i will introduce them briefly as i asked them the first round of questions, looking back on our history. we will then have time for a second round of questions looking forward, what they might see coming this fall and time permitting within an hour or so, have an opportunity for you to ask questions of them yourselves. ..

most importantly, she is past chairman of the bipartisan policy and continues to be a board member with us. so in 1997 when he first took over the faa and the agency was spending out $9 billion at shortly before you arrived the agency itself estimated that you would need 10 billion annually to meet their growing passenger usage and also protecting the safety of the flying public. yet as i recall the budget resolutions for only going to provide about 7.5 billion or 2.5 billion gap further complicating your job as you were coming in and an assessment of the agency was mandated by a

the 1996 agency reauthorization act and concluded, and i quote, the faa had no system to account for its cost and the managers generally couldn't manage money properly. so, simply stated, how did you successfully transform the faa while managing a 10 billion-dollar budget, and guess just for the record when you left in 2002, that figure had grown to 13 billion today the agency is about 822 billion-dollar agency. >> you make it sounds so appealing wondering why i took the job. [laughter] let me start by saying that you are right. viag and congress and the gao, we are very critical of the faa and do not understand the system and where the money is going so the first thing we have to do is put a cost, very sophisticated

cost accounting system in place. they were tough to do and we had to bring in a lot of outside experts to consult with any of our colleagues in the private sector but we were able with a talented cfo and staff to vault over a series of months and years the cost accounting system that i think gave us a very good handle where the money was being spent and more importantly where we might be able to save money. but one of the critical questions going forward for me was building up the credibility. we had some issues of around. i'm going to mention three. one with labor-management relationships. we were really stock. the congress gave the ability to negotiate contracts but we hit a logjam and we took that very seriously and we felt if we wanted to move forward we had to first of all results the labor-management issues. we were able to do that.

again i would say that it wasn't without its challenges. we were criticized by some who thought that we had given the controllers to much but from the management, we secure the productivity gains and more importantly, they became a very full flow of partners moving the modernization for work. so that was critical for us for the first five years. the second issue was the airline's. again, it was something they felt intellectually committed to but they were skeptical of the ability and so we've reversed the course a little bit and there was also in keeping with the budget that we knew we were going to have. we said one of the investments we need to have over three to five years that are strategic and important and will move modernization for word. so we came up with a program partly because we went to congress and the administration with the airlines and we were

able to secure the budget to move forward. the last issue why wanted to mention is the safety agenda. we had to horrible accidents, the twa and the challenge for us was how could we create confidence in the american public and create a program that again dealt with some of the safety issues. working with nasa and partners in our industry we created a program with precursors and trends to deal with some of the safety issues. that has worked well and i have to give credit to the faa and the subsequent administrators that have taken that to the next level. so that accounts for the extraordinary safety program that the record has so in the broad strokes i would say identifying an agenda with your

stakeholders identifying that agenda that is achievable in the short term as well as the long term those are certainly some of the approaches that we took to building the budget. you always leave these jobs thinking there is so much you can do but we are able to move forward during those five years. >> governor tommy thompson was the 42nd governor in wisconsin, the longest serving governor in that state's history, he was chairman of amtrak when the senator tried to eliminate subsidies and of course he was the secretary of the department of health and human services from 2001 to 2005. he was appointed by president george w. bush. most recently for the record the governor joined the bipartisan policy center here as a senior adviser and we welcome him very

much to the organization. governor, the budget when you took over in 2001 was about $380 billion is my record here. along with social security the was the largest and is the largest still today of the domestic agency. when you left at the end of 2004 it had grown $200 billion to over 580 billion-dollar agency. during your tenure you were hit with a slew of emergencies, anthrax, post 911, concerns over bioterrorism, the flu and the need to stockpile the smallpox vaccine. you also cleared up the plans to expand health insurance coveragn

so when i look at your budget i know we are supposed to talk about constrained budgets but one might conclude you had no budget constraints on your agency but omb and barry anderson gave you a budget tie line. how did you go about and did the congress and particularly place restraints under congressional a budget that you hadn't anticipated clacks >> being a conservative that i am it was an interesting period of time you have to understand the time the department the first year i was there 9/11 happened up until the time the budget office was very much

trying to control spending of the department of health and human services to the truth of the matter is 9/11 came and everybody was looking for who is going to be able to pick up the seat. the first thing was smallpox. at the time i took over 12 million doses of the smallpox vaccine available in order to protect the american public. we would ask the companies to look at the reserves to see if there was any chance they might feel to find one. one company from 62 million doses of smallpox that was in a black box three times, the company had been three times changed and they found it and we found out that smallpox vaccine that had been manufactured in 1952 was still capable. in fact it was so good you could reduce it for-1 so we had enough vaccines right away because of

that and the was able to take care of that problem. the next problem is that nobody really knew how to handle the protection of health in america. the public health agencies of the state level. i saw a tremendous opportunity and omb didn't care that much about what i was doing over the department. so they gave me a lot of flexibility to build the local and state public health systems. so we put a tremendous amount of money in that. then anthrax came and nobody the was worried about the threat came and since homeland security hadn't been created the department of health and human services was the place to go. so everybody gave up pretty much a blank check to develop the public health system. on the food safety if you remember correctly i was very passionate about the food safety

as i figured the was the next place all over america and we were supposed to protect 80% of the food under our jurisdiction to you go see a tremendous possibility. we would put a lot of money into that and then we also had a president by the name of cheney who felt that it was absolutely necessary to ratch all of the protections we possibly could, and so it was pretty much put the money in the pot of health and human services and was from every time they said you can't spend it i would go to cheney and he would say all i will take care of it. we were able to have a very strong voice in the oval office to said protect america. it was the clarion call. so preserving the money as

making sure that you develop a tremendous robust state health care system and then we decided to encourage small companies that didn't have the money to put money and start the products and get them to the marketplace and that was another big thing. then i got very active with colin powell and we went to africa several times and put a tremendous amount of money in and we were the ones in the national institutes of health that was able to set up the program and the millennium fund. we took it to the president and the president agreed to take over as well as the global fund and i was able to convince president boesh debate, bush.

as you know the president's number one program he refers to now was the millennium fund and the was started and was never our idea. we never got credit for it but there was ours. that's what happens when you do it. but basically, it was the time they were not able to gunster in the budget debate everybody gave us a pass to do whatever was necessary and that is why the department of health and human services and public safety was the reason and regards to the congressman, i knew him when he was on the lonely state legislator and so i saw the tremendous amount of respect and come artery with david obey. anybody that's ever been with obey has had a fight with him sometime or another but it's always been good, and he was extremely good to me and senator conrad was to it i have to stop talking because when i was in the green room about five minutes ago john nickles reached

over and set listen use the 20 minutes and i will speak 20 minutes with those of the people worry about the other 20 minutes to read i have to get done because i am getting the iowa from senator nickles. >> was a great opportunity to grow the agency and actually protect america. that was the clarion call that we were able to do. >> i would point out that at least in 1998, 1999 and in 2001 we were running a surplus on the federal budget so it does make a little difference there. i didn't necessarily planned at this way. but another badger state alumni, obey was also the longest serving member of either house and wisconsin history. he was first elected congress in 1969 but most importantly for this discussion he was the chairman of the powerful house appropriations committee.

it is with some trepidation that i ask this question as a budget year -- budgeteer. i know when it was enacted in 1994 you have some concerns about the act and felt that the new budget committees command remember the two committee chairmen, would be captured by conservatives. looking back on history, and you had gone through many. i counted them up this morning. there were 110 days while you were chairman or during your time on the appropriations committee yet the government shutdown of course the worst being in '95 and '96 when we have 21 days the government shut

down. and you went through a sequester. i guess the question is with some trepidation is their anything good you can say about the budget process to manage the operations in times of constraint? >> what we simply say that when the budget act was passed, and circulated a memo to every member of the democratic caucus laying out my concerns about it and i wish i had been patient enough for all the problems of develop. we only had nine pages worth but in fact we wound up having even more problems. i went back, and took a look at and the initial speech who was my mentor in the house and this is what he said in his first

statement during the debate in the budget act. he said the objective should be to make the congress informed about and responsible for its budget actions not to take away its power to act. second, she said the budget reform is not an instrument for preventing congress from expressing its will of spending policy. i would invite all of you to ask yourself how successful the budget committee has been and how successful the congress has been. i am always amused when people talk about one of the answers to the budget problems being that we should move to a three-year budget. history shows we would be very lucky to live to a three month budget than one of the delays

and sequestrations' and shutdowns that we have had. we did have government shutdowns in those days but they were for reasons that were beyond the reach of any of the committees involved in fact, the first year i was chairman we finished every appropriations bill before the end of the fiscal year. that didn't happen because david was smart but because i had a cooperative ranking member. on the details of the appropriation bills why don't we at least have a bipartisan allocation to each of the subcommittees at least we can agree on how much of these bills come and that the decision as to

why we were able to finish every single bill on time. the budget act is crystal that made it harder for the congress to do its principled job of passing the appropriations bills and send, without adding more months to the calendar, it has consumed a huge amount of time with a whole new additional process which has been largely politicized and polarized as it has been considered by the congress and i would also say that it has failed to accomplish its main goal which is to reduce deficits. we have had deficits larger as a percentage of gdp after the budget act passed than we did before it passed. so why don't see what a goal it is accomplishing. the one good thing is that it created the congressional budget office, something that was

certainly needed. if you want me to find one good thing about the budget process, that set. i think there is a fundamental flaw in the way the process works. the way it works is that the budget committees plan at 30,000 feet and layout what they want the macroeconomic government to be, but they want for the revenue, but they want for the direct spending, what they want for entitlements. but then the appropriations committee has to then actually implement that process. so they have to make the hundreds of detailed decisions and the problem is the system is wrong because we the system is working today the budget committee produces its macroeconomic dreams, but it's not balanced by what that means on a program by program basis. and so it is not rogers or patty

murray's fault. the problem is there is a huge difference in judgment about what is achievable on the part of the budget committee and then that same judgment produces a different result in a the appropriations of the ways and means committee and i think that is a fundamental flaw that has to be dealt with. i also think that the process alone is not the problem. i think that the cockroach said once it isn't what matters, the system that you have. what matters is what you do with whatever system you happen to have. and i can tell you as tommy thompson and i were running these committees i know what we would do because i know what we did in the middle back in madison. in madison in those days we would fight like hell from nine

until five and at 5:00 we would go to the congress and the democrats would sit at one table and the republicans would set at one table and reporters would sit with their typewriters and they would tighten their stories and asked us what was going on and what was our response and we would work it out. today because we have seen the passing of the world war ii generation, in my view there is much less a sense of duty than the whole or much less the sense if we agree that we have to get worked up for the order. they are supposed to define differences and then it is supposed to find a way to resolve them. the problem is the politicians have gotten very good at defining the problems. and the system doesn't help in finding ways to resolve them.

