parts which i want to focus on today. i think a good way to go about this would be to change the security environment. in the case of the alliance, we have gone through several transformative changes overthrok we have matured and will continue this partnership. and of course, there will be shared intelligence as well. i think this scale of transformation -- i want to emphasize there are other changes, especially in terms of the security environment.

as the general said, there are challenges today, but these are in defense of korean security. also, we have a constant struggle. this is an ideological competition. third, north korea's military threats is not as minor as many experts have said.

i think there is also -- [unintelligible] this cheonan incident that happened this year, i think it is a demonstration of the difficulties on the korean peninsula, despite the worldwide attempt to change this. it is not the cold war, on the caribbean peninsula at least -- korean peninsula at least. let me focus on this.

from the beginning, i think there were many different publications about president obama's policies. in regards to the korean peninsula, i think president obama's policies have been quite good. they have a north korean policy in the south korean policy. at the same time, the administration in united states have pursued a policy through tough diplomacy, which i might describe as a very prudent in its approach to north korea. this is a very recent recession

that demonstrates the u.s. is very strong in its reaction to the cheonan incident. they joined at the very beginning in the rescue operations, and also, [unintelligible] -- the were in strong support of the u.s. administration. this is the largest area ever conducted in the caribbean peninsula. -- kirby and peninsula. i might say that this is the reincarnation of the incident that happened between 1977 and

1993. it was a deterrent to north korean leadership and rain that in north korean policies -- north korean policies. one side effect of this is china's reaction. when we conducted this exercise in the wake of the cheonan sinking, the chinese reaction was unusually harsh. i think it has awakened at the international community.

it is central in the war, as reflected in the sense of china. china had some objection to this joint exercise. for example, july 15 -- "we formally oppose any foreign militaries placed in the yellow city, undermining china's security." and second also, this was a joint week emphasized by a high- ranking military -- this was a jointly emphasized by high- ranking military experts as well. he placed several reasons for

why china opposed the joint exercise. and, of course, through the korean newspapers, there was one professor of china's natural defense industry. he said the true purpose was to intimidate china. in response, the position for iraq and the u.s. -- they prevented george washington from going to see. -- sea.

and i think this decision was caused by china's unusually strong opposition, and because of six decades of alliance, this has been the first joint exercise where china's government raised objection in public, and we retreated. my personal concern about this actually -- one day, who knows? china might make an issue of the new united states -- which is under construction. there is a city on the korean peninsula. it is about 100 kilometers south of seoul.

it is going to be covering air, naval combat and sea forces in the united states. china might perceive the u.s. base as a threat to them. "through the gateway to china." i think that the president to move would this exercise opened the gate of china for the future. so that u.s. presence in the korean peninsula might be for their security, and they might

try to constrain the capabilities of the u.s. and the joint military alliance. we had for china's disruption, i think, on our joint exercises, and we had to be very calm regarding the intervention of china and china's government. [unintelligible] the 42 plus one. that is one of my suggestions. before we move on to what we could do for the alliance in the future, i have some lessons we have learned, at least south

koreans have learned over the 10 years of experience with the nuclear problem. i think it is true there are lessons we can learn. one is, the u.s. commitment to south korea has been undermined , and in an indirect way, by the efforts of the north korean situation. you know, during the continued demonstration, you had many discussion of foreign works, bilateral or co-party. many in south korea are concerned this might undermine the u.s. commitment to south korea. on the other hand, american

politicians in their attempt to create a political legacy also undermine south korean-u.s. security. for example, president clinton, i think largely turned a blind eye to the north korean program to deal with pakistan. president clinton to accelerate his effort to improve normalization of relations with north korea. he sent secretary of state albright with his message, without mentioning anything. in case of bush's

administration, in 2006, president bush made a formidable change in north korean policy. he gave up cid and no bilateral relationship with north korea. he made an agreement in 2007. and he also removed north korea from the terrorist-producing countries, in anticipation of north korea for all good behavior. -- north korea's good behavior. i think that policies have paid for it may be.

if i want to propose maybe 3 policies. let me say one more point. during the king jong-il -- kim jong-il era -- i think this situation is creating quite a lot of uncertainty. this is not only in the context of north and south korea relations. i think that has to change. any change in policy should have to do with the national question. i think that there are three

things we need to take into account for the future. one, we have to respect and commit to each other's community. two, we need to formulate a joint strategy to achieve a long-term vision. not only for north korea, but also for furthering northeast asian security. and third, i want to emphasize we must protect our agreements and in the united nations. this is some tendency to trade disagreements to pacify north korea. this has been for several decades. one of the fundamental principles is diplomatic

engagement cannot be our right test for north korea. in regards to engagement or containment or what ever, i think it is clear there is history of the region, and there are students reading. particularly, policies based on sympathetic views of north korea or wishful thinking is worse than principle engagement with clear violations of strategy. the first matter is respects. each country, including the united states and south korea, will have our own actions.

are matters of national interest, and also for tourists. so every country has a national commitment. regarding the u.s., i think we have to protect each other and commit ourselves to each other's safety. two is, we need to move beyond the perceptions, stereotypes, attitudes, and mindsets. we have an acute awareness of relationships in northeast asia, especially china.

last month, there was a meeting between presidents lee myung- bak @ president obama. what is needed now is to strengthen. for example, on the korean peninsula, we believe unification must be led by south korea with democracy, and we will work toward a unified korea to enhance world stability and peace. we are committed to deterrence and the nuclear umbrella for correa in the future. lastly, let me focus on the army situation. this january, january 11, north

korea proposed to commit a peace treaty. this is just the latest version of a north korean proposal, since richard armour did reaching a new peace treaty -- our message -- armitage reaching a new peace treaty with the u.s.. it has taken the two generations to realize the ramifications of unification by force on the korean peninsula. to the north koreans, because of that, there have been arguments and disagreements that symbolizes the failure of their policies and are aimed for the old met goal of reunification on their terms.

>> ok. >> your time is up. >> "your time is up"? [laughter] >> if you have a couple of minutes. >> we need to achieve a two fold strategy on one hand. military and diplomacy. first, on the prosecution side, we need to target alliance with the west. from 1999 especially, and the most recent cheonan incident, it is the latest attempt to create regional instability.

on the offensive side, we would trade scientists with washington with some their first investment. di -- verse -- diverse investment. initially, the united states was reluctant to even think about this idea, but as time goes, [unintelligible] the u.s. government begins to listen to north korea and think this might not be a good idea, to have a deal with north korea. i, personally, worry about such tendencies. what about the caribbean case? traditionally, -- what about the

korean case? traditionally, the u.s. has accepted the north on the negotiating its history. they have had a tendency to marginalize south korea in a direct view with the united states. however, the continuation of programs, they took a quite different approach. the two -- the true -- [laughter] with the goal of dismantling the from work in the case of kim and establishing a new peace structure -- [laughter]

[unintelligible] >> through the efforts under this campaign, this is the key efforts to overthrow these efforts. they understand the danger of rushing into this, but they even seem willing to include the inclusion of north korea. but we conclude. i think trading of the army is a failed policy of the united states and north korea.

the most of my concern is it would create the wrong impression. caught [inaudible] thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. i appreciate you talking about the changing realities on the peninsula. i would like to see a copy of this paper. we're talking about some of the reactions from north and south korea in response of the sinking. this made for interesting reading and provocative south korean perspective. i would like a chance to see

yet -- it when it is published. this morning, i had a cup of coffee. obviously, this goes back a number of years. there are some command and control exercises. it is incredibly important those exercises are are reincarnation of those things. this goes to the importance of being able to work together and have a long-term relationship. that happened when i was the commanding general of three men, and it could only happen in correa if we have those kinds of exercises. -- it could only happen in korea if we have those kinds of exercises. it was the largest set of operating units i ever had in command and control at that

time. we had army troops from the u.s. west coast who never came to correako -- rea -- korea except for that kind of exercise. they even parachuted in the regiments. those exercises are incredibly important. it seems to me a part of what ever we do in the future. you talked about the future of the alliance and formulating a strategy. there is always going to be some tension between north korea and the us and us and china. china's role in the world is changing. us iss relationship with going to change. if you look at china at the end of the korean war, you are

talking 20/70. i do not know if china's relationship with north korea will be the same in 2070 as it is today. it does not seem to me possible that they will always have the same relationship with north korea. i think we have to be attuned to the old friction that exists with north korea and the new frictions that will come as we move forward with china. we need to come to focus on it a little bit today. some important contributions. we thank him for coming and the people who chose him will make more comments about the papers after doug has finished his

comments. doctor? >> ok. i am a caribbean, speaking -- i am of caribbean, speaking english. forgive me if i make mistakes. that is not my fault. it is the fault of my english teachers. [laughter] when you go to the library of congress to search my publications coming you have to use three names. the first one, you have to type in d-u-c-k first. that is the one that i used. my first english teacher did not know donald duck.

so i turned it into d-u-c. when i visited vietnam, they read it "dook," not duc. but the problem is the koreans are reading it d-o-u-g. they never see anyone in kirby egg using -- korea using d-o-u- g. so when you go to the library of congress, he will have to look up all three of them to get the full set of my papers. i did not have time to read all of these papers. we did not have the coordination

to blame north korea and praise our government. i am doing my own paper. i do not want to -- bear with me. i was born in 1951, one year after the caribbean war broke out. i am very short, compared to others of my comrades. that is because of the korean war. there was nothing to eat. we had nothing to eat. no supplies. i am sure than my two brothers who were born after the war. i have to blame north korea for that. [laughter] if i was born after the war, i could be a movie star in hollywood. [laughter]

so, i am a born anti-communist. [laughter] so, i do not like war myself. but i have to defend myself. if somebody does not come to an agreement, that is okay. live your life. but if they cross that line, i should have the right to self- defense. that is the point i make in this paper. i do not want to say something bad about north at the minimum, leave me alone -- i do not want to say something bad about north korea, but at the minimum, leave me alone. this is a very expensive paper, you know. they paid a lot of money for this.

