they're mad. so, their starting point is where it is now. if they create a new state and it's their own state and they can control that state and they can attract business to that state and make things happen in

that state, -- now, are they going to impact their rise in a faster way? a much faster rate than the silicon valley can rise. they'll rise up much faster. i think that, san bernardino, same thing. they could do extraordinary things with that new state. but they can't do now. right now, they are kept down with the current regime they're kept down. if you really want that to happen, you need another state. you need new states. you need people to create their own environment and make it great for them. >> yes, ma'am. >> to me the federal state interplay in this model is confounding. i can't envision the feds ever wanting to recognize six states in the placement of one, much less giving them proportionate representation in the house and additional senators and wouldn't

state ratification be needed. i will just focus the question on pending recognition by the feds. what would be -- it seems to me that the practical realization of the benefits of the model would be seriously crimped in terms of dividing the responsibilities that currently belong with the state government to all of these six different entities because of the federal funding we get from many different initiatives or areas of state autonomy. education, medicaid, just to even begin -- >> right. you're bringing up a great point, and one in which currently the amount we need in california from the federal government is much higher than the amount that comes back to california. and as a result, with six states we would get more of that no question. so that part i'm not worried

about. we'll be -- gate lot more of that federal money back if we had six states, each focused on a certain direction. each of those states will get grants for various things, but the big california doesn't get. right now we're not in that position. but the -- how we get to where the federal government says we're going to have six californias, if it acts just like a law. it can either go through congress and get signed by the president or it can go to all 50 states and if it gets two-thirds support we get statehood. but here's -- first of all, when this passes, already we're going to -- we are going to allow counties much more control over their citizens, much more control over what the state does for the citizens.

so if the state says you have to do something, the state will have to provide the money to do that to the counties, and so that actually -- it's one thing that will be a lot better and a lot more welcome. the second thing is the big counties are self-organized into states over a period of time, and that amount of time would probably be a while because the federal government won't always have it in their best interests to have six californias but there will be a moment in time where the federal government is dominated by democrats, and the democrats say, it's in our best interests to have six states in california now, because we'll have -- or the republicans will be in all car and they'll say, right now, it's in our best interests to have six states of california. so eventually those things will

come up on the -- the dice will come up that way, and we will get our six californias. >> there's just an enter sleeping level of -- intervaccining level of government created. >> yes. and organizing all the issues. >> let me add to that question. the other states may have a problem with added members of the senate. is there also a possibility that other states could follow this model? so we end up having hundreds of states? >> i actually think -- you know, it this happened, then i believe that new york will want to be three states and illinois will want to be at least two, and florida will want to be two, and texas might want to be five. so we might end up with 60 states. i think that's better. we'll all be closer to our

government. i think it's better. i think the closer you are to your government, the better that government operates and that's clear proven, proven numbers. they all believe the smaller government -- the smaller states, the small entities are close to their people. they get better service for less money. >> radio, television and internet audience asks, the common growth of california program and we're talking with venture capitalist, tim draper, the six californias initiative would divide california in six states. i'm the mott moderator. >> i'm glad you mentioned that, this is ali and she works for the campaign and we have petitions to sign if you're from san francisco county. we'd love to have you sign,

and -- sorry to interrupt you -- but please, allie, hold up your hand or something. she has some petitions in the back of the room so you can sign on your way out go ahead. >> an interesting conversation that opens up if the measure actually passes. at the same time, -- from california, and you have explained how that might happen here and there. my overwhelming opinion right now, though, as a discussion about the states and their negotiations and the rest of it, basically you have one huge hand grenade into the states, and there's going to be winners and losers fatilities and let's see how it comes out, and it could come out working very, very good. but that's my impression, you want to -- we can't predict what

will happen here or there, just hope for the best. perhaps you'll comment on that. >> i think everybody -- we can all live in fear. we all live in -- thinking about the terrible things that can possibly happen, or we can say, hey, it's our government. and i think it's going to work. they're always going to be problems with everything that happens. whenever you make a change there are problems. when tesla came up and became a big success, a bunch each states decided they didn't let tesla in because they -- disturbed the car dealers. there are always going to be people that are disturbed. i'm thinking about the best for all of us. i'm just thinking, hey, we're going to be better off if we have a new system. we'll be better off if we had six californias. closer to our government, certainly going to be a lot

better off. and so if you -- you can describe it any way you want. i actually describe it ass innovation. there is new innovation, and this is a new opportunity in government. and you can -- people resist innovation, and at the beginning, and then when it comes, i bet you carry a cell phone. okay, there are going to be -- [inaudible] >> fear of the unknown, but there are going to be the great majority of us are going to benefit from innovative change in government and there will be -- if you have six new governments in california, we would have amazing innovation. we are very creative people. we'll come up with great ways of governing and all be a lot better off. >> we'll create a lot of new roles for people who want to run

for political office, too, which would be interesting. >> sure. see, that's what you can do. >> possibly. what i mean, each new state will have some kind of governance and administration. >> i tell you, the initiative process, now that i've been through it, is really in the dark ages. my first question is always, can i use digital signatures? oh, no, we can't do that. has to be a signature on paper. well, can we send the information to people and then allow them to print it out and sign it. well, no, you can't do that because it has to be on a 13-by-17 sheet of paper that is folded in four and with a certain font that is always done by these these printers. so, we -- that just one of the

many laws we need to get rid of. if you're going to have an initiative process in your new state, change that. at least you can change that. >> and have online voting, too. >> yes. some states they not want that. a lot of states -- those things can happen. >> yes, ma'am. >> research you cited specifically what -- by what criteria, smaller is better? i know that in general there will be more money per -- >> i'll give you a few in education, the top states and the smaller states, the bottom states are all the bigger states, with one exception, and that is texas. i think it may be because they only meet as a government two months every two years, and then they have to go back and live by the rules they've created. and i think that might be the

difference, and why somehow texas has actually -- is quite a bit higher in education. but the rest of the big states have pretty bad education. that's just education. recidivism, much higher in the big states. prisoners, many more as a percentage in the big states. infrastructure spending is a percentage of the gdp in the state. much lower. so, all of those things add up to a bigger -- bigger is not better in terms of getting yourself well-governed. >> can we be certain that is not a relic? massachusetts has been established -- >> massachusetts has a terrific education system.

fairly small state. and those people have choice. if you don't like living in massachusetts, if you don't like your government, you can move to new hampshire, vermont, down to new york, and you can move to so many different states, and for those states all have to compete with each other. jersey competing with new york for all of those businesses. it's really -- it happens. it's great. it makes it better. they have that fluidity, and if somebody is not doing a good job, people will leave and they'll have to improve. so, states on these coast feel that complication. they feel that desire to encourage. on the west coast -- you want to live in a beautiful place with all this great weather, and you -- just sort of -- the fact we have the worst government in the country.

