the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: madam president, i rise today to continue to express my views in support of the nomination of professor goodwin liu, a nominee, as you know, to the ninth circuit court of appeals. many different things have been said on the floor here in recent hours, and i rise to offer my comments on some of the concerns that are being debated. for once, it is great to actually hear debate on the floor of this chamber. i have been here, as you know, madam president, just six months, and as someone who is new to the judiciary committee, new to the debates and dialogue of this chamber, i am struck at the things that i'm hearing about professor goodwin liu and the significant divergence between what i have found in questioning him and looking at

his record, in speaking to my colleagues, and in what i have heard here on the floor just today. so i will do my best, if i might, madam president, in a few moments to try and lay out what i see as the real record of the real professor of goodwin liu, our nominee to the ninth circuit court of appeals. some have come to the floor today and argued that professor liu lacks the candor or the temperament to serve on a circuit court, and as someone who clerked for the third circuit court of appeals for a distinguished judge, i will suggest something that i think is commonplace, which is that candor and an appropriate temperament are critical to service on a circuit court of appeal. a lot of these charges raised against professor liu seemed to center on a few comments that professor liu made during the nomination hearing for now justice alito or some purported deficiencies in his disclosures to the judiciary committee. let me speak briefly to both of those, if i might. professor liu has apologized at

length and in detail for the intemperate tone of one brief passage that he wrote as a part of his testimony before the judiciary committee during the alito nomination hearings now some six years ago. i take this apology at face value. i take his expression of regret at the tone at face value. but anyone who has taken the time to meet him, to interview him, to question him i think has to conclude that despite this one brief episode of the use of intemperate language, he is not an intemperate person. in fact, the american bar association, as my colleague, senator boxer, pointed out previously today, specifically considered professor liu's temperament when it gave him its highest rating of unanimously well qualified in the recommendation for his consideration by this body. let me next turn briefly, if i might, to claims about candor before the committee, which i believe are equally unfounded. he has, in fact, testified before the judiciary committee for a total of five hours and

answered hundreds of questions and requests for additional information. he has been sharply criticized for missing some documents from his initial response to what is a searching committee questionnaire, but i will comment for those following this that professor liu has been a prolific scholar and speaker. he is someone who has published extensively, he is someone who has spoken extensively, and he is the first controversial circuit court nominee to have his confirmation take place, not just in the computer age but in the youtube age, when a combination of cell phones and video recorders have literally made a record of every brown bag lunch, every five-minute speech, every off the cuff remark made by this nominee before us. the argument that is needed to supplement the record to include some documents not initially produced in my view and that somehow that reflects some lack of candor and that somehow that suggests a lack of truthfulness that should disqualify him, not for a vote but not even for

consideration of a vote i think is wholly without merit. as the chief white house ethics counsel under president bush, richard painter, has written, professor liu's -- quote -- "original answers to the questions asked by the judiciary committee were a careful and good-faith effort to supply the senate with the information it needed to assess its nomination." close quote. it means a great deal to me that someone like mr. painter concluded that professor liu provided a lot more information than most nominees do in similar circumstances, and frankly it seems to me overreaching to try and suggest that simply because in the youtube age, this professor who provided us with hours of testimony, pages of responses failed to notice the committee about some brown bag lunches and off the cuff comments does not rise to the standard of justifying a filibuster. let me next turn to the suggestion that he is insufficiently qualified to hold the position of circuit judge.

an important concern, because we want judges of judicial temperament, of openness and candor and good character and also those who are sufficiently experienced. as i said a moment ago, the american bar association, after a searching, confidential, comprehensive review of his qualifications, concluded he was unanimously well qualified, its highest possible rating. in previous nomination debates, senators of this body, senators of the other party, have touted the a.b.a. rating as a comprehensive and exhaustive evaluation that provides valuable insight that ought to be trusted. several folks, several members of this body, several senators, including some who spoke immediately before me, have made those exact references to the value of the a.b.a. rating process. reasonable minds may be able to differ on the margins, but it is not credible, in my view, to claim that a candidate with professor liu's remarkable legal education, long record of public service and experience and the

a.b.a.'s highest rating is not qualified to serve on a circuit court. the charges or suggestion that is professor liu was unqualified because he is young or because he lacks significant courtroom experience are also hollow and one-sided when we look at the real record. since 1980, 14 no, ma'am younger than professor liu advanced by republican presidents have all been confirmed. judges, for example, neil gorsuch on the 10th circuit, who was 38 when nominated. judge brett kavanaugh, an acquaintance and i would say friend of mine from law school, now on the d.c. circuit, was 38 when nominated. now justice samuel alito was 39 when nominated to the third circuit. republican nominees with similar or lesser practical courtroom experience than professor liu have also been nominated and confirmed. circuit court judges frank easterbrook and harvey wilkinson were both under 40 when nominated without any practicing legal experience at all.

and yet this lack of practical experience didn't prevent either of these judges from becoming among the best respected, most widely regarded in their respective circuits. i would ask that my colleagues seriously consider instead looking at the standard that was applied when a similarly controversial professor came before this body. i was not here at the time but i understand from the record that democratic senators approached the nomination of michael mcconnell, president george w. bush's nominee to the 10th circuit, in a way that was generous, that accepted at face value some of his assertions. like professor liu, professor mcconnell was a widely regarded law professor who was nominated to a federal appeals court without having first served as a judge. many democratic senators at the time had concerns about professor mcconnell's conservative writings which included strong opposition to roe v. wade, congressional testimony that the violence against women act was unconstitutional, and harsh

criticism of the supreme court's 8-1 decision in the bob jones case. despite these positions, which one could argue are at the outer edge, even the extreme of the legal cannon of the time, professor mcconnell was confirmed not after a filibuster, not after a long series of grinding nomination hearings and public discourse, but professor mcconnell was confirmed by voice vote of this chamber just one day after his nomination was confirmed by the judiciary committee. in supporting professor mcconnell's nomination, democratic senators at the time credited his assurances that he understood the difference between the role of law professor and judge, that he respected and would follow precedent. in my view, the senators of this body should credit similar assurances that professor liu has provided during his confirmation hearings and that professor liu has provided to me in a individual interview, in

answer to hundreds of written questions from members of the committee, as well to in answer to challenges presented here. let me next turn, if i might, to some challenges or concerns that have been raised about professor liu's view on education. a bipartisan group of 22 leaders in education law, policy and research have written to support professor liu's nomination and to highlight his scholarship and reputation in the field of education law and policy. they wrote -- and i quote -- "based on his record, we believe professor liu is a careful, balanced and intellectuall intey honest scholar juan outstanding set of academic qualifications and the proper temperament to be a fair and disciplined j." later they wrote in this letter that his work is nuanced and balanced, not dogmatic or ideological. and i ask unanimous consent, madam president, that this letter be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: during his confirmation hearings, professor liu testified to the judiciary committee -- and i quote -- "i absolutely do not support racial

quotas and my writings i think have made very clear that i believe them to be unconstitutional." professor liu also stated to the committee that "i think affirmative action as it was originally conceived was a time-limited remedy for past wrongs and i think that is the appropriate way to understand what affirmative action is." these two statements which reflect professor liu's testimony to the committee are well within the mainstream. professor liu has written and spoken about his support for diversity in public schools, and in my view, there is nothing extreme in this view. ever since brown v. board of education was decided by a unanimous supreme court in 1954, the supreme court of the united states has recognized the legitimacy of state action to desegregate schools. in fact, the supreme court upheld the use of race as one factor in admissions decisions in the 2003 case gruder v. ballinger. although some -- some -- on the

far right of the supreme court have argued that both brown and gruder should be disregarded to the extent they recognize the permissibility of efforts to achieve diversity in public institutions, it is, i would argue, those justices out of step with the mainstream of federal jurisprudence and of the constitutional tradition of this country. even in its most recent case on point, the 2007 supreme court decision, parents involved v. seattle school district, which struck down a specific desegregation program, five of the nine justices that made up the majority opinion agreed with liu that achieving diversity remains a compelling governmental interest. the notion that somehow professor liu is an ideologue on these issues is belied by his actual record. as a scholar, professor liu has supported market-based reforms to promote schoolhouse diversi diversity, reforms that are often labeled conservative. professor liu believes and his written in support of school choice and school vouchers,

stating that they have a role to play in improving educational students for disadvantaged children. he has publicly advocated for these programs on a nationwide scale, earning praise from conservatives in the process. clint bolick, director of the conservative goldwater institute, referred to by my colleague, senato senator boxer, previously has written -- quote -- "i have known professor liu and since reading an influential law review article that he coauthored, supporting school choice as a crisis of inner city public education, i believe it took a great deal of courage for him to take such a strong public position and i find professor liu to exhibit fresh, independent thinking and intellectual honesty." he closes his letter by saying, "professor liu clearly possesses the scholarly credentials and experience to serve with distinction on this important circuit court." professor liu has, in my view, made very clear that he understands the difference between being a law professor, a scholar, an advocate and a judge

and has assured us during his nomination hearings before the committee and again in personal conversations with me that he would follow the court's precedent if confirmed. during his confirmation hearings, professor liu testified to our committee -- quote -- "if i were fortunate enough to be confirmed in this process, it would not be my role to bring any particular theory of constitutional interpretation to the job of an intermediate appellate judge. the duty of a circuit judge is to faithfully follow the supreme court's instructions on matters of constitutional interpretation not any particular theory." and so that is exactly what i would do. i would apply the applicable precedence to the facts of each case." as i said before and i will say again, this quote, i know, from professor liu deserves exactly the same weight and deference and confidence as similar assertions by then-professor mcconnell, now circuit court

judge mcconnell when he was confirmed by voice vote of this chamber. mr. coons: to speak otherwise i think is to do violence to the tradition of deference to those who give sworn testimony to hearings and to the deliberations of this body. last, let me turn to some points that were raised just recently about whether or not professor liu believes that americans have a constitutional right to welfare benefits like education, shelter or health care, and, if confirmed, would somehow declare those constitutional rights from the bench. professor liu has authored, as i've said, many different law review articles and in one, the 2008 stanford law review article entitled "rethinking constitutional welfare rights," he, in fact, criticized another scholar's assertion from a 1969 article that courts should recognize constitutional welfare rights on the basis of a so-called comprehensive moral theory. professor liu rejected that. in 2006, he penned a yale law

review article that argued that the 14th amendment authorizes and obligates congress to ensure a meaningful floor of educational opportunity. his record is replete with sources that make it clear that professor liu respects and recognizes the role of this bo body, of congress, and the role of the supreme court in establishing, interpreting and applying both precedent and constitutional theory and that he accepts, acknowledges and will respect the very real limits on a circuit court judge in innovating in any way. madam president, in closing, allow me to simply share with you and with the members of this body that new to this body, new to the fights that have divided this chamber and have so i think deflected real deliberation on nominees to circuit courts to the supreme court, i have taken the time to review his writings,

to interview him individually, to attend a nomination hearing and have come to the conclusion that candidate, nominee, professor goodwin liu is a qualified, capable, competent, in fact, exceptional legal scholar who understands and will respect the differences between advocacy and scholarship and serving as a member of the circuit court in the judiciary of the united states. i urge the members of this body, i urge my colleagues to take a fresh look at the record and to allow this body to vote. why on earth this record of this exceptionally qualified man would justify a filibuster is utterly beyond me and suggests that unfortunately we've been mired in partisanship rather than allowing debate and votes on this floor, which, in my view, if we follow the best traditions of this body, would lead to the confirmation of goodwin liu to the ninth circuit. thank you.

madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you, madam president. and i would tell my colleague from delaware that he makes some very excellent points and very well said. i've spent a number of years, now almost seven, on the judiciary committee and my observations are painfully awarant to me about our process. goodwin liu is a stellar individual. there's no question about it. he's a stellar scholar. there's no question about it. but my observations have taught me, as we've voted and put judges on the appellate court and to the highest court, that what is said in testimony before the committee really doesn't bear out any impact on what

happens once somebody becomes a judge. and my observation is, is people are who they are. i actually spent a significant time with goodwin liu. i think he's a genuine great american. the question, however, is not whether he's a stellar scholar, a stellar intellect or a great american. the question is, is do his beliefs match what the constitution requires of appellate judges and higher judges? and i've come to the conclusion that being stellar, being a great teacher and professor, being a wonderful judge is not

enough. and i really take the words to heart that my colleague said because we all make mistakes. his comments on judge alito and judge roberts he said were poor judgment, he shouldn't have done it. there's not anybody in this body that hasn't done the same thing. so we can't hold that against him, and i don't. but what i -- what i do think matters is whether or not the oath to the constitution and our laws and our treaties and the foundational documents of our constitution do matter. and i believe that where we find ourselves today as a country, not having the debate on the senate floor as we should be having the debates on the senate floor is partially a blame

because of where the judges have put us. that they haven't been loyal to the document, they've expanded the commerce clause well beyond its ever anywhere close intent in the general welfare clause that now finds us at a time when we're nearing bankruptcy, we can't get out of our problems without retracting tremendously the size and scope of the federal government, we can't grow our economy with the tax revenue increases that are going to be required to get out of this problem, that it comes back down is what do they really believe about the constitution. and the best way to find that out is before they were ever thought about being nominated and before they're trying to be controversial in a teaching environment, is what are their great thoughts and what are their beliefs. and i don't believe professors write articles to be controversial. i think they write articles based on what their learned

research tells them. and i just have a frank disagreement with professor liu on the role of a federal judge. i actually believe what the constitution says. and it says, "the judicial powers shall extend to all cases in law arising under this" -- and the word is "this" -- "constitution and the laws of the united states and the treaties made or which shall be made." and the problems i have with professor liu is that i believe he advocates for an unconstitutional role for judges. he believes the constitution is a living document. that it is indetermin indetermi. i recognize i'm just a doctor from oklahoma and i don't have a law degree, but i can read these words like anybody else.

i think some of the things the founders did were wrong and we've corrected them through the yearses, both through wise supreme court decisions but also through amendments to the constitution. and he also believes that the constitution should be subject to socially situated modes of reasoninreasoning that appeal cy and 0 historically to contingent meanings. what that says to me is -- what this says is wide open. and i really like the guy. i got along fabulously with him. he is a wonderful individual. but i don't think that's who we want on the appellate court. and i think what judges say -- potential judges say and write when you take the totality of what they say and write, not what they say in a hearing, because it all changes once they're nominated -- what they

say and write is very important about what the judges are going to become. and you heard senator cornyn relate to justice sotomayor. here's her testimony. and the first case she does is exactly opposite of what her testimony was. so, you know, it used to, the judiciary committee didn't bring the judges before it. we looked at the history. now, let me address something else. what the a.b.a. says doesn't matter to me anymore because there's been a controversial nomination from oklahoma that the a.b.a. has rated "qualified," that four distinct people who were interviewed by the a.b.a. said the individual wasn't qualified. that was totally discounted by the eafnl a.b.a. the people that were actually interviewed said the person wasn't qualified. the a.b.a. gave them a

"qualified" rating anyway. so that basis for something that we have qualification is no longer trustworthy in my mind. it hasn't been for sometime. i think the due diligence is lacking on the a.b.a. and their method for scoring who is "qualified" or who is not. the final point that i would make is that lows a written a lot -- a lost it has been controversial -- a lot of it has been controversial, one of the things that really bothers me is his profound belief that he has the right to use foreign law to interpret the u.s. constitution. what that really is a code word for saying, if i don't like what's written in this document, i'll go find some jurisprudence somewhere else and ally it that gets me the result that i want rather than being truthfully and honestly obedient to what this

document says. i know that sounds overly simple, but it's not. the fact that we're not applying our constitution and its meaning and what our founders said about what it meant and we're ignoring it is one of the things that has put us in the peril 0ous state that we're in -- that's put us in the perilous state that we're in today. we're going to have a great test sometime in the next year on the mace simplify expansion of the commerce clause that was -- on the massive expansion of the commerce clause that was put into law through the affordable care act. and i will predict in this body today, if that is upheld, there will be no need for state and local governments anymore because there will be no limitation on what we as a federal government can do to limit the freedom and free exercise of the tenth amendment to the states. the idea that you can take what this constitution very clearly

says -- all cases in law of equity arising under this constitution, not foreign law, not foreign constitution, not foreign thought, but our law. it doesn't mean we can't learn from other things, but you can't use foreign law to interpret our constitution. it is a violation of a judicial oath every time one of our supreme court justices references their opinion based on foreign law. it's a violation of their oath. because their oath is to this constitution, not some other constitution. and so we see that occasionally, especially in minority opinions, and oftentimes in previous majority opinions that have got our country into the trouble that we're in. so i believe goodwin liu is a generally wonderful man.

he's stellar intellectual thinker. by reports, he is an outstanding professor and is a great human being. that does not qualify him to be on the ninth circuit court of appeals. what will qualify him is an absolute fidelity to our constitution and our future, and not the creative ways that we can change that through our own wills or whims of judges to get a result that's different than what our constitution would say we should have. and so i regrettably and -- and truly with regret -- will be voting against cloture because i don't like this process. i think it hurts us, and i think it divides our body -- for his nomination. and my hope would be that we can handle these in the future much

better than what we've handled them in the past. i sigh see the assistant majority leader on the floor and i would yield to him. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i have 10 unanimous consent request for committees to meet during today's session of the senate with the approval of the minority and minority leaders's majority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. officer without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, at 2:00 we'll have a vote on the floor. a man is seeking a judgeship. there's no question in anybody's mind that this is a judgeship that should be filled. professor goodwin liu wants to serve on the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit. he was nominated in january of 2009. here we are in may of 2010. the significance of that delay is the fact that this is a vacancies that causes a problem. the administrative office of the u.s. court -- no political office but the court's office --

declared a judicial emergency in this circuit and said they they'd needed this vacancy filled. so nobody questions that there was at lea sense of urgency in filling the seat. you ask yourself, if the president nominated someone back in january of 2009, why in may of 2010 are we just getting around to it? i think that question needs to be directed to the other side of the aisle. they have found reasons to delay this and to raise questions, which have brought us to this moment. so how about this professor? is he qualified to serve at the second-highest level of the courts in america, the ninth circuit? well, the american bar association didn't waste anytime evaluating professor goodwin liu. they awarded him their highest possible rating -- "unanimously well-qualified." if you look at his background, it is no surprise.

he is the son of immigrants. he aattended stanford rust of university where he graduated phi beta cap parks won a rhodes scholarship, atentdzed yale law school where he was editor of the yale law review. served as a law clerk to judge david tatel of the d.c. sairnghtdz to supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. after finishing his second clerkship, the one at the supreme court, he worked for years at the law firm of o'medical have en knee & meyers this walking. then he joininged the faculty at the university of berkeley law school. he has won numerous awards for his teaching and academic scholarship, complug the highest teaching awards given at the cal berkeley law school. so what's the point of this debate? we know he is well-equal fievmentd we know there is a judicial emergency that requires us to fill this seat, and we should have done it a long time ago. and when you look at his resume, it would put every lawyer, including myself, to shame.

when you consider all that he has done leading up to this moment in his career. wcialtion iwell, it turns out that they think he has the wrong philosophy, the wrong values. they criticized him for a handful of statements he made while searvetion a professor. isn't it interesting the double standard that's being applied here. i was here in 2002 when a tenth circuit court of appeals nominee by the name of michael mcconnell was up to be considered. he'd been a law professor at the university of utah and the university of chicago. at his nomination hearing, senator orrin hatch, who strongly supported his nomination, said, "i think we should praise and encourages the prolive of scholarlyiting assuming they know the knowledge to follow the law as written and

to follow precedent." what was senator hatch defending in professor mcconnell's background? it was the fact that he had called roe v. wade a landmark supreme court decision illegitimate. professor mcconnell had defended bob jones university's racist policies on the grounds that they were -- quote -- "church teachings." even though the supreme court rejected his argument in an 8-1 decision. and he claimed the violence against women act was unconstitutional. now, that was fodder for a lot of questions that should have been asked and were asked. he had made some very extreme statements as a professor. but professor mcconnell assured the senate that when he left the classroom and entered the courtroom he'd put his views assigned follow the law. the senate did not stop him with a filibuster. the senate took professor mcconnell at his word and gave

him an up-or-down vote on the floor, and he was confirmed. that's all we're asking for when this comes to professor liu. i'd point out that other well-respected federal judges have also served in academic roles before coming to the bench. richard poser in, seventh circuit in chicago, is a friend of mine. every once in a while we goat together for an amazing lunch p. he is such a brilliant guy. we disagree on so many things but i can't help but sit there in awe of this manns knowledge of the law and of the world and his prolific authorship of books on so many subjects and i think most would agree, he's he taken some pretty controversial views himself n2005 debate on civil liberties with jeffrey stone, judge posner said "life without self-increme nation clause, without the fourth amendment's disclosureary rule, without on amended patriot being a, with the depiction of the 10

exphandzments on the ceiling of the supreme court, even life without roe v. wade, would still in my opinion anyway be eminently worth living." is there any fodder there for political commentators? he was a signature judge when he said that. somehow my friends on the left could have had a field day with that quote. some of my friends on the right might have greed strongly with judge posner's 2008 when he wrote about hecialtion a case where the court stated the second amendment confers an individual right. judge posner wrote that the court's decision in heller -- quote -- "is questionable in both message & result and it's evidence the supreme court in deciding constitutional cases exercises a freewheeling screrks strongly is flavored with ideology." end of quote. i'll bet you there are a lot of senators on the other side of the aisle that disagree with that yoat. so let's get down to the bottom line here. we recognize the value of

academic freedom and discourse. we understand that a professor has a different role in america than someone signature on a bench judging a case. we trust them. we give them basic credit for integrity when they say they can separate the two lives. they understand the two responsibilities. professor liu is a man widely recognized for his integrity and independence. that's why he has the support of prominent conservative lawyers. kenneth starr, no hero on the democratic side of the aisle, has said he would be a great judge. bob barr, former republican congressman, and goldwater institute director clint bollock express support for his nomination. it was written -- quote -- "in our view, the traits that should weigh most heavily in the evaluation of an extraordinarily qualified nominee such as goodwin are the professional integrity and ability to discharge faithfully an abiding

duty to follow the law, because goodwin possesses these qualities to the highest degree, we are confident he will serve on the court of appeals not only fairly and competently but with great distinction. we support and urge his speedy confirmation." end of quote. well, we're not going to meet their wishes with a speedy confirmation. the question is whether or not 60 senators will decide today that professor goodwin liu is entitled to a vote, a vote, an up-or-down vote in the united states senate. professor liu said in his confirmation hearing, "the role of a judge is to be an impartial and objective arbiter in specific cases and controversy that come before him. the way that process works is through absolute fidelity to the applicable precedents and language of the law, statute or regulations that are issued in this case." professor liu is committed to respect and follow the judicial role. i'm confident that he will fulfill that role with

distinction. this is a good man, a great lawyer, an extremely well-qualified nominee. his nomination has been languishing before this senate since february of this year. he has had to put his life on hold, many respects waiting for the senate to act. we'll have a cloture vote in just about an hour. i think we know what's going on here. for many on the other side of the aisle, they are guided by advisors who tell them keep as many critical judicial posts open for as long as possible. help is on the way in the next election. we don't want to allow this president to fill these vacancies. and particularly when it comes to the circuit courts because of the tremendous responsibility and opportunity there is for important and historic decisions. and so professor liu has been caught in this maelstrom. he has now subjected to this

filibuster vote. i sincerely hope that my colleagues will be fair and honest in their vote. i hope that they will look at the obvious record of this man to fill an important vacancy, a man found unanimously well qualified by the american bar association, a person with a legal resume that is peerless, someone who has stated clearly and unequivocally that he will follow the law, to dwell on statements that he has made as a professor is to do a great disservice to academic freedom and to ignore the obvious. we have when republican nominees came before us used our discretion to separate out their academic lives with the promise that as judges they will look at the world in a very sober, honest way. i intend to vote in support of cloture in support of this nomination. i urge my colleagues to do the same. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: several of my

colleagues have expressed concerns about the nomination of goodwin liu. i share many of those concerns and do not wish to blaib points that they have -- to belabor points that they have already made. i will limit my comments today to two fundamental reasons why i am myself unable to support the nomination of professor liu to serve as a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. first, i'm truly dismayed by the lack of judgment displayed in professor liu's 2006 testimony regarding the confirmation of samuel alito as an associate justice of the united states supreme court. throughout extensive written testimony and during an appearance before the senate judiciary committee, professor liu unfairly criticized then-judge alito and his long judicial record as, among other things, having shown -- quote - "a uniform pattern of excusing errors and eroding norms of basic fairness."