>> thank you. i have to be careful -- another term and here. senator nickles served his home state of arizona in the senate for over 24 years from 1987 to 2005 -- >> 81. >> if he looks young because he is. he was the youngest republican elected to the senate at the age of 32. 31. under the constitution i guess. he was assistant to the senate republican leader from 1996 to 2003 with trent lott and was term-limit and became the chairman of the senate budget committee in the last two years in 2003 and in 2005. when you to go for the senate budget committee in 2003, the federal deficit and the previous

year stood at $160 billion. when you left it exceeded 400000000000.3.4% of gdp in those cases. it passed the modernization act for the prescription drugs and your instrumental in the passage for president bush's 2003 tax reform that introduced the capitol gains and corporate dividends to 15% and revenue as a share of the economy actually increased until the next german cantelon in 2007. i know you were and remain a strong advocate that reduced tax rates resulting in increased economic growth. and i do not entirely disagree. but the question is the reverse of the proverbial starve the

beast approach on the spending constraints. if revenues grow, if the deficit comes down as it is now, what pressure exists on congress and the executive to constrain the public budgets and to eliminate me be the wasteful spending? >> before i answer your question i want to revise a little history. you mentioned the deficit was 160 billion in 2002 and became the chairman in 2003 but as you know since you marked up about 20 some budgets i was the chairman in 2003 and we are working on this 2004 budget. 2003 is already in place. the deficit was 377. two years later it was about 400. but we made significant progress because revenues were flat. if you go back in history at

that time really from the year 2000 you might remember in the year 2000 there was a market collapse. during the campaign and so on it was a five-point in 2000, in december of that year the markets crashed, revenues collapsed, deficits were exploding in 2002 and 2003. in 2003 we passed the tax bill and all the sudden the gdp took off. gdp and in 2003 it was potentially income of three years later it was 13 trillion. we had significant economic growth during that period. 3.5% per quarter for those years. so the revenue went from 16.2% to 18.2% in 2006. the revenue as a percentage of gdp but gdp growing significantly to revenue grew as

well and in spite of that we did the tax cut and we did cut the gains and corporate taxes on the corporate dividends and revenues from both of those went up dramatically. not by inflation. they went out in multiples. so by reducing the gains and the rate on the corporate distribution of the profits to their owners, the revenues significantly increased to the government. to answer your question of what happens now when you have some sort of good economic news that is declining someone from 1.1 trillion to 700 billion you have the president to make a speech last week i was successful but we reduced the deficit spending now down $400 billion where it was last year. never had such a big deficit reduction playing himself on the back end of this year the

mid-session review just announced a reduction in the deficit for this year of $219 billion just a week or so ago. the president is taking credit. most of that was gse, fannie and freddie and the other big chunk of it was revenue. and a whole lot of the revenue was because people were hurrying up to do deals in the fourth quarter of last year because the gains rate last year was 15% and this year is 23.8% as a result of that tax increases that were enacted in january. the gains rate went from 15% for the higher income people to 23.8. that is a 58% increase in the capitol gains tax. a whole lot of deals were done and now are showing up because people wanted to crowd them and at the lower rate so you had an explosion about 65 billion of the 200 billion came from

increased revenue. but he didn't say in the same mid-session review of the deficit goes up over the tenure period another $507 billion. he left that out. so the big problems exist and remain and continue and get worse. the president proposed a budget if you look over the ten year cycle it has a trillion dollars of new taxes and revenues and a trillion dollars of new spending doesn't do anything on the debt to i don't think he cares one of leota and that is the biggest problem. you have a big effort in the bipartisan policy center there have been leaders. our friends have been doing fantastic work. people are looking at this same saying we can't continue with the offer with an explosion of a lot of entitlements in the out

years because the demographics primarily we are getting older and we are going to be on these benefits and there won't be that many people contributing. so the outlays are not really sustainable, the deficits are not sustainable. the president provided no leadership and we have had very little leadership in the congress and that is very regrettable. the deficit-reduction didn't have the budget for three or four years and i hope they get a budget conference agreement deal done towards the end of the year but they are a long way apart. today harry reid once to have a trillion dollars of new revenue over ten years. the chances of that happening are zero. it's very regrettable in my

opinion because it is not going to happen. that kind of tells you there isn't going to be a big deal, there isn't going to be a grand bargain and inability to make significant solutions towards solving these long-term problems that are only going to get worse if they are ignored >> we have some differences of opinion i can see coming up. so the last panel member to lead the public service is senator kent conrad. i know the senator to be as concerned as anyone about the country's fiscal outlook and who worked tirelessly to try to get something done before he left the senate last year. it was last year leaving and it's during a difficult time for the financial system. our economy and of course our federal budget. again, in fairness, the deficit

stood at 160 billion when you took over about 2% of gdp and took over the gavel in 2007. the figures were in 2012 and of course the deficit was 1.1 trillion or 7%. having said that, looking back over your career did we not doing enough to constrain the spending? should we have been harder on david obey's committee and budget and a dozen budgeting the brink with fussy are super committees sequesters and are they merely a nuisance is putting off the real painful constraints to come as we have seen in europe and detroit last week?

>> you frame this very well. i think it's a important as said to put things in context. when i go back to those years, it was an extraordinary time in american fiscal history. i will never forget being called to an emergency meeting in the fall of 2008 to the majority leader's office. they had been chairing the meeting on energy in another part of the capitol complex. i walked in and there may be 16 or 17 people in the room and in the house and the senate, republicans and democrats. the psychiatry of the treasury and the bush administration was about 6 o'clock in the evening they posted a guard at the door and closed the door. it was very unusual, as you know. and i knew something dramatic was afoot.

i sat down and the meeting began. the secretary of the treasury and the federal reserve told us they were taking over the large insurance company the next day and they made very clear they were out there to seek our advice or approval. they were there to inform us they were taking the steps and they told us that if they did not do it they believed there would be a financial collapse within days. that gets your attention. they then went into some considerable detail as to why the financial collapse would occur and the specific companies that would go under, the companies that were so important to the american economy i think sent a collective shudder through that room, and it became clear that we were in the midst of a financial crisis unlike anything since the great

depression. i believe the steps that were taken subsequently by the bush administration in the final days of their time and the steps that were taken during the obama administration and the steps by the federal reserve the steps collectively hadn't been taken i believe we would have gone into a depression. so i think it is a small price to be paid the additional debt that was taken. as much as i hate that. there was a concern about the debt that was occurring and i was first elected back in 1986i was deeply concerned about the trajectory that the country was on for the record deficits today with respect to domestic spending that is really not the

problem. in 1968, 69 we were up almost 14% of gdp and the domestic discretionary spending by 1998 it was down to 6%. the domestic discretionary spending was dramatically reduced. in 2012 that was back out to just over 8% of gdp somewhere close to where it was in 68 or 69. under the budget control act we are going to go down to 5% of gdp by 2022, a record low. so it's not appropriate account in my judgment where the account access. the problem exists in my judgment. the health care accounts back in

1970 were headed down the trajectory for 12% of gdp and the health care accounts by 2037 and 2040. that's where the explosion in spending is occurring on the health care. on the other side of the equation is the revenue. this is where i do have differences with some of my republican colleagues because they say that is just a spending problem. if you look at the chart of spending and revenue over the last 60 years, three years ago we were at a 60 year low on revenue and a 60 year high on spending. 60 year flow and 60 year high. no wonder we had record deficits and additions to the debt. so in my judgment when some

friends say it is a spending problem, they got it half right. we have a spending problem. a spending problem that was necessitated to avoid a depression. a revenue problem exacerbated by tax cuts that we couldn't afford, that went too far that took the revenue base with a 60 year loan. so in my judgment week to look at both halves of the equation on the spending side without question. we have to impose more discipline especially on the parts of the spending that are growing and it's not the domestic account that david was responsible for, it is the entitlement account, primarily the health care account. and we have to work on the revenue side of the equation as well. we are still not back to where we need to be on revenue if we look at the historic record. if we look over the last 60

years, the revenue has been at about 20% of gdp. we are going to be at 17.5% of gdp on revenue this year so short of where we spent the last rebalanced. under the revenue stream that we have now by 2015 we are expecting the revenue to get to 19.3% of gdp that still somewhere short of where we've been the last five times we've balanced. i am honored to be part of this panel and i just want to say senator nickles i served with him and he and i have a disagreement on one thing, when he gives you his word, it is good and that is a very important thing. also somebody that was ready to work together to get something done. we had disagreements, but we worked together productively.

congressman obey i tell you you never questioned where david was on an issue. he made it very clear. tommy was a joy to work with. he was an absolute joy to work with. but there was an attitude let's get results. that is the thing. the process to me is not the problem, the process is the problem and the problem is people who are unwilling to get a result and it's not just on one side of the all i might add. i wish it were. it would make things a lot easier. we have problems on both sides of the aisle, people who don't have an attitude, let's get something done. >> a segue to the rapid quick round to open up for them to respond.

tomorrow the part of commerce will release its preliminary second quarter gdp figures. this may be a confusing gdp figure with the estimates going forward it may be a little bit difficult to figure it all out tomorrow but some analysts expect that the growth in the second quarter could even be less than 8%. they plan on leaving and going home for the august recess at the end of this week. when they return from there will be less than nine legislative days before the fiscal year began. and at this point, they're have been no 2014 appropriation bills that has been pointed out to the senate and the house hasn't agreed. you can go to conference on the budget resolution that both chambers we back in march and those budget resolutions in the house and the senate have a

91 billion-dollar difference between the senate and the house, $91 billion. unbelievable. our own estimates here at the bipartisan policy center is that we will reach the statutory to run out of cash and reached the end of our statutory debt limit sometime between the end of october and mid november. the secretary has made it very clear this week that the administration will not negotiate on the debt limit increase. we have a 2% sequester on the mandatory programs that will begin in october and a much larger one for all of mr. obey accounts beginning in january. and even the faa could face furloughs' again. and there is talk of enacting fundamental tax reform this session. we have seen some green shoots

of bipartisanship in the senate, not in the house of representatives. i think it is fair to say that we are budgeting at the brink once again. you have all been there. what should we, or more importantly, the american public, anticipate how this is going to turn out? i would open up for anybody to take that on tariffs and it doesn't look likely that congress is going to get a big deal. the statement that mr. lew made to extend on the limit is ridiculous because i've been through a lot of debt limit extensions on the negotiations and lots of times they have writers on them. the administration may not like them, but they have to sign the bill or veto the bill. estimate it could be elimination of the affordable care act.

>> i doubt it would include that but i wouldn't be surprised if it had some things on that. i'm trying to remember i think we passed the congressional review act as part of the debt limit. harry reid was the principal sponsor. they have the right to write the legislation and the president can veto it. they can say they don't want any writers on it but the congress to pass it. they have to have something that is going to get through the senate. they are running into a significant dilemma for the congress and from the white house to avoid the train wreck.