and to bruce, who mobilized me come up because if you call, i am ready. when ever you call, i am mobilized. all the generals are saying after the major-general will retire -- i do not know why we would do that. first, he would retire. [laughter] why would he do that? he put my name as a doctor kim, and the first lieutenant as retired. why not? [laughter] i love to take pictures. i am evolving from pictures to videos. i also love to account numbers. how many are male, female,

something like that. the top ofto count the rooftops. small animals. we call them [speaking korean] in correa, there are some -- korea there are some buildings. me, i love to make small changes. as i am it small, i love to make small changes. [laughter] i would like to make small changes today. at least three of them. let me start. that you read this very expensive paper. [laughter] do me a favor. i have 20 minutes --

[unintelligible] [laughter] just stop me right there. they are all here. this year is 2010. in korean history, it is significant. it marks the event that occurred in 1910, 1945, 1950, 1990, and 2000. you know, 1910, japan claimed correa as -- korea as a colony. we used to call it 36 years of occupation.

actually, 1910, august 22, and it was publicly announced august 29. it is less than 35 years. we are two weeks short of 35 years. why then do koreans keep calling it "36 years of occupation"? do you like to be controlled that way? i kept arguing, and they changed it. they changed it into 35 in their very recent publication. from 36 to 35. if you ask any caribbean, they will keep on saying 36 years -- if you ask any korean, they will

keep on saying 36 years. help me out here. correct them. the united states came to correa -- korea. they were barely able to save the southern part of the korean peninsula. many people seem to forget that. all of them would be after soviet occupation. 1950 again, the korean war. this year, we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the korean war. this was all in 1953. then we were at armistice. but, please, allow me. i am going to change it. we were at war with north korea.

they were not a terrorist in that sense. we were at war. that is why i feel -- i take my 35-year-old uniform with me. whenever they call me, i am ready to go. in 1999 the front, you know, -- correa and runw, shot normalize relations. -- korea and russia normalized relations. we are supposed to celebrate this. we have the first meeting between our presidents. there was some kind of technical

problems. you understand that. those are supposed to be held one year apart. one day from that, and of the delegations were ready to go to north korea. but they had to go back home, wait one more day. they had technical problems. we knew what was the technical problem. there was a banking problem. the money that was supposed to be delivered to north rio was not. they said, wait a minute. we cannot allow you to come to the north until we verify that. that was a technical problem. therefore, the year 2010 is the 100th anniversary of the blah, blah, blah. [laughter] we were supposed to have a very good year this year. there are positives.

there are some. they are all gone due to bthe cheonan incident. i just want to make some points the north korea has been a factor in security from the very start. we seem to forget that we have them at the time. and then, after the third cheonan, meaning the skinking of the cheonan was a turning point in north korean relations in general. also, in handling the cheonan situation, it was embarrassing.

we know that. we should take measures to correct that mistake. but there is discontent about the reports of the commission which concluded that the north is responsible and the evidence is complete. there are still many koreans in korea, and obviously, they have a doubt about it. i think our government should do some more to make it known that that is a fact. there are also statements regarding the cheonan incident. it is not widely circulated. the government has succeeded in

making the public understand the government for all information. i put those reports in our paper to make those reports known to our public. there are 24 experts who support the united states. at the news, when i heard that -- why not russia and china? we could have invited them. it is up to them whether they come or not. but we could have invited them. and then, whether we continue or not -- that is related to this report. they did not come anyway. and then after the investigation of the incident,

there was an address to the nation. it was north korea that attacked the cheonan. there was a united nations security council presentation in july. i think our government administration prefaced -- to add to the united nations sanctioning north korea. and with the presidential statement, north korea said that the un document did not say north korea is responsible. they mentioned it at the time. the responses from the other

relevant parties say it has nothing to do with that. north korea claims, oh, we are not responsible for that. china is taking this side. lee myung-bak said that china was taking this side of the address, that north korea was responsible for that. i will skip the reunification part. after the cheonan incident time of their work missions -- there were measures taken, as the general explained. the reason is, i was ready to take over by 2012, but it was postponed by three years. in their documents, they made it clear that the delay was

requested by south korea, not united states. why not the united states? meaning, south korea and our military and our government was not ready for that. we could change that arrangement. that was my thought. and then, there is of foreign minister, the defense minister, and the north koreans signed that they would continue with the policies. and the ministry of service is to be reviewed. it has been reviewed over 18 months, and it should be resumed to at least three years.

at least our future recruits would like that. then, what is next? >> you have time. >> really? ok. thank you very much. china could be a stronger supporter for the security and unification, but at the same time, they could be a very terrible stumbling block for unification and security of the same time. when i was talking to chinese scholars and officials, they were not convinced by the report, again, and they were relying on their own source of information. if we want to have a better, more positive relationship with china, i think our government should have more aggressive,

more active public policy toward the chinese. so i was proposing that. why not this year commemorate the anniversary of the korean war, and also china's passage into the caribbean more? why don't we show that -- china fell passage into the china's passage into the korean war? why don't we show that? i think we need to contain the threat from north korea. there was one sculler i quoted from. he said that we need to contain north korea in some sense.

thomas we cannot or we are not doing anything to change come up the bottom line is we should have some kind of containing mechanism from the north korean threat to the south. so, i was talking about the view of the relationship between the south and the north. how do you call the relationship between north and south korea up until now? we call that a special relationship. meaning, we are supposed to be reunited. therefore, only since 1991. but the countries with those

special relationships are not supposed to attack militarily. i think we need to change the special relationship into a normal relationship, like the korean relationship with china, but japan. -- with japan. ok. and then, we should strengthen our public awareness of the threat from north korea. and the fourth one was, i think it is time we need to introduce -- system into north korea. we cannot have one here. but you saw. who leda fishing boat

discovered the parts for that investigation. then 1991, correa korea introduced a new system. it is time to introduce an national system in korea. they have about one and the one in the united states. i understood what they did. but korea in -- but in korea, it is the most active reserves. they pop up somewhere. wearing a red. i love that. they are the ones facing general macarthur in asia. why not give them a chance to

serve the nation? in concluding, there are several points i made, but the one -- there were 46 sailors lost in the cheonan incident. they should be the last casualties'. making a memorial could help the korean people remember march 26, 2010. as united states made a memorial in 1976. korea should make a memorial not to forget the cheonan incident. i had to change the number of u.s. casualties korea at then

war memorial. -- the number of u.s. casualties at the korean war memorial. i took the picture of the memorial and i compared it with the biggest picture i took at the korean war memorial. 21,000 poor souls. where are they? not long ago, president obama signed a bill about the korean war. the numbers of the korean war memorial in korea should be changed. i am willing to make the change. it is not that expensive to do that.

before we do that, the government should decide to change. i hope i will make the change before president obama comes korea to -- comes to korea so we can have a small party. [laughter] and i want to be the founder of the korean national guard. my career and more -- am i at of korean war veteran? technically, i hand. for me, it was 1950 through 2010. so i am a type of the dispatched. thank you very much. >> dr. doug, we commend you for

your humor. >> james? >> no. i certainly enjoy my visits. he pointed to us some caribbean history korea -- n history, some things to think about -- korean history, some things to think about. china continues to be a mainstay in this discussion. this alliance containing north korea is a topic which, if you remember the last time we did this, we spent a good deal of time talking about how the beatification would occur --

reunification would occur. one of the solutions was a huge, a simple bell that would be struck every day. i have a replica of that bell in my study every day -- in my study. i strike it every day. i remember all the discussions we had, in this relationship you talk about, and transgressing into a normal relationship, is one that perhaps the next generation is going to have to deal with. i would say to you, a normal relationship might be better. we have a special relationship with great britain. on several occasions, we fought them and they fought us and we fought together.

it and we do not always agree, but perhaps the special relationship, you can have that kind of special relationship. it is still a good one. you have been provocative and asked us to think about how that relationship changes. i think it is going to be mostly of the koreans change the relationship. i am not sure the u.s. can change your relationship with north korea from special to normal. that is something to think about. we wish you luck with the caribbean national guard. korea -- korean national guard. it will make our mission without the use of that reserve force. we wish you success in having a

korean national guard. they have to be trained very operationally. you recall what happened in the first days of the korean war. the people who responded to fight that war for you were mostly from the reserve. they did not do well those first few days. you love got to work on that. good luck with the korean national guard. good work on your paper. i commend it to each of you. that's it go forward with discussion of each of the papers. -- let's go forward with discussion of each of the papers. we will finish on time, get out of here on time. we will be late for lunch. >> thank you very much. my name is john from the u.s.

institute of peace. he mentioned that some of the aspects of the reunification and focused on the course of strategy and diplomacy. the defection of -- the definition of diplomacy -- if we look at statistics, they are quite shocking. by 2003, north korea had conducted 1439 major provocations against south korea, primarily, but also against u.s. personnel. second point, north korea plant and/or attempted to assassinate the south korean president in several years. between 1960 and 2007, north korea conducted over 1000 infiltrations'. the last point, 1973 to 2007,

was a short interval where it north koreans crossed the limit line thousands of times. he lays this out as the single greatest in a letter of north korean compelling strategy in an attempt to use it proximity in its military strategy dealing with the south. as much as we focus on the tyranny of proximity and look at the korean border, we also look north, further afield. if we look at the chinese, -- chinese/north korean border, that is a question of proximity. it is a wake-up call. it lets us lookit how all these are factoring into a rapidly- evolving situation. i would argue that speaking

about the cheonan was about north korea. but the question about the u.s.- south korea and naval exercises is very much about china. these papers raise a lot of important questions. with this opportunity to use the cheonan incident to look closely at chinese behavior, we look at two groups. there is the pla. they look at this as something of a guest. it for them, perception is reality. i think they have been using perception to paint a picture of clear and present danger of this expansion of the coverage of the u.s. alliance. with this, they have the opportunity to accelerate programs. with that, i think we will see a very active sterilization of

their defense and industrial sectors. we're now in this category were this is a large reality of what we're dealing with, in addition to dealing with north korea. the second group, and in china, i would argue is the game changer. that is the communist party of china, as a look at cheonan, this is the panda in the room. it is important to directly access this factor. there are three questions. one is, what is china doing? the second is, why? the third is, how is it doing this? the first -- china has placed a lot of emphasis on maintaining its strength in north korea appear this is been reiterated

