or it needs a closer effort to support whether it's the increased budget for r & d. >> you have a greater dilemma. so they are distributed more widespread. i think the general feeling is they're going to have to capture some of that carbon as well. but i think there is also a sense that if you could solve the problem for the high volume and with some of the impurities that you have in the coal gases,

that whatever approach is taken there will be in terms of how to deal with the carbon. should be adaptable. other the industrial processes are not power generators. i think you had some ethynol plant data up there as well. >> bob made the point exactly that it's sources of co 2, it's not just coal, certainly not just natural gas. it's steel plants and cement

plants. >> we did spend quite a bit of time this is a panel that will talk about the economic competitiveness on what are some of the lessons that our experiences with ccs then we can

really make the pie, the ccs technology or the equipment pie bigger and that to become a lot more viable industry or sector per say. but i don't know. what are some of the ways that you think that we should be thinking about it? >> i think it's important to point out i'm not an expert here. emphasize that storing co 2 can be done. we know how to do it. let's start there. some states are trying to address this. what are the real issues

surrounding large, large volumes of compressed co2 for a very long period of time. i am just mimicking what i hear, but that seems to be a difficulty as well. so i think the important thing, jane, is that on the one hand from the technology perspective, we can inject co 2 and we have great confidence that we can keep it there for a very long period of times. it's these other issues which are equally as important that have to be dealt with and they

have to be dealt with early on particularly not just in the u.s. but in other places in the world. it is a very good example assuming that it will be okay to inject co2 and it didn't quite work out that way. >> we talked about the cost reduction for ccs through the path of, you know, coming from the higher volume of experience. doing more. this is one way to go down a cost but there's another way. a the other way is to be successful with new technologies. that will significantly lower the cost. this will take time. this will take time. but we are, you know, also

working on new technology. that will make ccs possible. the cost, you know, when you talk about not the initial investment, the reason that ccs is so costly is because the -- they need energy to do ccs. we are trying to come up with, you know, ways to re aact. >> just to help folks ofish that

does, like ben mentioned class two and class six for purely carbon capture stores. i think the two provisions in there that cause people the most is are the monitoring and reporting requirements and the second one is the.

>> until we understand better about what all the broader linlts are, it was not resolved in this rule making so it's like open ended question in almost every permit. what is the financial assurance that i need to provide here.

>> it's fascinating. the full ccs, actually does that is something that i was going through one of the reports and i just thought it was fascinate ing let me open up the floor for

discussions. sorry. if you could please identify who you are and then ask the question in the form of a question. >> thank you. >> including and the other is a rare retail with ccs. well, i think we should give her, but -- the direction we are talking about.

achieving both objectives of itñ we can eat three times a day. food and education and we can see them before reaching out to the tip of the iceberg on

extradition. we shouldn't hurry up diffusing more efficient combustion. we should help higher technologies or not. what time frame we are talking about or what portion of the world we are talking about. when it -- when the solution takes time, sometimes it's from, you know, technology situation.

they are not complete yet. or not complete at all. that might be a reason that some solutions take time. we're speaking about the higher efficiency generation technology. it's something that we can do today. we are working on technologies next. they are all standing up new trends today and tomorrow. we can't do anything on that. there are other things that we can do.

this will among co 2it is so critical for lower efficiency. making sure they choose the best efficiency is something that we can do today. >> i agree with you. i liken this to the crawl walk run approach. we need to do some crawling before we decide we can get into the blocks and do the 100 yard dash. the way i think about that is we have already seen is still constructing sub critical plants. why are we doing that? it doesn't cost as much. that's one me trick we have to keep in mind. it doesn't mean that the world

is not going to stop using coal and so we know how to build super critical units and depending on how you want to define an ultra super critical unit we can do that, too. but that's a walking stage. it doesn't require technology and i certainly agree on that point but it does seem to me that that is a stage that probably the rest of the world needs to take before we decide we're going to run with all of this. one could argue, i wouldn't be one of them my view of it is let's build the efficient systems. let's phase out the inefficient less efficient systems that we have even in the u.s. then we need the long term

transition to the clean coal, highly efficient, carbon capture enabled systems. we don't have that yet. we need a commitment from a lot of people and we need a lot of resources. i talk about capital and huge amounts of money. that's not going to come from my view in the private sector. >> the obvious answer is we need to do both. it's easier to be efficient than technology that is still evolving. it is more than just a plant. there is very low cost technologies that can be used

around the world. quality of life by using electricity but using it more efficiently. and so i -- whether it's lightbulbs or air-conditioners. and so we should -- we should as a world and certainly as a country as trying to demonstrate to the world that you can do this make everything as efficient as possible. that shoild be under all circumstances. i think you had the best age data over there. some of those plants are older than me. but they have all been upgraded. they're not the original boiler.

that's a boiler. boiling water. you have to deal with the heat of vaporization. nuclear power plants have been coming at about 20%. somewhere around 19, 20% of electricity in the united states for the last 20 years but the amount of electricity we have keeps going up. so how do they keep staying at 20%? every one of them is producing more electricity than it did when they were bimt. i think there is a lot to be

done there. now half the cars are four sild der engines. things that require mechanical energy from the radio is pretty much the same. at the a 11 liter engine that was producing 100 horsepower. it's just like it boggles my mind. so we can do the same thing in power generation. really getting back to the basics of what is happening there. the boiling and pressure and turning of the wheel.

>> i think we might have time for one regular question. >> hearing about facilities that have ccs now, sometimes they're characterized as demonstration projects which implies that they're usually not ready for prime time.

>> the technology needs to go further. we're there already and can do it at large scale so i was wondering if you could perhaps put it behind the differences. this is for ben but others as well. >> there is a difference between having the at to build the first couple get built at a commercial scale. i will dishsuate this in a minute. it they will be built with a lot of conservative assumptions in it because you want it to work.

they can build the next unit for 20 to 30% cheap er there is no new thing that we don't need to do this. he picked the direct current he was boiling water we have known how to do that for a long time. we are just getting a hell of a lot better at it. i think that's what is going to happen with that. and commercial scale is like one that is running on like i say a full power plant. commercially viable means there is an economic model that we can associate with that. that is commercial scale. but commercially viable is still

not there because there is not enough revenue options for that. >> i would just say that i do agree with the differentiation there. i think the acronyms that we use are not descriptive of what we're trying to accomplish. i like the idea of commercial scale and technology development. my point was that it is now these systems are not yet commercially viable. we do not have a template that would allow us to say that we can build the next one and it's going to be totally commercially viable. it might work.

we will need to do the math at some point. i suspect that it's still not smerially viable there are other projects that are being demonstrated. that does not mean that we shouldn't be investing in better technology that is a skip jump over what we know how to do today but we need to do all of that. and there is an urgency in my view to do all of that. >> the -- all of your comments are extremely thoughtful.

the knowledge of where the technology is. and some ways that we could try to get there. >> as you walk out, hopefully your choice of beverage and then please do continue to, you know, if please feel free to come up to any of us and share your insights, comments. we want you to be -- just the beginning of a very thoughtful conversation. we are all stake holders in this challenge.

>> and on american history tv on c-span 3 saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war. and sunday afternoon at four on real america, a 1964 investigative piece by rkon tv on the history of police brutality and neighboring oakland. find our complete television schedule and let us know bwhat you think about the programs you are watching. >> bobby jindel was interviewed by about the future of u.s.

defense. the two have co-authored a repo

report. >> it's a great pleasure to have you here with us today. >> thank you, chris. and thanks to fbi. it's my honor as the moderator and i will try just to moderate and not to talk too much, governor, to introduce a good friend and great american. i'm not going to embarrass you too much. but a man who has already built a great record of public service. he has served as the governor of

louisiana since 2008. prior to that he and the committee resource. and human services and he was before that. executive director of the national bipartisan. >> i should thank the fbi for having us. i want to praise the senator for a minute as well. i want to pay back the

compliments. this is so important. he has been a very thoughtful voice cutting across party lines. >> he has written consistently about this.