and you can't blame any one person or party or the bureaucracy. you can't blame any of those things. it's just happening. it's just like -- if you only have one cable provider, they give you whatever they give you. that's kind of what we got. >> so, how do you feel about the more gradual purchase to reform? some started here at the commonwealth club ten years ago, which is to take redistricting out of the hands of the state legislature to try to have multibudgeting process there has been a process of trying to improve and tweak state government. >> and it keeps getting worse. there are states it keeps getting worse. go ahead do your incrementalism. it's a little like the monopoly who adds one feature to their

product that there's a fundmental change that is needed. you can't just add one feature and expect the world to come to your door. incrementalist approach, we have been trying it for a long time. >> yes, sir. >> i'm sorry. excuse me. not looking on the side of the room. >> came in the room, a skeptic about breaking the states into six different states, but i feel pretty convinced now, especially like the way you explained how silicon valley, we can benefit, and i personally -- i know a lot of people actually feel like that -- the high taxation in california, and i would 100% support it if we can do something about reducing the tax, the income tax especially,

which affects me and most of us, because silicon valley already has all the corporations paying high taxes. i feel like if we can do something like state of washington other other states, that would be fantastic. >> so you have new state. you can create lower taxes in your state. there's an opportunity there. and by the way, since you have kind of come our way, will you sign the petition on your way out? >> so let me just ask here, how many people left here a skeptic about this idea? i'm seeing many hands. >> one of them is my father here. >> in the front row. how many people have changed their minds since you came? okay. there's a few. and we still have five or ten minutes left. >> great. yes, sir. >> i do want everybody to be

skeptics. i want everybody to be thinking about this, take it bam, have a dinnertime conversation with your families, make it something that you get involved with. something that you care about. make sure that you are getting involved in your state government, and try to figure out what your state could look like. start thinking that way. have one discussion with your family about the merits and drawbacks of six californias and have another discussion with your family about what would our state look like? >> how do you -- what is your vision for -- i'm trying to understand, since so many accelerators out there, and also if you want to learn about entrepreneurship now there are courses and stanford and these colleges and offering that stuff for free. how are you going to position

your program and what is the university -- is it accelerator, incubator or a school? >> it's fine. this is a theme i created for entrepreneurship, university of heroes, and we have a building school and an online school, and we decided to create something new, which was a way for entrepreneurs to be creative, not for people to go learn about entrepreneurship. if you get the distinction. we don't teach, like, history of entrepreneurship. we teach future. we have them read science fiction and predictive analytics and do forecasting, and then we have -- survival training course. it's a very different thing from anything else you have seen out there. so, it is very unique, and how

well it's worked. it was a bold experiment in education, and i felt it was worth it to try leading by example, and it's great. stanford is coming down and doing as much as they can to operate -- create the kinds of activities we have at the university. usc is coming up, the president of the usc business school came up and they're trying to -- and i think that great. that's what we're set up for. and there is -- an incubator, an accelerator, a little bit of a flow from the students to the incubator, but they don't all go for that. they go to become heroes. >> jim, i think you have good compelling arguments for us californians but if this goes to the vote of the other 49 states, is there something in it for

them? >> that's where i think it will be a partisan issue, whether we end up with more republicans or democrats, democratic states here. i think what will happen is at some point, that same party will be the power and they will say we want six states in california so we can have more senators from -- [inaudible] >> some value to the other 49 states if california wasn't so large individually. >> well, think it's -- for one thing, i think what they would probably do is say, interesting, california has tried a lot of things and have been first and they have spread across the country, and they might say, why don't we do this? see how this goes, and maybe it

will spread across the country. maybe we'll end up with 60 states. >> in terms of political orientation, in six supposed states, jefferson, republican -- >> i think you're going 0 to be surprised. i think it's all going to be different. >> sv, question mark. sf, democratic, central, republican. how would you call the likely political complexion? >> i think it's going to be different. i think -- i think from his peer ya to -- i was a republican and then a democrat and then a failure to declare. >> not a file our. i think it's -- failure. it's a refusal. >> it's okay to fail. and i only want to go after one problem at a time.

and we have a duolopoy and it's hard to identify with one party or another and what will surprise you is both states may go entirely different ways. i could -- you might have one american independent, one peace and freedom, you might see very different things happening from those six states. i think that the -- so i think it is a little bit of a -- if you are partisan on one side or another, this is a wild card. this could change things. and i don't know whether it changes are in your favor if you're a republican or you're a democrat. i don't really know. and actually, i think it is kind of an opportunity there for these states to kind of say, you

know, neither of these parties really work for me. we want to have different parties. maybe we want more parties. maybe we want one great party. i think there are -- we do need options, i think. >> in the venture capitalist, i assume you're good at evaluating risk. >> yes. >> the sooner you succeed, what do you think are the -- what is the number one risk to residents of california? not so much in selling a company but if you're investing your own money, what is that risk that -- >> i have. i have. i don't want to invest too much more but i want to make sure that the opportunity is there. i think laid out all the potential rewards. the risks, i think it's a risk for certain people.

the incumbents. the people in power today are going to have -- that is a risk for them. that is scary for some of them. most of the people oppose this actively are people who are in power in the current regime and they represent all of california in whatever they're field is, whether they're lobbying, or politicians, bureaucracy, or unions. they -- some of those people -- some union people will say, hey, there's an opportunity for me to be the boss of this union of this state or something. so some of them may be for it. but i think people who are really benefiting from the

failing status quo are going to be affected, and they are in very strong positions of power, and we will have to have a grassroots effort to overcome that. >> what about all us good people who are -- what are the risks to us? >> good people. doing what they can. doing what they can for their jobs. and i think that is a risk. and that can affect a lot of people in sacramento. i think people could be -- there are some people in sacramento that could be hurt by this. >> probably our last question. yes, sir. >> one of the things for your committee, but how are you going allocate the debt? face the same problem that jefferson and hamilton had --

different debt structures and one was was going to go bankrupt and -- how are you going to allocate the monumental california debt. >> i'm glad you asked that. two things, first, those 24 people i mentioned are going to negotiate out the debt and assets of each new state. if they cannot come to terms it will be broken according to population. but what is great about this is if you divide into six state is believe they'll all be better off, all of those economies will be better, and the debts will be easier to be paid. they are enormous debts. our current status quo has put us into a very uncomfortable position. in fact an awful position. and if you add the almost

trillion dollars worth of pension liability, you get -- this is untenable. how they were able to do that to us and -- it was irresponsible, and we are in big, big trouble. this is an interesting opportunity for us to create six new economies that as a group are much stronger than the one economy is today. and i think we -- i think we'll be able to pay those debts back much more easily. so that's one of the key points. one of the key value adds of creating six new californias. >> i thank you, and we all thank you. your ideas are disruptive in a very positive sense, like disruptive technology, disruptive ideas. it's clear that the reform

efforts have not gone nearly as far as they need to go. so we all appreciate you bringing these ideas to the forfront, wish you will with this effort. please give a land to tim draper. [applause] >> also like to thank our audience here in the room, on television and internet. visit the club on facebook, twitter, youtube, et cetera. now this meeting of the commonwealth club of california will adjourn. bang, bang, bang. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> 40 years ago, the watergate

scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. throughout this month and early august, american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. this weekend, opening statements from the house judiciary committee, as members consider articles of impeachment against president nixon. >> selection of the president that occupies a very unique position within our political system. it's the one act in which the entire country participates and the result is binding upon all the states for four years. the outcome is accepted, the occupant of the office stands as a symbol of our national unity and commitment. so if the judgment of the people is to be reversed, the majority will is to be undone, the symbol is to be replaced through the action of elected representatives it must be for substantial and not trivial offenses, supported by facts and not by surmise. >> watergate 40 years later. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on