in particular, in the final paragraph of professor liu's written testimony, which served as a summary of his entire analysis on then-judge alito, was nothing short of an inflammatory attack. he wrote -- quote -- "judge alito's record envisions an america where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse, where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid, even after no sign of resistance or the f.b.i. may install a camera where you sleep on the promise that they won't turn it on unless an informant is in the room, where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man." professor liu's unseemly attack on justice alito generated considerable attention at the time, as well as understandable concern about professor liu's temperament, his judgment and his basic ability to be fair. so far as i know, it was only after he was nominated to become a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit

that professor liu offered any apology for his testimony about justice alito. just a few weeks ago, professor liu told members of the judiciary committee that he had learned from the outrage his remarks caused -- quote -- "that strong language like that is really not helpful in the process." close quote. professor liu's observation is certainly true, but it misses the central point. his comments about justice alito were offensive not simply because they were unhelpful in his confirmation process but because they were misleading and they were an unwarranted personal attack on a dedicated judge and public servant. professor liu's treatment of justice alito and his last-minute and incomplete handling of the concerns raised by his remarks lead me to believe that he lacks the basic judgment and discretion necessary to be confirmed to a life tenure position in the judiciary. the second reason i feel

compelled to oppose this nomination has to do with the integrity of our nation's system of constitutional government and the rule of law. in my careful and considered judgment, the judicial philosophy espoused by professor liu is fundamentally inconsistent with the judicial mandate to be a neutral arbiter of the constitution and to uphold the rule of law. i do not base this conclusion on the fact that his approach to the law is in many respects different from my own. that's not a prerequisite and that's not the basis of my opposition to this nominee. most of the judges nominated by president obama do not share my personal textualist and originalist commitments. yet, in my short time as a member of the senate, i have voted to confirm many nominees with whom i fundamentally disagree. professor liu, by contrast, is not simply a progressive nominee with a somewhat more expansive view of constitutional

interpretation than is common among many sitting judges, nor is he a nominee whose controversial remarks are few and can be overlooked. you have had a long history of mainstream legal practice and observations. throughout the course of his numerous speeches, articles and books, professor liu has championed a philosophy that, in my judgment, is incompatible with faithfully discharging the duties of a federal appellate judge in our constitutional republic. his approach advocates that judges go far beyond the written constitution, statutes and decisional law to ascertain and incorporate into constitutional law, in professor liu's own words, shared understandings, evolved understandings, social movements and collective values. in a 2008 stanford law review article describing the judicial role, professor liu wrote -- quote -- "the problem for courts is to determine at the moment of decision whether our

collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine. "in so framing the process of judicial decisionmaking, he advocated a conception of the judiciary as a -- quote -- " culturally situated interpreter of social meaning." close quote. in a 2009 book entitled "keeping faith with the constitution," he wrote that the constitution -- and that constitutional interpretation rightly -- quote -- "incorporates the evolving understandings of the constitution forged through social movements, legislation and historical practice." close quote. in an interview later that year, professor liu suggested that the judicial role is an individual process that includes -- quote -- "lessons learned from experience and an awareness of the evolving norms and social understandings of our country." close quote. these are just a few examples of a clear, consistent and extreme

approach to judging that professor liu has championed in many settings over the course of many years. his approach necessarily requires a judge to violate a separation of powers principles making law based on the judge's subjective understanding of public opinion, communal values, historical trends or personal preferences rather than faithfully interpreting and applying the laws made by the legislative and executive branches. a noted judge who has faithfully served in the role to which professor liu has been nominated and who as a result is intimately familiar with the very real dangers of legislating from the bench shared this vital insight -- quote -- "it is as important to freedom to confine the judiciary's power to its proper scope as it is to confine that of the president, congress or state and local governments. indeed, it is probably more important for only courts may not be called to account by the public." close quote. i rise today in defense of our

nation's constitutional separation of powers and ultimately in defense of the essential liberty that it protects. i also feel the need to respond to the point made by my distinguished colleague, the senator from illinois moments ago. this is not an opposition that is based on a disagreement with a particular set of legal analyses. my colleague from illinois noted that there was some opposition to judge mcconnell who was confirmed by this body to serve on the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit. notwithstanding the fact that many in this body disagreed with particular legal conclusion that is had been reached by then-professor mcconnell. this is different than that. this is not about a disagreement with a particular legal conclusion. it is instead about a concern or rising out of a systemic, broad-based interpretive approach, one that i believe doesn't give due regard to the

rule of law, to the notion that we are a nation that lives under the rule of law, that our laws consist of words, that words have defined finite meaning, that in order for our laws to work properly, that meaning needs to be respected and interpreted in and of itself and held as an independent good by the judiciary on a consistent basis. professor liu's appalling treatment of justice alito leaves great doubt in my mind as to whether he possesses the requisite judgment to serve as a life-tenured judge, and i have come to the conclusion that professor liu's extreme judicial philosophy is simply incompatible with the proper role of a judge in our constitutional republic. for these reasons, as well as those articulated by many of my colleagues, i'm compelled to oppose this nomination. thank you. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the

president. i rise in support of the nomination of goodwin liu to be a member of the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. i believe that mr. liu's academic qualifications, strong intellect, his character, his temperament make him a -- a person who would be a valuable addition to the federal bench, and therefore i urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and then in favor of his confirmation. professor liu brings an outstanding academic and professional background to this nomination and a personal life story that is quintessentially american. it's not a reason in itself certainly to vote to confirm him as a judge of this high court, but it speaks to the endless opportunities for upward mobility in this country for people who work hard. where you end up is not determined by where you start out in this country.

goodwin liu is the second son of taiwanese immigrants. as a young boy, his family settled in sacramento. he began to work hard from the beginning, ultimately graduating from stanford university, received a rhodes scholarship to oxford and eventually graduated from yale law school. should he be confirmed to the ninth circuit, professor liu would become the second asian american currently serving on a federal appeals court. he is now the associate dean and professor of law at the university of california california-berkeley school of law. he is widely recognized and respected broadly throughout academic and legal communities in the united states. i note that prior to entering academia, he was an appellate litigator with o'melveny and meyers, a first-rate firm here in washington, and clerked for both circuit court judge david

tatel and supreme court justice ruth baider ginsburg, representing different points on the ideological legal spectrum served them both i know with great distinction though i do not agree with everything goodwin liu has he have written or said, his views, it seems to me, have been well-expressed and well-reasoned and quite intelligent. i think he's got a thoughtful approach to complex legal questions and i'm impressed that he's earned the respect and support of thinkers and lawyers from all sides of -- of the legal, ideological spectrum, which i think speaks ultimately to his personal evenhandedness, to the power of his intellect and to what we can expect of him as a judge of the circuit court. i was particularly impressed. i know it's been quoted before but it speaks volumes by the comments of former judge ken

starr, former dean also, who said that goodwin liu is -- and i quote -- "a person of great intellect, accomplishment and integrity and he is extremely well qualified to serve on the court of appeals." madam president, i know that many of my colleagues have concerns about this nomination, about things professor liu has either written or said, and i understand those. i have some of those concerns. i read the statement that he made about judge alito. it has the ring of a passionate litigator making an argument with probably more zeal than he himself appreciates as he looked at it in the aftermath. but for those who have concerns, i urge my colleagues to vote accordingly on an up-or-down vote not to sustain this filibuster and, therefore, prevent an up-or-down vote on

this nomination. madam president, i always felt that in our advice and consent rule, and this is my own personal reading of it, the president, by his election, earns the right to make these nominations. we don't have to decide in confirming a nominee that we would have made this nomination, only that the nominee is acceptable, is within the range of those acceptable and capable of doing the job for which he's nominated. not so long ago, 2005, there was a move to reduce the right to filibuster and acquire 60 votes, particularly with regard to supreme court nominees, but others as well, and that led to the formation of the so-called gang of 14. i was proud to be a member of that group and we reached an agreement, one of whose parts i want to read now.

of future nominations -- and this is one of them, goodwin liu -- signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the advice and consent clause of the united states constitution in good faith. nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist, end of quote from the agreement of the gang of 14. i just -- i just don't think these are extraordinary circumstances here when you consider goodwin liu's intelle intellect, his varied backgrou background, the character that he has and this broad range of endorsements from people. to me, a disagreement about a statement made in the heat of an argument or even the substance of an article published is not strong enough to prevent this nonominee from having what i thk is his right.

and the president's right to get a vote up-or-down, not to block him by requiring 60 votes. so i urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. i'm going to do so with a full measure of comfort and confidence about the kind of judge goodwin liu would be but, really, with a full measure of comfort that i am exercising my responsibility under the advice and consent clause as i've always seen it, including as it has been informed by my proud participation in the memorandum of understanding of the gang of 14 in 2005. madam president, i thank you very much and i yield the floor. mr. graham: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you, madam president. i would rise in regretful opposition, quite frankly, to having to vote to deny cloture

for a judicial nominee. i also was in the gang of 14 and the whole effort was to make sure that the senate follows constitutional historical norms and that is giving great deference to presidential selections when it comes to judiciary. to my conservative colleagues, the best way to make sure you have conservative judges is to win elections, because if we stop -- start blocking all the judges that we don't like that have a different view of the law than us, our friends on the other side will return the favor and you'll wind up having a chaotic situation. there's a reason that judge ginsburg -- justice ginsburg got 90-something votes and justice scalia got 90-something votes. it used to be the way you did business around here, when the president won the election, they were able to pick qualified nominees for the court unless you had a darned good reason, they went forward. and i think that should be the standard. and to me, i do give a lot of

deference. it's not one speech, it's not an article. justice sotomayor, who i voted for, had made a famous speech as she thought the experiences of a latino woman maybe were more valuable to the court than that of a white male and people got up in arms about that. it bothered me. she explained herself. i looked at the way she lived her life. and i understood, based on the way she lived her life, that she was a fair person. that did not represent bigotry on her part toward white males. and we all make statements and write articles and get in debates and i'm not going to use that as a reason to disqualify somebody from sitting on the judiciary. i wouldn't want that done to our inspect knees and i don't intend to do it -- done to our no, ma'am dismeez i don't intend to -- nominees, and i don't intend to do that to the other side. but here's what mr. liu did to me which was a bridge too far. when a conservative wins the

white house, you expect people like roberts and alito and scalia. when a liberal wirntion wins, yt people like justice ginsburg and elena kagan and sotomayor. that's the way it works. and all of them are well qualified. they just have a different approach to the law. but there are a lot of 9-0 decisions. the one thing that would -- that drives my thinking here is that mr. liu chose not in a article that he wrote as a young man, not in some debate that got carried away but to appear before the judiciary committee and basically say that judge alito's philosophy would create an america where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse. that line probably comes from some case that judge alito was

involved in where federal agents may point guns at ordinary citizens during a raid even after no sign of resistance, where the f.b.i. may install a camera where you sleep on the promise that they won't turn it on unless an informant is in the room, where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man absent a multiple regression analysis showing discrimination. these statements about judge alito and the decisions he's rendered and his philosophy are designed to basically say that people who have the philosophy of gentleman alito are uncaring, hateful, and really should be despised. that is a bridge too far because i share judge alito's philosop philosophy. and we may come out at a

different result on a particular case but i don't think i fall in the category of being hateful, uncaring, and someone you should despise. these statements given to the judiciary committee were designed to inflame passion against judge alito based on his analysis of cases before him during his judicial tenure. and if that's not enough, judge roberts' record, according to mr. louisian lieu liu, is a rigw against current rights we enjoy. it's another thing to debate your o opponent. i think another thing to have strong opinions. but this is not an accidental statement. this was calculated, delivered at a time where it would do maximum damage.

