governmental program. .. we don't know if it will work that they have got something up above right now. if they can with one of the commercial crew people get access to that, that is their primary problem and he can it can become something new and different. in the suborbital space we have a lot of new entrants developing new things, new technologies that weren't possible before and you know i think some of this, you know we also did a big move

to prices and we have some prices that are happening now that people are doing, some amazing things. if we can think outside the box rather than governmental programs thinking about what we should do. we were trying to harness the experience of a broader set of americans to figure out how to accomplish goals and other things. and so while the inherently governmental piece is hard and in our case, we are trying to focus nasa not on the low earth orbit parts of it but the harder stuff. you know i think it is really exciting. there is one other rationale for why we do some of these things and i look separately at the space station at a little different rationale. one of the things that i have not appreciated when i was serving in the clinton administration, we went through hard choices in bringing the russians to the table. but when communication suddenly shut down when there was a coup in moscow effectively and all

the communications channels had broken down, what actually was amazing that the communication channels that have been built around the space station actually rose up to help us create a back channel for communications to help move things forward. i do think that the international cooperation on some of this is extraordinarily valuable and underappreciated. >> i would like to make one point about, to akel first jim's point about how this is an exciting time and i think this goes back to what happened in the last 20 years and may really in the last 40 years. but when we landed on the moon, those of us who grew up and in those days, we were told when you grow up you get to fly in space. you were going to go to the moon and you are going to go to mars and the fact is when we grew up that didn't get to happen. it wasn't anywhere close unless you dedicated your life to being a pilot or a researcher and you earned a one tenth of the 1% of

the people who applied that got selected as an astronaut. the commercial human spaceflight activity that this administration has pushed that was part of the vision for exploration and part of the aldridge commission, that is the first thing that will change that equation, and that is the first time you know people can say well you know maybe i get to go some day. first is going to be the very rich people but those are people that didn't dedicate their lives to being astronauts. that is how aviation started so as the price comes down maybe i get to go some day. so i finally have come around to the view that i might actually get to fly in space some time. >> well i had hoped that we had come to answers for all the questions that have dogged space policy over the last four decades but alas we failed to achieve that goal. nevertheless we had a fascinating and stimulating discussion. i invite all of you to visit the web site at the enterprise

council for updates on big very good work that they are doing for our part and marshal.org. you can find copies of the declassified versions of all the national space policies that we have been talking about today. there are there are on a web site called making national space policy. we will archive that is additional materials come out. i would ask that you will join me in thanking the panelists. they did a fantastic an excellent job and thank you all for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> who is really going to get fired up? there are proxies or shorthand for the incredibly narrow brain -- range of choice we actually have and political, in elected officials. >> in the declaration of independence, reason tbn reason.com editor-in-chief nick gillespie takes on the problems of today's two-party system and possible libertarian solutions. sunday night on c-span's q&a.

>> this does involve the central question of whether the states can support single-sex education. >> tune in saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. c-span radio at 90.1 fm in washington d.c., nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 119

and on line at c-span radio.org. >> former president bill clinton on wednesday talked about the current federal deficit and debt talks. he prays president obama for his handling of the economy while criticizing the republicans for focusing on the debt. the former president's remarks came at the campus progress annual national conference in washington. this is 45 minutes. >> thank you very much. first i want to thank emily for the wonderful introduction and for sticking up for the progressive causes in our native state, which probably went further from democrats to republicans in the 2010 election than any other state in america. i am very grateful for her commitment. i want to thank they wonderful head of the center for american progress and my former chief of staff, john podesta and david

halperin the director of campus progress who was a very able speechwriter for me on foreign-policy when i was? president. i sort of have to show up when they ask. [laughter] but i am very glad to be here. i want to begin with something that was emphasized in a brief film. most of the time when i was in politics, people debated what are you going to do and how much money are you going to spend on it? and, there wasn't enough attention given to how are you going to do it so your good intentions actually turn into real changes? and if you don't think about that, you get in trouble. for example, and i have come back to this in a minute but i just want to mention it. in the current budget debate, there is all this discussion about how much will come from

spending cuts, how much will come from tax increases and almost nobody is talking about one of the central.that everyone who has analyzed this situation makes, including the bipartisan simpson-bowles commission, which said you shouldn't do any of this until the economy is clearly recovering, because if you do things that dampen economic growth, and the u.k. is finding this out now. they adopted this big austerity budget, and there is a good chance that economic activity will go down so much that tax revenues will be reduced even more than spending is cut and their deficit will increase. so, why are we talking more about the economy and less about this? partly because the republicans who control the house and have a lot of votes in the senate have now decided having quadruple the

dead in the 12 years before i took office and doubled it after they left that all of a sudden it is the biggest problem in the world. [laughter] i will come back to that but i want you to think about it because i hate these deficits. and i was appalled that the debt was doubled in eight years after i left office. and i think a condition, the fiscal condition of the country did make us weaker and dealing with the financial crash. i will say more about that in a minute. but you have to know about what works, and there is almost no discussion in this debate. i read the articles every day about the tightening of whatever it is they do and whether it will work or not. when i left the white house and i started this foundation a decade ago, i decided to focus on that. i wanted to work on things that i cared about when i was president where i could still

have an impact, and it seems to me that i was in a position to try to involve people in answering these how questions. so, for example, the first thing i did was established at the university of arkansas but decided at my presidential library, a school, a graduate school which would offer america's first degree not in public policy but in public service. students there spend half their time in the field. in america and all over the world, trying to actually figure out how to solve a particular problem or sees a particular opportunity. and that i got involved in this aids work because when i left office, there was relatively a small amount of money being

spent in the global fight against aids. the united states, the last budget i left i think was for $300 million a year and that was 25% of everything that was being spent in the world. but we organized the global fund for malaria and it was established and then president bush came in and pass the pepfar program which i think was his finest achievement, which allocated billions of dollars to the fight against aids and later malaria. anyway we didn't have a lot of money, and when i started there were only 200,000 people in poor countries getting medicine necessary to live, something that we had take for granted in america. two-thirds of those people were in brazil which is a rising economy where the government a sickly pace for the medicine and they have their own pharmaceutical industry. we were paying and to pay today

about $10,000 a year for standard aids treatment to keep people alive. that is what the medicine that is given out at my neighborhood clinic in harlem costs. the generic medicine was about $500 a year. it sounds cheap, but in countries with a per-capita income of less than 1 dollar a day and an infection rate of 2% or higher it was prohibitively expensive. so, basically, when i looked at it and i got some good people in to help me, and the aids medicine business and i want you to think about this and think about all the things we are concerned about today. even at $500 a person a year it was a high profit margin, low-volume, uncertain payment business. so i went to canada, ireland and a number of other donors and i