-- in north korea. this has been reiterated time and again. they're enhancing the workers' party of korea. it is a different situation, but in terms of the skills and capacity-building they're trying to foster in north korea, there are certain similarities to a post-complex civilization tab of activity, where you build up the local actors and players. this is not something new. to go back into history -- i would argue that this started in 1992, when the wheels were set in motion. it was the economy -- a period where they established a thematic relations. -- a diplomatic relations. we see a lost decade in regard to party relations. there is a state-ending calamity in the famine in the

iste-1990's, where th culminates in october, 2005. at that time, there was a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the workers party. we saw the vice premier bring in her delegation -- a commerce minister -- and we saw the beginnings of the sign of the day of -- decay of agreements. they were landmark agreements. fast-forward to last year and premier wen jiabao's visit. senior chinese official visiting -- a senior chinese official visiting on an important anniversary. who was in the delegation? it is quite amazing. if you look at the picture, it is a who's who of chinese leadership with senior military, senior party officials and so

forth, and the chief of the national development and reform commission and the commerce minister. they were meeting with their north korean counterparts. he leaves very abruptly. my hunch is the meeting between kim jong-il and wen jiabao was a continuation of unfinished business from the main visit. this leads to the question of why china is doing this year there are three reasons. one is to buy latterly stabilize north korea. -- bilaterally stabilize north korea. how do you deal with this had a? the second is a multilateral engagement of north korea by the six-party talks. the denuclearization of north korea it is the stated goal. from the beijing perspective is to manage the other parties in

the six-party talks, especially the united states and south korea. we often overlook the third point because it does not fit the building of a strategic issue. the very localized, economic development of the three chinese provinces bordering north korea -- the reality is that those three chinese provinces are among the poorest in the country, which are relying on the energy resources of north korea. there is an important local dynamic that feeds into the broader chinese party of closing the gap between the rich and the --ard as the works towards 00 the poor as they work towards this. the question of how highlights more of this important development that has been going on for awhile and has been accelerating under the surface. the growing interactions with

the communist party and the workers party, specifically the international department. when the previous chinese ambassador fishes timing pyongyang and rotated back to beijing -- finished his time in pyongyang and retreated back to beijing, he was the last to do so. his replacement is the vice minister in the communist party. it reinforces the notion of the deepening and unique relationship between the two parties, specifically the international department. this leads to the notion of how china is going about this in an operational sense. it is a very straightforward economic development corp. and -- cooperation and utilization of an 1874 loophole. countries member states are not prohibited from conducting engaging in economic development and humanitarian activities. the chinese go to great pains to

emphasize that these in teractions fall into this category of economic development. in obligations while this -- the party-to-party relationship is far ahead of where the u.s. and north korea are with the stalemate. nothing is more visible than of former president who was left, without having that kim jong il -- met kim jong-il. the influence of the parties is growing in this succession. this leads to a lot of questions as to what, specifically, is happening in the transaction, because there is a lot of deal making going back and forth. going back to then notion of the cheonan in public -- cheonan provocations. they are not doing this piecemeal. they have gone all in pure the north korean party is in a position of reciprocating -- all

in. the north korean party is in a position of for submitting. what we know as we have heard from the papers is that china did not condemn north korea. north korea, more or less, got off scot-free. john ensign -- china and russia -- they were reluctant to condemn the actor, but they condemned the action. we see china playing a very unique role. i would argue, in one sense, they're setting in reinforcing president -- precedent. they want to deal with this party-to-party and do capabilities enhancement going forward. thank you. [applause] >> this has changed from what i

got earlier. >> i am scott snyder from the asia foundation. my assignment is to talk about professor -- the professor's paper. is is challenging for me because he gave a thought provoking and the very rich paper, with a lot in it. i will try the focus on four main areas that i think are particularly interesting. the first is really about the alliance. the professor gave what i would call a classic korean realist assessment of factors related to continuity and change. he focused on the changing strategic environment in which the alliance has operated and he

focused on changing resources internal to alliance capabilities. he also kept his eye on the ball as it relates to the continuity of the north korean threat. what i would like to ask him to comment on is -- at the end of the paper he talks about the joint vision statements from june, 2009 -- which i agree is a very important document. that document expand both the functional and geographic scope of the alliance at the same time that the north korean threat is still there. my own view is that, at this particular moment, when the u.s.-korea alliance is riding high, we need to do what began to consolidate -- do what we can to consolidate that process. the question i want ask is, what

do you think about the values and interest rationale for the alliance that have been provided in the joint vision statement? in his paper, he emphasized the now.t-pabased russia i want to know what he thinks about the bayous and interest -- values and interest rationale. another theme of the panel has and related to china's rise implications for the alliance precursor we are paying special attention -- for the alliance. a conference about this earlier this month. with the cheonan issue, china has emerged as an issue for

coordination in the alliance context for the first time. i'm sure and will not be for the lost time. it raises a number of very township and interesting issues in terms of the extent to which -- a very challenging and interesting issues in terms of the extent to which they should coordinate as it relates to north korea-related and maritime-security related issues connected to china. another aspect of the cheonan issue was that it was revelatory as to the extent to which the u.s. and south korea are talking past each other with china on some key issues. president obama used the phrase "willful blindness" to describe the chinese approach to dealing with the facts of the cheonan

incident. it is clear that the u.s.-china tensions are not good for south korean interests as it relates to the future in terms of prospects for dealing with north korea. the question i want to ask the professor is related to the impacts on the china-south korea relationship of the cheonan incident. how lasting is the impact of th e cheonan? how serious is the impact? a third issue that he spent a lot of time talking about is the cheonan incident itself. as we've seen this unfold, we have noticed a couple of interesting aspects. it is moved through different phases -- has moved through some different phases which we have

handled well at times and poorly at others. where south korea took the lead, it was handled very well. the u.n. security council phase -- i like to call the "punishment phase." my own view is that the statement that came out of the notecurity council was fully satisfactory and it put us behind the curve in terms of feeling that we achieve the objective of holding north korea accountable related to the cheonan incident. the third phase is what i would call the penalty phase and this is all about the exercises. here is where i think something very interesting happened. is transmitted from a korean --

it transmitted from a korean issue into a united states-china issue. it is an interesting and complicated development. the fourth phase -- a fourth phase and i do not know if there will be additional ones beyond what i am focused on -- the question of exit strategy. i am just interested to hear his view about whether we -- what are the circumstances under which we can say we are entering the fourth phase? what are the conditions and requirements? the last. i want to focus on related to his paper is really -- the last area that i want to focus on related to his paper is really focusing on this issue of returns. clearly there is a perceived failure of deterrence in

relation to the cheonan incident. i want to focus on strategies for north korean transformation. in his presentation, the doctor talked about the need to -- between washington and seoul to agree on the importance of unification, led by south korea as an objective. i think that is the joint mission statement -- is in the joint vision statement. the areas where we still have potential space between us are related to needs and costs. that is, in the context of pursuing that set of objectives. in my view, it really comes down to the same set of issues we have been dealing with for some time.

how do we achieve regime transformation in north korea? i do not have the answers, but it seems to me one possibility is internally leveraging change. to a certain extent, one could argue that, in fact, the sunshine policy was supposed to be about that. in my view, the concept was find that the implementation was faulty. externally-led regime change is another option, but that carries with it high costs potentially, in terms of conflict. we have a question of what role china is going to play as a correlates to the seven issues -- as it relates to that set of issues. one possibility is that they could pursue this by itself. john pointed to that as a possibility. china could do it in cooperation with us.

that seems less likely. the issue is related to north korea's isolation as a primary source of its immunity to u.s. and south korea's countermeasures. our current approach -- the sanctions and exercises -- still does not give us any way of leveraging north korea and dependency -- north korean dependency. i want to point to that as a potential issue of linkage. another issue i will fly and briefly is the issue of the armistice and a peace treaty -- flag briefly is the issue of the armistice and the peace treaty. originally, north and south korea negotiated a basic agreement, in 1992, and the reality of the confrontation on

the peninsula, especially conventionally, is that it is going to involve progress between the north and south in terms of achieving real, conventional drawdowns. it seems that is the place -- the enabling condition that has to exist for anything else to move forward on the set of issues. there is another issue in view of staff rok -- u.s. -- are ok -- in the u.s.-rok relationship. the processes have to be done in tandem. that is going to be a process that will reinforce the u.s.- rok cooperation. >> thank you. let me lay out a reminder of our time to go and how we will proceed. i will ask nicole, representing

the caribbean economic institute, would give us an assessment of the last paper -- the korean economic institute, would give us an assessment of the last paper. then i will ask the professor if he would like to respond to those questions raised by scott. we will take that to the q&a on the floor. if you of questions you want ask, we will conclude by 11:15 and get you on your way to lunch. >> thank you. clearly, dr. bruce bechtol does not believe in ladies first. [laughter] i am from the caribbean economic institute. this may come as a surprise to you, but i am not from south korea. i'm looking around the audience and going to say that most of you are also not from south korea appeared one of the

reasons i think that dr. kim's paper is so important is because we often did not take the time to look of the korean peninsula and what south korea is going through on its own. you cannot take anything in a bubble or disregard china or the u.s.-rok alliance, but the south has its own issues to deal with with the north. is som's paper important to think about. forgive me, but south korean politics, especially south korean public sentiment, is rather baffling. it is difficult to understand from this small town, american perspective of what is going on. i'm grateful to dr. kim for addressing some of these things.