american history tv on c-span3. >> coming up next, nasa administrator, charles bolden, and space analyst, miles o'brien, talk about 1969's apollo moon landing landing ande future of space travel. after that a discussion on africa's economic future. and later, venture capitalist, timothy draper, talking about his proposal to have california divided into civics states, an idea that -- into six states, an idea that could become a ballot initiative in november's general election. >> as you look back at an iconic moment in american history, what are your reflexes? >> my reflection is one of pride. i did not think i would ever be associated with the space program as i watched from the officer's quarters at the meridian naval air station but i was thrilled, excited, motivated

and inspired, and i feel the same way today as the agencyes turning toward moving beyond the steps on the moon to putting humans on mars, and we're excited about that as a mission for this agency. >> which is my next question. how likely is that and when? >> it is very likely. we need several things. we need the will, national will, and we're working on trying to inspire that. we have a president who has told us to do it, so that is really good. he told us that back on tax day, april 15th, 2010. and we have a congress that is also in agreement with that horizon destination. so, the 2030s seem like the time we'll do it. we still have challenges but i think we'll make it. >> do you have the support of congress and this administration to move ahead on these projects. >> we actually do. the goal of putting humans on mars -- i will have to take people back. on april 15, 2010, at the kennedy space center, the president made what i consider to be major space policy speech when he said in 2025, or by

2025, the eh wants nasa to have humans interacting with an asteroid, and in the 2030s he wants to us have humans on mars with the intent of landing and staying there. the congress has adopted that same thing. it was reinforced in the authorization act of 2010. so, we're following the will, the joint will of the congress and the administration, the president. >> speaking of presidents, charles bolden, reflect on what president john f. kennedy said in september 1962 at rice university as he set forth the agenda that culminated in setting foot on the moon in 1969. >> why some say the moon? why choose this as our goal? and day they may well ask, why lime the highest mountain? why 35 years ago, fly the atlantic. why does rice play texas? we chooses to go to the moon. we choose to go to the moon.

[applause] >> we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we're willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win and the others, too. >> charles bolden, september 12, 1962. you're familiar with that speech. >> very familiar. >> from the mercury and apollo program to the space shuttle program, some specific goals put forth by our president. do we have that now? do we have that sense of enthusiasm and agenda-setting for the space program? >> i think we do from the president. i think we do from the congress and i think we do from a large portion of the american public.

as i was listening, i could visualize john kennedy coming back to earth and delivering that speech from the steps of the lincoln memorial, or the naval academy since i'm associated with the naval academy, and giving a similar speech today, and i think what he would say was, people are pushing us to go back to the moon but i say go to an asteroid and on to mars. and he would say the same thing. because it's hard and we know we can do it. i think john kennedy -- were we able to transport him here, he would make a very similar speech but the destinations would be asteroids on the tie mars with the horizon destination marries. >> 45 years ago the apollo 44 launch took place, july 16, 1969, and landing on the moon on july 20th, returning to earth on july 24th. the total mission lasted 195 hours and 1 minutes and the time

on the lunar surface, 21 hours and 38 minutes. let me turn to veteran space reporter, miles o'brien, with a question for charles bolden. >> thank you very much, steve. charlie, good to have you with us on this important anniversary. >> thank you. >> we often talk at nasa in and around nasa, about this idea that we need to have those kinds of concrete goals and deadlines that were set by president kennedy. i often think, in the context of the times, obviously the cold war -- this was a proxy cold war effort -- and frankly in the context of the fact you had a martyred president that all these sequences lined up to make the moon landing happened within the decade as he predicted. that imperative doesn't exist. how much does that hinder the effort to focus energies as president kennedy said? >> miles i would push back a

little bit. i think the time imperative does exist. we're not involved in a cold war but there are emerging nations who want to -- they want to go to the moon. they don't want to go back to the moon. they want to go to the moon, because in one else has ever done that except the united states of america. our international partners are telling us they want to go to mars also and want to go with us. so the time is now or we will mills the opportunity to lead the nations of the world on a venture that is unprecedented. that is challenging, that is very difficult to do, for which we are not fully prepared yet but that's what the president has told us to do. develop the technologies to go there. figure out how to make humans survive the eight-month trip to mars, and a three-year round-trip. so significantly more than going to the moon. i think we could goo to the moon today if we wanted to, but that's not hard. that's not a challenge for us. this nation is a great nation and we need be off to do what the president and congress toldes told us to do, which is

get humans to march in 2030s. >> what you have been told is do is go. and those of white house love space, we want to be on mars yesterday. >> very much so. >> and i've seen the you and some of your senior people lay out the plan, which i think is -- makes a lot of good sense because it's not just about a sprint and putting footprints down and flags but about building an architecture, almost like building ain't interstate in space. >> you're -- building an interstate in space. what that requires is sustained budgetary support and, frankly, what i see is a plan that doesn't jibe with the ongoing budget commitment for nasa right now. the rubber is going to meet the road here eventually. make the appeal. >> miles, i understand what you're saying, but i am the eternal optimist and i look for little steps. if you look at the proposed appropriation from the congress for 2015, which they were ready to pass when we reached an

impasse in the senate and didn't come up for a vote, but at that time, they had increased the request over the president's request by almost half a billion dollars. so, we are making very gradual increases in our budget that are necessary. i tell our nasa employees we have to be able to tell people what we're going to do do it, and then go back and in and say, okay now the next step is this, and that's what we're trying to do. we're trying to take incremental steps to get humans to mars, and we can do it. >> our guest is charles bolden, the nasa administrator, and this sunday on c-span3, american history tv, part of our real america program, chance a watch a masses a documentary on the moon landing. i want to share with our audience a preview. >> six, five, four, three, two, one. zero. all engines. we have liftoff. liftoff of apollo 11.

>> we're drifting to the right a little. >> 30 second. >> forward. contact right. >> okay, engine stop. >> tranquility base here, the eagle has landed. >> roger tranquility. we copy you on the ground. you got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. >> armstrong is on the moon. neil armstrong. 38-year-old american. standing on the surface of the moon. on this july 20, 1969. >> that's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. >> looks beautiful. >> charles bolden, as you look back at that moment, where were you 45 years ago? >> oh, 45 years ago, that sunday, was -- my wife and i had just come back knock a weekend of revelry in new orleans and i was a student in basic jet training at meridian,

mississippi, and we were gathered around a black and white tv with other students and their spouses watching and as i listened to that recording, you know, we have had another apollo 11 moment in this nation two augusts ago when curiosity landed on mars. people around the world were glued to tvs, knee. times square by the thousands watching on the big screen, as we got the reports of curiosity landing on mars. that wases a step beyond. that was a precursor to humans landing on that planet, and i think -- not to trivialize neil armstrong's accomplish. but i think neil would have been proud of to us see we have taken another small step beyond what he did on the moon and put a vehicle, a car-sized vehicle on the surface of mars the with a nat we did so precisely and successfully, and the next big thing for us is another mars rover in 2020, precursor robotic

missions that will lead to humans eventually stepping foot on mars. >> a veteran of the space shuttle jam a form marine corps second lieutenant, grated what from the u.s. naval academy, charles bolden, nasa at mr.or, thank you for being with us. >> thank you so much. >> we continue with miles o'brien. why was this so important 45 years ago? >> you know, it's important, steve, because just as i was watching that moment, got misty. just thinking about that moment, and where i was. i was ten-year-old boy, and grosse pointe, michigan, watching the basement of my house. >> rabbit ears. >> and amazed to see it and remembering walter cronkite to take his glasses off and getting misty. i had the great fortune to work with wall -- walter cronkite, and we talk about the moment,

and he said i worked so many years to cover and it really hadn't thought about what i'd say at that moment, and all that came out was, wow. and he said, but that's all i could do. at that moment. there were no words to match that moment. so what i find fascinating about that event is that it was built in the midst of the darkest days of the cold war, before the rivalries, beating the soviets, all the negative things we think about the '60s but that moment brought the world together. about rivalry and in the end, humans went to the moon. no just americans. and there was like a little alchemy mat occurred along the way there and it changed things forever. >> 45 years ago, the landing of neil armstrong and apollo 11 on the map. where were you, what do you snowstorm our phone lines are