said i want you to promise to fund these programs. i don't want you to give me the money. i just want you to give me the right to greenlight this money if i can get a lot of this medicine discounted. and then we went to the producers of the medicine and we said okay, we want you to change your business model from a low-volume to a high volume, from a hard margin to a low margin thomas from an uncertain payment to a certain payment business. we will help you review the manufacturing processes. we will work on your supply chain and give you the money probably. how much will you sell me the medicine for? we cut it from 500 to $140. [applause] the children's medicine we cut from 6600 to $190 then when we got some serious money in there, we cut the price down to about the old regime which some people still use. we can buy it for $90 now in the

children's medicine for $60. now there is one pill which is much easier to use, which we now have down under $200 from about 700. the point i want to make is, this was not a republican or democratic deal. there was axe amount of money, and y number of people who needed the medicine to stay alive. now we are not where we need to be yet, but now in 70 countries there are 4 million people, about half of all the people in poor countries which is a long way from 200,000, about half of all the people in poor countries on earth getting medicine off these contracts including 75% of the children. and the money made a big difference. one or two euros funds for for the children's medicine part, but i give you this only as an example.

we apply the same theory to try to lower the cost of new technologies when we got into climate change business and we were helping 40 cities around the world to try to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. by not only retrofitting buildings, but changing the street lights and wherever possible in megacities and developing worlds, closing landfills which were huge emitters of methane gas. and which really are goldmines if you think about it. all those urban landfills you have recyclable glass and plastic and metal and all the rest the organic material can be turned into fertilizer and the rest can be turned into electricity. so, we are trying to do the same thing. we have doubled, tripled and sometimes even quadrupled income of african farmers in rwanda by lowering the cost of fertilizer and seed and working on a distribution network and saving

them half their income by taking their products to market. the point is, i live in a world now which is very different from the world that i found in washington. which was very different than the world i lived in when i was a governor. i remember one day i had a young man working for me in the white house who had been with me for 10 years before and my governorship. i said, i mentioned some piece that was in the paper that was highly critical of me. i have this guy if he read it and he said yeah my. i said, what did you think of that piece? he said they are talking about somebody i'm not familiar with. the problem with a national political environment is it is so far removed from real people physically and all the players are trying to get their bikes on the evening news or their

headline, that you tend to lose what really matters which is how is all this going to affect us? and your future and people all around the world? so, i think first i want to say, whether you like or dislike what is going on in the government, it is really important that you spend a lot of your time and attention trying to change the reality on the ground within whatever constraints public policy imposes. that is what we do with the clinton global initiative at the opening of the u.n. every year. we bring in business people, philanthropist, government leaders and ngos. we fly people in from the poorest countries in the world who are active on the ground doing things and who don't have their own money and we all get together and instead of giving speeches everybody just have a conversation and makes a

commitment. and in the last six years, those commitments have already measurably improve the lives of 300 million people and in 180 countries. just by asking people to do it. we have one for university students every year and the university students as you know don't have a lot of money. [laughter] but very often they have the best ideas. last year to students at maria college -- he anybody here from berea? berea college was established before the civil war in kentucky, 1855. a university open to women which was a radical idea at the time and also available to african-americans. and they have very low tuition. all the students work on campus but to students decided that they would go out into their neighborhood in eastern kentucky which is hilly and part of

appalachia and do free energy audits. so, they are doing it. and we found out that they can actually save these poor people a lot of money for almost no investment. another student at the university of california in san diego realize that there were huge numbers of students who weren't even aware of all the tax credits they were entitled to. some of which were passed when i was president, and so he calculated that if there was 100% knowledge and i'm going to come back to this in a minute. remember this. if there was 100% knowledge of all the students at the university of california at san diego of every form of student aid they could access they could save $2.5 million a year. just on that campus.

so, i believe in all of this and i think you have to have -- you can't get discouraged when the politics are going in a direction you don't like. you have to keep fighting against the things you don't like but also find something to do that you do like. it is very important in life not just to be against a tide that you oppose but also to make something that happened because every time you make something good happen it gives weight to your position on these political issues. that is why i think one of the most important bills i ever signed with the bill creating americorps, 700,000 plus young people have done work now all over america. [applause] and they have made a big difference. so, that brings me down to this current moment.

and your topic, which is a neat twist on the old. >> truth to power, turning truth to power. you cannot turn truth and the power unless you have it in the first place. beginning with basic facts. so for example, we have this current political drama playing out in washington over the budget. what do you want america to look like in the 21st century anyway? the decisions you make on the budget should be informed by the life you want to live. when you are 30, when you are 40, when you are 50 what you want america to be like? when you have children who are in these chairs, what do you want it to be like?

president obama has a vision of an economy that works for everybody that is modern and sustainable and offers shared opportunities. a vision of government and society that involves shared responsibilities, not specific benefits nearly as much as everybody pitching in and doing what they are supposed to do to create the government we need to have for a structure of opportunity and empowerment to take hold in america. and he has a vision of cake -- a community that makes the most of america's greatest assets, our diversity. that is why he and i passionately believe in the d.r.e.a.m. act. i don't understand --

[applause] i think we are better off with more immigrants, not fewer so i don't understand all of that. but anyway, the same thing i want to say is why he believes in and why i was proud of -- [applause] i was immensely proud of another of my former administration members, my former secretary now the governor of new york for passing the marriage bill. [applause] if you look, if you look at the story of america we have a lot of speeches on the fourth of july that the politics is already taking hold about what america means and what the tenet of the framers was and all of that. the declaration of independence gave america a permanent mission

the framers pled their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to form a more perfect union. that his 18th century speech and 21st century slang. what that means is hey we are not perfect and we are never going to be perfect but we can always do better and our job is to keep doing better, to keep stumbling in the right direction. or in the words of martin luther king, the arc of history is long but it bends towards justice. our job is to make sure our arc bends in the right direction and when i was president was president i used to tell people all the time, to to me, forming a more perfect union means widening the circle of opportunity, deepening the meaning of freedom and strengthening the bonds of community. and it requires all of us to keep rowing and learning and embracing. several years ago a man named

robert wright wrote about called nonzero that had a big influence on me. he also wrote a book called the moral animal and what he meant by with that was not moral in the traditional sense. he meant socially ethical, that people wanted to be corporative and needed to work together. nonzero central argument is this, that ever since the first people rose up on the african savannah approximately 150,000 years ago, there has been a constant need to redefine who is us and who is them. and the definition of us has gotten bigger and eager and bigger. that is the only thing that has kept humanity from destroying itself. and the only way you can make it bigger definition of us is to have competition and cooperation in a way that in the words into

game theory terms allows nonzero sum games. the zero-sum game is what we americans love. there has to be a winner and there has to be a loser. so i love march madness every year and i love the big east basketball tournament. [applause] a couple of years ago two of our teams played six overtimes. they were so exhausted they weren't very competitive and the naacp -- ncaa but we insisted they play until they drop. in my native state the university of arkansas was involved with kentucky a few years ago in a football game that went to six overtimes in the score was 71-63. it sounded like to ask of all. it is fun to watch, but it is not a good model for the way society has to work. we have to find a way to have enough competition to keep creativity alive, but we don't require there to be a lot of losers.