>> that is the kind of -- the defense consensus and most of the disagreements if you stop and think about it were how we're going to weather and when and how we're going to use the power. especially since as you said, if you're strong, you're less likely to have to use it. and of course we talked about one great american who understood that better than anyone else. >> one of my favorite quotes from ronald reagan, he talked about the four wars in his lifetime. it was never a vice for america to be strong. no war was ever started because america was too strong. ironically enough, preparing for war is the best way to avoid it. one of the things we highlighted that is very concerning is we're in the process of hollowing out our military.

can you look at it across the navy. we're in the process of having fewer ships, you look at the air force, we're in the process of having older planes and in the army, we're in the process of having fewer troops and it's got practical consequences. just pick two examples, of the recent headlines, there's a lot of concern about the soviet, russia and the crimea and eastern ukraine and former satellites of the soviet union being very worried about what it means for them next. one of the most effective ways to deter russian aggression would be if we had the ability through nato to have some brig aids stationed in some of our eastern european allies, countries hungry for democratic leadership. it's not clear we'll have the resources to do that. a second example, you look at the turmoil in asia, think the administration, we're often very critical of this administration. i think that president obama actually, had the show of a good policy with his asian pivot. when he announced that america was going to orient its attention and resources to the

asia-pacific region. unfortunately we haven't seen enough follow-through to the rhetoric, part of that challenge, we don't have the resources, you look at the traditional u.s. allies like taiwan, south korea, hungry for american leadership, as a result of a resurgent china. but you've got other countries like india and vietnam and others hungry for american leadership. it is hard for us to project that leadership when we're not investing in the navy. we're not investing in the resources, enough resources into our military, it's another argument. i don't think either jim or i are ready to deploy boots on the ground. when you strengthen the military, invest in your military, you're less likely to deploy that our 40th president ronald reagan deployed troops less frequently than his predecessors and successors. there's something to be learned. peace through strength is not just a slogan. it can be a foreign policy strategy. we're doing the opposite.

the result is our friends doest trust us and our enemies don't fear us. in the middle east we have not stood unequivocally with israel in their fight against hamas. sometimes we speak as if there are moral equivalents when there shouldn't be. the reset with russia started back this failed reset was announced by secretary clinton back in the first year of this administration. it included withdrawing the missile interceptors from poland, the czech republic, not allowing georgia to join nato as they wanted to quickly. putin didn't just wake up one day and think he could go into the crimea without consequences, he learned by watching the united states. you look at isis, we allowed the threat to gather strength because we prematurely withdrew our forces. here's my greatest concern. my greatest concern is what lesson are the iranians taking from this chaos. we cannot allow there to be a nuclear-armed iran.

not only for the sake of israel and our allies, make no mistake, they get nuclear capabilities, the saudis and certainly the egyptians and maybe even turkey would be the next countries and it will be virtually impossible if the united states fails to stop iran from becoming a nuclear power. they will not, we will not be able to stop those countries as well. and there's some that believe the saudis already have an implicit agreement with pakistan and option on the technology from pakistan if irans did become a nuclear armed power. this poses a huge threat to stability in the middle east and a huge threat to our interest. my worry is what are iranians learning from america's unpredictability in the world and refusal to stand with our allies and our worry that this delay and extension in terms of negotiations may result in a deal that may be worse than no deal. that would be a deal that would allow the iranians to quickly

constitute a nuclear weapon. to allow them to continue to accumulate centrifuges. right now we have an ability to destroy their infrastructure. it gets harder the more time they're allowed to progress down this path. i think one of the greatest challenges we faces the question of iran and my concern is what they learn from our failed red line in syria and our failure to act in other parts of the world as well. >> you talk before about there's certain we do in the pain, there's a fundamental sense defense policy is foreign policy. because of the message that you're sendingth and certainly we're in agreement we think that the administration has had a policy of when it's acted weak around the world.

it's magnified by the fact that we are getting weaker. you mentioned some of our alliances we talk in the paper about the various operating principles of a pillars of an integrated foreign policy. a strong defense, alliances. but also leadership. reaching out and managing risk before it gets to the level where it's difficult, it's truly difficult, you have fewer options in dealing with it you want to discuss that in terms of our policy a little bit? >> i know it's very tempting to want to think that america can hide behind our oceans and pretend that the world is going to become magically a safer place. i don't think anybody is arguing, that the america needs to try to become the world's

policeman or intervene in every single hot spot or send troops at the drop of a hat. absolutely not. having said that, we face asymmetrical threats. the threats to our country's security are no longer just rogue nations, but they also include transnational, subnational groups, terrorist groups, cyberattacks, they include biological attacks. they include chemical attacks, other types of terrorist attacks. hopefully they don't include, they could one day include the potential for nuclear attacks, from either a rogue group or a rogue nation. >> we do face asymmetrical threats. we argue in the paper that for

example the last time we had a thoughtful approach to the military's needs, secretary gates did an actual assessment. said he needed these resources to modernize while still achieving efficiencies. we're now $1 trillion below that thanks to the president unilaterally throwing out his own secretary of defense's analysis and then sequestration cuts on top of that where we're a trillion dollars below and we're not arguing we say in the paper, we need to get back to approximately and this is a guidepost, 4% of gdp to invest in military. that's roughly $80 billion. we're not suggesting that needs to happen overnight. we don't think the pentagon could spend the money well if given all the money overnight. we need to work back up to that goal. we do argue and i won't gheet all the details in terms of procurement reforms and other acquisition reforms, we need to be more efficient and responsible with those dollars. you're right, the defense is one component of this strategy. secondly we need to be willing to lead. we can't simply lead from behind. that is not leading at all. the reality is, the world, our enemies need america to be a stronger, more predictable force for good. that leads to less chaos, fewer instances of conflict and more predictability. and even though our allies may not acknowledge that publicy. no other country can play that role. six years ago the president inherited the special relationship with britain, we've seemingly done everything we could to alienate our neighbors across the pond. our neighbors next door. is called the frustrater in chief in regard to the keystone pipeline. we seem to be doing everything do irk the canadian neighbors.

we talk about our unpredictability israel. we're doing everything we can to avoid leadership. unfortunately, this administration seems to believe in multilateralism as a goal instead of merely a tactic. we can't outsource our foreign policy to the world capitals. america must be willing to lead, we are the indispensable nation. when we retreat from the world stage, nobody else can fill that void. and bad things happen when american leaves. that's why isis gathered strength. here's my concern, if we retreat when the inevitable day of reckoning comes and it will come. our enemies are using the time and space to gather material, gather people, gather strength, gather resources, gather allies. when the day comes it will be more expensive in terms of treasure and american blood. that day of reckoning won't go away. it will be harder, more difficult for us to achieve victory. we argue you have to invest in the military, not just so you

can win or draw any type of conflict. but so you can dominate our enemies will be deterred from challenging, our interests, our allies. it includes a use of soft tools as well. encouraging movements towards freedom and peace and encouraging allies as well. one of my other concerns with the administration's policies, in aed to their embracing multilateralism as a goal is their naive belief that simply giving a speech that makes everything okay. if giving a speech was the equivalent to having a policy we'd have the best foreign policy in a generation. we've got one of the most gifted speakers in the white house, who loves to give great speeches, loves to talk. sometimes we need to take action and our rhetoric becomes more forceful and backed up by the credible threat of action, that's what's missing. one thing we haven't talked a lot about and i hope it was discussed today was the use of energy and the development of energy as a component of our foreign policy. you look at the falling oil

prices and what has happened with the shale revolution. if this administration would encourage more development on federal lands instead of decreasing production there, this administration would make it clear that the epa is not going to be shutting down fracking. acknowledges it can be done safely and at the same time protecting the environment. if the administration would stott trying to discourage energy development at home and driving the manufacturing jobs overseas, think about the pressures we could continue to place on iran, on venezuela and on russia. we're seeing some of that with falling oil prices. building the keystone pipeline creates all kinds of opportunities. especially in texas it allows canada to sell their resources. it puts them in a pipeline instead of by rail or other alternative means of transportation. one of the things that doesn't get discussed as much is it has a direct and heavy impact on venezuela it would absolutely displace much of the oil now coming from venezuela, the