>> that might be a good segue into something i intended to a german obey tikrit i guess the president is meeting tomorrow with democrats in both the house and the senate, german obey and chairman konrad. as democrats what should the president expect when he meets with congress tomorrow, democratic members. >> i was born in oklahoma and that is the last thing i have in common. [laughter] he just said that it was ridiculous for the president to say they wouldn't negotiate on the debt ceiling. what's ridiculous is that this issue is being joined on the debt ceiling. that is what is ridiculous

because it puts the fundamental risk of the welfare and the economic strength and the leadership capability in the country worldwide. that is what is ridiculous. second, what is ridiculous is that we have had a fight about the mathematics over the past three years. the problem and again what is ridiculous is for politicians to ignore it. the big problem is the fact that we have had a huge transfer of income of the income scale in the last 30 years. meanwhile it's been financed largely by the pocketbook earnings of middle class families. we ought to be having both parties working together trying to figure out how you can attack that problem on a bipartisan basis rather than having another debate on accounting. the problem on the process of

bothers me i think one of the reasons it's become so politicized is because congress is never at work anymore. they come in here -- we've started the session on monday afternoon and went until friday morning. today you come in on tuesday with issues and they are in town for a full day and thursday by noon of the argon and heading for the plane. as a result you never have the time to learn the substance of an issue and so if they don't have time to learn the substance of an issue, what do they do? the fall back on the politics and it becomes more and more. to me from the other problems the members have to spend so much time being glorified telephone marketers raising

money for their campaign to have little time to understand the substantive differences i believe you are not granted that the problem solved until we develop a high degree of confidence and the other guy's personalities and concerns until we learn all over again in the congress how to work together when people differ with one another. it takes time. you need to get to a of a human chemistry of the people that you are dealing with and that is missing on the hill. >> what is going to happen this fall? >> and a little more optimistic but i'm always overly optimistic i guess. i see some kind of hopeful signs.

i saw it in immigration and interesting enough on the farm bill. i would be quick to add in the senate but you know, things have to start somewhere. if we look at the deficit projections, and this is where i disagree, i think the president does care about deficits and he has had to prioritize averting a depression over deficits. in my judgment was a wide prioritization but now it's coming down quite markedly. $1.1 trillion last year lockstep down to $340 billion by 2015 down to 2% of gdp. that is a dramatic improvement. the problem is dealt long term hasn't been dealt with and this is where i would agree. the collective failure has been an inability and unwillingness

to deal with our long-term prospects. we won't have the grand bargain but we could have an additional increment of the deficit reduction which i think would help economic confidence. i think it would help economic growth. the president has laid out something the would make an important contribution that is going to change that helps on the revenue side and the spending side and about 250 billion in the first ten years but a much bigger benefit in the second ten years and the third ten years. i think it's entirely possible you do have a negotiation of the debt limit. i personally believe whether it is the rate, the fact is to get an agreement on the debt limit extension, they are going to have to be some larger sessions and they have to be a ground a

long term fiscal trajectory and there is an opportunity to get some additional revenue not by raising rates. i don't think that is the right way to raise the revenue if we can raise the revenue without raising rates. but also with long-term entitlement reform. a lot of the grand bargain but another step. and remember, the budget control act people said we didn't have a budget. we didn't have a budget resolution. but we had a budget to all called the budget control act that $900 billion out of domestic spending over ten years. couple that with the dreaded sequester that has another 1.2 trillion the previous 5 billion now you have $3.6 trillion if we get another of the adjustment over the next ten years we would be on the

soundtrack. >> i want them to have the last word on this before we open up with questions from the audience but i would point out -- and you know this, mr. tryon, that is of course the deficit coming down is because the sequester stays in effect in those estimates. that means there is a potential for another sequester and another issue as it relates. how would you be planning? >> there are two issues that are critical right now and any agency right now facing the sequester. first of all to understand what the scenarios are, what are the various -- the big policy issues if in fact this is going to go into effect do you furlough the employees on the car modernization program, do you hold back on some of the modernization programs and not

furlough employees? those are very tough decisions that have to be made, and i but certainly urged the faa and insure they are looking at those questions very seriously. the concern isn't so much 2014 it won't be easy but they may get by and as suggested it is the longer-term implications. we would like to think it is an opportunity for some consolidation and some changes that may of been difficult, but those are the policies that have to believe the outcome and laid out i think in a very transparent transport and i. >> questions from the audience? >> i always refer to questions like that as the city get judge of new york said. if you like good sausage and good laws it's best that you

don't see either one being made. our democracy is always been not as taibbi as we would like. we look at the situations as we have a problem, we solve it. but the government and the democracy isn't like that. every one of us would like to be able to look at it and say make adjustments now, have a beer as we used to do, and make things happen. but the congress of america today usually refers and reacts very effectively to emergencies. i look back and we were way behind the russians. all of a sudden they came together and put the first man on the moon. 9/11 we were way behind. america was wide open. we never thought we could have an attack on american soil. there's not been an attack on america since then, since the

attempted but the shift in successful. the financial thing i didn't like the result, but i wasn't there. they came up and made a solution that david obey talked about. there were a lot of problems that it had some good senator nickles came in and they could argue about whether or not the cuts are good or not. i think they are but that is a partisan difference. the truth of the matter is the government and the emergency always comes together to work. i'm absolutely certain america will come together. we are not going to allow the country to go down because we can't go along. we are going to fight like hell and at the 11th-hour somehow we always come together and i am absolutely certain the same thing will happen again. >> welcome to the bipartisan policy center.

allyson has a microphone. we have a few minutes for some questions. please identify yourself and your association. >> my name is david. i'm with the lrp publications and my question is pretty basic. we talked a lot about the sort of longer term, but for the members of the panel, do you believe that there will be some kind of continuing resolution or do you believe there will be a government shutdown in october and second the same with the debt ceiling? do you believe we are going to get to the point in agreement will not be reached until after the ceiling is reached. >> to touch on that briefly, no i don't think there would be shot down. i think they will ultimately pass. i think, you know, the house

would pass a continuation. the house will pass a continuation and the question is how long it will be short and put some added interest on all sides to come to an agreement. i met ruth the chairman can't to do a deal. they want to do something that long term would help put us on a financial stable future. they want to take the tax code more efficient and you can raise the revenue in some areas and reduce the rates in other areas and make the economy grow more. there is a lot of income that is not taxed. >> you can reduce the rates cut the marginal rates are too high. my marginal rate is 50 per set . the government gets half of over every dollar i make.

that is counter-productive. you don't have to be at a high income level for that to happen incidentally to it as a matter of fact it's about $90,000 if you are self-employed you are working for the government more than you are working for yourself. >> you were also on the finance committee bright, chairman konrad? >> we have agreement and i would say this i was a part of the group of six and we proposed raising the revenue not by raising the marginal rates and happen to agree with chairman nickles on this point. i think that you can raise revenue -- i think you can actually lower the marginal rates that exist today. i think you can put together a package that would raise revenue, there would lower the marginal rates somewhat and give an additional lift to the economy. i've shown many times on the

floor a little five story building in the cayman islands. the house claims to be the home of 18,000 companies. they are doing business out of the house and the cayman islands to really are not doing business out of the house. the only business they are doing is the tax avoidance business in the united states. and if this is costing us about $100 billion a year. does anybody think that is a tax increase when those people start paying with the rest of us are paying? i don't. ..

airports care a lot about that. the consumers care a great deal about that i think there are lots of opportunities and should be opportunities to really lay out, these are the options. maybe all the debating doesn't occur in the public but certainly laying out those options to people do understand. first and foremost i think discussions as others said here with congress so there really is a full understanding of what are the tradeoffs. sometimes that's missing in this discussion. people aren't fully clear exactly what the tradeoffs are and how, you know, what are the

considerations that an agency is giving, given to certain decisions. so i think you can do that in a pretty transparent way. >> i think we have time for two more questions. >> brian alexander, i'm writing a dissertation of political science at george mason university. and i've been following these discussions for a long time. many hosted by the bipartisan policy center. i had a question about sequestration. in the run-up to sequestration there were a lot of dire forecasts and predictions. now that we've seen it in effect and going up toward another round, i'm wondering, it was a open question to the panelists, where did, in your views, where did some of the forecast, where some of the workout worse or maybe where some of the forecasts work out better than what you thought? sort of an update on the state of sequestration and how bad is it or maybe how bad has it not been? >> well i would just say this.

i think sequestration as a policy really doesn't make a whole lot of sense because it is 1.2 trillion of cuts. all out of the domestic accounts that are already going down. so we are cutting the part of the federal budget that is already in decline. we are not addressing the part of the federal budget that is growing dramatically. so just as a policy matter, to me it doesn't make a lot of sense. it was put in place, as you know, to try to persuade congress to work on the other parts of the equation that do need fixing. the long-term spending, and the mandatory accounts and the revenue side of the house. sequester was put in place to try to provide incentive for congress to act. instead we couldn't reach conclusions. so here we are. it is not have had adverse

effect on the economy as some predicted although i think you will see in the next growth numbers it is starting to bite. you expect about 1% of gdp, to cost you about 1% of gdp and, you know, we could avert that. >> yeah. anybody here think it's a good idea to cut cancer research or to cut research on parkinson's or alzheimer's or hundred tingeing, you name it. i think that is one of the worst examples of sequestration. the second thing that bugs me. i remember going into vice president biden's office before simpson bowles got together and everybody around the table, say, oh, it is not domestic discretionary that's the problem. is the other parts of the budget. everybody agreed with that. every year, everybody agrees with that but every year when the results come out, they go after that part of the budget

because it's the easy one to grab and it's the one that you have to pass every year, unlike other pieces of the budget. that's why it's backwards. >> last question and we've got to move on. >> stan, this has been a wonderful panel. in 1983 alan greenspan chaired the commission to reduce social security. we similarly in 1990 had the base closure commissions and the whole theory was, you hold hand and jump together. my question is, what's different today? why doesn't that work, or alternatively, how can we do something like that? >> you know, as having been deeply involved in bowles-simpson, senator gregg and i proposed the commission approach for those very reasons. we became convinced the only way this happens is you all jump together. i still believe it's the only

way it happens and so, at the end of the day, we got to find a way. biggest problem is public opinion. because if you go out and poll the american people, they will say, don't touch revenue. don't touch medicare. don't touch social security. don't touch defense. the only things they are willing to touch are foreign aid and taxing the rich. and while, you know, i would say we're going to have to ask those who aren't paying their fair share, which may be wealthy, may have a lot of wealthy who are paying a very hefty share. there are some who are not. there are some who are middle class who aren't paying their fair share. i mean we've got a tax code that makes almost no sense at all. and so, look, i think you've got an opportunity here to do something that would really advance the country and strengthen our economy.

we still have that opportunity. >> want to thank the panelists for today but also for their, all of their long public service and really appreciate them taking the time to come over here this morning and thank you very much and let's give them a round of applause. [applause] thank you for coming over. >> u.s. security forces have increased the patrols near some of the more than 20 u.s. diplomatic missions in the middle east including the embassy in egypt which remains closed through saturday. today we cover ad discussion what's happening in egypt with george town professor who talked about the political situation there. here's a brief look. >> my name is abdal from egypt.