now, what does that mean for where we are now? in contrast to the vision the president has laid out of shared asperity and shared responsibilities, and it deeply widening community, the current governing philosophy of the republicans in congress is that america would be just fine if we could weaken the government more. the government is the source of all of our problems. there is no such thing as a good tax, no such thing as a bad tax cut, no such thing as a good regulation and no such thing as a bad deregulation. and all these programs are a waste of money and time beginning with the stimulus.

this idea that the government is the source of all of america's problems would strike the founding fathers as passing strange. but it had a great hold on america's since the election in 1980. so, let's look at this. let's just take a little walk down memory lane and realize you can't turn truth to power and less people know. let's begin with something recent. ..

it's hard to fix things that were messed up over a long period of time. bad economic conditions in 2006 in 2008. but the election result were more adverse to democrats than they would have been my belief if voters had known the basic facts. and so, before we blame them, those of us who did no have

glimmers of because the american people make rational decisions based on what they know. if they don't know, you you can turn to power if the ultimate holders of power from the citizen himself don't know the facts. so for example, everybody knows the stimulus was the failure except it was. the whole folder and the economy was about to join dollars fee. even albert einstein couldn't offer a chilling dollar 800 country billion dollars. if dennis was designed to put a floor and not old and that were. the stimulus money went to a tax i-295 are sent to the american people. most americans have voted on

election day, not knowing they received a tax cut. why? it was given out in the most economically affect the way by cutting the payroll tax by about $800.18 per family. and the republicans didn't consider tax cut as the top 5% didn't get theirs. [laughter] i want you to live, but it's serious. the most important thing in the world for me is someone who now makes money that i never dreamed i'd make. i got my five tax cut or a governor president bush. in may that could be in the. it should have changed parties. last [laughter] the american people did know that. they didn't know another 30% went to state and local governments to keep them from having to lay off a million teachers and police officers and health care workers.

now the stimulus has played out, you might be interested to know the economy is not fully recovered or one of the things keeping unemployment high in america today is declining payroll this year at the state and local government level of about a million, which will have among other things have quite adverse impacts on our schools. only about a third of the money, even less, but spent to create jobs. a lot of it in green energy and manufacturing. then there was the out of a automobile restructuring, which was not a bailout. we'll give you aid in return for restructuring. look at what had hatband. as of last november, and america's automobile industry was coming back with 70,000 more people working in the automobile industry. if they had all been alive to

feel they would be leased and a billion people out of work when you think of the parts and firepeople running dealerships. listen to this, when barack obama took office as president, the united states had exactly 2% of the market for these high-powered batteries that are necessary to an hybrid electric and electric cars. because of democratic congress provided a tax credit in 2007, took office in 2007 in 2009 it turned into for start up the cash equivalent of a tax credit. you don't need a tax credit if he just started your business. you have no income and it is going to credit. but they wanted to accelerate the growth so they said okay, you can get the gas equivalent.

on election day, america had 20% of the world market. from two to 20 in less than two years. redeeming factors else or under construction, 18 in michigan with the second highest in when i read in country. [applause] but it was a secret to most voters. if you know it and you didn't tell people, you are part of the problem. would it have reversed the results? now, but it would change the lectures, absolutely. now let's get a something that everybody says the tea party says they hated the bailout. they'll say we got organized according to bailout, waste of government money. well, there is a reason that jon mccain and barack obama both voted for the bailout.

it is not because of wall street. it is because the main street in the biggest car dealership in the country that stopped financing cars is about to get to the point where you could go to sears and buy any kind of appliance on credit. the financial system had to be saved. we don't want to go there again. so most people did know this. they said we hate these bailouts. the democrats passed a financial reform bill, which gave the government power over some transactions it did not have to stop excessive leverage, that is to stop companies from making too many investments they didn't have the cash to cover. traditional banks would own $10 for every dollar in cash. when bear stearns failed in his 30 to one. lehman brothers about four to

one. that's what's really in a financial reform bill. and by the way, if somehow they get around this and fail again, nomar bailouts. here's an orderly procedure for bankruptcy in the management and shareholders have to beat the loss. in other words come the democrat would prevent future meltdowns and future bailouts and people were going and voting against them thinking they were the bailout party. then there was they cut medicare. remember that one? that was the most interesting thing at all. republicans reach the last on medicare until they got in. they reduce the amount of increase given to certain medicare services, particularly the private company insurance manage program and use the money to close the doughnut hole and

the drug program and add the rest of the life of the medicare trust fund, but nobody knew it. and now to your business, one of the most important does the president signed and supported the secretary of education arne duncan supported with a both a radically reformed the student loan program by making a national face time out of what i was able only to make voluntary for school when i was president and then the bush administration didn't like it, so nothing happened to it. student loan program historically this. the students would qualify for loans, get the loans from banks. the government would guarantee 90% of the loan. the new program works like this the government sets aside a reserve, was the manager at two schools and into students to the

interest rates or lower first. secondly, every student in america will now have an option of repaying their student love is a small fixed percentage of income for up to 20 years. this is huge. this means nobody ever has to drop out of college again because of the cost. nobody ever asked to be afraid to take out another loan. and when you get out of school, if you want to take a couple years to do a public service related jobs, if you want to be a teacher or go into other kind of community service, your loan obligation will be determined by your job, not the other way around. this is a massive pain. and to boot, it saved $67 billion in government subsidies, 40 billion of which are pertinent to guarantee in the next decade telegrams keeps up with inflation.

the other 20 reduce the deficit by $20 billion. the republicans propose to repeal god. they were really honest about it, you know. bankers want their money back. but at a time when america already in the last decade, for the first time since world war ii dropped from first to ninth at the percentage of young adults from four-year college degrees, a calamitous development, even though we are still in the percentage of young people going to college, what does that cost? they actually won seats in congress saying vote for us, going to make student loans more expensive and by the way i'm going to increase the deficit. why? because nobody knew. you cannot turn truth into power if you do not know. so you've got to do more to connect to.