and all i am saying to future nominees, i expect president obama to nominate people of a liberal judicial philosophy. i do expect -- do not deny you access to the court because you may have said something in an article i don't like. you may have represented a client that i disagree with. but the one thing that i will not tolerate is for a conservative or a liberal person seeking a judgeship to basically impugn the character of the other way of thinking. these words are not that of a passionate advocate who may have went too far, according to senator lieberman, in my view. these words were designed to destroy and they ring of an ideologue. and he should be running for office not sitting on the court.

there's a place for people who think this way about conservative judicial philosop philosophy -- run for president, run for the senate. don't sit on the court. because the court has to be a place where you accept differences, you hash it out, you render verdicts, and based on the way he views justice alito and roberts and his disdain for their philosophy, i do not believe he could give someone like me a fair shake. so at the end of the day, i ask one thing of my democratic colleagues, i will try my best to make sure the senate stays on track and that we do not get in the road of filibustering judges haphazardly based on the fact that there's somebody we don't agree with. i have tried my best not to go down that road because i think it will destroy the judiciary and disrupt the senate.

if you're a conservative in the future wanting to be a judge and you come before our committee when a liberal nominee? before the committee -- when a liberal nominee is before the committee, and you question their patriotism and you suggest that they're hateful people who should be despised for their philosophy, then i will render the same verdict against you. we want people on the court who are well-rounded, who are qualified, who understand that america is a big place not a small place. and judge -- in mr. liu's world, i think he has a very small view of the law. those on the other side who think differently not should be engaged intellectually or challenged through academic debate, he's tried to basically rip their character apart.

and he will not get my vote. and a conservative who feels the same way about liberal philosophy would not get my vote either. i'm looking for the model of miguel aestrada, who was poorly treated, wrote a letter on behalf of allane akagan. saying she was my law school classmate, we don't agree on the law but she's a wonderful person, well qualified, deserves to be on the bench. that's the way liberals and conservatives should engage each other in my view when it comes to the judicial nomination process. this was a bridge too far for lindsey graham. i yield. mr. grassley: mr. president? i'd like to inquire how much time we have on our side. the presiding officer: 3 minutes and 45 seconds. mr. grassley: okay. my objections to this nominee can be summarized with five areas of concern: his

controversial writings and speeches, an activist judicial philosophy, his lack of judicial temperament, his troublesome testimony, and a lack of candor before the committee. mr. grassley: i would hope that the president would withdraw the nominee and send up a consensus nominee. we on this side have demonstrated over and over again our cooperation in moving forward on consensus nominatio nominations. the president needs to nominate a mainstream individual who understands the proper role a judge. nominees who would bring a personal agenda and political ideology to the courtroom will have great difficulty in being confirmed. i have troubles with a statement that's been made that the court of appeals is where law is made

and we need the finest minds in the world for that. first, intellect is an important element that we ought to consider in any confirmation process. this nominee has an outstanding academic record. his intellect is not the issue. the nominee himself noted there was more to being a judge than intellect because he said this in regard to chief justice roberts' nomination -- quote -- "there is no doubt roberts has a brilliant legal mind, but a supreme court nominee must be evaluated on more than legal intellect." that's the end of the quote. he then voiced concern that with remarkable consistency throughout his career, roberts had applied his legal talent to further the cause of the far right. mr. liu went on demonstrating a lack of judicial temperament to disparch justice roberts' view on free enterprise, private

property and limited government in my statement yesterday, i made my views very clear on how i feel about mr. liu's remarks. the point is intellect is only one component. using mr. liu's standards, a nominee -- quote -- "must be evaluated on more than legal intellect." end of quote. mr. liu does have a fine talent but he has used his talent to consistently promote views that are far out of the mainstream. shortly after president obama was elected he said -- quote -- "now we have the opportunity to actually get our ideas and the progressive vision of the constitution and of the laws and the policy into practice." i will not give mr. liu that opportunity. a second problem i have with his statement is the assertion that -- quote -- "the court of appeals is where law is made. we have heard this view before.

while serving as a circuit judge, justice sotomayor stated that the court of appeals -- quote -- "is where policy is made." i understand there are elements of our society who wish this were the case. those who can't get their policy views enacted through the legislative process, as our constitution requires, often turn to the courts. but i flatly reject that notion. the constitution vests legislative power in the congress, not the courts. judges are simply not policy-makers. unfortunately, this philosophical disagreement occasionally finds its way into debate on nominations. let me remind the senate where this started, going back to the tphopbgs of william -- nomination of william rehnquist in 1971, democrats used the filibuster to delay or defeat judicial nominees.

fortunately, it is a rare occasion. there have been a total of 46 cloture votes, including this one, on 32 different judicial nominations in american history. of the 32 judicial nominees subject to cloture vote, 22 were against republican-nominated judges, between 1971 and the year 2000 there were 11 cloture votes on judicial nominees. most of those filibusters attempted by democrats were unsuccessful, and cloture was invoked. however, beginning in 2002, senate democrats changed the rules. i ask to put the rest of my statement in the record, and i would also ask for additional statements -- opportunities to put documents in the record in opposition to the nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i'd ask consent that my full statement be made part of the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and certain attachments be made part of the record. i've listened to a lot of the debate about professor liu, and having set on the hearings with him, having met with him, having gone through the whole record, i sometimes wonder who this is everybody's talking about. it's not the man i heard from, the man who, unlike speeches we can all make, a man who testified under oath and had to speak very candidly and very honestly about his positions. he's a man who is admired by legal thinkers and academic scholars across the political spectrum, and it shows. he spent his career in public service, private practice, as a teacher since receiving degrees from stanford university and yale law school, a rhodes scholar. when you look at the support among the letters i will put in

the record, we have one from kenneth starr, the former solicitor general during president george h.w. bush's administration. actually also for those who may have forgotten, the independent counsel who investigated president clinton during the clinton administration. he and distinguished professor omara wrote it is our privilege to speak to his qualifications and character and to urge favorable action on his nomination. in short, goodwin is a person of great intellect and exceptionally well qualified to serve on the court of appeals. he will leave academia to engage in important public service. we heard from clinton bolick, executive of the goldwater institute named after barry

goldwater. he said having reviewed several of his academic writings, i find professor liu to exhibit fresh independent thinking and intellectual honesty. he clearly possesses the scholarly credentials and experience to serve with distinction on this important court. i put in a number of other similar things from republicans and democrats across the political spectrum. after law school, he clerked for d.c. circuit judge david tatel, supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg. don't question his intellect or qualifications. he should be treated with respect and admired, not maligned in caricature. his honest testimony in two hearings before the judiciary committee should be credited rather than ignored. the son of taiwanese immigrants

and he would bring much-needed diversity to the federal bench. there is no asian pacific american judge on the nine circuit court of appeals, which of course includes california and hawaii and a number of western states. rather than debate, vote for him or vote against him. but vote. cloture vote means you vote maybe. most want to see us vote yes or no, rather than an up-or-down vote, republicans argued a few years ago every nominee deserves, we have had to file cloture on this. many serving on the other side of the aisle claim to proscribe to a standard that prohibits

filibuster on judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances. a nominated outstanding lawyer, the president has supported by his home state senators, favorably reported by a majority of the senate judiciary committee, for a vacancy of judicial emergency on the ninth circuit. we've had a lot of judicial nominees that have gone through here that i may have disagreed with, some i may have voted against, but we've allowed an up-or-down vote. we have 14 senators who signed a memorandum of understanding in 2005, the gang of 14. they wrote about their responsibilities under the advice and consent clause. well, let's be responsible. let's be responsible. let's bring it to a vote.

i think of the vote on janice rogers brown. she was a nominee who argued that social security was unconstitutional. i think most of us disagreed with her on that, but she got an up-or-down vote. they agreed to vote cloture on the nomination of priscilla owens. owens, a d.c. circuit nominee whose rulings in a texas supreme court were so extreme, they drew condemnation of other conservative judges on that court. in fact, president bush's white house counsel, later attorney general called one of her opinions an unconscionable act of judicial activism, but she was a republican and she did get a vote. now i hoped two weeks ago when 11 republican senators joined in voting to end the filibuster

against jack mcconnell of rhode island that the senate was moving away from partisan attacks on judicial nominations. indeed, for the sixth time since president obama took office just over a couple of years ago, we've had to seek cloture to overcome a republican filibuster on one of president obama's well-qualified judicial nominations. those senators who claim to subscribe to a standard that prohibits filibusters of judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances should not be able to support this filibuster because, as i've said, there are no extraordinary circumstances here. i think of the memorandum of understanding i referred to earlier saying how we should fulfill our responsibilities under the advice and consent

clause of the united states constitution. in that, these 14 senators wrote about the need for the president to consult with senators. well, this president, unlike his predecessor, has been a model in that regard. unlike president bush whose nominees i always supported, president obama actually has consulted with both republican and democratic senators in the home states. and unlike my predecessor, the republican chairman of the judiciary committee, i have not proceeded with any nominee against the wishes of a home state senator. so apparently we have one rule, eager to adhere to if it is a republican president and republican chairman of the committee. but man, oh man, nothing changes a rule faster than to have democrats here.

i protected republican home state senators. in return, i would expect republican senators to respect the views of other senators and to work with the president. by the standard utilized in 2005, supported by republicans to end filibusters, to vote on president bush's controversial nominees, this filibuster should be ended. the senate should vote on the nomination. last year senate republicans filibustered the nomination of judge chen, an outstanding judge with 16 years experience. they delayed his senate consideration for months. there was no reason to do it. finally, when that filibuster ended, the senate proceeded to vote and confirmed only active

asian pacific american judge serving on the federal appellate court. the only one in all our courts. well, this nominee is likewise deserving of a vote and not a partisan filibuster. vote up, vote down. don't vote "maybe." that's not what we get paid for. when the committee healed second hearing on the -- held a a second hearing on the nomination, a hearing that i allowed, i hoped they would evaluate him fairly with open minds. any senators who listened to professor liu's answers during hours of questions at two confirmation hearings and considers his responses to hundreds of written follow-up

questions, hundreds to come away understanding this is an exceptional lawyer, a scholar who will make an outstanding judge, a judge who respects the rule of law and reveres the constitution. professor liu's answers under oath, his reputation as a well-respected law professor paint a very different picture than the caricature created by the attacks of special interest groups. no fair-minded person can or should question his qualifications, talent or character. nobody can doubt his temperament. hours, hours and hours of questioning, we heard of judicial temperament. and unlike some of the nominees supported by the other side, he actually answered the questions. he assured the committee time and time again he understands

the rule for a judge, the need for a judge to follow the law and adhere the rule of law. he met every test presented to him by senators on the judiciary committee on either side of the aisle. he skpaoedz every -- he exceeds every standard used to measure judicial nominees. i have concerns a conservative activist law professor nominated by president bush, professor mcconnell, would turn out to be a conservative activist judge on the tenth circuit. but i put faith in professor mcconnell's assurance he understood the difference between his role as a teacher and advocate and his future role as a judge. he o.ssured us he -- he assured us he respected the doctrine of stare decisis and as a federal appeals court judge he would be bound to follow supreme court precedent. his home state senator, senator mache, vouched for -- senator hatch, vouched for him. the similarity, except for the philosophy, is exactly the same

between mcconnell and liu. we voted for mcconnell. they want to stop liu. i would hope every senator would treat professor liu with the same fairness that the others have, that we treated them. so give the same weight to professor liu's assurances that we did to professor mcconnell's identical mcconnell's identical ahead. >> in a few moments a hearing on the future of nasa and human spaceflight. and a little less than two hours former director of national intelligence in his bladder on proposed changes for a more efficient intelligence community.