i heard the word coup maybe last month more than i ever heard in my life. when we took to the streets, january 25th, our demand were not met until this moment. yes, egyptians have liked the military and disliked them and they disliked them. i expect them to dislike them again. democracy is not only ballot. i voted for morsi and brotherhood and i took the street june 30th to overthrow morsi and brotherhood. we have three demands, social justice, and freedom. they have not been met yet. no dimensions by the brotherhood to undertake them. you see the president voted after revolution and among egyptians and then you find a president declaring himself

immune to the judiciary and all his decisions and decrees are not to be sued or nobody can sue him in front of a court. you suddenly see him writing and a constitution doesn't guaranty freedoms and rights and allow military trials, the muslim brotherhood have been tried now by law drafted and law people told them don't sue this they are being tried by so-and-so on. we can go through it. this i would call here robert when he said this coup was not a coup. so, yes democracy is not about ballots and yes, demomcracy is not to be at justed by military. this is the case. these are the only available options in the egypt. this was the worst available option maybe but also, so, i rephrase it this. this was the best of worst available options at this moment there were no way that egyptians would have accepted military dictatorship, sorry, an elected

dictatorship, even people have voted for them. so this was just a general comment. my question would be, that, given the fact that there are a couple of movements within the muslim brotherhood themselves like one without violence which are calling for leaders to stop violence and stop taking to the streets and so on, my question, how far do you think these movements and we don't know if they're going to snowball or not, but are these movements going to affect the general structure of the brotherhood, especially many international movement of the brotherhood? you think this will affect them or not. >> thank you for both the question and the comment. i want you to send the microphone down there but first, we'll get reaction of the panel. >> i mean i guess another option would be to wait a few months and vote in parliamentary elections that would have been another option and considering that, supposedly 33 million people came out to the streets,

probably could have won those elections and reshaped whatever form you wished and maybe you wouldn't, of course now instead of having a constitution that gives the military right to strike, you actually have military dictatorship. so i'm not entirely convinced this was a sensible course of action, given the aims that you have. that being said i'm american. i'm not egyptian. i may be sort after sentimental fan of the democratic process because i'm american. i'm not sure. i don't don't want to make any statements without facts. second issue, muslim brothers against violence and these things, i'm not, these groups have a whiff of maybe they're sort of like the, kind of, i had a suspicion they actually really exist in any independent form. i mean, if they do and if they end up having a big impact i think it would probably end up being good for the organization for islamists but i would pause

and wait and see if they actually end up earning a lot of support. >> this discussion was hosted by the middle east institute and the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. you can see the entire event on egypt's future at c-span.org. new jersey voters go to the polls a week from tomorrow to pick a democratic candidate for the late senator frank lautenberg's seat. c-span will have live coverage at 7:30 eastern of tonight's candidate's debate. newark mayor cory booker faces congressman rush holt and sheila oliver and congressman frank pallone. that is 7:30 on c-span. all this week at c-span2, encore q and a. nasa administrator charles bolden talks about his experiences as an astronaut and current duties leading the

world's largest space agency. >> i've been pushing for this in the senate that we would move cybersecurity legislation. it is big, it is complicated. that word cybersecurity means different things to different people but we need to get this done. actually as hard as it is for me to say the house has done something right, no, i'm teasing, the house, they're fine, but they have actually passed some of this and i think we ought to look at what they have done and certainly if we want to take a stab at dog our own thing in the senate that's great but we need to get moving on this in the senate. this is a real threat, it's a real problem. all my colleagues on the intelligence committee, i'm not, they lay awake at night worried about cybersecurity. it is imperative we try to get that done this year. >> technology issues on capitol hill tonight on "the communicators" on 8:00 eastern on c-span2. ♪

>> if we turn away from the needs of others, we align ourselves with those forces which are bringing about this suffering. >> the white house is a bully pulpit and we ought to take advantage of it. >> obesity in this country is nothing short of a public health crisis. >> i think i just have little antennas that point up when somebody had their own agenda. >> there is so much influence in that office, be just a shame to waste it. >> i think they serve as a window on the past to what was going on with american women. >> she becomes the chief confidante. she is really in a way the only one in the world he can trust. >> many of the women who were first ladies, they were writers, a lot of them were writers,

journalists. they wrote books. >> they are in many cases quite frankly more interesting as human beings than their husbands. if only because they are not first and foremost defined and consequently limited by political ambition. >> edith roosevelt is really one of the unsung heroes. when you go to the white house today it's really edith roosevelt's white house. >> during the statement you were a little breathless and it was too much looking down and i think it was a little too fast. not enough change of pace. >> yes, ma'am. ♪ >> i think in every case the first lady is really done whatever fit her personality and her interests. >> she later wrote in her memoir that she said, i, myself, never made any decision. i only decided what was important and when to present it to my husband. now you stop and think about how

much power that is. it's a lot of power. >> prior to the battle against cancer is to fight the fear that accompanies the disease. >> she transformed the way we look at these bugaboos and made it possible for countless people to survive and to flourish as a result. i don't know how many presidents realistically have that kind of impact on the way we live our lives. >> just walking around the white house grounds i am constantly reminded about all the people who have lived there before and particularly all of the women. >> first ladies, influence and image, a c-span original series, produced with cooperation of the white house historical association. season 2 premiers september

9th and as we explore the modern era, first ladies from edith roosevelt to michelle obama. >> the senate foreign relations committee held a confirmation hearing recently for various u.s. am ambassador nominees. the committee considered president obama's picks to head the embassies at the vatican, italy and austria. this part of the hear something about 40 minutes. >> we'll reconvene the committee and we'll begin by hearing from john phillips. he is the grandson of italian immigrants. he is a leading attorney and litigator. his ability to negotiate and his legal acumen will serve the

united states very well. we recognize you, mr. phillips, for an opportunity here to address the committee. >> thank you, senator. let me start out by first congratulating you on your recent election. and i understand this is your first hearing. >> first sitting in this chair. >> sitting in this chair. privilege and honor for me to be your first witness of your first hearing. >> thank you. >> it's a freight honor to appear here today. first i want to acknowledge my wife of 40 years, linda douglas, who spent many years up here covering this congress as the chief capital hill core respondent for "abc news." my daughter, dr. katy byrd, emergency room doctor at george washington university hospital and her husband keith a fire and explosives investigator here in the district. i'm proud to have them with me here today. i'm grateful for their love and

their support. the united states and i had tally enjoy a vibrant, robust relationship, something on full display when president napolitano visited president obama in the white house recently here as last february and secretary of state kerry recently made rome the centerpiece of his first trip to europe as secretary of state. but as strong as the ties are between our leaders and the bonds between our people are what make the relationship stand out. more americans visit italy each year, about five million, than visit any other non-english speaking country. when it comes to studying abroad, italy remains a top choice of american students with some 35,000 a year. once more 20 million americans trace their ancestry back to italy. italian-americans have some of the most outstanding contributors to the growth and success of our country in a wide variety of our fields. while it may not be apparent, my last name is phillips, i'm one of those 20 million american

italian ancestors. my grandparents and angelo and lucy left their village in northern italy to come to america over 100 years ago. they settled down in a small town near pittsburgh where others from their hometown in italy come before them. my father's older brother, my uncle louie, went to school for the first time the teacher shoulder him to how to write felipe in edge like. adam: phillips. my cows sis and i always regretted losing our distinct italian heritage. t has grown over years initial desire to connect me to our roots and personal commitment to making these two nations closer together. this effort brought me to italy 50 times in the last decade along. trustee as american academy in rome, perhaps preeminent institution in europe promoting u.s.-italian cultural exchange. i learn ad great deal of about italian local government and

historical preservation in i in 2000 one invested in abandoned group of five, 800-year-old houses in tuscany and worked over eight year period to bring them back to life, mindful of and faithful to the region's historical heritage i believe my public policy issues over 40 years prepared me for this challenging new assignment. in 1970 i co-founded one of the public interest law firms which for two decades successfully brought cases on public policy issues. in the 1908's i worked closely with senator charles grassley and charles berman, with the act designed to root out fraud against taxpayers. since 1986 when president reagan signed amendments we worked on together into law, more than $55 billion has been recovered by the united states government from companies that defrauded it. my firm, phillips and cohen is responsible for about 20% of those recoveries or $11 billion

n 2009 i was appointed by president obama to serve as chairman of the president's commission on white house fellowships, considered by many to be the nation's premier fellowship program. i have not previously served as diplomat i believe my experience in public policy and public service will serve me well leading our mission in engaging italy in a full range of issues. that engagement is a crucial job. italy is a leader and contributor to peacekeeping missions worldwide and has committed to continuous relationship role in western afghanistan as part of the nato mission in that country. italy works hard with us to find resolutions to violence and unrest in many parts of the globe including syria an the middle east. italy is also an important partner for building regional stability in north africa. we're grateful italy hosts approximately 15,000 u.s. military personnel at u.s. and nato military bases on italian soil. increasingly globalized world economic ties with italy remain important for the health of the u.s. economy.

the united states remains the largest source of foreign investment in italy. if confirmed i would promote u.s. exports to italy and support transatlantic trade investment partnership as a way to boost economic growth in the united states and the eo. once again, mr. chairman and members of this committee, thank you for this opportunity. i'm humbled and honored to receive this nomination. if confirmed i look forward to work this committee and the other members of congress in advancing u.s. policy in interest in italy and the republic of san marino. thank you. >> i thank you very much. and you are an excellent choice to be ambassador. i'm sure your grandparents are very happy right now knowing that you will go back to italy as the united states ambassador, something i'm sure they could have never thought possible but congratulations. our next nominee is kenneth frances hackett, the president's nominee to be ambassador to the holy see. he is uniquely qualified to

serve as the u.s. ambassador to the vatican having served a long and distinguished career in international human development and relief to mention only a few highlights of mr. hackett's career he served as ceo, president of catholic relief services, from 1993 to 2012. he is still an advisor for the united states, for the university of notre dame institute of global development and was director of the millennium challenge corporation from 2004 to 2010. the election of pope francis, the first pope from the southern hemisphere and one who gives every indication of being fully engaged in the pursuit of social justice gives mr. hackett a unique opportunity. to re-engage the vatican on these issues of pressing mutual concern. his lifelong dedication to helping the less fortunate around the globe and working within catholic institutions make him an excellent choice to be our ambassador to the holy see and finally in relevant at

least to me and mr. hackett, as a graduate of boston college, class of 1968, the two of us sit here today, i think, amazed that i am chairing and he is being nominated to represent our country at the vatican as graduates of this jesuit university up in boston. so we welcome you, mr. hackett. whenever you're ready, please begin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and let me extend my congratulationses to you for, your new position and it's wonderfully ironic that we are here together. it is also a great honor for me to appear here today. i want to express my gratitude to president obama and to secretary kerry for the trust and confidence they have placed in me with this nomination to serve as the next u.s. ambassador to the holy see. of course i couldn't be here today without the love and the support of my wife joan who is

behind me, my children jennifer and my son michael. growing up in boston i never expected that my life would be dedicated to international service. my model was my dad, a telephone worker who returned from world war ii, started climbing polls for the new england telephone company an rose through the ranks into senior management. at boston college i studied business. you were in the smart school over at arts & sciences, mr. chairman. and i thought for sure that i would work at a major u.s. corporation after graduation but as chance would individual, in my senior year a peace corps recruiter convince ad friend and me to sign up for the peace corps. and a few months after graduation i find myself in ghana working in ice layed farming and fishing commune. i began my journey in international service in a very rural area of a place called the afrom plains, where i was assigned to live at a catholic

mission with a priest from the former czechoslovakia. it was 1968, the year of the prague spring. as we listened on a shortwave radio each night my host would interpret and explain what was happening in his country. after 3 1/2 wonderful years in ghana i knew i wanted to dedicate my career to international receive and development. when i returned home from ghana i applied to work for catholic relief services. initially they turned me down but i wasn't going to give up. finally i was hired and was sent back to west africa. i spent 18 years as president and ceo of catholic relief services and 40 years at the organization. throughout those four decades i encountered many inspired and heroic people in countries around the world, whether they were lay people, clerics or religious they witnessed true faith in acts of compassion in times of hardship and often physical danger. during those years i had numerous opportunities to engage with leaders of the catholic

church in countries where crs works and in many cases my work led me to the vatican. as you can read for my record i served as many years as the member of the pontiff cat counsel for the holy catholic endeavour and vice president after confederation of national catholic charitable entities. i meet with the, if confirmed i would expand not only my connections with the holy see in rome but with catholic leaders and workers who came to know in 100 countries over my 40-year career. over the years i found that cooperation and communication with leaders and lay people of other faiths was crucial as well. i look forward to expanding these interreligious ties and advancing u.s. policy goals. recent profound social changes across the world have highlighted the important role of religion and religious tolerance in our foreign policy.