>> buzz aldrin, our guest on sunday here on c-span2's washington journal, put together this, hash tag apollo 45. let's watch. >> we choose to go to the map. we choose to go to the moon in this deck cascade and do the other things, not because they're easy but because they are hard. >> july 20th, the 45th 45th anniversary of the apollo 11 moon landing. a huge event in this man's life. >> seeing them coming out of the capsule and walking on the moon. whoa! >> amazing. >> one small step for man. one giant leap for mankind. >> what a day that was. >> 45 years ago this year, an american walked on the moon and inspired not just our nation but the world.

>> for me it's been an inspace in my life. i have the only newspaper. >> going into space is a big deal. walking on the moon, is literally walking on the moon. >> congratulations to the entire apollo 11 crew for your daring and historic accomplishment 45 years ago. >> and that crew included buzz aldrin, who will be our guest on sunday washington journal. have you had a chance to meet with now the late neil armstrong? >> i did meet him on several occasions and it was very interesting, steve. every time i met him with a camera, he was extremely skittish. he is general lay shy and introverted person and felt that the limelight that shined upon him wasn't shared in a way he would like with the people who got him to the moon. he truly believed the teamert which got him there, and i understand that. so i happened to be given the honor to give him an honor at

the air and space museum a few years ago, around the time of one of the anniversaries. so i was the emcee, and was giving him this award, and i had the chance to have dinner. my wife and i had dinner with he and his wife. the most delightful dinner. no cameras present. we talked about everything but the moon. kids, grandkids, everything you can think of. i felt like neil arm strong was my friend after this. not long after that, i went to the very same location, with the cnn camera in tow to try to get him to talk about one of the anniversaries, and the minute he saw -- i was like, neil, my biddy, and he literally rain away from me. so it -- ran away from me. so it wases a different experience. finally got him when he was coming out of the white house that day, and i button-holed him and buzz and mike collins, at the white house, and was able to interview him. but the truth is, neil armstrong was an engineer's engineer and a

test pilot's test pilot and was never comfortable accepting the accolades associated with being the first. >> why was he selected. >> maybe because of that, and a lot of it -- everybody says he was the guy because he was a civilian at the time, had some -- had navy roots which would have appealed to the president, president kennedy. but the fact that he was a civilian and not a member of the military maybe. but the truth is when you look at how all the missions stabbed up it was a crap shoot as to which one would be the first one and some of that was pure luck. you head a sequence of events which which you had the fact the lunar module was too heavy and missions were shifted around, and apollo 8 eight around the moon and all of those led to this crew being the one, and he was shy about it, and frankly, i think you could make an argument it would have been nicer to have

somebody who was more comfortable sharing the story with the public, because that person, like it or not -- and i think in some cases he didn't like it -- had a role, had a public role, to share it, and i don't know that he was able or comfortable in telling the story, sharing it with future generations, as, say, gene cernan might have been. >> we're talking with mills o'brien, veteran space and aviation reporter, formerly with cnn and we're looking back 45 years after the land offing apollo 11 on the moon. the phone lines are open. david from georgia, thank you wore waiting. good morning. >> thank you, c-span. miles, i'm watched you for years. and our space program has just been superb. but what i'm wondering is hairs some slack it in. what this law if a business decides to go tout and mine as detroits are, there --

asteroids, there are any laws preventing that. >> in a word, no. there are enterpriseses thinking along those lines. it's still pretty tough make a business case for launching a rocket to go to an asteroid and bring those resources back right now relative to the cost of finding a place to mine them here. we still have a problem with chemical rocketry and the cost of getting out of the gravity well of earth. until we solve that problem. new propulsion systems or elevator concepts, whatever you may choose, to get us off the surface and into low earth orbit at least are the expense of getting there makes it very difficult to justify the resource that is present on that asteroid, so, having said that, i think as time goes on and you look at the commercial space sector, and you look at what keys like spacex are doing to change that equation, this will

change. the cost of getting to space will drop dramatically, and i'm saying it needs to drop by an order of magnitude at least, and i also think, frankly, the resources on our planet will been more precious. so over time the this will happen. >> laura says i'd rather my tax dollars find missions to mars rather than missions to iraq. hear from david in tourham, north carolina, looking back. the 21 hours we were on the moon. dave, good morning. >> caller: good morning. july '69, my father worked overseas as an expatriate working for an american company and we were living in the philippines at the time, and the thing is remember about that was, first of all, the time zone difference meant we were able to watch the events take place during the day, which i believe in the east coast its would was middle of the night. the other thing i remember was that because the satellite feed was so expensive there were

stories how several of the local tv stations had to band together to pay for the fees that would come come from the united states -- pay for the feeds that would come from the united states. >> thank you, dave. we'll get a response. miles o'brien. >> guest: that brings out such an important point. what i was saying at the beginning, steve. this was truly a global thing. everybody in the world who could get to a tv was watching it. not just americans. and i think that's a lesson which in current -- in the current time with the international space station we're learning again, the space station, taking aside the scientific or exploration endeavor, the space station purely as an opportunity for 16-plus nations to work together on a giant enormous difficult engineering task, peacetime

task -- that's unprecedented. space offer a tremendous opportunity to bring us together as human beings. and the space station has proven that, and missions to mars will prove that. and interestingly, the moon landing, in spite of the fact it was all about cold war rivalries, so -- showed in that time it could be done. >> having seen the lunar module, you look at that and say, they were in there? >> guest: i know. that lunar module -- the saturn five is just a staggering thing. if you ever get to one of the static displays either in florida or in houston, that -- or in huntsville that shows these -- the way those rockets were assembled, it's amazele. in that tiny little bug. that lunar module which was not designed to fly in full gravity or our atmosphere, looked so

frail and frankly if they kind of pushed a little too hard with their feet they could kick a hole right through the skin, and that frail little craft, that ugly little bug, which really is a beautiful thing, was an amazing instrument, and when you think that it worked every time, only one rocket motor to get that crew back, and it fired up every time, it's extraordinary that we had six successful landings and not a hitch. >> bill is joining us from alabama. good morning to you, sir. >> caller: good morning, sir. i'd like to make a comment before i mention who i am. i agree with you, mr. o'brien, that mr. bolden is probably too optimistic about our chance of going to mars in 2030. or a few years beyond. the thing i have as a nation now is that we have our priorities

on social issues as opposed to things of adventure. now, i am bill wood, i was in houston, i was the major assigned to the lunar surface operations at the time of apollo 11. matter of fact i prepared the first apollo 11 lunar surface operations plan. i had the opportunity to write the procedures, develop the equipment and train the crew, train apollo 11, armstrong and al drip, for -- aldrin -- >> host: bill, let me ask you a question. is there that same sense of urgency today to explore the universe? >> caller: no, there is not. i know there's a few dedicated people to that, but they are not -- i don't believe that today.