when we saw the lee myung-bak administration take over south korea and we saw a significant change, a complete reversal -- not a reversal, but a definitel y a different direction on how south korea was going to handle the north and what the policy was going to be, it was stated that south korea was done giving to north korea without getting any progress in return. lee myung-bak was going to take a firm stance in the new policy was to be very different. it was easy to get my head around. lee myung-bak was elected with the greatest majority of a president in korea get. -- yet. what was difficult understand was the domestic response in south korea to that new position toward north korea. dr. kim walked me through that

in his paper. i encourage you to read it. newn lee myung-bak's " policy" came out, the public was not up to speed. it took some time to figure it out, but the north koreans did not. they heard the swift change and made their own reactions. they ratcheted up tension with the south. we have seen a significant decline in relations ever since, instigated by the north. what dr. kim argues is that they felt worse relations. all they perceived or all they see is that we have gotten worse relations with north korea. i also found it really interesting that, leading up to 2010, which is so important as the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the korean war,

there was domestic sentiment that there should be reconciliation efforts or expectation, even, in south korea that we would see some handshakes, maybe the passage of a bouquet of flowers, or some symbolic or ceremonial reconciliation gesture between the two koreas. that expectation has not been met as things have gotten worse. then the cheonan issue happens. north korea torpedoes the south korean ship. 46 sailors died, but the intention was for 104. in south korea, that -- she argues that is not necessarily look at. the lee myung-bak administration, he argues, did an embarrassing job of being cleared and keeping the public up to speed -- of being clear

and keeping the public up to speed in communicating with the public. we saw significant distrust of what the administration was doing after and because of the cheonan incident. to add to what he says in his paper, there was a recent sentiment in north korea -- south korea -- there was a recent survey of sentiment in south korea in may and june with a healthy sample size of over 1000 people. because local elections were happening in south korea soon after the cheonan incident, there were a lot of accusations that what the administration was doing about north korea and the incident had everything to do with politics, with elections coming up, etc. the survey results say that 61%

of south koreans believe how the administration was handling north korea after the cheonan incident was because of elections. what i found really interesting and surprising is the administration that said they had to be firm and not play with somebody who was willing to attack -- they did not benefit politically when the elections came about. the incident appears not to have affected the election at all and south korea. in the service, more than 70% of those surveyed said that it did not affect their vote at all. what was even more baffling from my perspective was, after a multinational investigation comes out implicating north korea of 100% without any doubt, there was a lot of disbelief and

south korea that that was true. even after the report comes out, there is disbelief. it is not the majority go a lot was who -- majority, but why is it there? there is a difference in each in south korea -- in an age over south korea. most of those over 60 trusted the results. only 26% of people under the age of 30 believe the report of the investigation. what is going on in south korea it is not our experience here with north korea. it is something to look at. we also understand that north

korea's nuclear weapons program, their willingness to torpedo a south korean ship, makes it necessary for the south korean administration to do something about it. having preconditions and a necessary for the lee myung-bak administration to demand resolution -- to demand an apology, demand something from north korea condi incident before moving forward makes sense to us -- north korea and incident before moving forward makes sense to us. the concept of denuclearization before giving the economic rewards, before moving toward -- that makes sense. what i did under shed is how it will be possible -- would i do not understand is how it will be possible when the majority of south koreans do not seem to be in favor of that policy. in fact, it looks like -- i have a number here somewhere.

of those surveyed, only 35% believe the for response is the right response with north korea. third -- 63% would prefer reconciliation and cooperation efforts immediately. dr. kim's paper highlights the survey. he mentioned a few changes and i think they're really interesting. part of his paper talks about wha hott this rok -- about what this rok administration has done -- done. i would ask how this relates to the defense posture of north korea before you found it.

he mentions that maybe some other reason that sells careens did not believe the report and maybe some of the reason that -- south koreans did not believe the report may have something to do with china and the desire for good relations with china and the fact that china did not support the investigation result. he suggests bouldering and improving rok-china relations, which is interesting. i know we make a joke of it, but imagine our reconciliation ceremony -- it happens all over the world, especially 60 years after the war has hopefully ended -- imagine chinese-korean war vets participating in something in seoul. i do not know how possible that is, but imagine that and what kind of message that would send to north korea.

he also talks about, because of how embarrassing it has been, lee myung-bak's administration possibility to keep the public aware or -- administration's ability to keep the public aware -- the advocates for public awareness of south korea-north korea policy. he argues that the general population of south korea it is not interested in general security policy. there are more interesting in tantalizing newsworthy topics. they have taken clear efforts to bring them along. short of propaganda, i completely agree with that statement. i thought it would be interesting to see an arizona- like memorial made out of the cheonan, highlighting the fact that there were other injured

persons who were fortunate to be saved, but were also attacked. finally, dr. kim's push for containment makes sense to me if the administration in south korea's policy involves reconditions -- preconditions. north korea has to make the first move and qualified its progress before a ex-y-z -- before x-y-z. we need to contain the threat. we need to prevent this from happening again, and prevent any attacks from north korea happening. my question -- and that makes

sense to me. if 66% of south koreans are not in favor of only containment and staying strong, i wonder if you have any other -- would containment be complemented with any other effort within south korea? one thing i would like to put out there -- you mentioned the tax. the south korean administration official meant to end the idea of invalid -- mentioned to the idea of the implementation of a tax to help fund eventual unification. it is going to be expensive. it is not going to go smoothly in most people's opinions. maybe south korea should start preparing for it. you mentioned that the population was not all necessarily on board with this. it has been controversial.

it has been discussed. i would like to hear your perception of that unification tax or south korea taking a containment and bolstering their ability to contain north korea while, on the other side, thinking more proactively about bringing about unification. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we appreciate you discussing these papers. in the time remaining, let's ask the doctor to respond briefly to the questions. then, let's open it to the floor for questions. , for probing scoffett questions.

i think the dilemma facing the chinese [unintelligible] we have a very strong economic interest to china. the [unintelligible] surpassing the united states. on the other side, we have a wake-up call from china. there was an attempt by the chinese government to try to rewrite the history. they tried to put this dynasty and part of chinese culture into

its own identity. it was significant to the caribbean people. at the moment, [unintelligible] is in our interest to minimize -- it is in our interest to minimize this. i do not know how to deal with this dilemma. i think there is a consensus that when we looked into china -- a rok -- china-rok relations, i think there are some assumptions. how about transforming the north korean regime? this relates to a question about the korean public's view

about the government's very aggressive and depressive approach to north korea. there is a view emerging that we need to distinguished leadership versus the people. at the same time, many people demand that the korean government provide assistance ha to hit ordinary people -- assistance to the ordinary people. they're concerned about the programs, the nuclear threat. this perception is rising, especially after the incident. but the same time, this

proportion of assistance [unintelligible] one reason why this negative polling data is that there is no communication assistance in north korea. we have to take a two-prone to approach -- two-pronged approach, continuing with the present sanctions and opening a channel for assistance and dialogue with the north korean people. the korean people want to put pressure on north korea, but they want to minimize the

pressures in the woods on the north korean people. that is a good sign -- minimize the pressure's influence on the north korean people. i think that is a good sign for the unification process. in the northern peoples mind -- that is necessary for success. >> thank you. can you answer the questions that she posed to you? >> she rest -- she read my paper better than i did, so that is a very good sign. thank you very much. [laughter] i have five questions out of the excellent discussion. with the career national guard -- career still has a draft

schism. every boy has to go to the army. -- with the korean national guard, they still have a draft system. every boy has to go to the army. my friends and i go mountain climbing together. we can make many special ops out of those reserves. i'm going to recruit them and make our national guard inc. if i can get government funding, i can train them and make the finest fighting motion injuries. that is my goal. the second question about china -- chinese veterans participating in the korean war -- i think it is an excellent idea. many of them are coming to korea as tourists.

this time, we want to recognize that and show them the moon -- the war memorial and give them a chance to think about what would happen if there was another war in korea. who should stop it? the dinar, cross again -- you do not come across again. the soviet air force -- many of you, but i published a book in 2006 about the soviet forces in the korean war. there are three provisions of the soviet powers who participated in the korean war. few people know that. it is a good time to invite soviet pilots to korea to show them. at the time, they did not have a chance to see the ground. they were always fighting above

the clouds. the third one is containment of the north koreans. andnot against the dialogue operation with the koreans. in 2004, the u.s. passed into law the division between the north korean leadership and the people. people-to-people contact -- i love that. i love to talk to them, help them out, give them aid it during natural disasters, but dealing with the leadership is different. containing the threat for north korea -- for the people-to- people contact, i think that should be widened, encourage, and we should invite someone who

has been very favorable to the north koreans and use them to have more contacts and more visits to north korea. at two more questions. the unification tax -- nobody likes to pay tax. they should be ready there'll come a time when you pay a lot of money at the same time, at 1 point. be prepared for that moment. to do that, we should be able to get ready for the moment. we have so-called interim korean cooperation funds. they're not in use yet appeared in germany, they got the money after the reunification. but the final thing you mentioned about the memorial --

you just gave me another additional homework to do. i will push for that. grass is her much. >> questions from the floor, please -- thank you very much. >> questions from the floor, please. k. my question is for john par i think china is welcome of kim jong il the last two times based wriggle -- if -- china's goal.

china wants to have the economic development. i think he welcomed kim jong- il's reason to visit. if north korea provoked another thing like cheonan, what would be -- how would join the treat -- the by lateralization between china and north korea, how would that be affected? thank you. >> me? >> john park. >> thank you for a question. it would depend on how another provocation occurred. if it were ambiguous, reuter react -- china would react

similarly. if there were clear-cut that it were no. 3, that would put china in a difficult position. -- that it were north korea, that would put china in a difficult position. >> yes, sir. here on the end of the road. >> thank you. i'm with the executive intelligence review. i wonder if any of you take seriously the objections from some chinese, some russians, and some south korean academics and others to the evidence presented by the international committee. it sounds like you do not. do any of you take that seriously? whether you do or do not, how do you answer those who say the evidence was inadequate to make the conclusion? >> bob, can you make a comment?

