitt romney and michele bachmann at the top and you at the very bottom at 4%. we see a similar result in new

hampshire, a place you're also familiar with, with mitt romney and michele bachmann at the top and rick santorum at 1%. why haven't you caught fire? >> well, i'm running a very different campaign. i always say the little engine that could campaign. we're just out there meeting with people, meeting with activists, in people's homes, building relationships, getting people interested in volunteering and helping. >> you better hurry, because that ames straw poll is coming up. >> that ames straw poll is about about visits. we'll see how we do. i think that will be a test for us. obviously we're sitting at the bottom. can we perform better than people above us? can we finish fifth or sixth or fourth or something like that and do better and show that we're making progress. remember, this is a caucus state. iowa, not everybody that normally shows up for an election shows up for a caucus. you have to devote an evening of your life to go and vote for president.

we think the strategy we have is a good one. i can tell you that the level of enthusiasm and energy out there in iowa for us is very good and we feel comfortable we're on a path to february. remember, february is a long way away. you're looking at 35,000 people, to vote for you in the iowa caucus and you win. we can do that in a very systemic way and that's what we're working on. >> tell me about your fund-raising. you have to report on the 15th. we've seen some people's numbers. and where are your numbers going to come in? >> very much at the low end. we just announced for president. >> a couple million. >> yeah, we'll be under that. i did not have my first fund-raiser until the last week of june. we did not focus on raising money. i know people find this hard to believe. i did not make up my mind as to whether or not to pull the trigger on this thing until sometime many the middle of may. i did not want to go out and ask people to raise money if i was not committed to do this. we have plenty of money to

execute our game plan for the straw poll coming up in august. like i said, we're running a low -- i'm running a conservative campaign. very low budget. we have a good staff in iowa and new hampshire and south carolina. we've got great folks who are -- >> it has to be frustrating, though, i would think a little bit, because you have been out there, and you have been -- i mean, this is a retail state. we're looking at -- we're talking a million or so in fund-raising, and then mitt romney has $18 million. >> mitt romney has been running for president for four years and he's the favorite. most people, when they report who is running for president, i occasionally get left off the list. >> is there anyone in this race right now you know you could not support as president? >> i can support any of the republican candidates for president over who we have today. >> all of these are fine with you? >> would i prefer one over other, i can tell you one in particular i prefer over the other, and that would be me.

>> what changes if rick perry or former at-bat ak governor get in this race? >> it takes the pie and divides it more. my sense is the more the merrier. >> do you have a gut feeling about governor perry or former governor palin, whether they'll get in? >> i really don't know. again, from my perspective, the more the merrier. keep dividing up the pie, and i think we're going to be just fine. >> republican presidential hopeful rick santorum. >> you almost said rick perry. >> perry. >> i saw the "p" coming to your lips. >> i caught myself. >> you did very well. >> rick santorum, thank you very much. up next, the end of a 30-year adventure. >> the final liftoff of "atlantis." >> we'll talk act the future of space exploration.

♪ sing polly wolly doodle all the day ♪ ♪ hah

just a short while ago, the space shuttle "atlantis" docked at the international space station, delivering supplies and spare parts in what would be the last mission. i spoke with commander charles bolden who has been up four times and commanded two missions. thanks for being here. i think we have all enjoyed a nostalgic moment watching the space shuttle come up. there's more to come when we watch it return to earth and land. i want to take you one step forward. everybody says good-bye to the "atlantis" and it goes to the museum, and the next day you walk into your office. what are you going to be working on? >> candy, first of all, let me thank you for allowing me to represent the people of nasa and our contractor team, and let me take an opportunity to thank the incredible shuttle team that

carried us for 30 years through the most awesome program that i think humankind has ever seen. i will walk into my office tomorrow and continue what has been going on for several years now, and that's our effort to develop -- put the final touches on the development of the next phase of exploration of the nation, and that will involve a multipurpose crew vehicle, heavy lift vehicle, and go to work as i do each week working with the commercial entities around the country helping them to promote their capability, american industries' innovative capability to step in and replace the shuttle in delivering cargo to the international space station as early as next year. >> let me let you make an educated guess, and that is when do you think the u.s. will next send an american into space aboard a u.s. craft of some sort? what year will that be? when will that be?