the obama administration considers religious freedom as strategic national interests and made it a diplomatic priority. president obama has called for integrating religious leaders in the faith community into the policy process to address the critical global issues of our day. the holy see represents, i would suggest, one of the most significant religious entities able to affect the course of development around the world. since president reagan established diplomatic relationship with the holy see almost 30 years ago, the united states and the vatican have enjoyed strong cooperation on many issues of mutual importance such as the pursuit of peace, interreligious dialogue, environmental protection, spurring human development and promoting human rights. with the senate's consent i would look forward to continue that work with the holy see and its global network of diocese and religious workers and humanitarian agencies on these critical issues. let me expand on just two areas that are priorities for the united states and where the

global network of allies including i believe the catholic church is necessary. the first is the area of human trafficking. an issue where our interests collapse, overlaps, sorry. we have done much with the holy see already and we look forward to doing much more on this terrible scourge. just recently the holy see welcomed president obama's plan to reduce green house gas emissions and contribute to resilient low-emission world. i believe the president's plan, provides a very new opportunity to work more closely on environmental advocacy with the holy see. once again, mr. chairman, and members the committee, thank you for this opportunity. i'm humbled and honored to receive the nomination to serve as the next u.s. ambassador to the holy see. if confirmed i look forward to working closely with you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and next is alexa lang wesner. as the president, texas,

austin, texas, she has pursued an impressive career in civic engagement and public service. she is an accomplished leader and successfully built, productive civic partnerships among the business community, all levels of government and civil society. seasoned spokesperson, organizer and philanthropist with lifelong multicultural experience and german language ability, miss wester in will bring essential skills to the task of furthering biheart ral relations with the government of austria, a key u.s. partner within the european union. i'm sure miss wester in will prove an distinguished, united states and when you feel comfortable begin. >> i like to offer my colleagues congratulations and good evening, senator. i'm honored to appear before you as president obama's nominee to be the united states ambassador

to the republic of austria. i'm deeply greatful for the confidence and trust that president obama and secretary kerry have placed in me. i'm humbled by this opportunity and if confirmed i will proudly represent our country abroad. with the chairman's permission i would like to acknowledge the family members who have joined me today, particularly wish to thank my husband, blaine, for his unwavering support in this new endeavor. i would also like to recognize my three young children, natalie, teniso in, olivia who are with their grandparents this evening. my children continue to inspire me to enter public service just as they inspire me to take leadership positions in the non-profit sector a segment of society that has helped strengthen our country's democracy through the promotion of civic values. i come before you today as an accomplished businesswoman. if confirmed i will bring to our embassy in vienna more than 15 years of founding leadership in business and not-for-profit endeavors. my professional experience has

deepened my appreciation for international trade and global economic vitality. this experience will serve me well in promoting u.s. exports and advocating for u.s. firms doing business in austria. i will also bring to bear my passion for cultivating business and social entrepreneurship. if confirmed i will draw upon all my knowledge and experience to successfully advance u.s. interests in austria and enhance our strong cooperation with this important partner. if confirmed i will give the highest priority to insuring the safety of the united states citizens living, working and traveling in austria. i will also seek opportunities to enhance our cooperation and mutual understanding on international security issues as austria plays an important role in international peace and stability. austria continues, contributes to peace, peacekeeping missions around the world, most notely in the balkans and lebanon.

austria also contributes personnel to the international security assistance force, mission in afghanistan and has pledged resources through 2017 to help sustain the afghan national security forces following the 2014 security transition. i will encourage austria to continue to contribute to these important security efforts. if confirmed i also look forward to continuing our productive dialogue with austria to promote stability, democracy, prosperity, and euro-atlantic integration efforts of the countries of the western balkans region. while our approaches to regional and international issues may differ at times, the united states and austria share many common values and perspectives. these include a commitment to reducing the threats posed by climate change and nuclear proliferation and the promotion of economic development and environmental sustainability through new and renewable energy supplies. we also share an agenda of broad support for human rights and the

rule of law, stabilization in the western balkans and a common vision of peace and freedom for all. to build upon these commonalities if confirmed i will draw on my ability to build strong partnerships for a common cause, uniting the force of government with the private sector and ngos. in addition it is my hope that i can help further austria's dedicated pursuit of a tolerant and inclusive society. both the united states and austria currently occupy seats on the u.n. human rights council. this gives our two countries real opportunities to insure that our mutual aims of global security, prosperity, and the protection of human rights are achieved together. if confirmed i will work with austria to encourage the leadership and innovation it takes to strike that important balance. austria is a great friend to the united states. indeed this year, we are celebrating our 17 a e 5th anniversary of diplomatic

relations between our two countries -- 175th. we have strong trade and investment in both directions. we're bound together through myriad people to people contact, through the arts, education, tourism and a host of other exchanges. if confirmed i pledge to do my best in advancing america's interests and values. i look forward to working with this committee and congress in that effort. thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. so, now we'll begin questions from members and we'll begin by recognizing senator kaine. >> thank you, mr. chair. it's a treat to be on this committee with you. your background as a leader on foreign relations issues is decades long and it will be wonderful to work together in this way. and to the nominees, congratulations to all of you. i feel personal connections, i have personal connections to two.

as a jesuit educated former missionary in honduras, the, jess sue jesuit pope from the americas is warming my heart including today, with a front page article in the washington post. that is all heed tomorrowize. to begin, mr. phillips, one of the things we probably hear most about with respect to italy, i'm not on the europe subcommittee of foreign relations and significant economic challenges how they play in terms of the broader eurozone and european efforts to find a path forward, if you would, talk a little bit the challenge facing the italian government and your sense as you're getting ready to take this post about the tasks ahead of them in dealing with these significant issues. >> thank you for the question, senator. these are challenging times for all the e.u. countries and particularly italy.

it's had a period of nine consecutive quarters of negative growth. its gdp today is lower than it was 10 years ago and italy's had a strong record of success but it really has to confront some of the important issues that will establish growth and establish opportunity. they have a very high percentage of unemployment among youth, 40% right now. and so the key for italy is to increase demand, to get more, of the companies, small, medium-sized business companies to have access to credit. they're not getting access to credit. their financial problems do not stem like others from mortgage failures or from exotic financial instruments. it is really failed, it really is created from a period of stagnation and no growth. when they have that they have

very lie loan, percentage of loans in trouble with italian banks. italian banks today have to increase their own capital. so they haven't been able to make loans to the small businesses. they haven't been able to hire people. not unlike a lot of the other e.u. countries. i think the real way out here is to establish greater demand in the e.u. zone. the transamerica trade and investment partnership, treaty negotiations which are beginning, have just begun. i think they are really important for italy and for the e.u. and, everybody will benefit if they can come up with more standardized ways of, changing the materials and agreed upon rules that will be a very ambitious undertaking. i think now they need the political will to face up to a lot of things that have stymied the growth in italy. and i think the italian people are resilient. i think they want to find a way.

just like all of the e.u. does and the ways that we can help them, try to get real progress on the trade agreement and really develop our relationships on trade issues with them so growth will expand and more opportunity will expand with testimony. >> thank you, ambassador phillips. mr. hackett what an exciting time to be taking on your role. you mentioned religious freedom. i think that is fertile ground for work between our government and you in particular and the holy see. so much of what we do sadly on this committee is starting to take on the tones of sectarian challenges between religious factions with hearings in the middle east. often it seems that is at the core. we have christian communities, cop tick communities in egypt and christian communities in syria. we have the about ahais in the

middle east and others, you know, smaller segments of the muslim population that feel oppression. it's a fundamental value. it is the first amendment for a reason, and freedom to worship as you please and not having established state religion. our birth of the idea if you don't punish for prefer someone for their religious views you will do the right thing by government and the right thing by religion is one of the best things about our country. i would just like for to you talk a little more how you see working with the vatican on spreading that message of, of religious liberty and religious freedom? because i think the partnership could be very powerful. >> thank you very much for the question, senator. as i mentioned this is an important and i just learned in the last few weeks being briefed for this new possible assignment, an important new part of the obama administration's agenda.

diplomatic priority is being given to it. focus is being given to it and it offers a great opportunity. both through collaboration and joint efforts with the holy see, of which there have already been some but they can be expanded far beyond than where they are now particularly if it's given a priority within the administration. but even beyond that, in my understanding of where the holy see sees this kind of issue it takes it beyond just collaboration in a one-pathway to engagement in interfaith as well as ecumenical efforts. and to do, and to put behind those efforts real type of collaborations and not just dialogue. so where we can work together with jewish groups and muslim

groups around taking care of refugees who have left syria. this way we put the heart into the whole religious liberty and freedom question. so i think we can, i believe we can do much, much more in that regard and, i have to believe that the door is open on the holy see as well. >> everything i've seen from the holy see in the last few months would suggest that would be a topic of great interest to them as well and i'll look forward to watching your progress in that way. miss wesner, finally one of the things interesting about austria is not only bilateral u.s.-austria and they have been a very strong ally, also vienna is a city that is a very international city and a lost international organizations like opec are headquartered there. the one i will focus on to get at love attention is the u.n.'s international atomic energy agency, the inspectors. we spend more time in this

committee talking about the iranian nuclear threat than virtually any other issue. the united states has to have a strong, credible military response to not allowing iran to get nuclear weapons. we have to continue powerful sanctions. there is no substitute ultimately for good diplomacy because i don't imagine iran or any other country will ever back away from something because somebody else made them. there has to be strong diplomacy there will be a new president of iran elected on saturday with a strong an surprising majority vote from a public that was demonstrating a desire for re-engagement with the west and with the united states. and i think the role of the u.n. agencies, in particularly the iaea in vienna could be very powerful. i would like to encourage, if you have any comments, encourage and take advantage of those other international partners in the international city of vienna, some of them, opec also will be playing very critical

roles to broader global peace efforts in the coming years. >> senator kaine, thanks for the comment, i couldn't agree with you more. we have a trimission in vienna. there are three missions there, united nations and then the oece and the bilateral relationship, the embassy of course an other international organizations that are there and working with them is going to be very important if confirmed. i know that i and colleagues at the trimissions will be working with those agencies. >> great. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank the gentleman. let me just follow-up on senator kaine's question going to austria again. and its international role as a place where energy policy is created. ask you about natural gas in

austria, about, 51% of its natural gas comes from russia and, one of the issues of course that we have is ongoing effort by russia to use natural gas as an economic weapon and as a result, a political weapon. the central european gas hub is located in austria and the, russian government has been seeking to purchase a 50% control or more of that. so, i guess what i was wondering from your perspective about the role that you think the united states can play with austria in helping to create an alternative energy view that can help austria and other countries to break this vice-like control which the russians seek to use as part of that irnatural gas political strategy. >> thank you, senator, for the question. very important issue.