i remember in the election all the things that were said about the health care reform. they called it obamacare. they said this is terrible. it's going to cause private employers to drop coverage, even though most private employers to be much better off under this law and small businesses get subsidies to offer coverage. in 2010, in the election company insurance company in the election you raise the private insurance companies for a profit, raise the premiums through the roof and said we hate to do this. we're so sorry. we know the economy is in bad shape, but this obama carousel uncertain we have developed a big reserve here. and no one pointed out even though it came out at the end of the election. finally, they filed the financials for 2009 when there was no obamacare, when the recession was at its depth.

you know what happened in 2009? the for-profit insurance companies health insurance companies profits increase in the horrible year 26%. they raised rates through the roof, causing 5 million americans under the old system to lose their health care, 3 million of whom went on to state medicaid program, which ballooned the deficit to both the federal and state government. , but nobody knew. you cannot turn truth into power if you don't have the facts. and people don't connect the dots. now, i didn't think the health care reform bill is perfect in some changes needed to be made here at already bipartisan those of cleanups on the small business reporting requirements. but the real reason that there was such a passionate desire to repeal that 1100 page bill is one line, which said that from

now on if you are in a big insurance company plan, 85 cents of every dollar has to go to health care. if you're in a small pool, 80%. now, ask yourself whether you saw this. about three weeks ago, i saw a small article in the paper, which said america's largest insurance company, and one of its best, had filed a petition in connecticut where it is headquartered, with the commissioner of insurance to lower health insurance rates 10% across-the-board because of the 85% requirement. in other words, it is going to work. and still, nobody knows it. so we spent too much time majoring in the minors. i want you to surf. i want you to answer the how questions. i want you to lobby for the things who clapped for, but this

economy is fragile. we cannot go another decade continuing to fall in the percentage of young people with college degrees. we have to implement this on programs than 100% of the people have to know about it. you have to know. and here's what i wanted to say about the whole budget debate in the government with its two-car parade and all taxes. there is not a single example today of a really successful wealthy country that does not have both a vibrant economy and a strong effective government. not one, not anywhere. this political and economic theory called faith-based, that the republicans have caused. it means i just played this way the evidence is irrelevant. it must be wrong.

[laughter] [applause] but just -- let's just look at the evidence. in 1980, we embraced this. the government would mess up the two-car parade. then-president reagan was good that he could make you laugh and he also was more ideological rhetorically than practically. otherwise the debt would be even bigger than it is. they restore it but he signed bills restoring about 40% of the money that was given on the tax cuts in 1981. we began to descend the would never done as a country before, ever. we began to run large, structural deficits in good times and bad. and you can say well, president

reagan had a democratic congress. that's true and they were democrats who voted for other spending and tax cuts. congress included slightly less money than it in the station asked for the series. it was unlike president of imus program is to make your lungs tumulus. but it started to play out in an increased to those jobs and president bush's term, which is how i collected. and i don't mean that funny. i like, admire and love him. he is a good man and when he said it was voodoo economics any sine die, he was right and he had to pay the price. you can't run a structural deficit without paying the

price. eventually interest rates got so high it created the economy. i could comment and balance the budget right away and cut that deficit because i knew a lower interest rate and we be off to the races. then i left off is that one of the things that was really helpful in all of this was a rule called pay as you go, which was what president bush signed to his credit rate before i go to let it, which said if you want to start a new program to discuss something you are doing to come up with money to pay for it. so after i left office, a lot of the same people who don't want to raise the debt ceiling now, so first thing they do? they let the pay-as-you-go rule expire and they voted for years to raise the debt ceiling and the blood out of the country. so how is it working? well, there were 12 years before and eight years after the time i served as it were, more jobs in

those eight years than in the 20 years combined. 100 times as many people moved out of poverty in his eight years than in the 20 years combined. the business formation, every other indicator. the only surpluses we've had since 1969 in the first family of four in a row in more than 70 years. so this is not about whether you're fiscally conservative. this is about what works. this theory will work. and that is why the president has been resisting it. from world war ii to 1980, constantly the bottom 90% of us took home 65% of national income. the top 10% of us took home 35%. the top 1% 90%. that was enough inequality to reward hard work, creativity and good ideas.

look how this change since 1980 under the alternative theory. the bottom 90% share of national income has dropped from 65 to 52%. the top 10% discount from 35% to 40% of the top 1% has gone to 22%. now, that have been for two reasons. one is that government is the problem. the other is sent and that happened out that government. i guess i'm so old i can't believe it. i get my medicare card insurance. [laughter] but i thought the last generation of people that could have gotten an mba and i thought you were discussing the citizens united case before. when i was in moscow in a fragmented business school, we were taught that corporations were creations of the state and that in return for privileges to

certain responsibilities and they have responsibilities to other stakeholders, shareholders, employees, customers and the communities of which they were apart. for about 30 years, coincident with the government is the problem. government and we've been told to corporations on the responsibilities are their shareholders. those two ideas together have produced a combustible and unsustainable and that is inequality in america. and if you want to live in a country where people like emily, middle-class kids and people like you have a fair shot at the american dream, we have to re-examine them both. professor michael porter at harvard business school, a distinguished republican i've known for many years he's done great work for development has a cover story on the internet in two editions, saying we have to

change our notion of corporations existing for shareholder values to corporations exist to it and shared value. there has to be a mission, which involves sharing, and other non-zero-sum game. so that's what i want to say. it's not true that government will not incorporate. i'll give you one example. medicare is the biggest driver of the federal deficit, medicare and medicaid. but that is because health care costs tripled in the 12 years from 1981 to 1983 in week out triple over the rate of inflation geared which have been more or less in line with inflation and then they tripled again. in that context, here's the problem of just cutting medicare and giving everybody a voucher.

medicare is a better value than the rest of health care. medicare recipients have gone up 4%. private insurance premiums have gone up 700%. the health care system is not competitive. no other wealthy countries spends more than 10.5 if any size. this candidate. it's because of the way we deliver and pay for health care, procedures and because of the way we administer it for health insurance system, which means 30 cents of the dollar goes to paperwork. that's 11 cents when every other system, $217 billion a year right there. it's a trillion dollars here that could be invested in education and green technology and paying down the debt in all this other stuff. we cannot continue this. but i'll just give you an

example of why the government has to play a role in this and how medicare costs can be brought in line with inflation, only if health care costs are. we have no now for a few years that thousands of people die every year at the cost of tens of billions of dollars from hospital acquired infections. and many thousands of others had to come back to the hospital to get fixed again. the primary purpose -- the primary cause of this is the lack of adequate reverse sterilization procedures at every step along the hospital stay. i took a one d., who was a white house fellow under me and literally a brain surgeon who writes a lot of health care has written a book called a checklist manifesto. you can read it in an hour or are in the house. if you put a nurse in charge of the doctors and everybody else, is for five critical junctures in the journey to a hospital,

you can take this infection, the death rate in the tens of billions of dollars out of the system. guess which hospital network was the very first in america to rigorously implement this? va hospital. it's not true. that's a government system. nobody knows. so, i say this to encourage your to be some, but to say her activism has to include sharing what you know with your generation. i can't help thinking since we just celebrated the fourth of july were supposed to be a country dedicated to liberty, that one of the most pervasive political movements going on outside washington today is the discipline, passionate,

determined effort of republican governors and legislatures to keep most of you from the next time. there has never been in my lifetime since we got rid of the poll tax and all the other jim crow burdens unburdened coding, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today. getting rid of same day registration. some states getting rid of advanced coding. the governor of florida propose to reverse his republican predecessors, signing a bill that gave people the right to vote when they got out of prison and they finished their probation. that's my most important once they pay her price. most of them in florida were african-americans and hispanics.