>> the first thing i would say is, if not north korea, who? i know there is a lot of conspiracy theory out there, particularly in south korea. they may have the highest percentage of conspiracy theorists' per capita in the world. [laughter] some of these are quite ridiculous. one theory is that the united states and how did this to shape japan's basing policy for the u.s. marines there. there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. if we took this to the courts -- that is the only way we could do it without eyewitnesses. that is the crux of many of these complaints. if you have no eyewitness, how

can you be sure? in this case, we really do not need to have an eyewitness. if we just look at history for 50 years and the number of publications that have happened, who else has conducted -- of provocations tt have happened, who else has conducted provocation in that area other than north korea. it is certainly hard to imagine another country -- certainly not me and our -- myanmar or malaysia. i would be pretty surprised if it was iran. some of this is preposterous. to take the theory that this was somehow an old mine that had been laying around for decades and popped up and some, cheonan

-- and sunk the cheonan. there are people who might believe that and then the automatically hold suspect that the international inspection team did not do their business very well. do we take it seriously? it is hard when we look at the history of provocation by north korea. it is hard to take serious those theories that are off the shelf and really do not make much sense. what we should take serious is what has been discussed on this panel -- china's reaction to this entire thing. within the alliance, every year that we do our exercises for the defense of korea, china looms ever larger in understanding that issue. we do not always get the support we need from other branches of the garment or commands within the military -- branches of the government or commands within

the military. the bottom line is that north korea profits from china's position whether they did it or not. north korea has received an extremely great benefit from having beijing gives tacit approval to what they did -- to give tacit approval to what they did. if it is not north korea, it is hard to imagine that, but they come out smelling like a rose. this is a blueprint for a crisis in the future. we're going to have crisis and war on the peninsula again. we know where china and russia are going and it is not to support the alliance. >> you would certainly should torpedo if you thought you could get away with it.

-- shoot a torpedo if you thought you could get away with it. there are people who shot president kennedy and president lincoln. i do not put much stock in a conspiracy. until i see more evidence, the north koreans get the credit for that action. on the end, sir. >> i am from nasa. i like disappear -- i would like to propose -- house south korea considered -- has south korea considered using the chinese economic investment in north korea as a tool for unification? so far, it seems like the united states involvement has led to the status quo of a divided peninsula. we have seen moves from south korea like this reunification

tax where they're starting to address the issues, trying to help the failed states that north korea is. >> can you respond to that? >> when it comes to the chinese influence over north korea, the south koreans are afraid that china might take over north korea economically. then when there is a contingency in north korea, china will continue. the role of china in the korean peninsula became greater and greater. your suggestion about -- i understand your question is that chinese economic -- the chinese role in for the development of the north korean economy is good for -- in the further

development of the north korean economy is good. i would like to see north korea become like vietnam or china. their living standards have gone up. that will help meet -- help south koreans reduce the cost of the reunification in the future and will change a north korean people. if the people are hungry and they become rich and well fed, they will change their mind set. there hostile posture toward the south could change once the economy goes up and they're living style goes up. it could hellhole security of this peninsula -- it could help the whole security of the northern and southern peninsula.

there's discussion about the role of china. it is time to address our problem to the chinese people, especially the young chinese, more so than rely on the information from the internet. through the chinese internet -- i read chinese, russian, all of that information -- what they are talking about with korea is information fed by others -- there is no career in opinion -- no north korean or south korean opinion known to the chinese

youngsters. if you ask the young kids things, if you are hit by someone else, what would you do? they will fight back. that is what i am talking about. that is that point we're making. we need to have a more active diplomacy to the chinese, especially the people and youngsters who were using the internet the most. that is the point i would make on that. >> thank you. we have reached the indy of our time for the first panel. i think the people who wrote and discuss the papers have done a very good job of raising the strategic challenges which exists in the korean peninsula. the general has given you an update on u.s.-rok operational control issues, which is very important for the military in the audience to understand.

we have set the stage for the rest of the discussion. i thank all of you for your patience and participation today. >> thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> president obama says this jobs report is positive, but more needs to be done for the economy. the labor department says unemployment is up even though jobs were created last month. the federal agencies as more people restarted their efforts to find work. the american political science association hosts a discussion on the 2010 midterm elections. speakers include matthews spaulding from the heritage foundation. that starts at 4:15 eastern on

c-span2. wheel hear more about that from charlie cook -- we will hear more about that on the cook political report tonight in a discussion about the gubernatorial and senate races. following that, the california senate race with the first debate between income and barbara boxer and republican candidate carly farina -- between incumbent barbara boxer and republican candidate carly fiorina. >> "booktv" crime time -- primetime tonight. a discussion of astronomy.

that is tonight on c-span2. >> join our conversation on the american revolution, the making of the constitution, and the importance of historical sunday with a historian and pulitzer- prize winner. that is noon eastern on c-span2. >> former u.s. senator sam nunn on you it -- on nuclear threats facing the world. he changed -- featured the armed services committee -- the chair did the armed services committee for a while. he will speak about nuclear- weapons and take questions from a moderator. >> thank you very much for the introduction and for your outstanding leadership.

my wife and i have greatly enjoyed our first 36 hours here. we're looking forward to coming back next year and bringing a 7- year-old and a 5-year-old -- our grandchildren. we loved it. [applause] it is great to have young people running around with no apparent parental supervision and they are completely safe. we are methodists. we noted the tremendous emphasis that this institution has in reaching out to all religions and promoting

interfaith dialogue and understanding. nothing is more important in the world today. i reminded of the baptist observer appointed to attend a week-long methodist convention as a guest. at the concluding assembly, the methodist bishop called on the observer for any remarks he may have to adopt the said, "i have been treated well all week -- may have. the baptists said, "i have been treated well all week. i am probably among christians." [applause] "but i do have one question, all week long i have heard john wesley this and john wesley that. what i want to know is who the heck was john wesley?" with that, at an irate methodist stood up and said, "read your bible, man."

[applause] we hope the non-methodists have read their bibles. we're thrilled to be here. i am privileged to kick off the discussions on nuclear challenges and opportunities. i nuclear opportunities. i am pleased to be part of a lecture series named after senator charles could tell -- goodell. i am pleased that his son bill and wife betsy have joined us this morning. i had a delightful visit with them last night. they are an outstanding family. i missed by one year sitting in the u.s. senate with senator goodell. and coated -- coincidentally, i just missed practicing in the law firm with bill goodell, so i

am delighted to get to know that family. senatorial speeches in new york have are rich, but sometimes dubious history. [laughter] i'm reminded of an event several years ago when a man was introducing william howard taft, the president of the united states, at the waldorf astoria. president taft was a very large man. he weighed about 315 pounds and had a protruding stomach. after the opening remarks, the man back and the president to the podium. as the president walked to the

podium, senator pugh said, ladies and gentleman, as you can see our president is pregnant with integrity. and then he said, our president is pregnant with courage. finally president taft took the podium. and he said, as he rubbed his stomach, that if this is a girl, we will call her integrity. if it is a boy, we will call him courage. but if it is simply gas, we will college -- call it chauncey depugh. [laughter] so, it is, i should say, an anxious honor to be here. and i am relieved by the

generous introduction i received. my friend jim loves this area and camps here in the summer. when he found out i was speaking here, he sent me this message -- you are privileged to visit this area. do not worry about feeling nervous and apprehensive. that is a perfectly sensible reaction. [laughter] either make a great speech for a forgettable speech. please do not make one that is bad and memorable. [laughter] and then be further advise -- i happen to be with one of my heroes, mark russell, two nights ago when we first arrived. marks said he would give me one piece of good buys. he said, sam, if you consider the demographics of the

audience, do not confuse a call of nature with a standing ovation. [laughter] despite this dubious encouragement, i perceive from all quarters. senator goodell would probably identify with my feeling that in politics, your own constituents are your toughest audience. i remember after being elected to the senate in 1973 catching my colleague, who was quite a colorful character. he was from my home state of georgia. i saw him one monday afternoon on the floor of the senate. i have spent weekend after weekend trying to frame replies for my staff to be guided by an answering thousands of letters.

i sat down by him. he had a cistern under his desk and was using it frequently. i said to him, i am getting a lot of nut mail, people asking me about space aliens, flying saucers, conspiracies. i do not know what to do. i said, is coming from every direction. do i need to answer all of this nut mail. he spent al a wad of tobacco, and he said answer everyone. if you did not, you will not carry a county in georgia. [laughter] of course, constituents have their own view of politicians

also. this goes back for many decades. will rogers once said, politicians are like diapers. you need to change them often and for the same reason. this is not a segue to our serious discussion this morning on nuclear challenges. let me change return to that subject. three years ago, i published an op ed in the wall street journal calling for reduced reliance on nuclear weapons to prevent their spread into dangerous hands and ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. in that article, we examined the changed nuclear threat and we concluded the world was on the press the best of a new and very dangerous nuclear era. the approach was based on two pillars. first, reasserting the vision

of a world free of nuclear weapons. second, outlining specific, urgent steps to reduce nuclear dangers and make a vision of a world without nuclear weapons are reality. we concluded that without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as urgent around the globe, and without action, the vision will not be perceived as possible. we understood that ending nuclear weapons as a threat to the world will be long and difficult. from my perspective, the goal of a world without nuclear weapons as like the top of a very tall mountain. it is tempting to look up and say, we cannot get there from here. in today's troubled world, it is true we cannot see the top of the mountain. we can see we are heading down and not up. we can see we must turn around and take the path to higher

ground and we must get others to move with us. a little background. the threat. it is changing. since the end of the cold war, while the chances of an all-out global nuclear war have declined significantly, thank god, i think the chances of a nuclear strike have increased. during the cold war, the american, nato, and soviet military's were diligent and professional in the way we handle our nuclear-weapons. but we were also very lucky. we had several near misses, including but not limited to the cuban missile crisis. if we think that our luck will hold out with nine nuclear states and growing, plus the spread of technology to enrich the new clear -- and rich

uranium, i think the world must think i knew. nine countries have nuclear weapons now. more are seeking them. terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons and nuclear. -- and i have no doubt that certain groups would use them if they had them. the know-how and capability to build a nuclear weapon is widely available, something we thought would only be the province of nations years ago. but it has changed. with the goal of nuclear power, and we will be talking about this more this week, more nations are seeking the opportunity to enrich uranium and deplete plutonium. the same technology required to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel, which every nation has the right to, can enrich uranium if taken