heavier oil coming from venezuela that's being refined along the gulf coast. talk about a great win-win. helps an ally, helps an economy and weakens a country that's been working against america's interests. so energy policy can absolutely and should be a component on what we're doing to advance our interests and to cause those in russia, those in iran, those in venezuela to rethink some of their actions and some of their iran making a nuclear power or trying to export their ideology to neighboring states or whether it's russia threatening their eastern european neighbors. >> it's an integrated approach to the world. so that people see the united states understanding its interests, we'll get to that in

just a second. confident and rational support. and that creates a sense of predictability, confidence and security. and you're right, i mean even prospective adversaries want to know that we know what our abilities are and act in accordance with that you mentioned briefly iraq and i want you to discuss what i think was the biggest mistake the administration has made. and that's saying something, we both believe there have been a fair number of mistakes. not leaving a footprint of 15 to 20,000 american troops in iraq, in a noncombat role. you mentioned the fact if you don't deal with risks at at the lower level, they tend to grow. this is the classic this is what historians will write is the textbook example. talk in detail how doing that might have prevented the chain of events that's now involved us in a fight against an islamic caliphate. >> you see it hopefully the administration is learning from history. it's not clear that they are. at least you saw the status of forces agreement recently, signed with afghanistan and hopefully they've learned the biggest mistake they made in iraq was to obey a political schedule and timeline as opposed to listening to the military commanders, the advisers on the

ground who continue to caution them, about this withdrawal. the reality is by creating a void. by insisting that we were pulling out all of these troops by this date certain, and i get it, i get the domestic political pressures, i get why it's popular to want to bring every man and woman in uniform home. but without leaving a residual force, without leaving some kind of force that could respond. we created a vacuum. we lost the ability to pressure, we diminished our greatly our ability to pressure the al maliki government. the shia/sunni divide in the iraq. we lost our ability. you think how different this might have been if we had maintained our influence, if we maintained a residual force. nobody is talking about keeping troops at the height of their deployment in terms of the surge. at least we kept residual force. think about our pressure we could have filled the void, so certainly isis would not have metastasized into a

international threat. it could have still become an act nrt region. but you wouldn't see this threat now crossing, at the very least, would have been able to seal the border with syria you wouldn't have had the group going across borders, causing the refugees, potentially destabilizing neighboring countries, sending all of these refugees into jordan and elsewhere. think about how different it would have been, if instead of listening to a political timeline, we had done what our

commanders, folks were advising on the ground. this was an administration so eager to announce that al qaeda was defeated. we were done. and again, i get it as a bumper sticker, it's very attractive to say we're only going to do nation-building at home. we're going to retreat from the rest of the world. i don't want to see american troops deployed unnecessarily. i don't want us to be in the

middle of every hot spot. this is case where our interests were suggested a different course of action. and required is a different course of action, especially when you think about the treasure and blood spilled to get to the point where it was. just this week, the government of iraq seems from outward appearances they're reconciling with the kurds. they've gotten an agreement on oil. on revenues theext gotten an agreement on the export of oil you're seeing them work to at least begin to address some of those decision dwigss allowed to fester, with the absence of our pressure. think again it's a great example, unfortunately a tragic example, but a great example of what happens when america unilaterally withdraws and creates a void, bad things happen. we saw it in iraq. hopefully they've learned the lesson in afghanistan. hopefully we don't just go after al qaeda and isis and you're hearing the military advisers again tell the administration, we need troops on the ground in afghanistan, to counter the isis threat and also to go after the taliban, not just al qaeda. hopefully won't repeat the mistakes we made in iraq. i do think the status of forces agreement was a good sign. i hope the administration will jettison the ideas of artificial political deadlines. even if we don't think an action makes sense in our interests, i get that. i'm not sure why we need to

announce that to the enemy, to the rest of the world, by the way, we will leave at that date certain. we're taking armed forces off the table. that's fine if internally. we made that decision, but there's no reason to tell an enemy what we will or will not do. it doesn't make any sense. it's possible that whole chain of events. had we stayed in iraq, had a footprint, the whole syrian thing goes down differently. i'm not sure iran and russia dare intervene. things, you're right. if we had the residual troops in iraq and if we said crossing the red line actually had meant something, we'd be in a different place today with regards to isis and the chaos we see in syria >> be careful drawing red lines. it's better to keep it -- because if you draw a red line, people go up the red line, for one thing, right? >> sure. >> then what about things you don't mention. but if you draw it, you have to keep it. you're right. you talked about the 4% which we discussed in the paper as a guideline for defense there has been -- and to be fair -- not just the last three years. a cyclical era, up down, up,

down. so talk more about having rules of thumb can actually save money. >> absolutely. no, the feast or famine, unfortunately, what that encourages is that when we do need to spend the money, it becomes less efficient to do so. we decimate our industrial base. you don't have multiple suppliers. one of the things we talked about was procurement reform so we shorten the product development cycle so the technology is not obsolete by the time we deploy it. you hold management accountable to being on budget on time. you give real authority and accountability within the pentagon so you don't have a hundred different meetings to get things approved. we talk in detail about how you streamline that, but part of this challenge by this feast or famine approach is there is no predictability. it results in bad planning. we develop anti-weapons systems is that we put on the shelf, they become obsolete.

we develop new ones to replace them. it needs to be based on a real strategic of our needs. what's so disturbing about our budget today the last time there was a credible bottom-up review process was when then-secretary gates came forward and said this is what we need. he himself suggested efficiency es. he suggested programs that can be consolidated or canceled. instead of countering that with a different analysis, the administration, the president literally picked a number out of thin air. no defense or rationale for it. no, instead we'll cut billions from our own secretary of defense's budget. then on top of that congress exacerbated the situation -- now we're asking congress to do something that's unnat. we both served in congress. we're asking them to give up part of their power. we can't allow this to become an excuse -- this is not a jobs program where we give the pentagon money so they can spend it in every district on politically connected or favorite contractors or

industries or groups. this needs to be really driven by a strategic assessment. you've seen an explosion in civilian contractors and civilian employees of the pentagon. clearly there are opportunities to do more with less. and so this is not an excuse for waste or inefficiency, but it is saying that a base -- a guideline to let you know when you're maybe underinvesting and maybe also when things have gotten too high. at least a guideline to say this is -- and by the way, it's something we require of nato allies now. i say we require. we say to them and they routinely disregard these guidelines, but we've asked them to commit to 2% of their gdp towards defense spending again with the idea that it makes sense for everybody to have a shared expectation that this is what it takes. and it does save money because not investing now makes it much more costly. one of the things we also do in the paper is we differentiate. part of what masks the decline in defense spending and it's been going on. look, this administration is certainly hollowing out our military but it would be a

mistake to say it's only start under this president's watch. the reality is we've seen a decline in investment going back tore several years and multiple administrations. this didn't happen overnight, which is why we're not suggesting we give that money back overnight but rather phasing it in. but one of the things that i think we also have to understand is that when it does come time, when that inevitable day of reckoning does happen, it will be a lot more expensive if then we're having to ramp up overnight and it is also unconscionable, if we're going to ask american troops to go out there and defend our freedoms and be on the front lines we owe it to them to give them the best readiness, the best training, the best technology and equipment. one of the things you got to look at is the rise of china. china's not inevitably our enemy in asia, but the way they're going about reasserting their power is antithetical to our allies in a way that we've conducted ourselves and part of what we can do to change our calculation is to reinvest and rebuild our navy. and we're not doing that right now. >> there's certainly in pacing threat, coming if they're not

already a peer competitor of the united states which we've not had since the cold war days. and i think a lot of people are unaware of that. i want to emphasize a couple of points you just made. when you have defense spending going like this and like this, we can talk about procurement and modernization. of course you procure these platforms from the private sector. if they don't have predictability, this is true in any sector of the economy. it's very difficult for them to be efficient and to make the kinds of investments they need. if you want competition, you got to have competitors, right? >> that's right. >> if you cut real low and floor structure goes down and now the troops, don't you have the number of people to do the jobs and you overwork the ones you do have and it's a volunteer service and you have to pay them if you want to keep the good ones and you have to pay benefits, your costs go up. pretty soon it's just eating up any savings that you thought you were getting on it. i'm glad you made that point. and you're entirely correct. because we want to have time for