>> history is, as you know, is much more than just politics and soldiers. social issues. it's also medicine and science and art and music and theater and poetry and ideas. and we shouldn't lump things into categories. it's all part of the same thing. >> sammy morris, jameson worker, harriet beecher stowe, thomas edison, henry adams, sunday night on qa day.

part one of two weeks with david mccullough on the american to make the greater journey to 19th century paris, at 8 p.m. on c-span. >> with the nasa space shuttle program ending in july, former international space station commander frank culbertson testified before the senate summers subcommittee this week on the future of the human spaceflight program.

captain culbertson's last space mission was in 2001 aboard shuttle endeavour which is at the space station right now on its last mission. this is about two hours. >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. just a couple weeks ago we celebrated the 50th anniversary of human spaceflig spaceflight, and the first flight into suborbital by alan shepard. and then the precedents bold

statement to go to the moon within the decade, and that was within nine years. that was announced just three weeks later. i remember when years ago when i was a young congressman, one day i was on the floor of the house, and the speaker, tip o'neill, saw me and he motioned me over to sit down with him. and he knew of my participation in the space program, and he says, billy, let me tell you here he says, one of the times i was a young congressman from boston and i was down at the white house, and he said i had never seen president kennedy so nervous. he said he was just pacing back and forth like a cat on a hot tin roof. and he says, i call over some of his white house aides and i said

what's wrong with the president? and they explained to tip that we are getting ready to launch alan shepard on a redstone rocket, the soviets had surprised us three weeks earlier, or weeks earlier, by putting guard deron in orbit. and here we were on a rocket that didn't have enough throw weight safe to get that mercury capsule up into suborbital. and the whole prestige of the united states was on the line. and, of course, the rest is history. alan shepard flew and then gus grissom flew, even though his capsule sank in the atlantic and he had to swim for it. in the meantime, the soviets put

up a second orbital flight. and then 10 months later, here we put that redstone company, we put that mercury capsule on top of an atlas rocket and john glenn climbed in, that it had a 20% chance of catastrophe. and then, of course, the rest is history. and these successes in space have become an expression of our technical prowess, announcing to the rest of the world just how capable we can be, and how this spirit in this country, this can-do spirit, can overcome extraordinary obstacles.

well, we have enjoyed a steady stream of benefits that have come from the concentrated investments in enabling the technology and producing space applications. basic research, human exploration, earth observation, national defense, just a few of those that have resulted from us being a leader in the global space economy. and as a result, the spinoffs have improved our livelihoods of all of us earthlings. ..

put out a book of spinoffs and you think about this book being put out for several decades, how many of those technologies that have spun off have added up. not only gps, but look at the data for noaa and what that has done for the weather, and prediction of storms.

look at the nasa satellites that complement the earth based observations. not only the weather but climate change. the space assets have changed the way we defend this nation and it has been integrated into nearly every aspect of the u. s military as well as the intelligence operations that now we see the fruits of in blending the intelligence community with a surgical military operation. these benefits, along with numerous spinoffs and efficiencies, the application of space technology has provided this nation with a significant return on investment. we have gathered up some high-powered folks here to talk

about the importance of space activities and the contributions of these undertakings to our national priorities. frank culbertson, retired astronaut, capt. u.s. navy, retired, he is a veteran of three space flights and served as commander of the international space station during expedition of iii. i am just amazed. when you talk to people somehow they have the impression that we don't -- the space program is being shut down. we have a space station up there with six astronauts on it. when the space shuttle docks, is going to have a lot more astronauts on it. and it is 120 yards long.

you think, looking in the stands of a football stadium down at the field from one end of the end loan to the other, is how big the international space station is. so we are looking forward to you sharing your experience of law being 146 days in space. frank slazer, vice president of space systems and aerospace industries, this organization was founded in 1919. it is the leading trade organization representing aerospace and defense manufacturers. elliot pulham, chief of the space executive foundation since 2001. he leads the team providing services to educate informed government official, industry, news media and students about the space industry around the

world. dr. chris chyba, prof. of astrophysical sciencess and international affairs at princeton where he directs the program on science and global security. he was a member of the review of the u.s. human space flight plans committee and also known as the augustine committee and is a member of the president's council of advisers on science and technology. i want to welcome all of you. delighted you are here. we want to get on the record your thoughts, what we can do for the future. a lot of penetrating questions. i want to turn to our rating member, senator boozman, and i want to turn to our colleagues, ranking member of the committee,

senator hutchison. >> with your permission i will yield to my ranking member. >> of course. while we are waiting on k to approach the microphone i want to say the success keep as we have had in the nasa bill passed last year and the funding implemented to the nasa authorization bill, this young lady is responsible for a lot of that. >> thank you. we have worked very hard to try to move nasa forward and i think the authorization bill that brought together the need for

the commercial investments and commercial opportunity, along with the use of the work force that has the experience of so many years building the rockets and launchers, that together, we believe we have a good way forward. what i hope we can hear from you today is we need to adhere to the authorization strategy and that is the way we should be proceeding. i think the chairman and our and senator boozman and senator rockefeller are very concerned about how slow everything seems to be moving. about a couple months, we are going to be relying on the russians to take americans into

space. we have one more shuttle that will be going up this summer but after that, we are looking at maybe ten years if we don't really start focusing on this and making better progress of russian taxiing for our astronauts to the space station where we must use the opportunity for the unique research in that space station if we are going to reap the benefits from the investment we have made. and hoping we can hear from those of you who do have expertise in this area on how we can move more expeditiously and a sure we get our vehicle up and running sooner rather than later. and secondly to full utilize the space station and the research

capabilities that it has. we have astronauts in the air right now. we are all wishing them well. we are very excited. it was really this committee that first heard from dr. caned about the spectrometers and the abilityking about the spectrometers and the ability to use that for energy, study of dark matter for future energy resources. that excited this committee. because of the work of many of us on the committee including the chairman, we are going to see that spectrometers be a part of the space station. now we just need to get our astronauts there on our own ticket, i hope, very soon, andy

will help us figure out how to move more quickly than it is right now. thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank senator boozman for jumping in on this subcommittee. he has been the greatest advocate and quick study and he is enthusiastic and we really appreciate your being on the committee and all you are bringing to it. >> senator boozman? >> i appreciate the opportunity. thank you and appreciate it the opportunity to be part of the subcommittee to help us move forward. the chairman and i were at a meeting this morning and one of the emphasis at the meeting was we needed to work together. i think the relationship that you and the chairman and ranking member senator rockefeller had with regard to this issue is a great example of that and this

is something we all agree on is so important to our country so i appreciate you holding a hearing today to help further informed the subcommittee and the record on the importance of our nation's participation in the global space economy and the tenuous hold we have in a position of leadership in that realm. i am breaking -- grateful that senator hutchinson is with us today. her commitment to the nation's space program is an example and an inspiration to me on the work of the subcommittee. are also want to acknowledge the successful launch on monday of the shuttle mission commanded by mark kelly. i wish the entire crew of the shuttle and those aboard the space station success in carrying out this very important mission to expand the scientific capability of this unique national laboratory and provide

essential spare and replacement parts and other supplies to insure the health and vitality of the space station systems. i had the pleasure of going to kennedy space center last month for the planned launch of the mission. unfortunately the electrical problems with the odd salieri power unit prevented that launch attempt so i was unable to see the launch but my experience was very meaningful. not only was i able to see and talk with some remarkable, skilled and dedicated work force but i was able to see firsthand some of the facilities of our nation's and the world's premier space for. the work force needs clear guidance and direction from the leadership and the congress and the administration for the future. these people know how to do what needs to be done to ensure this

nation's leadership in space. all they need is direction and resources to go do it. as you know, senator hutchison noted many times in committee we are at a crucial point of transition in our human spaceflight programs and the slipping to the point where our very ability to develop and operate a national space launch system will be in doubt. we cannot allow that to happen. the congress provided a clear path to move the nation away from that press of this in the 2010 nascar authorization act. it is past time for the provisions of at act to be implemented and i strongly support the committee's efforts to ensure that is done. i look forward to the hearing and the witnesses and more about the great benefits we received as a nation from our space program and a reminder again of

what is at stake. with that, i yield back. >> senator rubio, do you want to make a statement? >> thank you for holding the hearing the american space program. it is greatly important and thank you to members of the panel for being here at an important time as we are entering the last launch of the shuttle program and continue to ask what the future of the space program is for america. the american space program is not simply something we do for fun. it has commercial impact and significant national security component and it really helps -- i know senator nelson will tell you in florida we have all kinds of industries who exist because of the space program. they are spinoffs of things we learned a long way. the only caveat we won't answered today, the only concern i have that i share with other members of the subcommittee is where are we headed, literally and figuratively?

what is our goal in the near term and long term because this program has always functioned best when it knows where it is going. when it knows where it's destination is. not just a place but its purpose for existing. the sooner we have that question answered this do we can understand what american space exploration will mean in the new century in terms of where we are destined to go and want to be, the easier it will be to move toward that goal and we will make some progress during this year. thank you for holding these hearings and thank you to the members of the panel for being part of it. >> i am going to arbitrarily go alphabetically. if you all could keep your comments as much as you can to around five minutes we want to have plenty of time to get into questions. so alphabetically, it would be dr. chyba. >> i was hoping you would begin

at the other end of the alphabet. chairman nelson, senators hutchison, senator boozman, senator rubio, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on this important subject. in 2009 our had the honor of serving on the review of the human space flight plans committee which issued its final report in october of that year. the committee formally ceased to exist in december of 2009 so today i am speaking slowly in my personal capacity though i do wish to recall the committee's most important findings. these human spaceflight committee was established to review nasa's program of record and offer possible alternatives. the committee examined the planned architecture, the consolation program and concluded it could not be executed for reasons that were primarily budgetary. the committee considered alternatives, five integrated options to evaluate against 12

metric included technology, innovation, work force impact republican engagement and mission's safety but no architecture would provide missions beyond low earth orbit and killed close to 2030 under the f y 2010 budget proposal. the most important contribution lies in the framework it suggested for thinking about human space flight. the report emphasized the choice facing us involved gold, not destinations. the debate over human spaceflight cannot be an argument over destination. should we go back to the minute or go to mars? framing the discussion this way risks choosing a destination and searching for a reason to justify that choice. the committee concluded the human space flights serves a variety of national interests, inspiring the next generation and furthering national security, driving technology innovation and other areas that are important among these. sending humans the low -- beyond

low earth orbit is not contribute to the various to justify going beyond low earth orbit. sending humans beyond leo has a fundamental goal charting a path for a human expansion in the solar system. this embraces the international space station and the means to an end rather than a destination. this suggests scientific integrity. human spaceflight cannot be justified with exaggerated claims of scientific payoff. we live in a time of extraordinary discovery about space. we learned early march had standing liquid water on its surface and the resulting sedimentary rocks which could retain records of early life on mars are still accessible. we learned there are many other worlds in our solar system. men's that post liquid water oceans beneath their ice covers. oceans as big as our own. we have learned other solar systems our common and we have

learned most of the mass energy of the universe is not made of the kind of matter we are familiar with on earth and we don't know quite what is more exotic mass energy is. human space flight to be an ally and now the budgetary opponent of these discoveries. the committee's report called for the government space agency to concentrate on the hardest technical problems associated with their goals in space flight. including sending astronauts into low earth orbit the commercial sector should play a bigger role. the commercial sector should fill in behind while nasa spearheads exploration into the solar system. the committee's report noted a problem for ever confronting nasa is it seemingly can have either the budget to develop a new human spaceflight architecture or it can have the budget for ongoing astronaut operations but not both. to afford a major new launch system nasa has to stop flying. that is the reason for the upcoming gatt in want access to the international space station.

to develop constellation nasa plans to stop flying the shuttle and determining the international space station in 2015. the long term goal of human spaceflight and exploration efforts shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low earth orbit. at this time many details as well, the 2010 authorization act is consistent with that committee's framework. an important objective identified by the authorization act is to sustain capability for long duration presence in low earth orbit and through a system and expanding commercial presence and actress to lower corporate has elements of low earth orbit infrastructure. there will always the argument over relative and absolute levels of funding but division in the authorization bill of leo being sustained by government activities with increasing commercial opportunities provide our best chance of bringing costs down and creating a vibrant human spaceflight future in lower for the.