to higher levels, to make a nuclear bomb. have you stop a world along with nuclear submarines? increased challenges to warning systems and command and control systems for all nuclear weapon countries. each of these dangers is either new or has worsened since the cold war. each one heightens the risk of the others. together, they create the conditions for what i would call a perfect storm. nuclear terrorism is not only a threat to life and property. it is a threat to our way of life. if a nuclear bomb were detonated in a city somewhere in the world, the challenge to our cherished freedoms would be profound, given the understandable demands for increased security, as i have no doubt a terrorist group would

claim to have and demand certain conditions were not setting them off. this does not mean with all the challenges, and they are serious, this does not mean, however, a catastrophe is inevitable. not all the clouds are dark. world leaders are beginning to attend the five halves that lead up the mountain. in 2008, in the presidential campaign, both then-senator barack obama and john mccain and vision and embraced the vision of working toward a world free of nuclear weapons as well as practical steps toward that goal. last year president obama in the czech republic and said the mccain on the senate floor reaffirmed the statements they made during the campaign. very significantly, president obama and russian president did it give -- medvedyev called for

a world without nuclear weapons. the u.s. and russia controlled 90% of the nuclear weapons and most of the nuclear materials. president obama was joined by the rest of the members of the security council in agreeing to negotiate a treaty ending production of volatile material for nuclear purposes and to work toward fulfilling article 6 of the nuclear treaty. you will hear from our colleague from the u.n. this afternoon on that important subject, and others. the nuclear agenda continues to move in 2010. in april, president obama and president mmiff if -- mid did give me did you -- medvedyev

affirmed their commitment. they reaffirmed the debarked largest -- the two largest nuclear powers are dedicated to reducing their own nuclear arsenals. it will also provide for the verification of u.s. and russia's forces, the only verification measure we would have left it is ratified. it would provide the groundwork for further cooperation between the united states and russia. there is other progress. in april of this year, over 40 heads of state headed to washington, d.c. for a summit on securing nuclear materials. they agreed to work together to assess the threat of nuclear terrorism by securing or

eliminating stockpiles of nuclear materials and the supporting international measures to increase a nuclear security worldwide. but the foundation that i had come out of the nuclear threat initiative, was particularly -- the foundation that i had, all the nuclear threat initiative, was particularly pleased with these developments. we have a long way to go. when i say we, i mean the world, not just the united states. if we can secure all weapons, a usable nuclear material around the globe, we can prevent catastrophic nuclear terrorism. so, the good news is the world is identify and a number of paths that would leave out tomorrow. however, we face significant obstacles, leading to the top. including a couple of avalanches

by the name of iran and north korea. our top, front runner challenge is to mobilize strong, international response and opposition to nuclear programs in these countries. cooperation on a much deeper front than has happened so far is the central to stopping their nuclear ambitions without a war. we have recently made progress with the un security council, testing new sanctions on iran, and taking actions to condemn an attack on a south korean naval base will -- naval vessel, which in international commission determined was conducted by north korea. china is a key to pressuring north korea. these positive steps are small ones. iran and north korea remain

intractable and dangerous challenges that must be solved. this is not just a u.s. challenge. it is a global challenge, and the challenge to the effectiveness of the united nations, whose mandates they are defying. the next most significant challenges are debate in the senate over the new start treaty. senate debate will reveal whether the senate understands the nuclear threat has fundamentally changed since the end of the cold war. this new treaty as an forcefully advocated by the obama administration, including secretary of defense robert gates, are top military leaders, and the joint chiefs of staff, as well as former secretaries of state and former secretaries of defense slow center and perry.

and also. who served over midget who served under both president bush 49 and 51. nostalgia for the cold war is still with us, in both washington and moscow. in my view, the opposition this is the bigger picture the united states and russia must work together on a wide range of security issues that are vital to the protection of our citizens in both countries. specifically, it is essential for preventing catastrophic terrorism. for stemming the spread of north korean weapons to -- of nuclear

weapons to north korea and iran, avoiding conflict in the middle east, preventing conflict in central asia, and a more stable and non-nits their korean peninsula, which also, as i mentioned, most have vigorous support from china. i need each of these cases, cooperation between the united states and russia is not just important. it is vital. if the new start treaty is ratified, our hope of establishing a more cooperative relationship with russia improves. the debate so far, and there is not too much humorous about nuclear matters, that -- but the debate reminds me of the story

about charlotte homes and dr. watson who were on a camping trip. bridget sherlock holmes. they crawled into their tent and went to sleep. several hours later, holmes awoke with these words. "tell me what you see." watson said, i see millions and millions of stars. "what does that tell you?" "that there are potentially billions of planets. it and the time is approximately a quarter past three." "what does it tell you?" "watson, you idiot, someone has

stolen our tent." [laughter] well, watson had of his facts right, but he missed the big picture, because he was not focused on what changed. there has been a dramatic and drastic change in the nuclear threat. if we or the russians followed the advice of unreformed cold war strategy, both our tents are likely to be stolen in the years ahead. a strong non-party vote in favor of the new start treaty could create a new and much needed non-partisan foundation to nuclear arms reduction. i am cautiously optimistic that this important and modest step will be taken. the third near term challenges

the adoption of a new nato strategic concept. for the first time in a decade, the nato alliance has taken a hard look at its mission and its purpose. the countries are defining and recommiting to a common defense under the guidance of the secretary general assessing what has changed in the east -- what has changed in this post-cold war time. nader should demand the alliance reevaluate longstanding u.s. and nato nuclear policy, u.s. tactical weapons deployed in europe, and the role of nuclear weapons in nato's security. russia for a large number of small, short-range tactical weapons must be part of the discussion. these weapons are transportable

and they are small enough to put in baggage, and they are the dream of a terrorist. russia has most of them. the fundamental question that nato has not come to grips with, but is beginning to discuss -- and in the years ahead, do we want russia to be inside or outside the atlantic security? the same question must be answered by the russian. we must not get trapped in a cold war-looking backward kind of atmosphere. nor ignore obvious changes, as sherlock holmes would tell us. i think it is applicable to native today. you must occasionally look at the results. i believe that nato, the united

states, and russia, and other nations must look at the trajectory and results of our current policies and we must think anew if we are going to protect our citizens. on the nuclear securities side of the ledger, almost 20 years after the breakup of the soviet union, would continue to live with the risk of catastrophic nuclear accidents that is unfortunately > 0 and much higher than it should be after the end of the cold war. the u.s. and russia should pursue steps to increase warning time and decision time for u.s. and russian leaders. it makes no sense whatsoever 20 years after the end of the cold war that the president of russia and the president of the united states to have only a few precious minutes to decide whether to launch their new weapons in the event of getting a warning from their generals which could be a false alarm.

not many think about it. not many people think about it. but when you really look closely at our security position, and we each have a stake in the other side's warning systems. it a mistake by russia is fatal for us and them, and vice versa. things can be done about it. cooperation on missile defense should also be a high priority and could indeed be a game changer. this was president ronald reagan's dream many years ago. it did not become a reality. today, there is a chance to could really work with russia on missile defense. military discussions are essential for this purpose. nuclear threats are not just between the united states in russia. we must also include china and other nuclear nations in our

nuclear thinking as well as our dialogue. we need to exchange views with china about nuclear policies and programs including, but not limited to, missile defense. this dialogue could improve transparency and trust in ways that will increase safety in asia and around the globe. if we succeed in eliminating nuclear dangers, a truly global enterprise will be required, for many nations are not sitting on the sidelines and and critiquing, but cooperating. this cannot be a unilateral mission. we must work together. in addition to securing all weapons, we must develop a global approach to the problems of enrichment and reprocessing. we must ratify the nuclear

weapons ban treaty. when the strengthen provisions with international monitoring and verification activities. and we must, most importantly build the political will to respond precisely to any attempt to cheat. in the first to it meant that this lofty goal raises a lot of questions, and also, i certainly believe the skeptics play an important role. there are a lot of tough and legitimate questions. there are some who believe the mountain is too high and the fog is too thick, and the air is too thin. but these questions -- these are questions for are skeptical colleagues to consider. with the fog be lifted if united states and russia work together to increase warning and decision

time, as well as missile defense? we have a better vantage point to view the mound top if we and other nations were and succeed to limit nuclear material, developing international assurances and guarantees of fuel supplies for civil purposes, which would take away the excuse of additional nations going into enrichment? with the high peaks look more reachable if it will succeed in working to get their -- together, and would we develop verification methods to enforce the non-proliferation treaty? would we gain a fresh supply of oxygen if we got a break through settlement on the middle east and the world, addressing other

regional conflicts. these steps are all essential, with or without a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. this would increase cooperation at each step. it would make our citizens and the world citizens safer. each of these goals is essential to protect america's security. we have to reach base camp before we have a clear view of the top of the mountain. it must be carefully considered, including managing residual nuclear capability and the

possibility of reconstituting nuclear forces. secretary shultz, secretary kissinger, secretary perry, and myself hope we are beginning to create a sufficient political stage so that the brightest young minds and our government can begin to take on these challenges -- take time on these challenges. the four of us do not in any way pretend we have all the answers. the critics have them. we must consider our current base line and trajectory. the nuclear world we live in is full of perils and dangers. i believe we have a growing number of nuclear states. we dare not expect nuclear deterrence to work in perpetuity.

an article in this january's issue of scientific american describes the impact that would, on our -- that would come in a regional nuclear war between india and pakistan. the models indicate that a new conflict between india and pakistan -- more than 20 million people in each of the countries would die in the blast, smoke from the fires would cover all the continents would then draw weeks, and stay in the stratosphere for least a decade. it would diminish some might come but shortened growing seasons, unseasonable frost, and more ultraviolet radiation would harm crops. yields would decline around the world, bringing to a halt most food trade.