questions. so let's go back here at the end because we talk about rebuilding the consensus, which means initially and as a fundamental matter explaining why defense matters, which we did at the ingooding of the paper. so talk a little bit about that. what are the interests, what are the packages of interest that together constitute american national security? what do we really mean when we're talking? source defense of the homeland. >> sure, that's a great -- obviously the most natural is defense of the homeland, but we live in a much more connected global world than ever before and in many ways that makes us -- that leads to greater productivity and greater with other societies and other economies but that makes us more vulnerable to cyber attacks, nuclear attacks and chemical and there was a thought that post cold war we were free of existential threats because the soviet union was no longer that threat. then we saw 9/11 that it wasn't true that we were free from

those existential threats. let's be clear, the attack, in addition to killing so many innocent american lives and other innocent lives, with the twin towers and the other attacks also was meant to be an attack not only symbolic but a material attack on our ability to conduct commerce, to travel safely, to live our daily lives. so there are other interests as well. but i think there's an important -- >> i want to say about the freedom of trade and travel, which the united states has protected for so long everybody just takes it for granted. every time that's been interfered with consistently, we've ended up in a war. >> that's right. >> i mean going back to war of 1812. that's the lead-up to wrld war i, the lead-up to world war ii, in the essential national interests of the united states. and the strait of hormuz, there's a reason we keep that open. so that's a good -- couldn't resist. >> the sea lanes, you look at how much of our economy and commerce depends on that international movement of goods and people and services but

there's an important point to make when you look at america vis-a-vis other historic great powers, america's interests are relatively benign compared to other great powers and they are completely benign compared to the rest of the world in the sense that we're not empire builders. we're not seeking preferential treatment. what we're simply seeking is the right to be our citizens, our people, our services, our goods to be treated on a fair and equal basis as others and to be protected as whether it's in terms of international commerce or in terms of being here in the homeland. that's an important point. we're not in the traditional great power sense, we're not looking to conquer other territories, to force or impose our ways on others, and i think that there is a shared bipartisan consensus that we're looking to live in peace with others who want to live in peace with us. we're not seeking conflict, we're not seeking -- we don't have these imperial ambitions but we are seeking and it's not enough to simply say we want to be left alone. the world's not going to leave us alone. we can pretend all we want.

that's simply not an option. we may all wish it was an option, but our real option is do we engage those risks at an early point where we can mitigate and reduce those risks or do we wait until they gather force and strength? it's much better for us now to be engaged in asia and reassuring our allies and rebuilding our navy and protecting our interests than to wait for china to continue to gather strength and influence to a point that we may find fewer willing actors willing to ally themselves with us because they do see a resurge in china, they do want to ally with us, but that window's only open for so long before they will take a decision that america's not serious about that asia pivot. >> that was a point we made earl in the paper, and if you read it, i hope you all will focus on that, that america is unique for a lot of reasons. it's exceptional for one of them is that we define our national interests in a defensive and benign way and in ways -- and

we're perfectly willing to have others enjoy the rights we're seeking for our own people on exactly the same terms at which we enjoy them. which is one of the reasons in asia the regional countries there are comfortable with american presence and primacy in the region but not so much with china because china does not necessarily define its national interests the same way. well, i thought, chris, i thought maybe we could take some questions. i want people to have plenty of time. so let's do that. how do you handle the moderators? do you call them? i'll just point. yes. >> thank you. thank you for your remarks. okay. hi, lisa garcia, foyer research center, thank you for your remarks. a little bit of a follow-up on senator cruz's remarks which you par laid off of, he addressed the drone issue and what a national security risk that was i wish you would address the same topic but related to the u.s. deciding to dispose of that

property and how that affects our national security. thanks. >> i'll be honest, i didn't hear the senator's remarks but i'll certainly answer your question. so i don't know if i'm repeating what he said. okay. i thought it was a mistake for us to relinquish ican. i know this administration -- fortunately there was bipartisan. it wasn't just republicans that spoke up and said, wait a minute, this is a dangerous press debit. i'm also very concerned about this proposal for the government to be more -- and i know this is slightly -- i know we're talking about fbi about foreign policy, but i also have similar concerns about the federal government trying to impose itself in terms of, you know, defining and imposing net neutrality through more regulations through the fcc. here are my concern, two-fold one the internet needs to be a place that operates openly with free speech and open access. i worry about the government getting in the business of deciding to pick winners and losers or advantaging one group over another.

i certainly am very much more worried about it being done by the international body as opposed to a body subject by american jurisdiction and laws, but my first concern about the american government is that we have seen a series of scandals that to me at least were unimaginable. if you had gone back ten years and asked me did i really think that the irs would go after convft aive groups, i would have said no. i don't thing the department of justice would spy on an ap reporter. i don't think that would happen. we've seen that happen. the american people are less and less trusting of our government because some of these accumulation of these scandals and the violation of civil rights. i'm very worried about, first, the government trying to pick winners and losers or regulating or interfering with the internet. one of the things that made it so effective, widespread and one of the reasons it's so widely used and liked is the fact that it is open, it is a level playing field and you do have access. secondly absolutely i'm worried about -- i'm worried in general. i think in the last several years we've gone more and more

towards abdicating our rights towards these international bodies, whether it's united nations group. you know, the latest was -- we didn't talk as much about this. but the president's recent announcement of his deal with china in terms of climate. and you look at that and carbon emissions. you look at that. so now we're making an agreement where we're going to do harm to our economy in the short-term for an unenforceable promise that in 2030 china will then choose to no longer increase their emissions. well, one, doesn't that also give china a great incentive to increase their emissions in the short-term to get that baseline up. i thought that was an odd quirk. but secondly it's completely unenforceable. to my mind it's almost like amnesty, the way the president's done it, his way of going around congress knowing he can't get it approved by congress to take unilateral action to hurt our economy and hurt our manufacturing base in particular. i do worry about this trend towards deferring to

international bodies and giving away american rights and prerogatives whether the example of ican or these other agreements we've seen veets is a vee the u.n. and other groups. >> with regard to the climate change point, economic growth for the ccp, the community party of china, is in their view a regime stability issue. in other words, their ability to deliver a better quality of life to their people is part of the basis by which they are claiming legitimacy in the absence of democratic elections. so to think that they are going to take steps which slows economic growth in the name of the priorities of our administration or the international community i'd be very skeptical of that. i just don't think -- now, they have issues with pollution, but it's entirely different type of setting and in those i think they are going to work on. so again, this could be a situation where we have to do something and the country that we made a deal with doesn't have to do anything. i'm really -- i know you are, too, getting tired of that.

that's what newstart was also in terms of trading. yes. yes, sir. >> it's not only the united states. whole planet. weapon military and sophisticated nuclear technology for killing. this may have end or it is endless. you have end, what's end, or we live in paradise among nuclear, chemical weapons? what's this end of this? i ask this question because i apply for the secretary general of the united nations i have absolutely different country politics and i believe appoint

approximatelies of dollars for it now. >> i'll take a first shot. in terms of the question about the weapons, i'll quote phil gramm in that i certainly am -- i get the quote a little off. but i think the essence applies here. i do, i do hope the lion and the lamb lie peacefully together. but die want the united states to be the lion in that situation. the best way to achieve that peace is for america to be stronger. i think unilaterally making ourselves weaker has never led to peace or victory. and so i absolutely share your hopes and prayers for peace. i've got three young children. i hope they will be able to grow up in a world without strife and violence and chaos. i fear, however, in a world populated by human beings, that's not going to happen. i think that what is more likely to happen is that we can mitigate the risks, reduce the

threat, reduce the chances of violence, the level of violence and certainly continue to build towards peace and the reality is we have made progress. i don't mean to be completely pessimistic at all. the reality is you look at countries that decades ago were at each others throats are nowen siled allies, germany and japan integrated into a post world war ii peaceful framework, living peacefully with countries they've been at war with and vicious wars with and deadly, costly wars with. so certainly we can make progress, but i think the best way to prepare for peace is for america to be, ironically to prepare for conflict. a weaker america actually inslights more violence, more aggression, more instability and more persecution. a stronger america and stronger allies actually decreases that chance and leads to more stability. >> gives us a chance to point out making the paper that we didn't talk about before but i think it's a really good one. it's wrong for the united states