beyond leo the authorization act calls on as a developed a heavy lift vehicle to preserve our core capabilities in space flight and provide a final backup should it be needed for cargo or crude delivery to be entered national space station. we want to assure funding to maintain this capability does not prevent the development of a commercial ecosystem in leo that maybe our best hope for long-term future in space. if there's one place new resources should be targeted to mitigate nasa's but it may be here. 40 years later the decade of apollo is remembered as nasa's heroic age but the nasa of the heroic age was spending $20 billion annually in fyi $2,009 on human space flight, not $10 million. we won't spend $10 billion per year more for human space flight. our committee argues $3 billion more per year could enable exploration beyond leo on a reasonable time scale. that is not going to happen.

if not, our experience of the last four decades should triumph over hope and we should embrace a model different from the apollo model as we move forward. thank you. >> thank you, dr. chyba. we are at $18.5 billion per year in projected flat line for at least a few years. so that is the constraint we are looking at. >> the entire agency. >> capt. culbertson. >> thank you. good morning, chairman nelson but britain ranking member hutchison, senator boozman and senator rubio. i appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the tangible benefits of the space program. it is a vital need to maintain our leadership of this endless frontier especially since this hearing occurs the same month we commemorate the 50th anniversary of alan shepard's first space

flight and president kennedy's speech to congress committing our nation to land on the moon. i have the privilege of honor on two space stations and one expedition to the international space station a logging 144 days in space. it is true that every day in space is memorable there was one day on the international space station that will remain seared in my memory as long as i live. you will see in a moment why i referred to this. this baser the constant reminder of why america's commitment to peace fully explore and utilize space for the benefit of our citizens and people around world is so vital to our future and why we must not retreat from our leadership in space especially in light of recent events. ten years ago i was serving aboard the iss and the only american in orbit. on september 11th, 2001, i completed medical examinations on my crew. i called my flight surgeon with

the results. the chilling words, we are having a very bad day. we were stunned as he described events in new york city, washington d.c. and pennsylvania. i saw our flight path was taking us over new england so i grabbed a video camera and focused on the spreading smoked in manhattan. in a few hours we found out we had witnessed the second tower's fault. later on with a short by my wife that are scattered children were safe. i learned the captain of american airlines flight 77 which crashed into the pentagon was my naval academy classmate, and friend. it became very personal to me at that point. the next night i wrote a personal letter to my cabinet classmates who were gathering for our planned reunion. it conclude with, quote, it is horrible to see smoke pouring from your own country from such a fantastic prevented point. the dichotomy of being on a

spacecraft dedicated to improving life on earth and watching life being destroyed by such willful terrible actions delves into the psyche no matter who you are. the knowledge that everything will be different than when we launched by the time we land is disconcerting. i have confidence in our country and our leadership that we will do everything to better defend her and our families and bring justice for what has been done. my confidence that justice would be served began a month later. eyes are afghanistan from space. my classmates and friends entered harm's way. it was more fulfilled three weeks ago. the dichotomy our road about after september 11th, bitterly opposed to freedom and progress and our peaceful ventured to utilize the international space station for the noblest of human purposes serves as a useful point to discuss the critical need to have a strong and vibrant space program. everything was different after we landed but also different on

board. we had a job to do and we had a team on the ground and air relationship with the ground changed. we spoke to a larger number and variety of people than we planned preflight. from royalty and prime ministers to special people like walter cronkite because he had more questions. school children displaced by the events that ground zero, spoke to 40 schools. always it was as if they were looking to was to prove humanity can do great things even in the midst of the unthinkable. they wanted to look to the star for an example of something good, something positive they could point to. an international project worth pointing ford and they wanted to hear that the world still looks ok from up there. this happened when we went to the moon and from 1969 to 1972 in that other war in vietnam. to solve the issues with civil-rights and civil liberties and our own country, it was a difficult time but we had the

ability and courage to expand our boundaries in space while changing society and dealing with the reality of that conflict. everyone remembers the significance of the moon landing and how proud it made them to be alive at a time like that. it proved that despite the biggest challenges we can imagine on earth we can still do great things. we can maintain our leadership and do great things beyond the earth and the on the tour we have to deal with day-to-day. today we should be equally proud we have a permanent presence in space. a place for children to aspire to work and use as a stepping stone to their own boundaries. the space station has been permanently manned for a decade. the international space station which charlie bolden called the centerpiece of coming endeavors for human exploration is not only one of the most amazing pieces of human engineering but one of the greatest examples of productive international cooperation. the use of the research facility

will improve the lives of men for a humanity's next great leap to the moon, asteroids and mars. space exploration led by the united states is a truth march in progress. the iss is a cooperative enterprise as a tremendous example of self power. the ability of the united states and our partners to expand our influence and capabilities because of the attraction of our values, goals and leadership. i was aware of that power and projection as a career naval officer to solve the benefits of 40 countries around the globe. as the second man in the shuttle mir program, was on the incredible benefits partnering with our former adversaries learning their capabilities and beginning to build the space station that provided humanity with a permanent presence in orbit for the last decade. i believe the iss is a platform for developing research and simulating operations and

techniques for executing more ambitious missions to the moon, mars and other destinations. this morning, my last ride home from space, endeavour doc with the space station for the last time. the crew of endeavor and the space station working together to continue the job that was begun many years ago. i want at this time to give my tribute to the shuttle team that has made this possible for so long. the dedication and commitment and the long hours, listening to the public and the media, criticism and praise, they have done a fantastic job. but like almost all the military aircraft i flew and all the aircraft carriers are landed on, the shuttle is ending its mission. all my aircraft static displays an aircraft carrier the museum's. this happens and how we are transitioning to a new phase. iss has 15 pressurized modules.

the volume of a five bed room house. the scope of the solar array has a surface area that could cover the u.s. senate chamber three times over. some have suggested they do that. the capabilities include 34 research stations for experiments. it is now capable of accommodating 100 to 300 payloads. even though we are just reaching the point of assembly and the full potential can be utilized, research has demonstrated its promise. in my written statement with several references to all that has been done up to now and is being done on earth but it will require a robust system for crew transport because the timetable we are on and details we provide, in this end nasa and the space industry are pursuing systems that will be safe and reliable. the combination of commercial endeavors and government endeavors will need to work to

make a balance of research for a long u.s. human space flight with frequent visits by observers. we need to go to the station as often as possible with as many spacecraft as we can. this will require the support of congress, government leaders and the american people. the authorization bill move those in that direction. with respect to how much we invest in the space program members of the committee share my frustration. survey shows the public overestimates nasa's budget. this is understandable given the high profile of the emissions. i was astounded when i read a recent congressional quarterly cover story on the space program which nasa's budget has hovered around 1% of the total budget since the 1970s. if only that were the case. the reality is today nasa's budget represents less than 1/2% of the budget. if it were a mere 1% we wouldn't have to have this hearing. finally a discussion of nasa's

contributions must include which nation will be the first among nations in leading peaceful human and robotic exploration of the solar system while learning to live and travel more efficiently your honor thaw. it is not a foregone conclusion the united states will remain the preeminent space fairing nation and reap the benefits leading the march of progress toward low earth orbit. that is what i am gratified this hearing is being held at the ice along people who care about our future in space. in closing i am proud that our nation continues to inspire people throughout the world. my mother and father's generation after world war ii took on responsibility of leading the world as a great nation. they assumed the leadership and responsibility. the space program as part of that responsibility. one to shed a light on the unknown and put beacons of the sky like the international space station which can easily be seen with the nation--naked eye.

i feel a special responsibility because of my unique position as the only american who was off the planet on september 11th to spread the word our leadership faced is vital to our way of life and future. it is a our accomplishment that we should never consider surrender easily. we inspire respect. sometimes envy. but always we show we are leading. our freedom allows us to do that. this to me is the abiding lesson of my unique experience. taking for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. mr. pulham? >> thank you. senator nelson, committee staff, thank you for your service to our nation and a cue for the opportunity to offer testimony on the impact and importance of u.s. space programs. space foundation's mission is to advance space endeavors to inspire, enable and propel

humanity. implicit is our understanding the exploration, development and use of space really does inspire our nation and the world, does enable us to achieve our goals and propel us confidently into the future. let me address the global space economy. the data am citing today is from the space report 2011. most of staff already have copies of this. is our most recent annual report on the industry. over the past six years the global space economy has grown by 48% from $164 billion in 2004 to $276 billion in 2010. this increased from 5% to 6%. that is a strong industry and the investment. products and services and

space-based infrastructure. the space economy today is predominantly commercial. commercial satellite infrastructure, it accounted for $889 billion in 2010. more than 70% of space activity. nonetheless with civil and national space programs totaling $6 billion in 2010 the united states remains the largest government player. space is the tremendous economic engine as my colleague referred to. product and services have become an indelible part of daily life during work or leisure hours

most people -- continuously. the robust commercial industry, commercial space investments. cnn, monday night football and countless others satellite services for all the grandchildren of america's investment in the telstar program. google earth, commercial imagery from space and countless related applications and the descendants of the corona spy satellite program. they accounted for 50% of the new wealth generated in america between 1962, and 2002, built this on government space investments like dinosaur, x 15, mercury, gemini, apollo, and the

list goes on. space shuttle, international space station. u.s. national investments in space have spawned new technologies and industries that could not have been imagined when those investments were made. because spacecraft needed a renewable source of energy on orbit, to date we have photovoltaics overpower, renewable energy. because spacecraft need to be guided we have accelerometers technology to orienting smart phones. because nasa needed to accurately dock and undock spacecraft we have precision guidance technology that enabled lake effect i surgery. because nasa needed to protect the environment at kennedy space center, today we have advanced the environmental containment and clean-up technologies. because the air force required a

precise positioning system, today gps is the fundamental underlying architecture for commerce, finance, logistics', inventory management, commercial, military, law enforcement and personal navigation around the world. because nasa required unprecedented turbopump capability to propel the space shuttle main engines we have life-saving heart pump technology. none of these outcomes were expected. these technologies and more than 40,000 others are the result of a previous focused national investment in space. the third point i would like to touch upon is foreign policy and national security. national space programs have brought tremendous benefit to national-security. our leadership in space has been a preeminent factor since the dawn of the space age. president kennedy's speech at

rice university is often quoted ford's inspirational values. less quoted our political and national security realities that america was coming to grips with at that time. in his quest for knowledge and progress man is determined and cannot be deterred, the exploration of space will go ahead with the we join in it or not. no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space. whether our objective is to win the cold war or extend the hand of friendship, incentivize collaborative behavior in the shuttle mir program or build a broad based international community in the international space station program, it is one of our best foreign relations and national security tools. all americans know about the special mission to get osama bin laden. i wonder how many of us will

ever know how huge a role space played in that accomplishment. it must be recognized our intellectual capacity is directly affected by our investment in the space program. as the apollo program was gaining momentum, enrollment in graduate studies in science and engineering was also gaining momentum. the apollo program was both expected and intended to double the number of american scientists and engineers. doing the hard feigns requires our best and brightest minds. developing this intellectual capacity requires inspiring, challenging and exciting work to do. when america has made that investment we have never failed to achieve our capacity for greatness. thank you. >> mr. slazer. >> thank you, chairman nelson and ranking member boozman and members of the subcommittee. it is an honor and pleasure to testify before you here today on

the importance of nasa space flight and the role of space in america's national priorities. i am here on behalf of the aerospace industry's association. over 300 aerospace companies representing 19% of the industry. our industry sustains eleven million jobs nationwide including many high skill, high technology positions. our organization was disappointed the president's 2012 budget proposal to underfund nasa by $19 billion. was agreed upon last fall. given the current fiscal environment, aia proposed $18.7 billion of the minimum required for these programs. the funding distribution should reflect the budget priorities as outlined in the f y 2010 nasa authorization act. despite a clear bipartisan direction provided in the 2010 authorization act, the year end

resolution, substantial answer the remains over the direction nasa will take specifically on the new heavy lift space launch system. the impact of the long-delayed c r and the ability to launch cruise into space our cause a ripple effect for up space industrial base and workforce. as the space shuttle is being retired in the u.s. is paying russia $60 million a seat to get crews to the international space station is critical that the crew transportation programs be adequately funded. two generations of americans have known a top -- never known a time when america was not engaged in human space flight. without continued investment this to become the last generation of americans to be part of a space fairing society. the on-again off-again plans for shuttle replacement in the last decade have led to work force uncertainty across the entire industrial base where firms are