1 billion people worldwide with marginal food supplies would die of starvation because of the ensuing agricultural collapse. this article was based on a super computer model by scientists. you can see the moral imperatives and the moral questions be faced. the old war game framework of we win, you lose is tragically naive when it applied to a nuclear conflict. no one wins. john brown campbell in a marvelous sermon yesterday morning reminded us that we are all god's children. one flock, one shepherd. uranium may be god's ultimate test for mankind.

we can use it to advance living standards, or we can use it to destroy god's universe. so, to the skeptics and indeed all of us this week, i pose these questions. how can we defend america and the world from a nuclear catastrophe without taking each essential step? alchemy take these steps without the cooperation of other nations? -- how can we take these steps without the cooperation of other nations? in my view, we cannot. the institute has lined up an impressive set of speakers this week. through all the conversations, i hope you will keep asking yourself a couple of the fundamental questions that keep me going. if the unthinkable happened, if the city in the united states or somewhere else was destroyed by a nuclear weapon, the day after the attack, what would we wish

we had done to prevent it? second question -- why are we not doing it now? i leave you with the parable of hope. after the collapse of the soviet union, after they began dismantling nuclear warheads, we struck an agreement. three countries gave up all of their nuclear weapons, and these countries had more nuclear weapons than britain, france, and china combined. ukraine, kazakhstan, and belarus. they gave them all up. it was signed in 1993. 500 tons of highly enriched uranium from former soviet nuclear weapons continues today, being blended down to low- enriched uranium and used as nuclear fuel and power plants in

the united states. shipments began in 1995 and will continue until 2013. not many people know about it. not many people know about it. when you calculate that 20 percent of all the electricity in the united states come from nuclear power plants, and 50% of the fuel comes from russia and ukraine it through the heu agreement, you have an interesting fact. one of every 10 a light pulse -- lightbulbs is powered by materials that were in the soviet nuclear warheads pointed at the united states not many years ago. who would have thought this possible in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, or 1980's? it would have been seen as a

mountain too high to climb, and even base camp with up and lost in the clouds. my bottom line -- we are in a race between cooperation and destruction. this is a war -- this is our race that mankind must win. 20 years ago, president ronald reagan of an audience to imagine that "all of us discovered we were threatened by a power from outer space, from another planet. would you come together to fight this particular threat?" he let the audience consider. "we now have a weapon that can destroy the world. why do we not come together and consider how safely, seemly, and quickly can we ended this threat to our existence?"

if we want our grandchildren to see the man on top, we must in this thread in our generation. -- to see the mountain top, we must end this threat in our generation. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you. [applause] thank you very much. thank you thank you -- thank you, thank you. thank you very much. thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, excuse me, i know some of you need to go on to other events. if you will do so quietly, the rest of us well appreciated. before we began the question and answer period, i would like to do something i wanted to do at

the beginning, and that is to acknowledge that sam nunn's sister and his wife are in the audience. if you would stand, we will acknowledge your presence, and thank you for being here. [applause] we were talking about how you get to know this area. betty and gene got here by giving in to the haggling of friends over a long period of time. for those of you who are staying, questions will be collected by our ushers. kate and i will do the best we can still represent a. the first question is on up broader topic, but not irrelevant -- senator nunn, it is the u.s. senate a broken

institution? [laughter] [applause] >> my father-in-law used to say, "i ain't broke, but i am badly bent." i think the senate is a very powerful institution and a very important part of our republic. i do believe the partisanship we see there now is an impediment to dealing with america's most serious problems, and this applies whether you're a democrat or republican. people seem to be -- [applause] people seem to be basically -- let me put it this way. don't people ask me, if they are going to get involved in a campaign, what would they look for in a candid it? what would be my year?

i think i would look for the two qualities. this sounds simple. but i would look for someone who has the facts before they have the conclusions. [laughter] the second thing i would look for, and everyone claims they are doing it -- i would look for someone who puts the interest of america before their political party. [applause] thank you. i understand my friend david, a former colleague in the senate, spoke here last week. and i share with david of view that at some point, the senate has to rise up in america. [applause] but i believe is going to be up to us.

we control our government. we elect our representatives. we respond or do not respond. we either get involved in campaigns or we do not. we either sit on the sidelines or we let the activists on the left and right dominates in the primary and the process. i think it is going to be up to us. also, the reasons for the partisanship, i will not going to now, but it has grown tremendously over the years. it is not the parties do not agree on everything. when you believe your colleague is a basic human being and you are willing to listen, it is amazing what you can learn when you listen. i think today more and more our representatives and senators and all of us have to listen to leave. yes, it is a problem. the senate will survive. the republic will survive, because the american people will assure it. i am confident in the long run. >> this question has to do with

russia, specifically in seeking better cooperation with russia. is their involvement in nato a possibility or a furtherance of that cooperation? and should cooperation of -- with russia reached another level, does that inspired china toward cooperation or scare them into destructive action? >> that is a great question in all of its component parts. i am a sponsor of a program sponsored by the carnegie endowment. it has a mission over the next two years working on these exact questions. is russia ready to step up to the plate, not use energy as a political weapon? are they ready to have a real political dialogue? are they ready to acknowledge that if we keep expanding nato,

they are going to react just like we would react, which is they are going to get more and more paranoid, more and more dangerous? after world war room and one -- world war i, we ended up with world war ii. after world war ii, we had extraordinary leadership. they did things that were not popular. the marshall plan. it enabled freedom to survive in our country and the world and promote growth in japan and germany and europe. we have got to understand we're in another one of those structures of history. so far -- the fundamental question is what do the russians themselves want to bait? and in my view, there is no denying we have a lot of future

in securing interest. we are not going to agree on all of our values. we're not want to agree on some things we did. i believe we have a vital interest in cooperating with russia. i believe they have a vital interest in cooperating with us. we both have of vital interest in maintaining a dialogue on china. china is the new emerging power, economic power in the world. history is replete with examples where a new emerging power clashes with the existing power, which is of course the united states, and most of europe. we have a big challenge. dialogue and discussion including military to military discussions are enormously important. in major area of conflict with china could be taiwan's. -- the major area of conflict with china could be tie 1 -- taiwan.

it is getting better, not worse. that's good. u.s., russia, china are all enormously important. i think good leadership is important in all countries. >> he talked about the importance of improving the early warning signals or response time in terms of the united states and russia, corporate progress in these matters. could you explain what you mean by that? is there a faith-based component? >> fate is where we get a lot of our intelligence -- fate is where we get a lot of our intelligence -- faith is regular lot of our intelligence on the russians. the russians, as we did back in decades past, see that missile defense is a threat to their

strategic offensive weapons. president reagan had the dream of working together on missile defense. in my view, it was probably an unrealistic dream when he first of the concept. today, i think it is realistic. united states and russia have banned intercontinental nuclear missiles. most tree -- most countries have not. i believe we need to be able to knock down all missile that is launched by mistake. we can do that by satellite. the satellite goes up. to comply with up and make sure that -- that is not true of a missile. if you fire that, it is gone. and so is russia or the united states.

and certain circumstances, if there was a warning that an attack was coming, the president of the united states would have the option of launching the missiles. the russians have had a similar system. americans have moved away from that, not far away enough for me. the russians have had a deterioration of their warning systems, and they have moved, in my view, not at all away. meaning, if they get -- at the general comes in and says to president mid if -- medvedyev, we think we are under attack. if you cannot launch in four minutes -- four minutes is arbitrary. if you do not launch your muscles before they get hit, we

will not have a survivable deterrent. at that stage, we have an existential state. we've had false warnings. the last big falls warning was in 1995. we launched a peaceful satellite. we sent notification we were going to launch it, like we were supposed to. the russian bureaucracy did not get a notification to the leadership. the military command picked up, thought it was an attack, came in and told president yeltsin. it was a dangerous situation. leaders in going to be much more it skeptical of a warning. we are safer than we were because of political revelations. but do we still have the danger? yes. can we knock down a missile? we do not have failed states on the. it is not like the old movie

with joe wills. what i would like to see on the warning time -- if let's say, hypothetically we have five minutes now. or the russian president has five minutes. we may have a little bit longer. we may have a more survivable deterrent than the russians do. let's say five minutes. these are technical issues. they need to be, in my view, for president medvedyev, go have discussions and give us 20 minutes. once we get to 20 minutes, let's get to 40 minutes. and then let's get to an hour and a day and a week and a month. that is what i call horizontal arms control. in my opinion, is equally important to vertical. if we make nuclear weapons less

and less relevant, and the russians do, we will have a lot less chance of any miscalculation. by the way, is a born for the u.s. and russia to move in that -- it is important for the u.s. and russia to move in that direction. china is already in that position. they are not in a prompt launch position. it is important for the u.s. and russia to get more like china before china gets more like us. india and pakistan to not have anything like the sophisticated warning systems or the time that we have because they are located so close to each other. warning and decision time our confidence-building measures that are essential to making nuclear weapons less dangerous and to set an example for the world, before the world gets on a hair trigger. >> pursuing the vertical side of that, if congress approves a new

reduction treaty, assuming gratification, how many nuclear bombs will the u.s. and russia still have? >> if it's caught in accounting rules, no matter -- it gets caught in accounting rules now. when you say limited to 1500 each, and that is the goal here, it does not count all the weapons. it does not count what we call battlefield tactical nuclear weapons, which are not included in this, and which are at terrorist's dream, and which are more of a danger to russia now than they are us. i can not want to go often to too much into history, but the first time i went to nato as a senator in 1974, 1975, i read a paper on tactical nuclear weapons. we had our tactical weapons in

germany close to the front-line, where we thought the communist invasion, the soviets would come across. the reason we have been there, we did not want the russians to mask their tanks. we thought if we had nuclear weapons, they would not mass their tanks. but if any conflict broke out, someuse of the short reigange, of them five or 10 miles, you would either have to lose them or move them back. if you move them back, i guess what? you end up destroying the territory you are trying to defend, germany. that is the situation russia is in now. unless they're going to invade, and i do not think anybody believes that now, they have all those weapons on their own territory. where are they going to shoot