>> host: can you stay on the line for a moment? >> caller: i'm sorry. >> host: stay on the line. we'll go to miles o'brien. >> guest: i do agree with bill. here's the thing. the sequence of events that gave us what wear talking about 45 years ago, they're not going to happen again, and frankly we don't want that to happen again. we don't want to live in the middle of a cold war and mutually assured destruction and all the things and the duck and cover and all the things we did growing up. we don't want that. so that whole idea that we're going to recreate some kind of cold war rivalry that would get us to mars, date certain, i don't think we should wish for that. and interestingly, i think the moon landing, the way we did it in that context, which was in fact a sprint, to beat the russians, which we did, and there was never a good articulation afterwards of what is next. we have done it. so americans were like, well, why are we continuing to go? why do we need to spend this snow this is at the tail end of

vietnam war, inflation, the nixon administration looking to shut it down which it did. so, what you have is a different approach it to now, which what nasa is trying to talk about, more incremental approach and a more sustainable approach. the problem with incremental and sustainable is you're less likely to get the huge headlines in the "new york times," so how do you keep people interested in something that is incremental. it's like keeping people on the edge of edge of their seats for the construction of the state highway system. the same can occur in space but we have to make people understand that we're not going to re-invent apollo. that's not going to happen again. we need a space program that matches the desire to be space farers on a permanent basis, and it's harder to come up with the bold type programs to match that

kind of approach and, frankly, the bold programs are kind of just the opposite of that. >> host: bill, thank you very much. it's always exciting when we hear from people who can recall first hand where they were and your involvement in the nasa program. so, 45 years ago, i'm assuming you were in houston, at mission control, when neil armstrong set foot on the moon. what was your reaction? >> caller: yes, i was following it in a room off the main command area. i was sort of standing by, giving instructions. they were well-trained and did not need any particular instructions, so during the mission, so i essentially just sat and monitored what they were doing. >> and your thoughts and? what was going through youred the? >> caller: well, of course, up until that time it was a very -- it was my job, but it was only after i realized the mission had

completed i was more or less elated and realized what they had accomplished. >> host: bill, thank you for phoning in and thank you for your question to miles o'brien. >> caller: my pleasure, thank you. >> host: we are reflecting on the 45th anniversary of the moon walk and joseph is joining us from visalia, california, good morning. >> caller: thank you for letting me talk. if we go the moon and start developing bases bases and resos on the moon, china is going to make us look like damn fools while we try get to mars. >> host: thank you from the call. agreeing sis when i was a child the apollo crew were my heroes itch thought we would be living and working on mars by now for resources. >> guest: we ail did. in the context of the times, 2001 space odyssey, pan-am

clippers, super sonic transport, all thing wes thought in this era of technological hubris that was the '60s came to a crashing halt for a lot of reasons in the '70s and it's been a dis appointment to us who saw the vision and what it meant to us on the planet, and there was an expression, all the money, the money wasn't stacked into bags and shipped into space. it was spent here, and it generated not just technology but an infrastructure of technology, and a cadre of engineers, and a prowess in aero space which we still hold in this country today, and so it's difficult -- it's a subtle sell to tell people, if we go to mars, this means x here. they think why don't we just

intend the x here. we do. it's what kennedy was saying. this is something that organizer our efforts and endeavors and crystallizes our thoughts and inspires young people and that's a very important point. we don't make a lot of engineers in this country anymore, and space is proven time and again to capture the imaginations of young people and bring people into the followed to these technical file -- fields which are difficult and important. >> host: neil armstrong, buzz aldrin, and mike collins, placed a few things on the moon, including an american flag, patch from the apollo one mission, a commemoration record soviet cost know knot, messages from world leaders and a small gold pin shaped like an olive branch as a symbol of peace. electronic from florida, good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for having me on here. i was just married whenever we

watched it on television, and we were happy to see our space program progresses so well. in and my wife and i had moved into our home that we had saved up to get, and we were pleased that our technology had developed this far, but today, we live in a different time period, and i see us spending our money in another direction. we need to keep it here, and democracy countries, and not spend it out in space. >> host: frank, thank you for the call. >> guest: i think it's an important point to remember. there's no place to spend money in space. we are spending it on technology, on development, on sustaining an engineering and scientific enterprise and that is a worthy goal for any nation and a worthy goal for the

planet. >> is privatization the future of space exploration? >> guest: depends. certainly in lower orbit it's time for nasa to step out of the way and let private enterprise develop a business. we're far enough long to envision business in lower orbit. you see spacex and getting people interested in the notion. there are businesses that can be gold he low earth orbit. the idea of coming up with a business machine to go to mars -- business plan to go to mars, that's not there yet. that's the province of government. that's exactly where nasa should be right no and to that's the long-term goal for any space agency to think about doing things that the private singer cannot, and so it's both. just depends on what goal you're taking about. >> host: hopefully this is a fun question because.

-- if you could go back' him in and be part of any mission, which one? >> guest: that's a really good question. of course the first moon landing would have been wonderful, but i would -- for my money, the most audacious of the apollo mission was apollo 8. at that time, that was a late decision to go to the moon on that mission. the lunar module was too heavy, not ready to be tested. that was supposed to be a test mission for the lunar module, and instead that became apollo 9. so late in the game they say why ant can't we just trying going to the moon. no one had ever done that before. no one ever hit that translunar injection button that sent the craft outside of low earth or bit and on its way to another planet. that was a really gusty mission, and i don't know that in today's context of risk management it would have happened. this was a different time acts

different place, with the imperative of getting it done in a certain time. so that mission in many respects, was -- laid the groundwork for apollo 11. it was pivotal mission. >> host: we're talking about this 45th anniversary. our guest is miles o'brien. and during the 40th 40th anniversary, president obama paying tribute to the three crew members onboard apollo 11. >> very rarely do i have such an extraordinary pleasure as i have today to welcome three iconic figures, three genuine american heroes, to have neil armstrong, michael collins, and buzz aldrin, here beside me is just wonderful. and i think that all of us recall the moment in which mankind finally was untethered from this planet and was able to

explore the stars, the moment in which we had one of our own step on the moon and leave that imprint that is there to this day. and it's because of the heroism, the calm under pressure, the grace at which these three gentlemen operated, but also the entire nasa family that was able to, at great risk often times, and with a great danger, was somehow able to lift our sights, not just here in the united states but around the world. >> host: that was the president five years ago at the 40th 40th anniversary, and do you think neil armstrong was happy to be there? >> guest: he was always uncomfortable in those settings,

always. he was in the a public person. he was -- it's interesting that -- i was telling you the story about the night i gave him the award and most of the apool low astronauts give a boilerplate speech 21-b kind of thing. he had put together what amounted to a scholarly engineering white paper which he shared with the crowd. it was brilliant, insightful, it spent a great deal of time about it, and it was clear that he -- he really didn't want to be there talking about the moon. he wanted to talk about the future. and i think he was always uncomfortable, in public, talking about what happened on the moon. he always wanted to talk about what was next for space. >> host: and, joe, i just want to share this tweet saying that miles o'brien, you were right, 8 was a daring thing. i met jim lovele opposite as well. pat from nebraska. >> caller: good morning. what a blast from the past.