to view the world as full of enemies. most of the countries in the world we should view, we think, as allies or at least partners, potential partners for certain discreet things. we talk about an agreement with china on pollution. a good agreement with china on pollution would not be a bad thing. we workeded with the russians on locking down loose nukes. but there are some countries, there are some countries that are potential adversaries in the sense that they define their national interests in a way that brings them into conflict with us. the right kind of management should prevent those countries from becoming enemies but there are a few rogue states and we say this in the paper, who are just evil and their vision of the future is their boot in everybody else's face. i think that's a quote from the paper. and the united states needs to defend and needs to be strong in dealing with those groups. let's go over here. yes, sir. yep. i'm sorry, i can't see the names from here. >> yes, i in name is cameron burton with the pakistani spectator. my question is about senator

mccain's statement. he was here earlier today. and he asked this question to pakistani journal sharif who was in washington that if current status in afghanistan would be sustainable after we leave completely and said no. do you have any plan b in the case if the prediction turns out to be true? and second related question is isis, they're doing recruitment in pakistan and their next target might be india. so is there any preparation for that? thanks. >> sure, two things. one, i think you're exactly right, i think the generals on the ground have made this point. i hope the administration has learned. i'm not confident they have. i hope they've learned from the lesson, the failure in iraq. they did get a status of forces agreement, the new leadership in afghanistan seems to be working better with our government. my hope is i've learned that lesson and understood that we cannot create that vacuum in afghanistan. and now this administration continues to commit itself to these artificial deadlines.

but these political deadlines but i do hope that they've learned the importance of at least leaving a residual force that's able to help the afghan government and people protect themselves, counter the taliban, counter isis, counter al qaeda, but you're right, that the generals have absolutely made clear they need more resources and that america is going to have to fill the gap that some of our allies may be leaving by not living up to their commitments but we have to make sure there is at least a residual force that helps to trin and support. i'm not arguing we do everything for everybody. they're right to ask the afghan government and help the people defend themselves. it's in their own interests to do so. but we need to be ready especially when it's in our critical interests to void the work of ice. you asked about isis in pakistan and the threat to india. we need to recognize that isis absolutely has as its ambition the ability to become this -- not just transnational movement in terms of the region in the

middle east, but really to spread across the globe into different countries and pose a threat to us here in the homeland. whether that's through affiliates who merely have a loose association with isis or others who are taking direct marching orders. it may be more the former regardless of the form of that relationship, ice has that ambition which is why we cannot view it as our goal to contain them or expel them. we've got to eliminate them. we've got to work whether it's in the pakistan, india region or in the middle east. they're motivated by an evil ideology. this is a group that's crucified innocent civilians, they've killed religious minorities. they've beheaded quite graphically and visibly prisoners. they've absolutely crossed every line imaginable in terms of moral lines and clearly this is a force of evil. this this is a group that needs

to be exterminated, not controlled. whether that's in the middle east or afghanistan, wherever they might try to recruit followers or collect affiliates or grew, we need to eliminate them and work with others. this shouldn't be america's fight alone. we need to be able to lead but also draw others into that fight that it's in their interests to do so as well. >> it's important to remember the point of both conflicts was not just to remove a particular regime. but to work with the people of the country, iraq and afghanistan, to help create a new government that would become over time a working partner with the united states on behalf of mutual interests. and that was really where the benefits, we would have enjoyed the benefits of the conflict, in a sense, in iraq. and we had that opportunity in our grasp and gave it up. yes, behind the gentleman who just -- that gentleman back there, that's you.

yes, sir. >> hi, my name is alex, i'm with the alexander hamilton society a senior t a princeton university. i want to thank both of you for your remarks today. my question is in response to something you said earlier, you talked about how we have a great speaker in the house. and i think this is true. so one of the questions i have is even if we can come -- we can beat the descending curve of defense spending and bring it back up, there will be years before we see measurable results in terms of new capabilities. one of the concerns today is conventional states that traditionally used conventional means to deter or coerce are now using hybrid or unconventional means, in terms of china about what it can do in one day. what can the u.s. do in the meantime, the mid-term and near term to try to contain this even if there are other constin jens es around the world that will require us to meet conventional hybrid threats with a conventional force, that might not be the right military hard

power. >> that's a great question. three thing, you're right, it will take time. but those early investments send important signals. even president carter changed course his last year in office started reinvesting the military after the soviet union went into afghanistan. i would argue it was too little too late, but then ronald reagan came in and first two years double digit increases in spending, it got the attention of other countries quickly. even though it took a few years for that to result in more troops and more technology, it quickly signalled to the world that america was serious. it caused, i would argue, a change of behavior and helped speed up the fall of the soviet union. so those signals are important. look, that's why even though i'm not -- i think we need to continue to try to give this president the opportunity to do the right thing. i'm not optimistic he will suddenly change his ways his last two years, but let's give him the chance. president clinton started signing balanced budgets after the republicans took congress. he signed welfare reform after vetoing it with the republican majority. carter changed directions.

there's still time for this president to change direction. secondly, when it comes to these -- now you talked as examples, national actors like russia and china, we need to understand there are pressure points on those as well. putin took great notice of the fact that germany agel la merkel has sent a message to him that his behavior is not acceptable. that was a wake-up call. also his treatment in australia at the g-20 conference was another wake-up call. part of his calculation certainly economic and part is domestic politics. part of it is international prestige that they think that they feel he feels like they lost after the breakup of the soviet union. so i think there are other ways to change that calculation. more oil and gas production, more export of our petrochemical products but that's a huge pressure on the russian economy in addition to sanctions. as europe is able the diversify their energy sources puts huge pressures on russia, so now they're trying to sell their resources to turkey who's got great concerns with what they're doing in syria.

so all of a sudden there are ways to change the calculations of these countries to make it clear to them that it's not in their best interests to continue to violate international norms, to threaten american interests. the same is true in china, as dependent as we are in china, they're also still dependent on access to our markets. city still quite frankly depend on our guarantee of the safety of travel in those sea lanes. there are ways to pressure china. part of that is being visibly present in asia. the president is right there are things we can do in terms of the tpp in terms of strengthening our ties to counties in that region and giving them another outlet in addition to china and not simply as a -- you know strengthening our ties with those countries has a two fold purpose not simply as a hedge against china but strengthening our relationship with countries that want to build that relationship. the third point i want to make -- and this is a very important question because that was fine and good when responding to national actors but you could apply your

question to sub national, transnational actors that can threaten our interests. you're right. though would become much harder to deter tornado encounter. that's why it's so important to root them out, destroy them where they are, take the fight to them, but we've got to harden our infrastructure. the reality is we've got to take steps to secure the homeland. again, there are trade-offs and costs involved in doing that. it's not free, not easy to do so, but we've got to make ourselves less vulnerable. one of the things the president announced this deal allowing this i.t. deal with china, that's all fine and good. i wish he'd raise this issue of cyber warfare while he was over there. that's going to be a huge threat to our economy, to our national interests, a lot of it originates in china. and so i think when it comes to these transnational sub national groups we've got to take the fight to them because unlike national actors, you know, it is harder to put these pressures on them. we've got to take the fight directly to them. plus unfortunately one of the thins we've got to do is harden

our own infrastructure. i say unfortunately because it does have a cost. that's a balancing act. you can go overboard in that. that can interfere with our sbr freedoms and way of life. but there are things we have to do to harden our own infrastructure against those transnational actors. >> yes, in the middle here. that's you, sir. >> carl, earlier i asked the question in the prior session about the brettton woods agreement and whether that might bring stability account between nations and as a governor i'd like to raise the question in as couldle a context. andrew jackson ended the second bank of the u.s. saying circulating gold and silver coin money was meant to protect the wealth of the laboring class for being inflated away by the largest corporations, financiers and more politicians just

conjuring more and more credit into existence, for a forever expanding complex. no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin to tender the payment of debt. it seems that at the level of governor in every state, the states could require the federal government to reinstitute an honest circulating money. i just ask your perspective on that. >> i want to address the bigger issue you raise. i do worry. when we just recently just exceeded $18 trillion of accumulated debt. we've got a fed through quantitative easing who has explicitly said they're taking action because congress and the white house couldn't or wouldn't. in terms of what they saw as threats to our economy. i think we need to stop -- take a step back and think about that for a second. so we've got an unelected body, the fed, saying we're going to take action because the elected leaders, elected and accountable to the united states decided not or wouldn't take that action. you go back to the systemic