weather like to get rid of same-day registration. why have they made it impossible for college students who lives in other states, couple other states to live in new hampshire most of the year. this is not rocket science. they are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2000 nato-led to. the constitutional right to go company to empower, and they needed to widen the circle of opportunity sounds good. but if you lose your right to vote, doesn't amount to much. are you fighting it? you should be fighting it. there's a good chance the new hampshire deal is unconstitutional because of the case in the 70s involving vanderbilt, which gave students the constitutional right where they reside most of the year.

but the larger point i want to make is this. nothing has to do with any of this. my life is my foundation and doing affirmative things. but in every place i work unless the government welcomes the foundation. i see what a difference the government makes. a good one or a bad one, a competent one or one lacking in capacity. and our country, you have to vote third and be a good citizen. in fact, been a good citizen requires services, but also requires knowledge. if you're serious about turning truth to power, remember this. it begins with knowing. it begins with knowing. there is too much we don't know them too much we know we don't

share. you cannot blame citizens for mistakes they made that they don't know. most people do not have the time or the space can't be emotional or financial or practical space that you have a woman in your lives to know, so make sure you know and make sure you share. thank you and god bless you. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause]

! think how privileged we are to serve here and to have the most interesting legal issues of our time come to this court.

>> today's launch of the space shuttle atlantis brings to an end to space shuttle program. next, discussion on the future of manned space today's launch of the space shuttle atlantis brings to an end as they shuttle program. next, discussion on the future of manned space exploration from today's trainee. this is an hour. >> host: but me introduce you

to scott pace whose george washington university's spacetute director and mark matthews with the save programor under washington. thanks for being here. just a reflection, let me start with this historic final dayy. what are you thinking about as the space shuttle program comes to an end? guest: when i was a young engineer and i could walk out on the shop floor and watch the machining -- i still had to go back to my desk and push paper but it was still cool to see that. i am actually both clad and sad that it is happening -- glad and sad. sad because it is an end of an era but i think after the columbia accident the right decision was made. that we've needed to complete the space station but then wrap up and move on. host: you have been covering the debate. president george w. bush announced the program was ending but there was a great deal of

discussion in congress. russia will now be the leader in space for the sometime foreseeable future because they are still involved in their lead on the orbiting space station. also for your home town paper area -- loss of jobs. how do you put a ribbon around all of that and tell us about the discussion about the ending of the program guest: there might be argument in nasa that russia would be the world leader, but it is true ratio will be the one launching astronauts to the international space station -- at a hefty price tag and for the foreseeable futurewith nasa rigt roeir 50-year history right now. the future is uncertain. how exactly to replace the space shuttle is uncertain and whether it will be affected is uncertain. as for central florida right now, the kennedy space center is set to lose about 7000 jobs when

the program ends. which, right now, as folks in florida dairy board about decimating the local economy. scott and i have been talking earlier about this, that you are losing a significant number of high-paying jobs in central florida from this area. and what happens afterwards is a major concern. >> florida, one of the three top state's most hit by the real estate downturn in 2008. guest: something that we were discussing is it has been a double whammy. you had the housing bubble already hitting the lord, and, two, you have this loss of high- paying jobs. the worst job in america right now may be a realtor in merritt island, florida. host: lots of ways to be involved for the audience -- twitter, our phone lines, which we will put on the screen.

we also put up a facebook discussion on our facebook page and will work in some comments. if you are on facebook you can add it to your list. back in 1981, this is some video of the very first shuttle launch in april of 1981. as we look at that, tell us what the initial goals were for the space program as it first was launched. guest: the first thing to remember is when the shuttle was flown in 1981, that was the first return of u.s. astronauts to space and about six years. the last mission had been apollo-soyuz. and a vehicle loan was really the test flight -- they put a two-man crew aboard the vehicle on the very first launch. one of the most audacious test flight in history. host: we will get the video and maybe we will be able to show that. how many shuttles altogether?

guest: 5. . which was a milestone for the program. >> host: well, let me put some numbers on the screen here. again, depends how you count. very sick shuttles in total, 134 nations. today will be 135. estimated cost permission, $450 million. from 71 to 110. the people who designed it said the goal was safe, reliable and relatively inexpensive transportation. >> guest: is a difficult

question. i think you can certainly say that it was much more expensive, somewhat less reliable and i would say definitely less safe than the architects initially envisioned. >> a lot o the goals previously made. the shuttle was able to accomplish things people never accomplish things people never the telescope can be marked asor one of the milestone achievements of the space shuttle programalir to say that has had a love/hate relationship with the space shuttle. host: more from you. >> i absolutely agree. one of the things i teach my classes is how they made the decision in a poor way. they focussed on cost and didn't

focus on what you were going to do with that vehicle. this was less attention with the abilities and a large fixation on getting down to low cost which drove you toward very unrealistic flight rates in order to get the program approved. a really clear headed policy decision was not really made back then. the shuttle suffered. it is exceeded what it was to do technically. it failed economically. i would argue those economic objectives were the wrong questions. host: what would have been the right question? guest: that would have been what is the role of space post apollo? to focus exclusively on cost benefit on something as complex as space flight i think was a

mistake. host: we are looking at pictures of nasa tv. that's historic video there. the launch is set for 11:26 eastern time. it's 70/30 percent chance of moving forward. 70% chance it might not because of storms. yesterday, there were lightening hits in that facility. they are moving ahead, as you'll see from nasa tv with the preparations. let's move to the future. you said that's the right question. i want to show a couple of facebook comments. >> on facebook, wow, 30 years. >> sad it is ending and there's nothing in the works to replace

it. >> let's listen to this exchange. >> now what we need is that next technological breakthrough. we are still using the same models for space travel that we used with the apollo program 30, 40 years ago. what we've said is rather than keep on doing the same thing, let's invest in basic research that can get us places faster, allow human space flight to last longer and what you are seeing now is nasa i think redefining its mission. we've set a goal. lets ultimately get to mars. a good pit spot is an astroid.