>> american leadership will persist in the foreseeable future. i can guarantee you that. with american innovation and the capability, we will demonstrate the capability of taking cargo to orbit early in 2012. we're months away from that. we're hopeful of starting to ask for proposals from industries the early part of next year on a commercial crew vehicle. and i would say we're talking about anywhere from three years to five years after we have the first contract. between 2014 and 2015, i am hopeful you will see american astronauts climbing up american produced spacecraft to go to the international space station. and not very long after that start flying some test hops on a nasa-led effort to explore beyond lower-earth orbit and go to deep space. >> let me read you two headlines that caught my eyes and have you comment on them. as you mention, it will be

several years before a u.s. astronaut is on a u.s. vessel to even go to the space center. and so, we are going to be using basically russians as the taxi. u.s. astronauts will be on russian spaceships to get there. here is a headline from "the wall street journal." "shuttle's last flight leaves russia with space monopoly." and "the daily beast" wrote "russians win the space race." what's your comment? >> candy, i don't think i could disagree more with the headlines. i won't quibble, but there's no question about our leadership in exploration in space flight. we have been the leader for many years, many decades now, and we will maintain the leadership. again, americans are on american built spacecraft even as we speak. as "atlantis" approaches the international space station, it

has a crew of six that includes americans. and for the foreseeable future, at least through 2020, we're going to have american astronauts operating on the international space station. previously -- the administration prior to this one had an opportunity to get us to where we're headed today. and we faltered. i am very confident with the president's conned support and the support i anticipate from congress, we'll be able to put americans on american-built spacecraft produced through american innovation so that in the next five years sor so american astronauts and are partner astronauts venture to the international space station on those american-built spacecraft. and i am confident in that. >> the space station is there and we have been there many times, and we know that u.s. commercial entities will now build the next vehicle that will get us to the next space station, but what is the next big mission? for 50 years, i think u.s. schoolchildren have looked at, oh, and then we will go here and

then to orbit and then to the moon and then the space station. where are we going next? >> i would encourage the american public to listen to the president. hoe has said it on any number of cases. if you go all the way back to the 15th of april two years ago -- a year ago when the president was here at the kennedy space center, he talked about his desire to explore and get beyond lower earth orbit. just friday after the launch he sent a message of congratulations to my nasa team and reeveryone siszed the fact that he wants to have humans on or near an asteroid in 2025, and he wants us to be in martian orbit with the intent of landing in the 2030s. those are two well-defined destinations we are working hard on. and everybody has to have the same sense of urgency that my nasa team has now. american contractors are anxious to get on with this, and we'll do that.

we'll retain our leadership and facilitate the success of commercial entities to take our astronauts on american-built, american-designed vehicles that come from american innovation so that we can explore deep space. and the president has set the goals. an astroid in 2025, mars in 2030. i can't get any more definitive than that. >> we're in budget-cutting times, and nasa certainly goes into a bill of a lull, even though you are working on the asteroid and the trip into deep space. why is it that you are not vulnerable to budget cuts? what would we lose if nasa's budget is cut further? >> candy, there are three principles or three -- three principles on which i have told my entire nasa team and my contractors that we'll always function. one is affordability. the other is sustainability. and the other one is reasonability, or does it make sense. we have a plan for the future. we have a plan to explore. should congress decide and the

president agree that we're going to cut back on our spending, it will extend the amount of time that it takes us to realize the goals that the president has set for us. it will extend the amount of time that's necessary for me to close the gap between the last shuttle flight, this flight of "atlantis," and the first time we are able to put american astronauts into orbit on american-built spacecraft. but i am -- candy, my team is dedicated. we're not backing down. it may take us a little bit longer if we get budget cults. but i'm not anticipating that. i'm working on a 2010 authorization bill that set out a very clear path for me. it was supported by unanimous vote, bipartisan support in the congress, signed into law by the president. the 2011 continuing resolution under which we work right now is going to fund this. >> okay. >> so, you know, if we get funding cuts, you know where we are. but we'll make things happen. >> i do. >> thank you so much for joining us this morning. good luck on this last mission. up next, our "sound of