debts that we're running. this president has never proposed a balanced budget. not five years out. he hasn't said i'm going to get to it tomorrow. we had a saying in louisiana after the macondo explosion whatever you hear about helps coming tomorrow, that just means it's not coming today. he is not saying he will balance the budget tomorrow. to your bigger point, i'm very worried for a lot of reason, the dollar, look it's been the reserve currency around the world. there are many reasons why the dollar -- why the fed has been able to get away with some of the things they've done and our federal government has gotten away with some of things they've been doing. but it's not going to be free forever. the real the is we can't simply print our way out of this crisis. we can't borrow and spend and tax our way out of this crisis. this is what happens when government is running at historically high levels of gdp. that's what happens when we're structurally spending much more than we're taking in and historically than we have. one of the numbers we cite in

the report is we're spending more on our share of the economy on our government than we have in the last 70 years. which is such a jarring contrast when defense is the only thing in the constitution that the federal government is told it must do, the only thing it's told you must defend the states. it's the one power given to the federal government that it's told they have to do. >> i was going to jump in for a second. whatever else they're financing with this, i can assure you it's not an ever expanding military industrial complex. they've been cutting defense. spent $800 billion on the stimulus package. remember that? none of it went to dwebs. maybe 50, 60 million for military housing. in fact, if it had, we would actually have spent the money on something government's supposed to spend it on and we would have got something for it. but i interrupted. >> yeah, that's right. but to your point, i do worry that, if you really think about it, if you think on the path

we're on, you look at the structural debts we're running up, unless we start taking actions today, it's hard to see a scenario where we do avoid the devaluation of the dollar, where you do avoid a rapid growth on inflation. my worry is it doesn't necessarily happen gradually. that one day and nobody knows exactly when, but one day you could see tremendous pressure put on interest rates on american debt by bond holders and that hasn't happened yet, there's a lot of reasons that hasn't happened yet. the flight to stability, perceived stability. but here's where i -- i served in congress for three years for a couple of terms. i'm glad, look, i'm personally glad that the senate will be in republican hands and we have a majority. but i don't think we should think it will all change with a majority in congress. here's things we need to do. we need a balanced budget amendment in the constitution. we need a supermajority vote before they can raise our taxes. it needs to be a supermajority

vote before government spending grows faster than the private sector economy. i think also i would add to that term limits to our members in congress as well as prohibition from them simply leaving to go and be lobbyists or go and work for special interests. now people will tell you, well, you can't do that, but all that's in the louisiana state constitution. so for example, we cut our budget in the face of this recession. we didn't raise taxes. we don't have the ability to print money. we can't just go and say we'll print a bunch of dollars to pay our bills. we cut our budget 26%. our economy is doing better. i've got one final suggestion. we've got a part time legislature, i'd like to see a part time congress. i'd like to pay them differently. we pay our legislators on a per diem base but pay them for every day they stay out of d.c. rather than every day they come to d.c. but i think it's important for even republicans to acknowledge that, look, the debt and spending grew tremendously when republicans were in control. i think this president's been --

he's taken it to a whole new level in terms of his spending and expanding government. but when republicans were in control, the deficit was growing and spending was growing. we've got to be serious -- and that's why it may seem odd to hear a fiscal conservative say yeah, we need to invest in defense. but part of getting the government out of things it never should have been doing in the first place and focusing on the real priorities. that should be defense. if you go back and i asked the question tenor use ago of the irs spying on -- i'm sorry, the irs going after conservatives and the doj spying on reporters. ten years ago if you had asked me would the government create a new entitlement program when we couldn't afford the ones we've got? i never thought that's what we'd be talking about today. we're seeing reckless spending. it has happened on a bipartisan basis. i'm hopeful that people will listen, the people in d.c. will listen to voters outside d.c. and say enough's enough. let's cut spending, reduce the size of government and let's prioritize what we're doing in

this town. because if we don't, i think we are headed for a day of reckoning that will be very, very, that will make this previous fiscal challenge anding if recession mild in comparison. that's not something any of us should want for our children and grandchildren. let's be honest what we're doing, we're stealing, borrowing our children and grandchildren's money today. i would argue none of us as parents would want to do that or do that in our families. why are we doing it collectively through our government? >> unfortunately, we're out of time. i want to thank you, governor. >> thank you. thank you, senator. [ applause ] we've had a chance to see today what i saw when we did this paper together, which is not just the breadth, but the depth of your knowledge on different topics. and thanks to fbi and i will turn it back over to chris griffin now. >> thank you so much, governor. >> thank you for having us. pth president obama today announced plans to normalize

relations with cuba and lift some travel and economic sanctions many of which date to the cold war era. up next here on c-span3, a few minutes of the president's remarks followed by florida senator marco rubio explaining why he opposes the president's plan for a new approach to cuba. >> to those who oppose the steps i'm announcing today, let me say that i respect your passion and share your commitment to liberty and democracy. the question is how we uphold that commitment. i do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result. moreover, it does not serve america's interests or the cuban people to try to push cuba towards collapse. even if that worked, and it hasn't for 50 years, we know from hard-earned experience that countries are more likely to

enjoy lasting transformation if their people are not subjected to chaos. we are calling on cuba to unleash the potential of 11 million cubans by ending unnecessary restrictions on their political, social and economic activities. in that spirit, we should not allow u.s. sanctions to add to the burden of cuban citizens that we seek to help. >> this president is the single-worst negotiator we've had in the white house in my lifetime. who has basically given the cuban government everything it asked for and received no assurances of any advances in democracy and freedom in return. let me close by reminding everyone that god bestowed on the cuban people the same rights that he did on every other man, woman and child that has ever lived. the inalienable rights spoken about in our founding documents. the cuban people, like all those oppressed around the world, they look to america to stand up for these rights, to live up to our

commitment to the god given right of every person to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. these rights exist not just for people born in the continental united states, but for people everywhere. it is unacceptable that the only people in this hemisphere that do not know democracy and have not known democracy for more than five decades is the people of cuba. that should be our overriding objective, to do all we can to bring about political democratic openings in cuba and any free cuban people can decide whatever economic model they want. but the measures taken today will do nothing to bring about that day and, in fact, i fear will significantly set it back. today by conceding to the oppressors, this president and this administration have left the people of cuba down. >> coming up at 8:00 eastern on our companion network c-span,

all of president obama's speech from today announcing plans to normalize relations with cuba. after that alan gross, the u.s. government contractor who had been held in a cuban prison for five years until his release today. then all of senator marco rubio's news conference on why he opposes the new cuba policy. >> with live coverage of the u.s. how on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on c-span3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant public affairs events. then american history tv with programs the tell our nation's story including six unique series. the civil war's 150th anniversary visiting battlefields and key effects, american artifacts, tours museums to reveal what it reveals about america's past. america's bookshelf, the

presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. and a new series, real america featuring films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3 created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. earlier this month, the house subcommittee on space held a hearing on nasa's plan for deep space exploration. congressman steven palazo of mississippi shared the 90-minute hearing. >> the subcommittee on space will come to order. good morning, welcome to today's hearing titled an update on the space launch system and orion monitoring the development of the nation's deep space exploration capabilities. in front of you are packets

contained in the written testimony biography and truth in testimony disclosure for today's witnesses. i recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. i would like to welcome everyone to our hearing and particularly our witnesses. thank you for your appearance here today. anyone who pays attention to the media at all is nodoubt aware of the spectacular launch of orion last week. i want to congratulate mr. gerstenmaier and the teams at nasa and lockheed martin for an outstanding test flits. what we'll hear about the preliminary results from this test the scientists and engineers will continue the analyze the data for quite some time. i look forward to hearing more about this in the future. the successful test launch of orion demonstrates we're on the right track for sending humans back to the moon and mars within our lifetimes. across the nation people are watching with the same hope and pride that all americans had in the early days of our space program. in my congressional district