as you know austria's petroleum company, onz, was recently the lead support of a project, one of two competing pipelines. they were leading the west pipeline to get gas from the caspian sea. now in june the consortium did not choose the nobku west pipeline and since omv has stated they will now explore production exploration in the black sea, it is a very important issue for the united states and for austria. energy diverseification and the embassy has done great work and if confirmed i will continue that great work to work with the austrian energy officials to work on their diverseification of their sources and their roots

as a form of energy security. that is very important. >> thank you. mr. phillips, could we talk a little bit about nuclear weapons and italy and the role the united states has in partnering with italy on this issue and get your perspective in terms of the role which italy plays as a security partner with the united states, not just in nuclear weapons deployment but also in terms of military bases which are there in italy and the role it plays helping to project american power? >> well, with respect, senator, to nuclear weapons, under the nato program, that's, not something i'm fully briefed on. that is more of a nato issue and stationing nuclear weapons in the country. i certainly will look into it and be glad to get back to you with respect to that. regarding policy but with, italy has been a tremendous partner with the united states on

defense related issues. it has played a critical role because of its strategic location, especially. if you go back in the '90s in bosnia, it was the three major bases that are now stationed in italy, american bases and nato bases have been utilized very effectively to provide safeguards in defense, both there, afghanistan, where they're great partners in afghanistan. 3,000 troops there now. they made a commitment post-2014 to commit to spend 120 million euros a year and have their own troops there under training of the afghan forces after we exit. they have been very helpful and active in north africa, and libya, given their longstanding relationship. they were part of the no-fly zone. it's a critical relationship for

us and for all the nato countries and italy has been very forthcoming and very supportive. and if confirmed and serving there as ambassador for the united states i would want to really continue to develop that relationship because it has been so important to us. >> thank you. mr. hackett. , the new pope, has been speaking about the poor to the world in a way i think is refreshing for many people on the planet. could you give your insight as someone who ran one of the major catholic relief organizations, what you think might be a partnership that the united states could create with the vatican in, and perhaps even with catholic relief organizations to better serve the poor people of this planet.

>> i think we all have been deeply impressed at what pope francis has been saying in a lot of different areas. we've had a long-standing relationship between the development and relief efforts of our government with catholic organizations throughout the world. there is much more that could be done. the network of catholic hospitals, catholic development groups, catholic charitable groups, is enormous. it stretches from the capital cities, into the most rural and isolated areas. and i believe that the people at usaid and other people in the administration millennium challenge corporation i was associated with for a while recognize that capacity and i just see the time being right to

expand it and to move it even further, adding dimensions of religious freedom, human rights, to long-term development efforts. >> okay, thank you. gentleman from virginia, do you have any additional questions? why don't we do, why don't we do this. i'd like to give each one of you one minute, just to summarize from your perspective, the job that you are asking for the united states senate to confirm you to, and just give us your one minute summation and we'll begin with you, if we could, miss wesner. >> certainly. thank you so much, for allowing us the opportunity to talk about that. you know, austria, u.s.

relations are very strong. and as i said it is the 150 -- 175th anniversary of our bilateral cooperation. we are their fourth largest trading partner. there are approximately 340 u.s. companies doing business in austria much. yet we don't want to be complacent as it relates to the economic issues of our time. if confirmed i would like to increase trade and use ttip as a tool to do so. i would like to further the security cooperation that my predecessor has begun and i'd like to continue the dialogue on energy security. very important. and last i'd like to harness my experience as an entrepreneur. i view on on theship not only as

an export but as an american value as it relates to individual empowerment, to regional security, and to global growth. thank you. >> mr. hackett? >> mr. chairman, as you and senator kaine have recognized, this is a very uniquely and poignant time in regard to the relations between our country and the holy see with the new pope. the relations are strong and good and longstanding. the holy see has no battalions, has no nuclear arsenals. but it has credibility and influence around the world as you well know. i believe this is a time we can expand our context with the holy see in important areas, areas sufficient as the care of refugees, conflict resolution, trafficking of persons.

wider religious freedom issues and of course dealing with the insidious problems of poverty that still infect so many communities around the world. it is an opportunity for to us take our message to them and expand on what is already happening. >> mr. phillips. >> well, what i would like to do if confirmed as ambassador first to work with the mission there. it's a large mission. there are 500 people in italy alone and it's so important to establish the relationships with everybody. everybody working on the same page. everybody understanding what the goals ahead are, and moving ahead. morale is very important and you have to have a strong team to achieve all of your objectives. i think the security issues that we talked about are going to be a fundamental focus to sustain it and improve it. italy is a strategically located

country with respect to northern africa and southern europe. we have to maintain and continue to develop that relationship. thirdly, italy is such an amazing place. that peninsula last, you think about 2000 years, what has gone on in italy. they have delivered more to benefit civil is a -- civilization in the world. you go to the pan thee on in rome, look at amazing engineering and brilliance and genius that produced this. look at everything that has gone on in italy from the renaissance to art, this is an amazing place. the people who live there now on the italian peninsula, inherit this. they are, have a great opportunity made. what i would like to see as ambassadors to help get their economy going with our joint efforts on our trade agreements, create jobs, create demand, so

italy feels very secure going into the future. i think they have a great future ahead. >> thank you. senator kaine? >> congratulations. >> congratulations. >> miss wesner, i think you did a fantastic job. thank you for being here and i know you will represent our country very well. >> thank you. >> i think we're sending a dream team, mr. hackett and mr. phillips to rome and to italy. you can just see it in this hearing and we thank you both for your willingness to serve our country. we thank you. i think we're sending america's finette to italy with the pair of you, thank you. and, so we thank everybody for your attention to this hearing and for the other members, questions for the record must be filed by the close of business today. if any committee member or their staff wishes to pose questions to the witnesses, and we request

that each of the members respond promptly to that request. so with that, we wish you all godspeed on your mission and this hearing is adjourned. >> thank you [inaudible conversations]

>> you're watching c-span2, with politics and public affairs, weekdays, featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest non-fiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our websites. you can join in the conversation on social media sets. . .

>> i would say that was

emanating towards the arabian peninsula. it is beyond not potentially and that is why we have taken some of the actions that we have taken and we cannot be more specific than that. except to say that the embassy closures that we have announced are in reaction to that. an abundance of caution and the extent of those closures. it does not reflect the new stream of threat information. but it does result in taking necessary precautions. >> is beyond that include americans in the united states? >> the threat from al qaeda to the united states and the american people has been a reality that we have talked about for a long time now. >> again, i'm not going to get into specific intelligence matters. we have taken the action, we have taken this out of an

abundance of caution. and we have issued warnings that we have issued an order to make sure that the american people are aware of these potential threats and the kinds of threats that have always been with us so we are being mindful to maintain this. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> this week on "q&a", charles bolden discusses his career at the agency and his life in the military and his decision to attend the united states naval academy. >> of you have your choice, would you rather be an astronaut or run the nasa administration?

>> since i am running nasa right now, i rather be doing what i'm doing. i am a person who lives in the moment. people who know me know that i tell them that i do not regret anything, no matter how bad it is. what's done is done. and i would not change anything because i have three beautiful granddaughters were six years old, tender soul, and 13 years old. i'm fearful if i went back and change in the minor thing, i might not have them. c-span: 135 missions of the space shuttle. was it worth it? >> guest: it was worth every dime. let me start with what i think this is for the nation over these incredible 30 years. most people never think about it unless somebody tells him. the technical world in which i've been a part of his very

diverse. in fact, in the history of the program, there were only two pilots of african-american descent in 30 years. and there are a lot of different reasons for it, some of which we are not proud of because i don't agree work hard enough. but the shuttle program but an incredible amount of technical skill. people that have been all walks of life, a farmer, a schoolteacher, people like me. that is a dangerous side of what the shuttle bay. for this nation that professes to be the shining city on the hill, i believe that that is so important. there are two other nations that can send humans to space, china and russia. other than the fact that russia

is in conflict, there is no diversity with you goes to space in china, but there is with russia. but so far it has been only chinese with the chinese program. >> what is your estimate that the space program would be 10 years from now. will there be people waiting out there? >> guest: we will still be operating on the international space station. i would love to say that 10 years from now humans will have landed on mars, but that is not the course on which we have embarked. the president challenged us to put him on mars in 2030. so that is a little far outside of a 10 year window. we should have been there now. but there may be humans on the moon if nasa is successful in fostering the development of

commercial space and entrepreneurial space to the extent that we are trying to do right now. there are private enterprises who really believe that they can put humans on the moon. so we have formal agreements to provide engineering expertise and other types of important research. c-span: what about russia or china? >> guest: no, not within 10 years. we have the capability of doing it. we are about meeting the world and exploring deeper into space and we have ever done before. that is why we have embarked upon to bake human enterprises over and above the international space station right now. by 2025, humans should have come

in contact with an asteroid and they will be in the translator interacting with an asteroid, one that we have been working on for several decades now that we have formally introduced as part of this. and then after that, if we are able to develop the technology from now mission, the solar electric propulsion, increased efficiency in our life support and environmental control such as the cabinet where the humans live, it can stand an eight-month trip to mars and then living perhaps in something like that for a long period of time. this is the biggest challenge right now for a trip to mars.

c-span: where did you grow up? >> guest: columbia, south carolina. my wife and i are both from there. jackie bolden is my wife. we are both protestant teachers and my mom and dad were lifelong teachers until they died. we both grew up in the segregated south. so my being here is very improbable. if anyone had asked if i would be her when growing up in south carolina, the answer would've been a resounding no way. but i grew up in colombia. c-span: how did you get into the naval academy? >> guest: a long story, but i will make it short. i fell in love with what the naval academy over television. there were a lot of military stories when i was growing up.

i saw the uniform and that is probably the biggest thing. lots of women and girls came to the naval academy on the weekend. with no knowledge of the navy or the naval academy, i decided in seventh grade but that is what i wanted to go. i started writing my congressman and my two state senators and the president of the united states, saying that i really wanted to go to the naval academy. so i became a senior in 1960, graduated in 1964. most people who are my age or maybe close remember that we lost president kennedy. i have been writing ever since he -- lyndon johnson, became the vice president.

i can't get an appointment at a south carolina, can you do something. i never heard from him, but about a week later a recruiter showed up at my front door and said i understand that you are interested in going into to the naval academy. couple months after that, a judge came around and travel around the country, looking for a young man of color who is interested in going to the service academy. so i got an appointment through the congressman william dotson. he was african-american, he was an army veteran. he is long gone now, but i never had an opportunity to meet the other person. c-span: who is the congressman? >> well, there were two u.s. senators and albert was the

congressman of the area. in each case they all responded. he was the most honest and said it was politically infeasible to do this. c-span: because of color. >> guest: because of color. i had have just never heard anything from this congressman. my mother to her dying day believes that strom thurmond played a role in getting into the naval academy every single milestone i would get a note from strom thurmond. c-span: he said the uniform attracted you. but you go to the academy academy and switch your uniform. a united states marine.