sunday," highlights from the other morning talk shows. shows you a range of options. you pick a price that works for you. perfect. only one thing could make this better. both: '80s montage! ♪ progressive '80s montage ♪ he drops some boxes, but it's okay ♪ ♪ we keep dancing ♪ hey! it's that guy! ♪ progressive "name your price" tool, yeah! ♪ helping you save. now, that's progressive. call or click today. you've done racy go daddy commercials before. yeah, but this is over-the-top. thank you. we're here to promote godaddy. not be a part of some crazy stunt. well, we're contractually obligated. [ both sigh ] ♪ go daddy girls coming to set! ...aaand everybody's staring. ♪ go daddy [ male announcer ] see more now -- at godaddy.com.

time for today's "sound of sunday." tense relations between the u.s. and pakistan have hit the bottom line. white house chief of staff william daly confirms usa aid to pakistan is being withheld pending better behavior out of islamabad. >> right now they have taken some steps that give us reason to pause on some of the aid we were giving to their mill tashgs and we're trying to work through that. but until we get through these difficulties, we will hold back some of the money that the american taxpayers have committed to giving them. >> some $800 million. >> yes. >> in advance of tonight's debt-reduction meeting at the white house, the obama

administration sent out treasury secretary timothy geithner for yet another red alert about what will happen if p congress fails to raise the debt ceiling. >> no responsible leader would say the united states, for the first time in its history, should not pay its bills and meet its obligations. that would be catastrophic for the economy. everybody understands that. >> senate republican leader mitch mcconnell says he's for a big deal as long as it doesn't include tax increases. he insists just talking about it has spooked the marketplace. >> if you're in the private sector right now and you're trying to decide whether to expand, what do you see the government doing? proposing to raise taxes and borrowing, spending, overregulating. it's not a very reassuring message if you're running a business if you look at the federal government today. >> on the 2012 beat, as the campaign of congresswoman michele bachmann gains traction, some pundits are writing off the presidential bid for tim pawlenty. but this morning the the former minnesota governor was alive and kicking d -- hard.

>> i like congresswoman bachmann. i've campaigned for her, i respect her, but her record of accomplishment in congress is nonexiste nonexistent. it's nonexistent. so we're not looking for folk who is just have speech capabilities. we're looking for people who can lead a large enterprise in a public setting and drive it to conclusion. i've done that. she hasn't. >> pawlenty tosses off his poor polling, arguing if the numbers meant anything at this point, hillary clinton or rudy giuliani would be present right now. that's today's "sound of sunday." up next, we'll return to a controversial issue. geico, saving people money on more than just car iance. ♪ geic

♪ [ doug ] i got to figure this out. ♪ [ dr. ling ] i want to spend more time with my patients. [ jim ] i need to build a new app for the sales team in beijing. [ mrs. davis ] i need to make science as exciting as a video game. ♪ [ jim ] i need to push out a software upgrade. [ dr. ling ] review ms. cooper's history. [ doug ] i need to cut i.t. costs. [ mrs. davis ] i need to find a way to break through. [ jim ] i need to see my family while they're still awake. [ dr. ling ] see if the blood work is ready. [ doug ] i need to think about something else when i run. ♪ [ male announcer ] every day, we set out to do more than the day before. at dell, everything we do, from solutions to services, gives you the power to do just that. ♪ so i.t. professionals can be more productive... business leaders, more innovative... doctors can be more connected to patients... and teachers have the power to make a difference. dell. the power to do more.

an update on an issue we discussed a few weeks ago with

outgoing defense secretary robert gates. condolence letters from the president and secretary of defense. they routinely go to the families of men and women killed in combat zones but not to the families who commit suicide in combat zones. should that policy be changed? >> i think we have looked at it very closely, and i have discussed it personally with the president. i have not done so either, so it's not just the president's policy. and so i think the services and the defense secretary and the white house all need to revisit this issue. >> this week, president obama announced he is reversing the policy. in a written statement he called the issue emotional, painful, and complicated, but these americans served our nation bravely. they didn't die because they were weak. the army vice chief of staff called the change a monumental step towards lessening the stigma in the military surrounding mental health therapy. the new policy took