children were bused to the stennis space center to watch a live feed of the launch. events like this are what we need to inspire the next generation of astronauts and engineer, sls is a giant leap forward to making america the leader in space once again. the tremendous ongoing work in nasa and our industry partners is beginning to produce tangible results. the nation can be proud of what was accomplished last week. it was certainly a job well done. the purpose of our hearing today is to examine the challenges and opportunities facing the space launch system and orion programs. it is no secret that this committee is concerned that the support within nasa for the sls and orion is not matched by the administration. while this lack of commitment is somewhat puzzling, it is not at all surprising. the president has made clear that he does not believe space exploration is a priority for the nation and has allowed political appointees within administration to manipulate the course of our human space flight

program. these decisions should be made by the scientists, engineerses and program managers that have decades of experience in human space flight. as everyone here knows this is not an easy field. we cannot ramp up capability or prepare for these missions overnight. space exploration requires a dedication to advanced preparation and research and this committee and in congress are dedicated to supporting that requirement. the administration has consistently requested large reductions for these programs inspite of the resistant of congress that they be priorities. most recently, the president's budget for fiscal year 2015 included a request to reduce these programs compared to fiscal year 2014 enacted appropriation. additionally in the 2013, 14,

for fiscal year 2015. while these priority programs may not enjoy support within the administration, they certainly do2wi÷ from congress. let me be very clear on my watch congress will not agree to getting the sls program not w not any time in the foreseeable program has been plagued witáip stability from budgets. we cannot change every time there's a7 ognew president. this committee is consistent and unwavering in its commitment@+y unwavering in its commitment@+y

a tradition i'm confident will continue into the future. while this is an opportunity for us to celebrate the great sls week's test flight the committee has ongoing cherns about the challenges facing these vital programs inspect a letter to smith and i expressed our concerns for potential delays of exploration m%6rbuez one that hs potentially delayed to as late as fiscal year 2018. the administration's letter back to the committee was strangely unresponsive and did not inspire a lot of confidence in nasa's ability to meet the original timelines laid out. congress needs answers to questions. at the very least we need to know what are the true funding needs and schedule expectations for the sls and orion programs and is nasa on track to meet these expectations? the administration also appears to be limiting the funding it does receive. for example, the

administration's treatment of termination liability prevents hundreds of millions of dollars to be used for meaningful development work. also the committee has learned that the administration has orion programs to plan spending rates consistent with the preside president's budget request instead of the higher resolution level. these r'0bñ undermining successl development of these national priority programs. in a recent report titled space launch system ;vvçresources ne to be matched to requirements to decreased risk and support long-term affordability the government accountability office highlighted technical and schedule risks that nasa had not previously brought to the specifically gao states that, quote, according to the program's risk analysis, the agency's current funding plan fornsq@ñsls may be 400 million t of what the program needsem,20 launch by 2017. it was surprising for the committee to hear about this shortfall since the administrator had previously testified that, ÷9m

added 300 million to the sls program, you ".óndn't know it. it is not unreasonable for congress to expect the administration to be straightforward about the risk and costs associated with national priority programs. as we look to continue to pushing towards mars, we must talk honestly and realist lickcally about these programs and what we can accomplish with them. mpartn forward, not competitors. the administrationv$36ñ has not allowed for that cooperation. the test of orion was an important milestone in the future of america's space program. it was a fully commercial aviation administration and conducted by the private sector. in the future,#lr%ju)jz and sls will serve as the tip of the spear for our nation's space exploration program. some have argued that the government shouldn't be involved in space exploration at all and suggests that the private sector alone was capable of leading us into the/÷ cosmos. ia@ç hope this will@+ax one day

possible but right now space exploration requires government support. ñ worthwhile issue for the taxpayer, advances u.s. power and international relations, n2creinforces ourq a increases economic competitiveness and advances our national security interests. orion and sls, the vanguard of our nation's space program are key to advancing these interests. i look forward too/tzx hearing mr. gersten myer and ms. chap lane today. i now recognize the ranking member from maryland, ms. edwards.m5cqabháñ >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. good morning and welcome to our witnesses. i want to join the chairman in congratulating nasa and lockheed united launch alliance and the entire government and contractor team on successfully flight test eft-1 of the orion  capsule last week.

i think it was truly exciting. and i know that around the country and the world there weró many of us looking on television for the first time in a long time at a u.s. space program that really is very forward éqñe6d and its systems to riggers and to test key systems of the orion design, reduce technical risks and test recoverability operations. i believe that this test flight shows americans that tangible progress is being made on returning humans to explorationñ beyond our earth's neighborhood and a goal that this committee and congress as a whole have embraced through multiple nasa authorization acts despite some challenges that the chairman laid out. i would also note that i think we were in this hearing r7rn whether orion was really going to be possible or not. i think we have addressed that question in what is a remarkablç

while i look forward to looking at challenges and taking on those challenges, i don't want to lose sight of the fact that we have great capacity and that! the american people can get greatly excited by that and i think then lead those of us who right thing when it comes to robustly funding our exploration program.2yi+ñ the development of the space launch system sls and the orion crew vehicle are necessary next steps in reaching our goals for human#ódac exploration, human s exploration including the long-term goal of sendingrvx8h s to the surface of mars as stated in our bipartisan house-passed nasa authorization act of 2014. i also thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing so we can obtain an update on the

years ago that we sat in this ñc room and we were pressing nasa for decision on a final design u of the sls rocket. ñqáween the administration and this committee and the congress and i think today we're going to heard enter into the full scale b-e development as some of us had envisioned. u)jt)(p't @(ñ accomplishment even in the midsç of major challenges especially those related to constrained huñ budgets.k pdñ very often congress has been supportive of sls orion and has appropriated funding above the president's request as the chairman has indicated. i don't know that i necessarily share the chairman's view about where all the fauj)3%ñ however, the programs have been challenged by the flat funding levels provided for sls and situation that departs growth profiles of major development programs. that's why we recognize the

critical need to authorize a robust top line funding level in the nasa 2013 democratic authorization bill that included healthy increases for the exploration program. the national academy's committee in fact recently released its report on human space exploration and also recognized surface of mars would include and require sustained increases. they said, and i quote, increasing nasa's budget to allow increasing the human space flight budget by 5% per year would enable pathways withw7jç potentially viable mission rates greatly reducing technical cost and schedule risks. end quote.ñfp:ñ so mr. chairman, we can work g÷. challenges.=kú&ctlñ as we work over this next congress to reauthorize nasa, i÷

look forward to working with you to ensure that this committee authorize the expeditious testing of these vehicles for their use at the earliest possible date and we achieve a human$yóq exploration road map focus on long-term mission 35:a goals. demonstrated by the flight's coverage as a leading media story -- i think in fact it did lead the broadcast news -- i'm reminded that the sls and orion programs really do belong to the american public and that they will in fact embrace them. we need to honor this thirst for exploration i encourage our colleagues in the senate to seek quick passage of the act of 2014. that nasa and its industry contractors have the direction and stability needed to plan foñ continued progress. and i'll reiterate what i have

said many times before, and that is we cannot have one set of goals for nasa and for our human exploration programs and then not match those goals with the resources that are required to commit to the work on a timely basis it is unfair to the agency. it's unfair to contractors. an it is a false expectation for the public.&çq with that, i yield back and i look forward to hearing the testimony today.%]3b >> thank you, miss edwards. i now recognize the chairman of the full committee, chairman smith. >> thank@fba.er(rpr)man. first i want to congratulate k-r uestenmaier and those at"vh/o@r% nasa and lockheed martin and xwrited launch alliance who i see are represented in the room today on a spectacular flight test last week of the orion crew vehicle. i know a lot of hard work went into making that test flight ÷ space exploration, the mission

of nasa is about inspiration. this inspiration fuels our desire to push the boundaries of what is possible and to reach beyond our own pale blue dot. week is one step in a long /twñ journey. the purpose of today's hearing is simple. is nasa's number one priority. last week's test flight we are also here to ensure the next steps in this long journey successful. there is bipartisan support within congress that nasa stay on track with the orion crew vehicle space exploration systemíq4c[ includie bill we plan to vote on tomorrow. orion and sls are essential elements for astronauts to eventually travel beyond low .q the omnibusuñn appropriations made public last night is the latest example