>> guest: i knew that under no circumstances i would go to the marine corps. i live in columbia, south carolina, on the weekends marines came into town because back then, you know, where elsewhere the blackberry is going to go become to columbia and they would go to a swimming pool where i worked and i got to see them up close and personal and they were crazy. i did not want to fly airplanes. so the two things i knew was i would not fight fine i would not be a marine. my first company officer was a gentleman who was an infantry officer. so much like my dad. he was tough, but incredibly fair. although we were together for just one year for my freshman year at the naval academy, he so impressed me that my senior year i thought, i want to be like him. so that is what i did. c-span: how many missions over

vietnam. >> guest: i flew 100 missions. so during the campaign. i was a a-6 intruder pilot. it was awesome. we sat side-by-side. it was an attack aircraft, and all we did was deliver weapons to a target on the ground. most of my flying was done in north vietnam and they were generally nice, low-level interdiction missions, very seldom went out at night with more than one airplane. i was young and foolish. i was the first lieutenant, so i was probably 2425. c-span: you can factor those missions, what is the moment you remember? >> guest: the one moment is the

time i didn't think i was going to get back or come home. it was just a mention. back then we were kind of stupid about how we view things. the target times are almost always the same and everything was repeatable back then. so we were at liberty to arrange this any way we wanted to do it, but the targets were going to be the same no matter what. and there was one area that was in the southern portion of north vietnam. they knew the were coming, they knew what time you're coming and they started shooting even before you got there. and in this particular fight the fire was incredibly intense. but you know, there's stuff all around and you know that the worst thing to do would be to try to turn around because he was not much more time in it. so we just press on to the target.

we were about 500 feet to the ground. so you knew that they could not see and they were depending on sound. probably not picking up on radar. but we just didn't think we were going to make. i distinctly remember that. i came back and there is not a scratch on the airplane. you know, other than that everything was okay. >> where you flying out of? >> we called it the rose garden. and remember i had taken my wife from cherry point north carolina. he had just turned a year old. he is a lieutenant colonel now, a commander which is an unmanned aerial vehicle and the drones lot and transcribe in north carolina. so he was born there and he went back there to take his command. so it's interesting. so it could be his first time in

his last time. but i took my wife and son back there and put them in an apartment. so my transportation, they had my sword and my dress blues in the trunk. and i landed on a side, the squadron left yesterday. take your trunk over to the hangar and get out enough underwear and flight suits because you're going south. ironically when i call my wife she said, what is the secret air base and i said, what he talking about and she said it was on the cover of time magazine. so i was in this place called the rose garden. in the middle of a royal training base.

the air force had started fitting a runway but could never get the airplane to perform the way they wanted. so they abandoned it. and they put an extra thousand feet of runway is to give us this and we moved in and lived there for years. c-span: how big is nasa? >> guest: roughly 18,000 people. about the same size as the aircraft. c-span: how much money we spent in 2014? >> guest: well, in 2013, we will spend about $16.8 billion. the budget was 70.7. that is what the president has requested for 2014. but under that we took a 5% across-the-board budget cut. so we are spending it in that

way. c-span: one of the things to look at is% of the budget. if you come up to 2012, it was .48% of the budget. what is the difference? >> a number of things. primarily what it was 4.4%, we had the soviet union and president kennedy became determined it would be part of space exploration. it is historic that there is a challenge to put men on man on the moon before the end of the decade and bring them safely home. that is where that came from. it's a gradual and down from the apollo area where we are today.

we do still have an enemy and the enemy is whether or not the fight, whether we will maintain our position as the dominant nation in the world technologically and the president talks about it all the time. we will be the leader in the world. we are still not innovating. there is no infrastructure development and education is very much under a lot of strain. president is really tested and challenged all of the the federal agencies to come up with a viable education program that will be effective so that when you and i go to deliver a commencement address, we are not going to see all of the kids going to a school of engineering

in from another country. the way it is today. we have a big challenge. c-span: you are an engineer? >> guest: i was supposed to be an electrical engineer, but i found some horses on electrical scientist. it is sort of a hybrid of an engineering degree and an mba that usc put together primarily for the air force. they entered an era where we were going to be doing much more. c-span: what was your rank when he left the rink where? >> guest: major general. c-span: back in the 2012 campaign, we will show you what he has to say and then reflect on it. >> guest: okay. >> we will have the first prominent spaceship on and it will be american. [cheers] [applause] >> we will have near earth

activities include finance and tourism and manufacturing and are designed to create a robust industry precisely on the model of the development of the airlines because it is in our interest to require so much experience in space that we clearly have a capacity that the chinese and the russians will never come anywhere close to. [cheers] [applause] and by the end of 2020, we will have the first continuous propulsion system in space in a remarkably short time. i'm sick of being told that we have to use technology that is 50 years old. [cheers] [applause] >> how much of what he said you believe? >> guest: i'm serious. i'm certain that he had read the national space policy and he had

included the campaign space platform. much of what he did is already true, as a matter of fact. we have been living and working in space on the international space station from us 13 years. science and engineering and technology development goes on there every day there is an italian that is there with russians now. so we are doing that part already. we provide commercial transportation through spacex, which is an entrepreneurial country. it is not a private company, not a dig business or large industry traditional provider. we have a second company from

right here in dulles, virginia, that launched the rocket more than a month ago. it is a 2.5 hour drive from here and we will have to american providers carrying cargo so we will get the president on board and we will select probably 1.5 -- we need people to carrier crews from space. it is critical to me that we had to authorize our budget people. our financial people to write a check for $454 million, well but more than a month ago to extend her contract to continue to carrier crews through 2016 and 2017 because we have not yet run about the american capability.

the president's budget called for $821 million, we are not halfway there. my job is to try to persuade the congress that we will be efficient users of the taxpayers money and we have not been successful not yet, but we are working about it. americans are transported again on american spacecraft. among the technological leaps are larger solar electric propulsion engines that are made available to much of us. technologically just don't have

giant solar plans like this. c-span: when did you command a shuttle with russians? >> guest: 1994 was my last space shuttle mission people always ask what is your fondest memory from the space program, meaning what was the greatest thing to happen to you in orbit. i remember the two plus years that i spent training and having a family live alongside us in houston, texas. my family getting to know there is come all the families working together. for me that was priceless. we were the best of friends and we are told this day. that was in 1994. c-span: when you read the daily reports coming coming out of russia, doesn't look like we have much of a relationship compared to what we expected to

by now. why do we get along in space but do not own the politics? >> guest: because we have a mission. we are doing something that both nations recognize and has a tremendous impact on humanity and the world. we are both dedicated when it comes to the technological advancement of humanity. they want to do deep space exploration with us and they would like to do some robotic missions to the moon. russia has been trying to put something on the surface of mars and have it work. the first time that happened was when they threw a radiation instrument is a part of the scientific package. and it is the source of much of the radiation data that we talked last week about our press conference, that tells about the radiation environment between earth and mars and now on the surface of mars. it is going to be critical for

them. because as we further the design of the places in which we live. we have a mission and a common goal and a common understanding. i was at nasa headquarters when i was the assistant deputy administrator and i was working for the administrator at the time. thinking that i would never fly again. one individual said we want to go back to houston. and he said we wanted to fly out and shoot you command a mission. one of my hidden desires was to go back with the first hubble servicing mission. so we really wanted to commend the first station because they

had an opportunity to do that. i have my whole life and they said, how about calming down for a minute. you guys will be in town and you can go have dinner with them and we did. we got together with them and a young engineer from moscow, he was a colonel in the russian air force. spoke not a word of english. the three of us had dinner that night and all we talked about was our families and what we wanted to do. c-span: so why did we think that

the russians were going to get involved. >> guest: we did, we had practices and policies in place that a lot of access is limited to. there were places that they couldn't go. the kennedy space center and the johnson space center. and they did not have an opportunity to sit on any briefs of classified missions. so we guarded what it was. but over time the trust grew between us and among the teams and everything else. by the time we flew, very small things came through. in america we do human research all the time. because that is all you have.

so if you wanted to do an experiment and it was interesting, one of the major experiments that i worked on calls for the twin on my crew. but we were the two investigators on board. the first woman to command the space station after she became an astronaut. but in order to get the russians to participate, we would've had to go through a great long process to make arrangements and we just weren't going to do that. today, when i go to conferences with the russians like something called the international space station that we held a couple weeks back, they talked about the importance of the exchange of data. we want to bring russia out of the russian segment of the u.s. segment and we want to make it one station that we should have.

we are working hard to do that. c-span: what about the chinese? i am prohibited from working on a bilateral respect with the chinese. c-span: why is that. >> guest: the president who made an agreement between the u.s. and china to do what is called a joint committee in many areas, i went through china is a part of that agreement. some members of congress did not agree with that. so they wrote it into the appropriations act doing bilateral relations with china. we are embarked in working on a future, which is going to mars or an asteroid.

c-span: we let them buy the dead? >> guest: this will come in time. the president has given a great challenge of an agenda of things to do. and i happen to love the president is trying to develop a mission that allows us to get to mars in 2030 timeframe. it is to continue to lead the world in exploration and development. missions on the way to jupiter. we have missions on the way operating around almost every planet in the solar system.

c-span: what is the source that you differ with this. >> guest: i do not twitter or tweet. so whatever these disagreements are, i read blogs every once in a while. i have the best job in the world right now, i run the space agency in the world's greatest space agency with the administration and support personnel. i don't have time to control critics. there are far too many people in this country who do not like the president. that is their problem and not mine. he is looking to make this

country to continue to have this country to stay in its position as the dominant nation in terms of technology and everything. >> it should've been gone before we were doing it. we are just not able to do it. the reason had nothing to do with safety. a lot of people say it was unsafe. that was not true. we spent as much time on development looking at safety issues as we had done before. probably more. but we could not explore this. the president and if we wanted to be honest, we could not continue to pour $2 billion a year into just maintaining the shuttle. so we had to understand that we utilize the capabilities that we have in our industry and allow

industry -- it is not routine. but it's the best way. it is the business of industry and commercial enterprises and entrepreneurship and we have equipped the nation's industry to do that. we have worked with them. we have three incredible companies that are designed to be the nation's first provider in the transportation for cruz. so that is where we have the shuttle. we had to get into another vehicle to do that. so now we are embarked in development. c-span: how many of them are

there? >> guest: right now there are six of them. typically there are 200 americans, to three russians and then one or two of partner nations. c-span: when we combine that with another story, let's watch this really quick. >> ♪ ♪ >> hello, i am back with another report. this past week on mars we had taken a sample, which is basically like taking a deep breath.