i wases living on the naval air station in iceland, which was like living on -- >> guest: wow. >> caller: my dad was in the air force, and -- >> had to be the middle of the night when we landed. >> caller: we got afrts tv and it was four hours a day, and we got to watch it during the day because they didn't have -- yeah, it was a long time ago. >> gotcha. >> host: go ahead with your point. >> caller: god bless you. i've heard rumors -- and i don't go with this or anything but some people say that -- they question whether we actually made it to the moon, but -- the only thing that ever gets me thinking about this is like 45 years later how come we don't have colonies and there's no starbucks on the moon? thank you. >> guest: that would be a good rope to go, just for the starbucks. no. well, the reason we don't have starbucks on the moon is there wasn't enough bucks for the stars. so, i -- this recuring thing

about how we didn't go there, i don't want to spend a lot of time on this except to say, if that -- if it was a secret, done on a back lot on n hollywood, capry corn 1 style i can't national that secret being held number one, and why would we go back -- six more times, one was aborted. welanded five more times. why would we have done that? so there's a million reasons to refute all of the strange skepticism that cropped up over the years. if you do your homework and look at their claims point by point, it is sewn from whole cloth. >> host: did the space shuttle heat expectations? it was a horse designed by committee. what happened was that nasa

wanted to go to mars and the thinking was along the lines of werner von braun, a space station to assemble spacecraft. after apollo, the nixon administration went to nasa and said, we're not going to mars, space station or space shuttle, you pick, one of the two, and ultimately the space shuttle prevailed, and part of why the space shuttle did not succeed as it should have is there was a partnership with the pentagon on the space shuttle to design a craft that could deliver spy satellites to orbit, among other things, payloads, and so it was bigger than it needed to be. had a certain cross-range capability that was required for the military. supposed to find polar orbits of they piled on specifics which were irrelevant to masses a's

goal of explore asia and it created a craft with fundamental flaws including no crew escape system. a very dangerous craft, which was limited in its capabilities for nasa's goals. tried to do a lot of things for the pentagon and ultimately failed in that regard so we lend a lot about technology, how to define a program, the specifications you put on a program, with the shuttle, and it kept us in low earth orbit much longer than nasa would have liked. >> let's go to ed from greenville, maryland. with miles o'brien. >> good morning. how are you doing. as regards talking to you this morning, and i met mr. bowman -- i know he is not there right now and yourself, in the auditorium at nasa space flight center in building three, and that was about five years ago when he first came there. and i remember -- i'm an

independent research scientist, retired from the spaceflight center, an african-american with a ph.d in physics and training in -- i speak german also and spanish, and what you guys do with people like me, the independent researchers? i'm also giving lectures on traveling across the country and you can go on youtube and put my last no name in and see things you can do. >> host: how do we use these outside experts? >> guest: well, we use them more. you have to remember that even in holidays, nasa was hiring contractors to do the work the rockets were always built by private industry, mostly on a military procurement contract style but the fact is the outside has always been, quote-unquote, part of nasa. the civil servantses preside over a contractor force. what is changing now is the way

the contract is, ad knowledge -- arranged shifting responsibility from mass so to the -- nasa to the contractors themselves. that's the likes of spacex and elam musk. so, nasa has always relied heavily on people outside the agency. they have to because of the way the agency has been structured. >> host: jack, from jacksonville, florida. good morning. >> caller: how are you doing today? >> host: we're good. >> caller: actually i have a couple of different points about the mars exploration and what we want to do on mars. one of the things that would be a great idea would be to implement more realistic living environment forts the actual astronauts going up, maybe a type of dream weaver machine, have a little more comfortable flight and remember to try to implement our military as well up there. we use a device ear on the earth called par used to dictate winds

and we could implement something lining that on the actual planet to try to not only really control that planet but to make it safer for astronauts and for our researchers going down there. a plus one plus one. >> host: thank you for the call. >> guest: people say the long-range goal for humanity should be to terra form mars to make it habitable for human beings, that if human beings eventually this planet -- we're going to run out of time here, billions of years from now. if humanity is to last beyond that we have to think about getting off the planet. that's long-term stuff but now is the time think about this kind of thing and the first place to go on the long, long endeavor would be mars and a lot of people say we could make mars a place where we could breathe the air some day. its sounds like science fiction but a lot of what we have been talking about today was science fiction a few generations

otherring. >> host: ralph says wouldn't it bet great to unidentify us with a great space program. >> john from international falls, minnesota, will miles o'brien. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. i was a in vietnam as a young second lieutenant infantry officer when we lanked on the moon and it was a full moon. i had my small transcystor raid you're and i was with the arm you'red division, infantry advicer on a combat mission, and i got my counterpart over, a captain, and i said, would you believe it, if i told you theirs a man walking on the moon right now? >> host: how many of us looked up at the moon that night to do that very thing. >> caller: yes. and he said, there was no way in his broken english, and he said they die. and then i had to explain space

suits he said how did they'd gun there in no airplane can fly that far and i explainedded the rocket system. and stages and so forth, but i could not convince him that we had done that. and one other thing, i've always heard -- i don't know if it's true or not, that's why i need your expertise -- that when neil armstrong stepped foot on the moon, he said one small step for a man, one giant leap for manned cia. i heard i what supposed to be one giant leap for human kind. >> guest: it no. what he intended to say was one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind. the "a" he claims he said it and it didn't get transmitted. whether he misspoke or wasn't transmitted, there's no way to ever know, but the intended quote was "one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." instead it came out one small

step for man, one giant legal for handkind. it works either way but we know now that's what he intended to say. >> john from last good morning. ... john from louisiana, good morning. caller: i remember quite well i was a first lieutenant in the united states air force, a pilot in vietnam. -- mark clark air place air force base in the philippines. i got to watch it on grainy, black-and-white tv. , on thehe day before other side of the international date line. host: you saw it before all of us, really. guest: it is so interesting hearing from a first lieutenant in the jungles of vietnam. happeningt, what was with the strife on this planet

versus what was happening with exploration. it is hard to overstate the tensions in our society over that. host: richard, good morning. caller: i have always wondered -- it is interesting -- the soyuz craft supplies the international space station. that was a rocket that was designed in the 1950's. it is reliable, dependable. i always wondered, why in the world did we ever get rid of the saturn? to my way of thinking, that design -- we had the basic design i put all the money into it. over the years the thing could have been refined. you would not have had to spend all the money for the shuttle to design that. now that turns out it was not a good design to begin with. i got depressed when we went to the shuttle design. i did not think it was an engineeringly acceptable design from an efficiency stand point.