of congressional support for these programs funded well above the president's budget request, the sls and orion are receiving resources they need to ensure their success. fortune favors the bold.u-w÷ last week's test flight was necessary to answer the anyway sayers andá/ critics who claim that america's days on the front last week's mission answered those critics. the apollo demonstrated that we could reach the moon, and orion and sls will ensure that america is a space nation for decades to we must demonstrate american ingenuity. we must continue to push forward. great nations do great things. everyone in today's hearing wants to ensure that the first flag flying on the surface of mars is planted by an american astronaut and they will have arrived therehsqvñ on board an

crewed vehicle prepared by the space launch system. let's work together to make that happen. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if there are members who wish ts statements, your statements will be added to the record at the point.nw,ñ v point out we are missing one this morning. nasa chief financial officer david razznowski. the ceo or his designee was invited to participate in answering questions regarding nasa's budgonc.od guidance. unfortunately, despite numerous invitations and attempts to secure his attendance, the administration refused to make him available. mr. razznowski holds a senate confirmed position at nasa and is obliged to testify before the senate's oversight committees. we're aware of the many demands on his schedule, for that reason the cfo's office to appear. unfortunately, nasa prohibited any other cfo representative

from appearing today.%:xbñ this is unfortunate because mr. gerstenmaier may not be the appropriate person to address the office. i look forward to mr. razznowski's appearance in the future to answer our questions. at this time i'd like to introduce our witness. bill gerstenmaier. he started his work with nasa i aeronaut aeronautic. he's the administration director at nasa headquarters here in washington, d.c. 1!j1ñ for his work on space exploration including the distinguished presidential rankdh award the national space clubdúñ brawn aw, and several nasa awards. he received a bachelor of science from purdue university and a master of science degree

in mechanical engineering from the university of toledo. our second witness ms.çtl÷ cres tina chaplain works at gao. in this capacity, she is responsible for gao assessments of military space acquisition and nasa. she's led reviews of the international space)j station the james webb space telescope. prior to her current position she work eed vúfxgao's teams. she received her bachelor from boston university and a masters dgiézhanks again to our witness for being here today. as our witnesses should know, five minutes each afte4 which members óiiíu the committee wil have five minutes each to ask questions. i now recognize mr. gerstenmaier for fivei9rqñ minutes to,nnt pr testimony. >> thank you very much for having me here.

i'd like to again thank you on behalf of the entire team that works in the exploration program. and i'd like to start off my vi pictures that we provided earlier. these capture the work capture the work that's been i'll narrate some of the video as it's shown, so if we could start the video, please. again, the program is made up of three programs. in florida, which is preparing the launch site. these are the images you're seeing on"=nd the screen.ik&j again, the purpose of the video is to show you how much work is being accomplished behind the scenes. you can see the launch, but you don't oftenwç all the work that's occurring at the various field centers. this is the delta 4. there are some images showing up at the kennedy space center. this is the fabrication and manufacturing of the capsule launched on the eft test flight.

again, you get to see the technicians, the folks at the centers working to make all this activity happen. it's not only in florida, but it's also in houston, where the control center team got to commands to the capsule. that they got to participate in the capsule activity. again, you can see the capsule coming together. some of the hardware came from the marshall space flight center. the interface between the delta 4 and orion capsule came from the marshall space center, to again, the entire nasa team coming together to make this happen. this is some work at the again in florida preparingñ?acu for t facility, where the sos will be put together. i think you were there for the vertical assembly center that got put together that will manufacture the large external

tanks. that activity is occurring. there are several sections already to be test welded next january, next month. also, the test was substantial amount of test occurred before the test to make sure thehádm parachute systems would work. preparing for the future exploration activities to look at the asteroid redirect mission. now, you can see some of the work of actually transporting the capsule out to the launch pad to be integrateded with the delta 4 rocket. so 4,:again, i think the import amount of that's going on.j

person or on television. again, i'll describe some of the and again, the point here is that this test flight didn't come about just as a happenstance. there was lots of preparation before. we did many drop tests of theóp parachute systems. many recoveryactivities. we have done the board system testing down at white sands earlier. q6.:, to verify and make sure were ready to go do this test, so we didn't have all the questions answered. there were still significant risks with this test, still things we could not test in any other environment other than the test fligts, but this flight confirmed those other pieces fit well and we understand the data and things look very good from an overall standpoint..ñ6z÷ witness this. it was exciting to see people show up in florida4*q there. talked about in some opening remarks, the s2"encouragement a

math students is really strong to interact with many of the students in florida was really enthusiasm to move forward. this is theac8 actual launch activity that at the top was unique to o ryan. just specifically for this this flight on thebg![y delta 4 launch. again, the launch went extremely well. the vehicle gave us a great ride exactly where it needs to be the upper stage did all its activities. all of thaãvp workeded extremel well and went really flawlesslyz in terms of kind of first result frs from the test, nothing major was really learned. one of the video processing units had to be í÷6uxrecycled. most likely caused by a radiation event. environment the capsule will fly through. shield looks in good

shape. we removed some plugs from the heat shield in california and today, the capsule is about ready tok get on a]!f÷ú truck to florida for more detailed evaluation and more data has come off the capsule. the image is impressive when you look at the small earth and see the horizon.boñ /zvh important is when you see it through a4v(cl w where some day, crew will be, it makes the tie even stronger. this is the capsule again successfully floating in the water. we expected to see five air bags deployed in this situation. we see two. there's something that didn't work in that system. we know the pyros fired. we know the pressure came out of the system. but again, overall, just a tremendous testimony to the work that program has put together and i look forward to your questions as we move forward in this activity. so, thank you.zevñ >> thank ztn8ñyou, now miss cha for five minutes to present %d

testimony. >> chairman, ranking member edwards, chairman smith and members of the subcommittee. before i begin, i would like to congratulate nasa on a successful test. it has helped demonstrateo0r t as you know, we have recently reviewed preliminary cost estimates for the systems today. we've been covering the orion program. in conducting this work at the time, we reviewed sls, the program was approaching a critical milestone known as kdpc. baselines. in which the program begins the fact that at the point which technical or funding b problems

ã good job. manage cause, do take longer to defintize contacts. still face inherent design and engineering risks as all do, but it was actively managing nem in a trans parent fashion. funding was insufficient to match requirements toa3f resou to december test at a high confidence level. the agency's optionsñyb[e largely limited to increasing program funding, delaying the schedule or accepting the?oew reduced confidence level for the test.

to occur. further, it indicated the insufficient budget cold push the december 2017 launch date out six months and add some gòl cost of development. after our report was issued, when nasa established formal xez baselines, nasa commit today a date of 2018 so it could have more confidence in meeting this date. in our opinion, this was a good step as nasañ%ii still has low confidence 30% that it can make the earlier date. going forward, we have short and long-term concerns about ñyvçcf human space exploration programs. the short-term, phases of development. there's still technical hurdles to overcome, particularlyk,iç w s overcome, particularlyk,iç w addressing challenges with the parachute system and heat shield among others. there's still considerable development and testing ahead for orion in terms of the human support systems.:ra53v meanwhile, sls is continuing to

pursue the earlier launch date of december 2017.:siñ understandable, the schedule fog achieving the date mostly with very aggressive. there's little room to address problems. does not appear it could achieve an earlier date. through the first flight test and for orion and the second flight test. there woulduzj5 still be signift development for sls after the first flight and significant operations for all three mz programs. more over, there's still uncertainty about missions that will be undertaken after the second test. without knowing the missions, nasa's limited in its ability to plan for the future and is at risk for making choices today that will not make sense later. affordability for the long haul

to garner the long-term commitment needed to make this program al÷0,y success, we need transparent about the mission that will be needed to achieve the nation's goals. thank you. this concludes my statement. i'm happy to answer any >> i thank the witnesses. questioning to five minutes. this point, openinging round of questions. the chair recognized himself for five minutes.lbs[r >> in written testimonyá6n÷ prod by miss chaplain states that gao that nasa's proposed funding ability to match requirements to resources since its inception. tracking a