>> this is charlie bolden speaking to you on the curiosity rover. >> guest: first we play an audio file. >> ♪ ♪ >> guest: then we play back the song reach for the stars and that is the first time it has reached out to mars. so you have to be very reasonable and measured in what you do. and you have to make sure that the fun you're having is clearly related to the job you're trying

to do. our job is to inspire young people for generations. it is generally done through the arts and not through science. probably half the kids out there so he was present for the laboratory launched at the kennedy space center more than a year ago. his dream was to help and i said, okay, what you want to do. he said he wanted to write a song and he did write a song. he composed a song and got 200 kids from all over with the world to sing this song. and we've been good up.

i think the team and we played the song and that is what i think anyone who wants to argue about this, i will take that argument. that is to put something on youtube today. everyone uploads that. nasa has been recognized through awards like the family is and we are recognized as one of the most innovative agencies of the government and we were so proud of that. when you allow workers to do things out of the ordinary. c-span: nasa has had a tv network for years the taxpayers are paying for a mic every other

agency in government. now the pentagon has one. so has nasa had an unfair advantage in selling what they do by having a television network? >> guest: quite the contrary. i defy anyone to find the line items of communications. david weaver is my director of communications and one of the things i promised him when he agreed to come to work is that he would not go around town with a tin cup. i haven't been able to do that yet. so i communicate in our department medications on the video that you just saw. that was the science mission directorate that had designated as is an amount of money for education and public outreach and that is an example of what i call a very wide expenditure of

taxpayer fund. >> guest: there people who who believe that. he wanted nasa not to communicate the story would talk about the great discovery that we do, theoretically someone could take this away and prohibit a member broadcasting anything we would do the. c-span: you were involved in kuwait? >> guest: yes, i was. c-span: what were you doing back then? >> guest: i had left the space program and at the time i was a commanding expert in content expeditionary force. about 200 of us represented the marine expedition air force and it has three components. a ground component and then a

component which today is a logistics group. so i had represented this from those three components living and working in kuwait in case saddam hussein went berserk or something. we were the forward force for everyone else to flow into. my last official day in the marine corps was the first of january 2002. but i'm still a marine. c-span: what happened later. >> guest: i don't talk about it, it's something that is water under the bridge. i think the president withdrew the nomination under pressure. i don't ask. i have heard so many stories that came from secretary rumsfeld, because we were about to embark and nice. this was post-9/11 and i was

told that the secretary felt that he could not justify sending an active-duty officer to a civilian agent. c-span: is at work putting a military man on a civilian agency? >> guest: we have had two administrators that had been part of active duty. i think he was active-duty when we first came in as a nasa administrator. sean o'keefe has been acting administrator of the navy. if you have a person is qualified, historians will tell you. i love my work and i think my people enjoy working for me. my job is to facilitate their success we want to be the best

place work in government. c-span: you mentioned having dinner in iraq and afghanistan. he is now an oscar nod. where is he at now? >> guest: is a navy s.e.a.l. c-span: how did that happen? >> guest: he wanted to be an astronaut. they come from all walks of life. i apply for the state program and i was picked up and i went all the way through a 14 year career where nasa reimburse me for my salary. in the marine corps let me go for 14 years and i went back. c-span: so what does the space station do? >> guest: most of it is science,

scientific investigation. solar science, we now have a number of earth science experiments that are there looking up the atmosphere. we are doing technology development that is the product of many nations, more than 20 nations that have the science experiment. it is a basic physics experiment looking at the beginning of time. ..

>> guest: who is going to get their astronaut to fly in space and the agreement, it's a treaty that brought us together as this entity. this is one reason i think on a sidenote i think the international space station should be nominated for the nobel peace prize because u.s. this question earlier about u.s.-russia and the relationship the international space station is a working relationship a conglomeration of in excess of 20 nations around the world, everyone wanting to do what they want to do, everyone wanting an opportuniopportuni ty to fly their astronaut in space but their agreements in the treaty and one of them is opportuniopportuni ties come

with donations to the stations so there is no exchange of funds except between us and russia. every other nation is either putting a module up, they take components that go into the station and the more they contribute the more opportunities they have two flight and astronaut so because the u.s. as the dominant provider of supplies and funds and everything else we pay for the transportation for all of our international partners. c-span: so why are we paying russia? >> guest: because in the beginning at the time when we started thinking about those we were still a soviet union. when the original agreement was signed site uses the russians equivalent of the shuttle. it is their human space -- they don't change. they use the same thing so it's been around since the beginning of time. c-span: heavy or been on one? >> guest: i've never flown on

one but it's a three-person capsule smaller than the apollo capsule really and that's the way we get our astronauts back and forth to space. what's going to be critically important about having american commercial capability is it takes this to suyez flights to get a complete crew to the international space station. all of our commercial partners are developing seven person, seven crew capability so it's fair to pilots plus seven passengers that they can carry out. so we can get a complete complement to the station plus one more science investigator with the american capability we will have. c-span: i want to show some more video because we are talking about chris cassidy. this is not serious as you have probably seen but you will talk about the guy with a mohawk. let's watch chris cassidy. >> i'm going to go out on a limb and give the full on look at the

ceremony. so please join me at chris's barbershop. here is how we cut hair in space. we have standard hair trimmer but they here we go all over the place so we needed to be connected to a vacuum cleaner, which is right here. now we are ready to cut hair. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> what do you think so far? that's pretty close to what luca has going on but it's not quite the full look. it's completely smooth on the top so i had one more step to do. ♪

♪ c-span: luke is the italian on the space station right now. does that kind of thing come from -- is that his idea? >> guest: that is totally chris's idea. i am told the people have always accused chris up he had luca looking a little bit alike so it's order to make luca feel at home. this was the story was told to make luca feel at home chris said we look like you anyway, we might as will become twin so he decided he would do that. c-span: how long do they stay up there? >> guest: they are there for six months of the time but they will overlap so luca coming up now is halfway through chris's tenure. chris came up halfway, chris hatfield was the canadian who became an international sensation because of his guitar playing and his outreach to students through the downlinks

into classrooms and everything else so chris will go home about halfway through luca's tenure on the international space station. c-span: you said earlier don't look back and you think the job you have now is the best. we have some video of you over the four trips that you took on the spatial spirit which stay shuttles were you on? >> guest: i was on columbia my first flight. probably on columbia with now senator bill nelson as a matter fact. that was my first flight in space. it was a flight immediately prior to challenger. we lost the challenger 10 days after this landing in my second and fourth flights were on discovery and the second was with the hubble space telescope in the discovery of the last time was the first russian-american -- mission and my third flight which was the first time as a commander on a mission -- that's the hubble crew with cassie sullivan who was america's first woman to walk in space. that is me on the treadmill. everybody says it's absurd that

i'm wearing a headband because if i'm keeping sweat from running into my eyes gravity is overcome so sweat goes everywhere. thisthis is me i think on my thd flight the first time on atlantis on what we call america's first mission to planet earth. this is steve holly and meet applying the hubble space telescope on the second flight. absolutely incredible. hubble was huge or is huge, 25,000 pounds and weighs nothing in space. a very complicated mission that turned out to be and that is pre-launch on hubble. you will notice that you can see is pre-launch on my first flight. all we wore was a regular old flight suit and helmet. post-challenger we wore a launching suit feeling if we had a challenger type accident it would allow the crew at least some time because that's it

comes to cocooned if you lose pressure in the cabin. it becomes like a small space suit. that is what we did. c-span: so, after the challenger and columbia and we lost all the astronauts, what did that do? >> guest: for me personally or for the nation? c-span: just for you. >> guest: i was -- colombia was devastating in and of itself because i have been on the vehicle but. c-span: was that 86? >> guest: that was 2003. c-span: the challenger was 86. >> i had trained and we had made a switch in cruz and i want to say about six months now. my first crew was the spaceflight and then we switched to take a member of congress that turned out to be than congressman bill nelson and bob sinker from rca because we flew a classified payload camera infrared imaging camera that was

the expert on. but to lose challenger 10 days after we had come back the most spectacular time in my life at that time just fell to the bottom. you couldn't go much further. i decided in a few nanoseconds that this is what i want to do it i should be doing it. c-span: did you feel different the next time he went up? >> guest: by the time i flew on the hubble mission we have had a number of flights and i had gotten myself back to the frame of mind where you don't worry about your own personal safety. you are really focused on the mission and what you are supposed to do. hubble was the perfect second mission for me to follow on to challenger because we did not know, we had no clue how significant hubble was going to be. we had no idea that it was going to change humanities total understanding of our universe.

c-span: how did he do that? >> guest: it has revolutionized our understanding of the universe and rewritten textbooks. even einstein, several of einstein's theories, some it is substantiated and others have said it wasn't exactly right. just the issue of the universe expanding or contracting. hubble has has put definitional bat. it allows us to see almost to the beginning of time so i'm not sure many people comprehended what hubble was going to do in terms of opening up our horizons of understanding our universe. we still don't know everything by the way but we know a heck of a lot more than we would have known had we not had hubble. c-span: how many astronauts are currently active? >> guest: in america i want to say we have about 60 some odd. we are about to announce early next week we will announce the selection of eight ran new astronauts who i am hoping people will be very happy to see because it's a new breed of cat. you know i would never have made

it with this group, incredibly sharp individuals every one of them. i think people will be, anybody who knows anything about space. c-span: with only the space station having astronauts on at what did those six do? >> guest: oh they are overworked. we have people in training for space station continually in the difficult thing about training for station today is going up on the soyuz. they have to be qualified to be crewmembers because the americans, the flight engineer. three things they have to do today that i did not have to do. they have to be fluent in russian because they have to be able to read the instruments in soyuz and they have to be able to communicate with the russian mission control in moscow during the launch up-and-coming back down. they have to be proficient in robotic operations whether it's the internatiinternati onal space station mechanical armor at the japanese arm and then everybody has to be able to do

the spacewalk. pilots, not only only did you've not given an opportunity to do it that you are prohibited from doing a spacewalk because they were only two pilots on board and we didn't want to run the risk of losing a pilot for having a pilot incapacitated because of the risk that went along with spacewalk. today every astronaut has to be available to do a spacewalk on the international space station so built different. c-span: so you meet those kids out there which i'm sure you do from time to time, do you think there will be more opportunities are less? >> guest: more, far more in the reason there will be more is the shuttle was one giant leap because it went from the astronaut program and all white male 5 feet 10 inches test pilots. i didn't look like any of them. ben jealous didn't look like any of them and kathy sullivan didn't look like any of them. sally ride didn't look like any of them. it allowed people like that to

fly in space. one time we had an eight person crew so it increased the number of people flying for time and now we are about to usher in the era of commercial space provided the companies can generally -- generate the interest and than they think they can. normal is the backward because astronauts are normal people. but more people outside of nasa will have an opportunity to go to space weather is what we call suborbital flight where you go like allen shepherd, you go into space and come right back down. those opportunities are now on the verge of taking place for normal human beings. c-span: where'd you come on this constant discussion about neal armstrong's first words on the moon? >> guest: i don't argue about it. neal is a true friend and a true american hero and it doesn't matter to me what he said. c-span: it was a small step for man.

>> guest: one small step for man and a giant leap for mankind i am not a purist and i know what the message was. c-span: why do people fuss over it? >> guest: we fuss over everything. we fuss over whether its translator space when we do our astronaut retrieval over our asteroid retrieval mission. it is important to some people. don't get me wrong. we spend too much time over trivial things. the importance of the fact is that the u.s. demonstrated they could do something that no other nation in the world had ever done and has not done since. there have been 12 people to walk on the surface of the moon. every single one of them was american. that's important. that is what is important,. c-span: the chinese will be on the moon in what year?

>> guest: that is up to them to decide. they may never get there. do the russians care? >> guest: i think every nation cares. every nation wants to be us. sometimes i sound arrogant. every nation, every other space agency wants to be in my place. they want to lead the most dominant space agency and the world. they want to be a part of the only government organization from the only country that has ever landed humans on another heavenly body were the only country in the world that has ever successfully landed a vehicle on another planet as we have done i want to say six or seven times at least putting things on mars. no one else has. the russians landed a vehicle in mars and we never heard from them. we think it landed successfully but i don't count it a success unless it talks you and is doing some stuff. c-span: charles bolden we are

out of time and we thank you very much. >> guest: thank you so very much. this was enjoyable. for a dvd copy of this program called 1-877-662-7726.