saturnhave developed a rocket again? guest: we almost literally went in circles with the shuttle. many people would say that in some respects the space shuttle was a technological dead end. where did it get us technologically? that willwe learned inform our mission to mars? it gave us a lot of experience in space and taught us about spacewalks. it also taught us a little bit about how we should not design, frankly, a craft that will go deep into space. there is a reasonably good argument that the space shuttle to greatead us technological findings that will get us to mars. we learned a lot more by building the saturns. if you had taken a more

iterative approach and kept focused on exploration and not necessarily gone the route of a shuttle and utilitarian space truck, if you will, there is a good chance we would already have a starbucks on the moon by now. if you look at the federal budget, how big is the nasa budget? a penny.fraction of there are single programs at the pentagon that exceed that. it is much less than we spend collectively on coffee every year. we don't spend a lot of money on nasa, and the fact that we talk so much about it is a sign of the success of the expenditure of the money that we spend. we spend a little, we know a lot about it. we talk about it as if we cannot afford it, but we cannot afford not to do it. all, an inspiration to us and frankly, we have underfunded it for way too long. it is about time we got serious

about having a true space agency that can explore any meaningful way and it does not cost that much money in the grand scheme of things. even cost is not the right word. it truly is an investment in our economy the cousin of what it does for engineering science and technology here and all around the globe. host: why is this your passion? person, i spent time covering collectively set events. what i like about the space program is there are great events that ring is together that are uplifting -- that bring us together that are uplifting. i enjoy the idea of setting challenges, meeting those challenges, and those of us collectively experiencing something that is not necessarily about a war or a plane crash. your i want to go back to

conversations with walter cronkite. his excitement when neil armstrong set foot on the moon. sitting here are right now, he would not like the cheerleader term necessarily. reporter whorter's did his homework and believe like i believe that this is a worthy endeavor. he was -- it is kind of like the home team announcer for the baseball team i suppose in some respects. having said that, he was not afraid to ask the tough questions. he was always there for that. shareo was not afraid to in the collective joy over that moment. there is nothing wrong with that. i think we have a culture in reporting that whatever story you come to, you have to be a hermit skeptic. but the fact is people who cover politics -- a permanent skeptic. but the fact is people who cover politics love politics.

people who cover space, they can ask hard questions as well. host: heather from jacksonville, good morning. caller: good morning. launch abouten the three years ago now. i just want to point out that .8% sinceget is fiscal year 2010. i would love to see us go to the moon. but, mr. o'briant, what do you , what domr. o'brien you think about sos? does it seem outlandish? outlandish, but when you look at an incremental approach to expiration, it makes as much sense as anything. there is another goal that we should not overlook. one of these days an asteroid is going to have a bull's-eye

painted on our planet, headed in our direction. if you don't believe me, just ask a dinosaur. it is something that is going to happen. to the extent that we can learn how to redirect asteroids and manage them and deal with them, how to work in proximity with them, that technology may save the pregnant -- may save the planet one day. i am not overstating that. i know it sounds outlandish to blast through an asteroid, but if that asteroid were headed to washington, d.c., and was going to wipe out north america, we would want to deal with it. the mentioned, i do see agency is funded $3 billion per year short. congress and the american people need to express their interest in this. is it worth the next $3 billion per year to have the space program we can be proud of? i think it is.

i don't think in the grand scheme of costs in the government that is a huge number when you consider the payback. but these are tough fiscal times. ned is joining us from baltimore, maryland. part of the apollo program? caller: i was. i was with the martin company at the time, both with the proposal and as a simulator. the main reason i called was to enll -- i am sure mr. o'bri knows -- a true unsung hero was johnny hope all's -- johnny ho balt. rendezvouso-orbit was a failure, which is why the russians did not get there. john passed away a while ago. he and i were in la jolla when

it landed on a presidential commission. they sent air force one to bring him back. . just wanted to mention that i thought the people ought to know that some people that don't get named all the time are also responsible for our success. privilege you had to know him, and he was a pivotal character. one other name that does not come up, steve bales, a satomething-year-old wh in the trenches. the the coaching -- with lunar module touchdown, he was coaching the touchdown. it indicated the computer was saturated, and the crew was wondering whether to abort the landing at the very last minute. steve was 22 years old at the time and insisted that they were

go for landing. part of the reason they were is that prior to launch of apollo 11, they had run a simulation where the same alarm came up and the computer was saturated with information from the radar to ynce it sink -- to make it s and they abort of the landing. it turned out to be the wrong call. the entire landing hung on the decision of a 22-year-old engineer in the trenches who had learned everything about that alarm and understood the consequences and the fact that it was safe to land. the landing would not have occurred had they not done that simulation. it says a lot about how they trained and tested. that one individual could make that call -- think about the responsibility on his shoulders that evening. host: failure is not an option. .iles o'brien

thank you very much for being with us. i want to ask you quickly before we let you go, the downing of the malaysian airlines, 290 eight people died on board. by all accounts, and missile struck the plane. does this tell you about the safety of international flight? yourselfu have to ask why an airline would choose to fly into that region, especially when earlier this week two aircraft had been shot down by surface to air missiles. clear, andwas quite there were all kinds of notices to airmen, and the faa had completely prohibited u.s. flights in the area a little south of there. the airlines will tell you safety is the number one priority, but truthfully, savings is a big deal. the shortest distance between

two points is a straight line. they happened to take that flight right over a war zone. other airlines were flying in, frankly, a lackadaisical manner that was dangerous. the families who lost loved on in this need to get some answers because this is not safe. host: what is next for malaysian airlines? guest: i don't see how they survive, steve. it is a flag carrier supported by the government. there will be another that flies out of malaysia, but the unbelievable -- what are the odds of this kind of a coincidence? -- whatia airlines 777 are the odds? i could not do the numbers on that. it is such a horrible tragedy for the loved ones, such an unfortunate situation for the airline. is, civilian air --

the airlines are not flying there now. these airlines

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning we are waiting for my colleague to join us. one minute. please be patient with us. and we will begin. let's start. my name is jennifer cut by a director of the program here

at csis and a special welcome to our guest today dr. abdoulaye dukule to talk about the african position of the post 2015 development agenda and this is a set of agreements adopted january of this year launched february 2014 in chad and the seven principles developed with the broad sam participatory a process whose focus is to give leaders, a private sector legislatures and regionals stakeholders of greater voice to layñr out a global development agenda. global agenda but also for africa. for over a decade, here is my colleague. no problem. that agenda has been shaped

to a degree basel's millennium goals and those international goals established at the millennium summit in 2000. all members at that time have agreed to the principles and i will run through them briefly to eradicate extreme poverty and hunker with universal primary education to promote gender equality reduce child mortality to improve maternal health to combat hiv/aids, malaria and other diseases with environmental sustainability and develop a global partnership for development. to see a lot of success with those development challenges

was something of the of measurement with critiques of that for progress. but they have also been criticized for being particularly heavily focused on day extern all elements with funding and to focus more on the needs of african citizens rather than building their capacities to work on their aspirations. so we will hear today from dr. abdoulaye dukule who is the president of liberia and the special envoy for the post 2015 agenda also is here today to present a common african position of why it is different in

bringing it to fruition it is a pleasure to introduce dr. abdoulaye dukule and bustier friend of mine on the voices of america program in the midst of the liberian war talking about child warriors at the time and writing some brilliant analysis to capture stories of the civil war and in a poignant way and it is such of pleasure and building liberia touche of future. but it is a pleasure to see live again. i will turn to my colleague who was doing more than i have the right to die this this opportunity.