faced with wrenching decisions to let highly skilled personnel go in lack of funding or clear direction. in addition to work force impact, take a toll on scheduled production debility and industry ability to manage programs sending mixed signals to the industry and placing complex space programs at risk of overrun or cancellation and jeopardize a taxpayer investment. interruptions or cancellations negatively impact large companies and could be catastrophic to smaller firms. the only entities with unique abilities to produce small but critical components of which huge portions of our economy depends. only one firm in the united states produces a chemical called ammonium chlorine for rocket propulsion. and wide variety of military systems. shuttle retirement is impacting

a wide range of users. whatever government budgets are cut significantly u.s. space industrial capability shrinks. developing the aerospace work force for our industry, nasa space programs are excellent source of inspiration to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics. to enter the aerospace work force, aia is committed to stem education and posted 600 students from all across the country at a rocket launching competition. students are clearly motivated. for many students the lack of program continuity is impacting the attractiveness of the

aerospace professions. in 2009, 60% of students in stem in colleges, an attractive place to work. one reason for the lack of interest may be the uncertainty of nasa programs. just as the recent wall street crisis turned young people away from financial careers uncertainty and lack of job security in aerospace hurts recruitment. the commitment to a robust human spaceflight program will attract students to stem the reprogram that hold on to the current workforce benefiting national security many of which while very exciting are classified. a robust and sustainable space exploration program is essential to building our future economy. aia believes the fundamental driver of a the economy has the nation's investment in space driven technology and exploration. today a number of new commercial space systems are being developed by entrepreneur is the made their fortune information technology whose intellectual

development was inspired by the apollo era. the u.s. space program is at a critical juncture. confederal deficit is essential to our economic future cutting back on investments is a foolish approach that will have an infinite does will impact on the deficit as the emerging power their growing aerospace capability. instead of the embarrassing situation of buying crew launchedes from russia 50 years after our first manned space flight our nation's future will hopefully include one or tweak to commercially develop american vehicles supporting the international space station and possibly new commercial space station along with a robust crew exploration vehicle and heavy lift launch system for exploration beyond low earth orbit. is inspiring future is dependent on our nation making the investment necessary to lead in space. i will answer any questions. >> all of your reinstatement

will be made part of the record the last one question and flip it to you, senator hutchison. dr. chyba, you participated in the augustine commission and one of their recommendation was the flexible path which informed the great deal of the authorization bill that senator hutchison and i work on it held the respond to the criticism of the incremental approach or headlines about a rocket to nowhere?

>> i appreciate that question. the augustine committee presented a set of possible options. it didn't make recommendations among those options. the flexible path was one of the options and if you look at our analysis as i am sure you have of the different possible options according to metrics which we evaluated, flexible path contained the other options. it ranked best virtually in every metric. i am not surprised that in the end was the option that was chosen. it also has a great advantage or has the great advantage of providing the best budget profile. if you imagine a scenario going back to the moon quickly, you have to develop a heavy launch vehicle and the letters and in the case of the constellation program that was a very capable lander. with the flexible path you do not have to up front develop all

the lander infrastructure along with the heavy lift vehicle. if it is not framed well, is easy to level the criticism you just mentioned. but in the end we have to think more carefully about what our future beyond lower orbit looks like. i said in our brief comments that everyone looks back on the apollo program with admiration but we also need to draw lessons not only from that program but the 40 subsequent years of human spaceflight. twice since apollo there were efforts by u.s. presidents to launch an apollo like initiative. george h. w. printed -- george h. w. bush announced his space exploration initiative but the budget wasn't there. that was the initiative to go to mars. president george w. bush had the vision for space exploration which led to constellation. virtually immediately the budget

was below that to which constellation was planning. they were planning it against and alternates that he state of $10 billion a year. that was virtually instantly lowered as well as not taking account cost of the orbiting station which they were going to have to do in 2016. and with the president -- president obama's budget we were looking at close to $7 billion a year. we learned from experience that that kind of apollo vision, as desirable and inspiring as it is is not working for us as a vision for the future for nasa so we needed different approach. the right approach is an approach in which we still keep our eye on the human move out into the fold system. on want to get there as badly as anybody else. but we are not going to do it by announcing an apollo like

program. what we have to do instead is twofold. we have to develop an infrastructure, you might even, an ecosystem in lower for but that has a variety of ways of encouraging the advance of human spaceflight and cost cutting in human space flight and that includes this robust commercial sector but in order to do that the government is going to provide demand for the station as a destination, for important experiments and developments that will further enable human space flight and also lets hope, this remains to be demonstrated, turned out to the commercial market both with respect to suborbital flights and also with an additional private stationlike inflatable entity people will want to go to. that remains to be seen. but the government demand alone is sufficient to keep that

going. simultaneously because the commercial sector is not there yet we have to have the heavy launch vehicle capability to allow us to move beyond lower court. so i support the authorization bill's approach to this. this is not -- flexible path is not a mission to know where - o --nowehe --nowhere. it is an ambitious space object of that does it in a way that has the hope of being sustainable, actually providing us with that future. if you look at the reports that have been issued in the last few years about our future in space too many of them in my view included dramatic artist renderings of what our future was going to look like with rocket ships flying everywhere and astronauts in backpacks in every possible direction. i respect and admire that vision but i think our citizens and

children need more than power point depictions of what that future looks like and i think flexible path is our best hope of obtaining that future. >> thank you. senator hutchison? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that very much because we tried to make the balance right within our budget constraints of a flexible way forward that does support private innovation but also keeps the base of our expertise and what has already been proven also as an ongoing effort. we hope we got the balance right. but here we are. the chairman and our and senator boozman our concern is about the

delay, the unmotivated approach to modifying contracts to keep the industrial base. from 14,000 contractors and civil servants that have been in the space shuttle work force we are now down to 7,000. so we have cut our expertise and workforce in half. but what we were trying to do in the operation bill was create a new vehicle where these people could be transferred and keep their expertise rather than have them leave and not be able to get them back. i would ask mr. slazer and any

of you, what can we do to motivate real movement and decisiveness in nasa that does keep the basic work force, the goals we all have, everything you said today? and yet have the private sector continue to innovate, but to keep the balance we tried to create and to see some success? i would ask any of you who want to step up to the plate because we are getting frustrated. >> i don't have a good answer or the right technical solution for nasa's launch vehicle. they're working with that with a lot of people and undoubtedly have several workable options to

proceed with but one thing i will give you from my experience watching the space station program in the 1990s was after it was redesigned after a decade of winning by one vote on the floor of the house to keep the program alive it was decided to fund the space station at a fixed level of $2 billion a year from 1993, the early part of the clinton administration and kept that funding level. by keeping to that level of the development programs want to look like a bell curve. you do most efficiently like a bell curve. but if you know what your funding is going to be an effort is made by the white house and congress to protect that flat line budget to allow them -- to allow them to manage it effectively we have this remarkable assets in space and here it is six months after the authorization bill the president's requested not reflect the authorization and on

top of that, the shuttle came in as a one time it spends. we had a onetime expenses 1990s or 1980s after the challenger was lost. a one time appropriation to cover funding endeavor which came in underbudget and the rest of the program was not disrupted. if you throw disruptions in to the funding plan it makes it more difficult for nasa and the industry and makes a longer and more frustrating at the end. i don't know what the right answer is as far as the nasa program. you have a letter to ferric out what the response is on that but once the plan is agreed upon. sticking to that funding profile is the most important thing you can do. >> do you think we still have the expertise and the employees that are left, there has been another round of layoff notices following the shuttle that comes

down, do we have enough to fulfill the nasa part of the mission or are we getting bled to death so all we will have is the private sector? >> my observation would be many of the people being let go are on the operations side. they're experts at operating space shuttle systems. we certainly need operational capability for new systems, one of the critical things is the small tip of the fear, the design engineers and scientists who can develop new systems and on that level may be doing pretty good because right now we have at least three different commercial crew systems being developed. we have the derian multi-purpose crew exploration vehicle and a number of activities tied to

consolation -- constellation. we need to figure out the transition of workforce, operational expertise is important as well. you need to run the system is. >> we have one more shuttle. is there anyone who is concerned about whether we still have the capability to do the last shuttle which is our cleanup shuttle to make sure we have everything on the space station that a shuttle can take because when we go to soyuz, we will not have much capability to take things to the station. >> i can address most of your question. i am pretty close to the people at the nasa ascenders and our car to themcenters and our car

to them frequently about helping their going huge to have the expertise to conduct emissions? my answer is yes. we have a lot of really good people still there. it is unfortunate people are being laid off and not just in the government work force. the major contractor work force, these people have been in the program for decades who have the same corporate knowledge and expertise as what we attribute to nasa as a whole and they are the arms and legs and brains of what goes on. that is an issue and a concern we have seen coming for a while and people have done the best they could on a personal and professional basis to prepare for these changes but the remainder of the work force that i see is extremely competent and capable of leading and making the right decisions and conducting operations daily. as well as moving out on the

programs that are in the authorization bill. i believe we have the people on both sides of the table to execute what has been asked of the country. we need to continue to have bipartisan support and one of the problems has been the continuous debate over what many would c.s. partisan issues over exactly what the details of nasa's direction should be and we need to get them behind us and the side we now have a plan that can be executed and people need to move rapidly on. it will be a mix of commercial endeavors and government led endeavors and we will need that going forward. we need to focus on the technological capabilities of the plans and change that are working on them and the business cases and experiments that might be out there we need to be conscious about. by the same token we need to

encourage access to space by many people and many companies. .. >> i think when you said we need bipartisan, bipartisan effort, we had one. we passed an authorization bill

overwhelmingly. >> this committee particularly was a leader in doing a bipartisan fashion, and i think the whole government needs to take a lesson from that. >> i share your frustration in this regard. whether you support the flexible path or not, the fact is we have an authorization. that authorization sets out where we are going and what level of funding there's going to be for each component of where we are going. and nasa has not always had that. if not had an authorization bill, and the congress has taken great pains to set forth what is now law, that says this is what nasa should do. and i am just astounded that someone from nasa isn't sleeping on a couch in each of your offices and working this on a daily basis. because it gives nasa the opportunity to get the enterprise focused around what the law of the land says will be done. so i think the letter that you sent to the administrator is a good step.

i think some additional meetings are clearly called for to make sure that the agency is implementing what they been given to implement your. >> thank you. >> senator, if i may make one specific comment, not as broad reaching as my colleagues comments. the subcommittee has been given a commercial market assessment from nasa that was requested on the 2010 authorization bill. there's a one page appendix, appendix b. in that market assessment that i would suggest would prove very useful to examine in greater detail. that's an appendix in which the agency looks at, does it cost the digression of the falcon nine spacecraft. and they cost out how much it would, how expensive it would've been for nasa to have built that rocket. and with two different assumptions they get an answer

of 1.7 put in dollars at the low income of $4 billion at the height and. they also state that they examined space costing out of it and have confirmed it, and they cost these $600 billion. that to me suggest two things. one is that if that is real, if that difference is real, that's encouraging about the future. and it would be good to learn as much as one can from that for how to do things differently in the future. it may mean that ultimately though not in the near term the commercial sector could play much more ambitious role. but the other thing that i think one would want to understand in some detail would be why would it be that much more expensive somewhere between four and 10 times more expensive for nasa to do this. especially at a time when the claim is that when the statement is that one of the issues facing nasa right now is how to develop the heavy launch vehicle within

the budget profile that the committee has given it. i would hope that kind of examination could be done in a cooperative way. let's roll up our sleeves together and figure out what changes we might make. because there's an implication there, that there's a much less expensive way of doing things. perhaps that will evaporate under closer examination but certainly one would want to understand that. >> i'd like to associate myself with my colleagues remarks, and i'd like to further suggest that the government has not always been terrific at estimating market. and i say that from a point of view of somebody who worked on the elb program in the early years. and pretty astounding how bad the estimates were for what was going to eventually happen with elb. so i would encourage the committee to look towards a disinterested party whether that be the gao or an outside organization to get an objective view on these costs your.