we vpt identified one yet if people are wandering. let's strength the boundaries so we are not doing the same thing over and over. >> he unveiled his budget proposal that would cancel the con stillation program, the program set under president bush. he wanted to push nasa oven a new face of r&d research that could enable a mission to mars or some other destination. that decision obama truly wanted to

push nasa away and a lot of folks in congress still wanted to see. from that point, there was a six or seven month debate. and embarking on a new path that would build a shuttle derived-type vehicle and keep the capsule. nasa is working on the finer points of that rocket design. the debate of whether or not that is still feasible is still going. >> the representative from texas representing the 30th district in that state is the ranking deteriorate on the space science and technology committee and is on the line with us right now. could you tell us your thoughts on ending the shuttle mission. caller: good morning.

well, it's a very emotional time to speak of anticipating something we have gotten so much from. however, we do have to look to the dollars and look towards the future. it's amazing what we have achieved with these space exploration programs. it is not really ending. we are entering into a new phase. we have to get ready for it. i can't even imagine us dropping it all together. we have so much invested. we have so much to look forward to in the future. we know that we can't afford to put as many dollars in as what is really needed right now to go immediately to the next phase. we will be preparing for the next phase. >> do you have policy objectives to how to direct those dollars? >> to do what? host: to how to direct those

limited dollars? what are your major goals in what the country should do next? >> the first thing is to make sure we don't lose a lot of our talent, make sure we have a good vision. we can't see exactly what that will be because it is research. we don't know what the next phase will bring us. we do know what we have achieved. we know because of that, we cannot afford to walk away from a space exploration program all together. we are just -- we have planned on what the next phase should be in terms of where we are headed. i hope we will continue that. we have a lot of enthusiasm for the research and development of moving 23450 the next phase.

we still have some relationship with our space station, with other countries. we have so much invested that we cannot afford to just walk away from the space program. >> thank you so much. since you'll be a key part that have debate, pressure perspective on this final launch day. thank you for spending time with us. >> thank you very much. host: the congresswoman is worried about america losing talent. >> she is right. talent is the most precious thing the community has. one of the thing that's causes a risk of talent is instability. if you look back at where we were, say, 30 months ago to where we are today. t plus 30 in the new administration, you find the industry is more stable. there's been testimony about

that. they don't know what's next or what they'll be doing. you find there are international partners feeling unstable. you find that the congress is going through a difficult bipartisan discussion. the congresswoman is quite right. that money is tight but the nasa top line, i don't think is really the problem. the problem is the instability the program has suffered. host: we have a call from chicago on the democrat line. caller: i'm the most heart broken person in the world today. i was born in cape canaveral in 1950. my father was a sargent post world war ii. we were competing with susha, it

wasn't science at first. army and air force were fighting over who had the air thing. we had the van dpaurd. the army won. they started nasa. it kills me to hear that the space station will go over to control russia. it's so disappointing to hear this. you go see cocoa beach. it looks like detroit. foreclosures everywhere. people already let go. why have a kid go to space camp?

they might close that. the dream to save the world, to a lookout of that hubble telescope and to think the universe is so incredible. it is an anti-science movement when we had it all. host: i'll jump in there. you've given us some thoughts of nostalgia as well. guest: we were talking about this before we got on the program. it's amazing how much debate and focus goes into the budget that's only $17 billion or $18 billion, the reason is this symbolism of what nasa means to this country. for a very long time, nasa represents the spear point of the american society. the best of the best explorers

and engineers. the best of the best visionaries planning the mission. when we are talking about nasa, we are talking about more than that. nasa has the burden of the american expectations on it. we start to wonder what is next for nasa, we don't know what's next. i wonder if we are asking what's next for this country? guest: i think that's right. there's the practical aspects of space. military, economics, scientific and there's also the other aspects. this administration has a different view about what it wants to transition to. that hasn't been communicated or been reassuring. you have this feeling that we are a bit adrift. there are things happening and

coming next. there are the execution that has been lacking. >> with your practical application, spying, weather gathering, communication, that's why we have to have access. >> let's look at this titer comment. we've been talking about the strong government program. nasa is looking toward increased privatization. what's happening there? >> the overall plan that the administration has is that it would have commercial companies deliver cargo and crude to the space station so nasa itself could focus on longer range missions.

going to the nearby astroid and the monday. space x in california become the first private company ever to launch a capsule into space and return it safely. that being said, no commercial company has yet been able to deliver cargo to the international space station. a resent report came out and said commercial companies were about two years behind schedule and $300 million overbudget to be able to accomplish these objectives. these doe lays are small peanuts when you look at the overall cost of nasa. nasa is trying to figure out how best to spend the money when folks are trying to cut anything

not nailed down. >> maryland an independent there. caller: good morning. the future of nasa should concern itself with the propulson of technology. they were all discussed but they never evaluated to anything at all there should be a commitment to the man space program. further down the line, i would say that all the privatization going on should focus on getting to the moon with the intend of going to mars eventually. that's all i have to say. guest: the caller makes a good point.

p proplusion technology is the consideration. we have to figure something out. part of the concern -- this is more of a practical earth bound concern. often times r&d money is viewed as a piggy bank. trying to put a lot of money into r&d is opening up to being rated by capitol hill lawmakers. it's very risky sometimes. host: do you agree? guest: that's part of it. we need to run a technology program directed towards missions. it's dangerous to have open ended technology not dedicated

to future missions. you also have to have a transition plan to get you away from what you are doing now to what you are doing next. the administration is taken a very high risk and high payoff approach on this reliance of new technology. but to me, it's a very, very high risk approach. i would have preferred an approach that would have continued to use known technology and existing components and bringing in new technology and commercial systems on a more evolutionary way. administration has taken a more radical break with that past. >> the caller. his point of view. facebook writes unmanned craft do more work anyway.

guest: the old humans versus robots debate is kind of gone. within the scientific community there is a few that both humans and robots have their place. they felt that if they had a geologist on site, they could have gotten things done faster. if your goal is only science, robots can do that. if you are exploring, humans are absolutely a part of that. it depends on when your goal is. if it is just science, then robots. more than science, humans have to be a part of it. host: on from north carolina. caller: good morning. i have a question --

host: you have your tv on in the background. caller: ok. the gentleman mr. pace, i think, said once the shuttles -- this is the last mission, we can settle on other things going to places like astroids and mars. with when is my question? why are we -- this is like giving up and taking a ride with your worst enemy. we used to be very proud. the united states was the first to do this. this was a great thing. i don't care which administration decided to shut it. i'm a republican. if we started it, somebody has to start it back up again.