>> i will be brief and i apologize for being late. thinking for being here mr. abdoulaye dukule i met president sirleaf a couple of years ago the high-level panel i suspect you had something to do without but the report that came out one year ago was an excellent report reflecting the library is experience with her aspirations for the future what is interesting about that report but the change in terms of the role of investment with the conflict of development with the opportunity with investment and trade for domestic resource mobilization encompasses

investment but also the ability of countries to pay for their own development your tax revenue as well. that is of great importance. also what i it took away from a high-level panel report serves as a catalyst as a supporting actor but we are coming to a point soon with the secretary general says the report back with a series of conversations over the whole process a collaborative in capital letters and at some point they go off into a room to have a real political process because you cannot have 35 of these goals. by u.n. standards it is an

excellent way to organize principles but with much of that progress is because of growth in china or india social spending although there have been other factors that have been as are much more important frankly. we don't want to screw up what has been good with eight simple organizing principles whether 12 or 13 i don't know the traffic can bear to much more than that. the questions i have been asking me with various folks whether the japanese are canadians what are your pet rocks what are you going to fight for? one of those things it wants

to keep in the process there will be a political moment. because we come upon the political moment so it is of pleasure to have you and the fact the room is full with so much interest reflects the fact it is africa's moment and a nice to meet you. thank you. >>. >> good morning. i am pleased to be here. the problem responding to africa is very simple to focus attention on different issues. said it was externally driven but by 2010 the head of states met entering that

meeting fe decided that they would expire in four years or four or five years. we have to be prepared and have something to say for whatever happens after that that to set up the system a thinking group as how do we go to post 2015 and how does africa take care on the continent because a lot of things have changed but around the world. so with those consultations under ground in every

continent and last year finally in may to decide now is the time to put these ideas is to gather that every country had to say had we put this into a framework that is nattily africa's priority but see universally? and we are lucky with the convoy of the president's to be part of the process of the un with those consultations in with those members from different parts of the of world and also in the nation and britain.

the say weekly handed over we met and decided it is a time to create with those experts when i hear is a political process to eliminate the head of state from each of the economic regions one from north africom and dutch area to from central africa with eastern africa and chad and the condo and southern africa and also of namibia and says it up with the head

of the a you and we have been having meetings and a big problem is heidi reduce those priorities into a workable framework? after many meetings this was held in new york september with the emergence of the un the first thing to try down the idea of priorities so let's see what are the issues? so with those five tellers but also with the

development process and where is the world going? not just about africa's priorities but also looking at and where the world is going and what kind of world do we want to live in or partnership to establish? one of the biggest or the down side was the partnership was not thinking where they were supposed to go that it is the important aspect of the process. oread structural economic transformation it is important with the president to say it during the process to keep repeating it in a matter what you do or how you deal with social issues if you don't deal with it

use still have problems because that is a source of exclusion where people are excluded that feel they are not a part of the process it is important to not only in my area in africa but also around the world. with that crisis that we all experienced the last five years shows clearly we are interlinked in icelandic and then housing to the banking system and some of these countries coming out like liberia. but the separate issue is technology and innovation that if you need to create

the new economic order in half to have people who are natural capacity is? how to reach transform africa itself without expecting every day somebody come from outside this is how you define science but can we have homegrown science or innovations or technology to deal with other issues? lowe's that's our in from the african perspective from those issues. >> with the center development all the issues

of human beings. in good health and i remember to talk about education for all and in many countries in africa we have up to 80 are 90% achievement that the quality is how to recreate? but to put them in the allows them to prepare for the decent life to get good jobs as a human being and also3c÷g!"óz5wz7im-ñ$!iñ3

>> there is nothing to do is the village so another to

urbanize the village so they don't have to rush to the city? number four was stability and natural resource management and disaster risk-management and it is important for africa because if you look back maybe 400 it years ago that africa has served a place they come from whether human beings or resources how do you change that process? we have to work with the people to do that but also of climate change that africa has an issue we face the consequences but we have not created the problem that we face with their part of

the solution and how to mitigate climate change knowing we're not primarily responsible for climate change that idea have been never before we got to this point of development. in the partnership sometimes when they talk about africa somebody coming with the bank books to write a check to say okay if you do this you can do that but can reach change that model? to have homegrown economy is that take care first of africa needs? house urge you do that or transform their own economy

and finance that? with the mobilization of resources that have not been tapped may be looking at the outsiders to see own potential and that would change but that would change all so i can give you an example i receive between 50 and $60 billion per year for official development aid but to fly out legally or eagerly i remember two or three days ago listening to npr talking about how do we stop companies from moving a nasa headquarters in to other countries do not pay

taxes in the united states? so we both have to fight these things how do we make sure people who flood those resources pay the new taxes to say we need a tax break for five years? at the end of the five years they've made enough money to move out and this has been going on for a long time. and then get the tax break can by the end of the sixth thing have enough money to save the have neutrality is. we can do this. how do we stop doing that? also moving from the african economy is town usually go to the african in country but come to the caymans or

anywhere so how do we create a new partnership so that is really a partnership not with the concept of are you my partner but what do you do? and he your we thought we restocking to the president's coming up with the u.s.a. and to be part of the discussions to what is good for your market and my market it is not a partnership so that mentality has to change in

terms of governance and being able to know with them whole outlook with the economy is powerful yesterday rushing it is not thus save russia from 10 or 20 years ago and china is not the same china with everybody's problem and these are the issues but there is a sixth one that came. and before i headed of state i had a document we like what you have and what the committee has done that put him as the face, that is enough to tackle the peace and security if you don't have those then whatever you do is thrown out of the

window. with the could example of south sudan everybody was so excited to be independent and then and then invested 400 million but now what is left but that in the best mental goes through the window? >> the problem is there is a group of people at the un from around the of rolled shut down discussion to talk

about peace and security part of the mandate so whatever you do just a way to talk about human safety. and did in africa we're over the percentage for the u.n. and will talk about it to put in the agenda. it is a different thing but to see it with boots on the ground. and then to send troops you already have thousands and thousands of dead people and the funny thing is the army

always surprise but everybody else dies. [laughter] so looking at peace with peace building, of putting an end to in the qualities and to where years don't have to fight for the rights and mostly you now you could say we have three generations of leaders in africa first lap lahn great ideas for the transformation of day continent to top the economically financially and militarily but did they have the means to do it?

but then somehow there was a transition in the '70s or the '80s with the new military dieter and that crystallize the idea to be stable and insecure in that idea when on almost 20 years but now we have the new relationship they are countable to is the people but not to the west door these. in the 1980's if russia was led you could be involved in 50 years if russia likes you you could be involved 50 years but then they check each other and you don't know how you went out. but that has changed elections take place good or bad they are not perfect but take place and people respond to to the other

people and therefore we have a new africa and to be capable to look at our problems that these are our problems but we ate on giuseppe enough we know embassy the approval process even en we had the as issues end the corporation was more important and then to come to us and then please say yes but when they get to you we will sit and talk but for

the time being we're focused on what africa will do or where it wants to go and what world to we want to live in 20 years from now? besides the 27 percent of the un it will be the yen this continent in 20 years maybe five addison thin young persons and they don't have natural resources but it will be more than as a billion and a half consumers these are the issues to think about seriously to discuss with the rest of the world. so we have copies and then

we will have the discretion to open for the rest of the time. spin dash they're also be a lot of questions. but as it opens up the whole new range of players they were very much when dash very much focused with government but to government or philanthropy. where if you talk about structural economic transformation is investors, banks, a private equity and so forth to talk about science and technology with the whole new community and if it is a partnership to see a promising area of

growth and expansion whether agricultural, health come on a whole range of issues. . .