>> someone also worked on the elb i just have to intercede. the industry is also part of the market at the time. but elb itself, although it is not met its cost objectives as well as had been hoped, was pretty amazing if you look at it from the perspective of how the government managed that program. between the two companies, money put in by lockheed martin or bowling, less than $5 million was effected. we've wound up with two family of launch vehicles, mainstage engine, the first one have been built since the 1970s. we wound up with a brand-new rocket factory. we wound up with two new pads, actually three new pads, and the capability does not have a failure yet. so if you want to look at how programs can be managed with government involvement, but still produce tremendous results affordably, elv does have some things out there.

>> i think that your points are well taken, and i think there is a future in the private sector, which is why we have created the balance in our bill. but we also have to have the reliability, the backup systems and all of the extra effort that must be made when you're talking about human spaceflight. and so i think going at a measured pace is what we ought to be doing, and assuring that we are not going to be moving so fast that we end up not having something that is reliable. and also, that we have all of the safety and backup systems that would be required. and that we don't have a cost overrun that ends up being more

expensive than the long run, because you are at a place where you don't have backups, you don't have anything that's an alternative, and something doesn't work. and the one you have, and it was even mentioned within nasa that, oh, you know, we will put it all into the private sector, and then we will yell it out when we need to. well, that's not a good business model either. so, i think the balance that we struck is what we hoped would be a measured and safely forward, and also one that could produce -- i mean, if it really is a difference of 400 million versus even one and a half billion, that's what we are to be looking for. >> thank you, senator.

and the authorization is to build on your comments. the authorization bill requires nasa to look for these types of deficiencies that we've been talking here. better acquisition, better contracting, with an eye to bringing down the cost. senator boozman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. pallone, you mentioned in the opening of your testimony a number of measures, a number of goals. i think one of those was to inspire the world. you might again elaborate again on an sector but also i would like for you to comment in regard to those things, how we're doing as a nation, you know, right now in regard to those things which i think we all agree are very, very important. >> thank you, senator. three key words in our mission statement are inspired, enable.

and inspiration part is a lot easier to do when you have a visible vibrant program as opposed to when you really don't know what's coming next. if you have that program, that enables a lot of things do happen. it enables technology to evolve. it enables people to create programs to engage students and teachers. it enables all americans to see what's going on to take some pride in and be supportive of whatever amount of money we're putting into the program. and as my colleagues have noted, it is consistently americans are putting an awful lot more into this endeavour than we have. and the third thing is to propel. you want to propel our nation in terms of its global leadership. you want to propel our scientific base, our engineering

base. we want to propel our young people into programs and college that are hard programs and to get them there without requiring mathematical remediation. and to maintain that intellectual base, intellectual capital that i talked about. i'm not sure if that quite answers your question. but i really think it's terribly important that we have a vibrant space program. the international space station, as frank does, is very near and dear to my heart. i worked on that program when i was with boeing down in huntsville, alabama. and the fact that there's not more known and that is not more known that programs is up and running and that there is tremendous amount going on there is detrimental in terms of our

being able to support other space programs as a country. i think if people don't get it, that there's something wonderful that has happened from this, they have a hard time believing something else wonderful is going to happen. and so, really leveraging that international space station is important. i will say that at the level of teachers and students, and we have an academic branch to our organization. they do get the whole international space station think once you start talking with them. if they come off the street of any classroom, they may not have any knowledge of it whatsoever but when you start working with them they latch onto it, they build programs around it. we have taken over failing inner-city school to an aerospace academy, and the kids in that school use the latest aerospace software to track satellites, track when the air next station coming overhead. and i guess my worry is that

however we implement the flexible path, we do it in a way that people can see that something exciting is coming. >> thank you very much. i agree totally. dr. chyba, i know you worked very hard on the commission, and you guys did a good job. and you export a lot of different, you know, pros and cons and coming up with your decision. and you've alluded to this, but i guess, for the record, would you agree that an important element of any heavy-lift vehicle would be the degree to which they maximize the use of previous investments in vehicle developments, propulsion systems and infrastructure? >> thank you, senator. i should make a distinction between the committees work and my own view in that respect. as you know, the committee

simply presented options, so while it certainly factored into its analysis of different opportunities, one of its metrics, that type of question that might've been called sustainability. it was an explicit metric that looked at -- of the workforce metric, for example. the committee rescinded options that didn't make recommendations. my own view that is especially given that we are in this delicate position now of trying to move towards an expansion into the solar system while we have to simultaneously maintain and foster this largely commercially driven filling in behind that spearhead, i don't think we have much choice, currently. but to build as much as possible on existing capabilities. there may be a price to the. and the long run that could mean that we have a system that costs

less up front to develop, but has higher return costs in the future. i hope that the way to mitigate that, that there would be a way to mitigate that, which would be to make the system has evolved will as possible. i think you already see that in the way that the use of the shuttle main engines are being discussed for that heavy-lift vehicle, that they will be moved towards more towards a kind of disposable version of the shuttle engines that would be less expensive pixels long as that system is evolvable, i think that's very much the way to go. in fact, i don't see how we have much choice given the budget reality. >> as a commission member, somebody who worked hard and went to a number of different options, and then i guess, you know, finally choosing flexible path option, i guess i'm

curious, that seems the authorization, bill worked hard in trying to push that down the road in order to get it done. i'm a little bit confused about the administration staff. and being somebody, you know, new to the committee and working hard to understand, of the paths that you have all tried to explore and things, where do you see them going as a part from the authorization? >> thank you, and as you stated, the choice of flexible path was not our committees. i think it was the choice of the subcommittee. and i also think that as i read the president's remarks, i think it was essentially what the administration was picking. beyond that, since i'm here in my personal capacity, and the committee made recommendations to the administration cease to exist in 2009, i'm really not

any position to assess the motives of the administration, anymore than i am to assess the modus of -- >> again, i don't mean the motives. i'm just saying you're any position -- will all these different options. one was chosen. where do you see, if we move along the path, is, as they would like to do by their actions, where do you see that going? what is that path? >> well, without trying to speak for the administration, again at just getting on my own impression of the flexible path, you know, it remains to be true that we can really do this. that's the first thing i would say. i very much hope that we can because i very much want to have a human future in space beyond low-earth orbit. but nobody -- we haven't done this successfully before, where we have kept flying. you know, we're maintaining the

station. we are developing capacity to continue launching. we're going to have the gap and we are developing heavy-lift vehicle and tried to go beyond low-earth orbit with the kind of budget that we're talking about. so, you know, the first thing to usb about where is it going, the first thing we're going to find out is, by god, can we really do it. that to me seems like an enormous challenge and it's going to require our thinking committees, phrase might be all hands on deck. and i hope an unprecedented kind of cooperation between the hill and the administration and nasa, where, you do, where the sides are not recalcitrant and they're not hectoring but they're rolling up their sleeves and working together on important national objectives. it seems to me that given the budget constraints, the first thing that we can hope for with heavy lift is that we do things in what's called lunar space, we get beyond low-earth orbit, but we don't initially get farther

than the moon. not to land there because that's much more ambitious undertaking, but we demonstrate once again that with a new system we can get there. we would need to develop, assume that orion is the vehicle that we're doing that with, we'll need to develop an airlock so that the astronauts can leave the capsule. will need to develop some kind of deep space habitat so that it would be a modest module that could accompany orion to the astronauts on longer missions would have more space. and then i think we have to look for objectives that are new and interesting, that maximize these other benefits, including scientific knowledge, not getting ourselves that this is the best way to go about it scientifically, but if you going to do with humans, let's maximize these are the benefits. and i suspect that it's likely that those next missions would be a mission to a near-earth

asteroid. that would be unprecedented in mission duration, and ambition. and it also is related, and another important objective which is protecting human civilization. because we know that these objects occasionally hit the earth. we had a 15 megatons explosion in earth's atmosphere that flattened a 10 square kilometers force in 1908 in siberia. these things happen. that happened in previous entry but 100 years ago. learning more about asteroids is in everybody's interest. so i think that make square sense. beyond that there's another much more ambitious art which is to start thinking in terms of missions that go as far as mars. and i would hope that the longer duration asteroid mission would prove the systems that we need to get out that far, again without having to pay up front

for the enormous expense a capacity of landing. you know, i think flexible path is clearly taking that can down the road because it's not clear how we're going to pay for development of those much more expensive systems, given the current budget, and i think there's a hope there that down the road somehow that changes. there's also a kind of offramp and flexible path. it is called the flexible path. if the nation decides that returning to the service of the moon is an important objective, then that could be for a variety of scientific or political reasons, the point of the flexible path is to get the necessary infrastructure in place. everything short of landers themselves, so we could then come if we need to, make that decision and divert the flexible path towards them and. that's why it is flexible. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> that was a very clear

fleshing out of the concepts behind the flexible path. and i appreciate you putting that on the record, dr. chyba. and i appreciate also you drawing the attention to appendix b. of nasa's report. and i'll just quote from that appendix where, as you have said, that they have said that, in this particular case they use falcon nine as the example of a commercial rocket being developed 400 million. and i quote, thus, the predicted cost to develop falcon nine done by nasa would have been between 1.7 million, and for $.0 billion, and, of course. and they go on to say spacex has

publicly indicated that the development costs for falcon nines launch vehicle was approximately 300 million, additionally approximate 90 million was spent developing falcon one launch vehicle and so forth, which brings it up to the total that you are talking about of 400 million. now, if this bears out that it isn't that much difference, then it certainly corroborates the flexible path and the philosophy of the authorization bill, and so to esther pullum and mr. slater, i would like you all to comment, where as it appears in the past that we have seen a decline in american competitiveness in the commercial marketplace, does

this give you reason now, just as one example, mr. culbertson's company as another example, there are many others that outcompeting, his company and this other company, spacex, they are going to be launching, they're going to be launching cargo to the international space station on american rockets, and it's going to start this fall. so, tell me what you think is the possibility of the turnaround of increasing our share of the commercial marketplace. >> thank you, senator. i think it's actually very good. i would start by observing that i've never had any doubt that commercial companies could do things cheaper than the government can. i think when you look at how nasa operates, it operates under a lot of requirements that a commercial company does not have to meet in terms of its

oversight, it's many political masters, it's historic requirements around issues of management and safety. i'm very, very pleased with how spacex has done. as a matter of fact, the space foundation awarded space x. the space achievement award for 2010 at our national safe impose them just a little more than a month ago. i think this does pose some interesting sonatas for us. i think that a successful spacex or successful version of galactic, i think those are game changers for us. i think that fundamentally change the ability of our foreign competitors, if you will, in the launch business. but that assumes of course a fair playing field.

the current problems we have with itar, and export controls, to create an artificial barrier that says that come until they are fixed, it does still become difficult for a country like spacex to market overseas because of those overseas payloads coming to the united states to be launched triggers and itar event that adds expense and may even price them out or simply keep them out. i'm not sure if that's the answer to your question. i would also come with your indulgence, make a comment on the nasa evolving there is things like the ss in me and others for the heavy lift. i think that is fine if we agree

that with a heavy-lift vehicle is going to do is enable us to do other things that require new technologies, innovative thinking and so on. that the concern that i have is that one of the things that the apollo program did was it asked us to do difficult things that had never been done before. and that resulted in and out of the convention, and technology. if we are depending on existing technology and not interested in developing new technology, i think that's something that there is a look at as we implement this plan. >> thus the flexible path, which dr. chyba outlined in the nasa authorization bill. you have a flexible path going forward to get components up into earth orbit, and then depending on what your particular goal is, at that point you develop the technologies to get there. we are not going to mars, or

likely to an asteroid at this point with the technologies that we have. it's going to be all kinds of new things. and i want to ask captain culbertson, from, since the subject of this hearing is the contributions of space national priorities, tell me, you mentioned all the nations that are participating in this gargantuan thing that is on orbit called the international space station. and you mentioned also this extraordinary relationship that we have with the russians that was born out of the beginning of the fall of the cold war wind and apollo spacecraft