we have the money we need. we don't need to spend money drilling for oil in brazil. give it to nasa and let them kin. host: thank you. one statement from wall street journal. guest: i confess to being very er. t: i confess to being very but the current approaching them previous constellation programs replacement for the shuttle with the consolation program, we would have the opportunity to bring in more providers. in concert with the government lead and government owned system. with that cancellation, the caller is correct, it is not

clear what it is we are going to be replacing it with. that leaves us dependent on commercial riders who are very capable. that leads us to being reliept on the russians which makes not only us nervous but all our other international partners nervous. this is not a criticism of the russians. we would not have been able to maintain, our partners were nervous when they are reliant solely on us. in space, it is always wise to have a back up plan. with the kwan sellation and uncertainty in the system and crew service replacements, we potentially don't have clear back up plans. that makes me nervous as well. >>

>> good morning. i enjoy the show and the discussion. i'm a little annoyed by some of what i've heard there have been eight presidents since nixon. and now it falls into obama's lap to fix this problem with the space shuttle program being completely unsustainable. the same thing is true of this debt that is accrued over the last eight presidents. it is up to mr. obama to solve this problem as well. we have people talking about we need smaller government, we need to cut spending. this is what it looks like. this is not just poor people out on the street, it's valuable programs that gives birth to a lot of technologies that benefits our lives being cut.

thank you grover and voters of 2010. this is what happens. >> connie writes, what did it accomplish anyway. no, we are not the jetsons. >> i'm less certain about the medical accomplishments. i want to go back to something the caller asked about about what is next. we vpt explained what is coming up? what is going to happen in the next several years. last fall, congress launched a bill to set nasa on a course to build a new rocket that would be shuttle derived.

the design will look very much like the shuttle on the pad today with one exception that you are going to have the or bitter. instead, you'll have a cap sul on top of the tank. that's the general configuration. the nasa vehicle and commercial folks will be in charge of the international space station. the worry is whether or not this new rocket will have the money to be able to accomplish what this money is set out to do. in january this year, nasa wrote congress and said we cannot build the rocket you want -- congress wanted something by 2017. this has amounted to a big, nasty battle over whether nasa can actually do this. in some sense, they are correct

in saying not being able to do this. if you are looking at the funding profile over the next five years, this program would get $14 billion. that's less money than what consolation would have gotten. as the 2009 commission pointed out, one of the reasons con stillation failed is it didn't get the funding promised. congress is looking to a repeat of history that's already failed once. secondly, budget problems are not all congress's fault. nasa itself has had budget problems over years, costover runs and technical problems. there's a reason nasa has been on high risk list of public contemplators. those two factors, the less

funding than anticipated coupled with nasa's propensity to break its own budget has a lot of folks very skeptical over whether the u.s. can put astronauts in a space craft any time in the next decade. >> i would like to tell you more about scott pace. i'll listen to the current nasa administrator and talk to you about your comments. >> deputy chief of staff, served as chief technology in nasa's office of space administration and the administrator and evaluation from 2005-2008. phd from the rahm graduate school. on july 1, the current administrator talking at the national press club in washington.

>> as a former astronaut and current nasa administrator, i'm here to tell you, we'll continue for at least the next half century. we've laid the foundation for success. for us at nasa, failure is not an option. we have the opportunity to raise the bar and demonstrate what humans can do if we are challenged and inspired to reach out for something just out of our grasp but not out of our sight. host: to you. guest: i think he's been given a difk that is very, very difk that is very, very

what we have heard from many of our international partners is that the mud while very very difficult is within reachac whereas when we talk w about gog to mars or many of our national partner say well we can't do that or that is beyond us. and i don't believe there is going to be a major space exploration activity cost is too high, thiss too difficult. the reasons for doing it are interer national. bringing the russians into the space station program is the way they symbolized the relationship with russia. we know john kennedy went to the moon in part. how do we integrate and engage.

not on the space station but on the next journey. this viewer who tweets to us, mission to march will reveal -- indicate future leadership. guest: the problem is trying to go directly to mars is going from the first fly to the apollo program. you need a training ground in between. the competition is old think. the real challenge is how do we bring other emerging space spou powers into the game. the real space thinking is going on in asia. host: is that china? guest: china.

india, japan. that's where we should be looking. host: next caller is bernie from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. your two guests are excellent. gives me a good perspective on everything. what scares me is there are no plans and no goals. the no goal part scares me as someone that has grown up with this space program at age 59. i think it is bad planning by this administration. i understand the professor saying we have to set our goals to what we are doing next. if we look at the government like your heart. we have arteries going out and veins coming in. if you are out sourcing, you are getting new technology in all the time. there's a lot that has made our

life better through the space program. not just the goal of going to mars or whatever. thank you. very interesting discussion you are having. host: thank you. here is a question on facebook from paul. since the columbia accident, nasa has always had a second shuttle on the pad to perform a second rescue if needed, is it not in place for this launch? guest: it is not in place. this launch was intended to be a rescue mission for the second to last shuttle mission. this was some debate about what would happen if something were to happen to atlantis when it launches today the discussion was this the four there on

atlantis would find their way home host: crowds are gathering. host: crowds are gathering. history. we are told rain or shine hundreds s of thousands hubbeds put the crowds close to 1 million. dozens are already in town including the first shuttle pilot who opened the aaron columbia in 1981.

>> he was absolutely a pioneer, later what came be important aboard the international space station space has benefited to gain technology and medical research. if you crawl under the or bitters today you find a lot of empty spaces near the nose

host: thank you for your time today. today. we have been awaiting the new jobs numbers and i really want to start there because the key to this discussion about investment in the economy. let me tell you what the reporty is. t the u.s. economy has added 18,000 jobs in a much slower pace than in may suggesting the slowdown in the economy might he longer lasting and more than ma severe >> there's a lot of discussion >> there's a lot of discussion about second frequent. caller: would you repeat the question. we had it on speaker phone. host: the question is about the affect of the end of the program on your state. guest: the shuttle has been the work horse. it has done more things for

technology probably than any other programs than united states has embarked on with the possible exceptions of the manhattan project and sat urn 5 project that got us to the moon. >> what's your direction, sir? guest: i'm going to promote nasa as much as i probably can. we have a selling job. i'm not sure that the public understands the spin off that occurred because of the program. it could be life saving defib lators. it could be lasers or computers >> all of those could advance the human condition around the world giving the advantage that has allowed us to compete with better products and proi duce

more jobs and strengthen the economy. host: you feel this is an investment worth making for the country. guest: we have to spend money or these programs or do we want to spend our scares traction dolla dollars. national science foundation, advancements in basic science, things like nasa that produce excellence for our country but also with the spin offs associated with that. i'm one looking towards the future. i want us to invest as much as we can in the kinds of things over the long haul can advance the nation. >> do you have a policy in mind. do you prefer man or unmanned

flights or space stations of the future. which direction are you headed from a policy area. >> that's an important point. the white house has effectively kill kill killed constilation. we'll now have to thumb a ride with the russians. going into the future, congress has insisted that certain money be spent on the heavy lift vehicle, which would enable us to go beyond low earth or bit. that's what we wanted. that's our intent. unfortunately, the white house has a different view. i hope that we can continue to have manned space flight. there's no profit in the

commercialization of manned space flights. any of the materials i've participated in or that i need to read. it is like nasa to take the lead and be the work horse. it's done a great job for america for five or six decades. >> congressman, we have mark matthews here who has a question for you guest: certainly guest: i was hoping you could go back to the point you made earlier about the economic implications of nasa having a new program. talking about technological spin offs. with the current plan and constilation relying on 30-year technology from the space shuttle, what kind of spin offs do you see from that. constant criticism from nasa is

that it is white collar welfare. what will come from what we have been doing since the 1970s. those who think that nasa's white color welfare have not been paying attention or done their homework. >> as you can imagine from my response, i am a strong supporter of the nasa program. i grew up with sat urn 5 being tested. that's the rocket that got us to the moon a few miles from our house. i remember the earth shaking and us having to make sure our dishes and cabinets didn't fall out. also remember the pride i had in america with neil armstrong stepping down on the moon in 1968, 1969. i think it was 1969. in any event, what we have to do is establish emission.

low-earth or bit, fine. we can do that. we have a space station. that ought to be a minimal goal. to me, moon and mars exploration. perhaps going to astroids. advancing the human condition and human knowledge. then technology is developed to accomplish that. it's like going to the moon in the 1960's or developing the space shuttle in the 1970s and launching in the 1980s. it wasn't until you had the decision -- host: congressman? are you still there. i apologize. he was talking about starting the mission first. take us back to the comments you made earlier. guest: it is really difficult to design your programs and think about what technologies you need and where you are going and why you you are going. again, we have been really more

in favor of the lunar mission return over the international basis challenging of what we can be done. i'd like to add to some of the response of what was coming out of the previous efforts. it was not to rebuild what we had started before. progress had been made in reducing the amount of man power necessary. there's a whole bunch of very nerdy discussions on friction stair welding and robot tick assemblies and so forth. the main thing was building actual hardware was really crucial. that hands on experience will be developing, testing, flying and not just doing it on paper. that's a new of insights and how

you improve upon what these productions are like, the solid rocket motors was like. some of the things i worry about in the complete reliance of the commercial sources is nasa and the industry partners may be losing some of these hands on skills they need in development and test line. again, we learn by actually doing. not just talking about it. >> we end at 9:00 eastern. the house is in session early today. the space shuttle launch is set for 11:26 eastern time. they continue preparations toward count down. jfk is turning over in his grave buts this is ending. >> looking at twitter comments.

>> the question for you it will serve as a discussion point. american hero writes, why don't we sell the space shuttles on e bay. i'm sure they are worth something. what will become of the shuttles? guest: they'll go to different museums throughout the country. there was a bidding war in congress to see which state would get each one of the shuttles. you would have some members to show up to hearings who frankly never really came them often, would drop in five minutes and say my state needs the space shuttle and then leave again. there was a lot of debate about it. the shuttles are going to -- there's going to be one in florida. there will be one going to the

air and space museum in washington, d.c. the third is california. they are spread across the country. that lead to some degree of howling from texas being the home of the space program and being the home of johnson space center, they should have one. host: next call from arkansas. brian is a democrat. good morning. are you there? caller: i want to agree that texas should have a space shuttle. i would have to drive to florida to visit with my kids. my question is with so many r&d cuts being made, what is it we are skipping out on now? maybe this will give american taxpayers the fight.

what type of things are we scrapping in order to save money? are we still interested to learn more about deep space or is it all basically bars and we'll worry about deep space later on because we don't have money for it. >> one of the stories i don't think has been well appreciated is since 1988, the u.s. has been buying and relying on plutoniun 88 coming from russia. we've been using that in some of our space probes in part because we thought it would be bet for buy that and getting out of russia. that source is now largely gone. there's enough for one more deep space flagship mission. after that's over, it's gone. there's been an effort with nasa and the department of energy for

several years now to restart the production of plutoneun to reach the solar powers of the sun. that's failed. we now don't have a domestic source. we are out. one of the una appreciated points is that we are not sending a mission to mars unless we have a u.s. source of this. host: the final shuttle flight is shuttle atlantis. we have video of a flight it took in 2009. it has travelled 120 million miles. 293 days in space.

it's made 4600 or bits over 32 different flights. >> what modifications were made to the later shuttles after the two accidents? guest: after the loss of challenger, the solid rocket motors were completely redesigned. that was what lead to the failure in challenger. in the case of the columbia sdenlt. the major change with procedural. when the space shuttle gets to or bit, it is intensely inspected and surveyed and looking for damage and pitting. if there are any problems, they have the option of repairing them or staying at the space station. i think what is also more important, the result of both missions result in important policy changes.

in the aftermath of challenger, we decided to take off shuttles. after columbia, a more fundamental question is asked, for what purpose is risking human life worth while. the discussion was low or bit was not what we needed to doing there needing to be a human exploration to justify the risks of sending humans. >> houston chronicle front page today,

you are on the air. good morning.ne. >> caller: is the c-span? >> host: yes it is, good ahead. cocco enjoy your programming.ho: this is a very good discussion. in our history, americans were here to be free. we should be free to be in space without any country involved. but i think the world should get together to put their money together to go together to mars. join in their funds and technology and talents and he had indicated people and get them together in one group instead of being just nasa and america because we want to be number one in the world. we have to join the other kwoirpts to be able to survive. host: let's get i current response about the sentiments in

washington about cooperation rather than competition. guest: there is some support for that idea. president obama has talked some about that cooperation. nasrallah has been used as a soft power. during the kennedy administration, it was us against the russians. some type of international mission to the moon or beyond could be a type of soft power to symbolize that america wants to be a team player with the rest of the world. there are still concerns about it on capitol hill most particularly with china. there has been adamant stance against any cooperation with china many come eagers on the

hill share that sentiments. we might not see cooperation with china for a long time. host: here's a tweet. host: we are talking with mark matthews and scott pace about the future of the spa program. we'll go to jeff on the line. caller: thank you for your panel being there this morning and giving their expertise. one of the things that is really bother so many, we talk