them? tactical nuclear weapons made sense back when i was with the iowa state journal. increasingly they have made less sense. we had to get our conventional forces in europe stronger so we would have less reliance on tactical nuclear weapons. that is the long story. the tactical nuclear weapons -- maybe not by treaty, maybe by moving them far back from the border, may be making them transparent or accountable. we need to start getting rid of them. >> two questions related to pakistan. one is come but you know anything but the warning system between pakistan and india, if one exists? and secondly, was the nuclear risk out of pakistan -- what is the nuclear risk of a pakistan

that goes to the ritz in india? >> to me, the nuclear risk in pakistan is primarily reject number two would be it is pakistan stable? a country that is not stable is a very dangerous place to have nuclear weapons. the stability of pakistan comes into play vis a vis afghanistan, nuclear weapons in the country. i've no doubt the pakistan government, pakistan military, are totally pledged to protect the nuclear inventory. but personal liabilities are key to protecting anything, whether it is a bank or a grocery store or a nuclear inventory. the question of personal liability pakistan would be the greatest danger. india and pakistan do not have as much morning time as they

both need to make rational decisions. so warning time is all- important. even during the cold war, i went to india and pakistan wants right after somebody had come out of an intelligence committee and sometimes there's too much conversation on capitol hill. they leaped something to the media about the possibility of a preeminent attack on india or pakistan. i got over there and found out that a leak had set in motion all this extremely dangerous maneuvering between the two countries that could have resulted in a war. the point is transparency and communications are enormously important in pakistan -- are enormously important. pakistan and india are a long way from that now. the whole world has a stake in those two countries having a much more stable relationship. that goes to the question of

kashmir, which is another whole question. nevertheless, they do not have the kind of warning that is in the best interest of either country. >> in what way, that is how, which you like to see china engage north korea on the nuclear issue? >> we need the chinese to be vigorous in putting pressure on the north koreans, whether it is economic, political, or combination of both. so that they realize that they do not start being part of the civilized world. that is the fundamental question. the second question is, the new clear position. they have enough -- a nuclear position. they have enough material to make bonds. -- bombs.

chinese have got to also impressed the north koreans to understand they cannot be part of the civilized world if they continue to defy the united nations mandates and develop a nuclear program. it is not just when to take chinese leadership, but the chinese have the most leverage. we have very little leverage because we do not have any trade with them. we do not have any relationship with them. of course, they are extremely nationalistic and paranoid. it is going to be a tough road. it is enormously important. i worry about iran primarily these of the israel -- vis a vis israel. seven or eight or 10 other countries are going to line up for nuclear weapons if the iranians get them. north korea is so desperately poor and their economic system is such a disaster, you worry

about them selling anything that will bring money in the marketplace. i worry about the sale of north korean nuclear material. >> let's talk about israel for a minute. israel has nuclear weapons. are they included in non- proliferation discussions? do you believe that their possession of nuclear weapons has made israel safer? >> well, the first question is are they engaged in any discussions? they never signed a non- proliferation treaty. if they do have nuclear weapons -- they do not admit or deny it -- but if they do, they are not reaching a non-proliferation treaty. neither is india or pakistan. they all have nuclear weapon

programs, according to the reports we hear. israel was very much part of the discussion on the recent review of the non-proliferation treaty. every five years they review that in the un in new york. the last review was 2005. pretty much a disaster. this review was much more positive. one of the things that with the end game was whether israel was going to be named in the document relating to the non- proliferation. will hear more details on that. they ended up being named, but not single out specifically for criticism. in my view, and this is just my personal view, the u.s. government has a sensitive policy on this and every word with cal. biome the u.s., we have to have peace in the middle east -- we have to have peace in the middle east if we want to expect israel

to get rid of its nuclear weapons. i do not mean perfect peace. [applause] that is an understandable position. you cannot divorce the peace process. but guess what? that is the same situation india and pakistan have. they are not going to, unless they resolve their conflicts in some much better way than they have now, they are not going to get rid of nuclear weapons. unless china and india began to work together better, it is going to be hard for those two countries to see their way. all these things depend on our last bullet in the "wall street journal" article. this is the shortest bullet, but the most difficult. the world, of with india and

pakistan as an example, the world has a stake in regional conflicts where at nuclear- weapons could be involved. the world has a stake. we all have to realize that and bear down on these conflicts. we do not have to what to do, but we do have to let them know that it is all of our business when it could lead to global catastrophe. >> in your mind, do you have any threshold at which you would no longer rely on world cooperation to confront iran before you would consider military intervention?

and have sanctions ever worked? >> sanctions do not work unless you have uniform application. has to be above 90%. you cannot have countries on the border breeching the sanctions and expected to work. that is why russia and china are absolutely essential. will sanctions work in iran? i think it will take sanctions plus internal change, both. i do not think sanctions alone will work. we are in a time contest. if the iranians develop their nuclear program before they have internal change, it is a dilemma for policy makers. we have to consider military action. to avoid military action, they probably have to change before the next 10 years are over, 20 years. there is a huge dilemma here for

policy makers. in terms of the military option, i think those have to be on the stove. i would hope they can be away from the front burner for as long as possible. as long as we have some hope of resolving the situation, either by negotiation or by the pressure that the world is seemingly increasingly willing to put on iran. when you start wrapping the people's bank accounts, and if we do it in a targeted way, it may help an internal change. the actions taken -- if the actions taken by the world seem to be punitive to the iranian people, then the change will be held back. i do not think the young people of iran will be patient with the kind of regime they have for many more years, but the change will be interesting. leader of the opposition noted the other day, and criticized

mahmoud ahmadinejad for allowing the changes -- for allowing the sanctions to be good and played -- to be put in place. national pride comes into play. i remember going to the soviet union several times and talking to the various top officials over there about their interest in helping america put pressure on iran and not developing iran's nuclear weapons capabilities. each time i brought it up, my counterpart got out a chart that showed me all of the nuclear assistance we have given to the shah of iran. he basically said, this did not start under mahmoud ahmadinejad. it started under the shah when america and europe helped the shah.

we do not have a perfect record on this. when we try to get china and russia and others to join us in putting on pressure, vis-a-vis north korea vis-a-vis iran, they bring this up. the russians have a very large muslim pupopulation. they do not want to go as far as we want to go in terms of pressure on iran. the chinese, on the other hand, with north korea -- russia does not want iran to of nuclear weapons. the chinese do not want north korea to continue their nuclear program. but neither do they wanted to collapse, because they see millions of refugees coming over their border. the south koreans, our ally, feel the same way.

they want pressure, but they do not want it to collapse. so we have to put ourselves in other people's shoes and say, what can we do if we want them to join us, to ease some of their worries? of course, that is not easy to do, but we do need their help, no doubt about it. i think it is so fundamentally in the interest of the world to not have an outbreak of nuclear weapons and not to destroy the nuclear weapons treaty that i think we probably can persuade them to work together with us. i think president obama is working on this issue very hard and very diligently. a lot of that is being done behind the scenes. criticism is public. sometimes the effective steps have to be done very quietly. >> you are memorable and outstanding. thank you for being here. [applause]

p[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the american political science association hosted the discussion this afternoon on the 2010 midterm elections. live coverage starts at 4:15 p.m. eastern on c-span-2. there will be more about the midterm election outlook tonight on c-span. the discussion will be about the

competitive congressional and gubernatorial races. that begins at 8:00 eastern. following that, at 9:00 eastern, the california senate race, with the first debate between democratic candidate barbara boxer and republican candidate fiorino. tonight, a book tv prime time looks to the stars. the planetarium director describes death by a black hole and other cosmic quandaries. we talk to the importance of amateur astronomy. that is book tv prime time on c- span-[applause] 2.

>> there is nothing about finance that is like rocket science. that is the most frustrating thing to be -- to me is telling someone who has worked really hard to earn a buck that they are not smart enough to understand how it should be invested. >> join our conversation on the american revolution, the making of the constitution, and the importance of historical study on sunday on book tv. we will be live for three hours with your calls and e-mails. >> house speaker nancy pelosi spoke at this year's american legion national convention in milwaukee about legislation in

the past four years to increase benefits for veterans and military families. her remarks are about half an hour. >> thank you very much. good morning. good morning legionnaires. as a speaker of the house, i have great pride to bring the greetings of the entire house of representatives to the american legion. i come in great thanks and recognition for your leadership. thank you for year leadership in establishing priorities and assuring accomplishments for our nation's veterans and military families. after year term comes to an end tomorrow, we all look forward to the incoming national chairman. as a californian, i would like

to recognize my fellow californians. [applause] i have been watching the proceedings, and i have seen the recognition that you have been given to each other. congratulations to all of the awardees. as a californian, i would like to acknowledge the department of california and its commander. are there any californians began in the house? [applause] as a proud daughter of baltimore, md., and would also like to salute the department of maryland and its commander. the work of the american legion is summed up in your commitment to mutual helpfulness. that means advocating for those

who wear our nation's uniform to make sure -- where our nation's uniform when they serve and when they come home. protecting america's people, promoting patriotism that has made our nation great and developing the next generation of leaders. thank you, legionnaires. [applause] i know that you heard this morning from the chairman of the veterans committee. he has been one of the most active and accessible leaders of the veterans committee in history. he has worked very hard to provide the va with advanced appropriations, the number one priority of the american legion. [applause] i was asked to tell you how proud one chairman is of the

award you honored him with. all of us take great pride in his accomplishments on behalf of our nation's veterans. i would also like to acknowledge the congresswomen who represents mel watt the -- who represents whom you heardew hard from yesterday. one of her first accomplishments was to secure funding for treating spinal cord injuries for our veterans. [applause] i am very proud of the award i received from you, our nation's heroes, the two 0.2 million american legionnaires. for 92 years, you have helped ensure that we live by our moral obligations. you honor the service of our

troops and the sacrifice of their families with deeds, not just words. from your families, the veterans of world war i, to the newest members, who have served in iraq and afghanistan, you understand the commitment that veterans have to veterans from one generation to the next. we have a responsibility to ensure that all americans go understand the sacrifice -- that all americans, though, understand the sacrifice of our troops and their families. an early this year i received a report that a heartbreaking conclusion. nearly 95% of military families believe that the general public does not understand or appreciate the sacrifices made by service members and their families. that must change. we must work together. you certainly have done your

part. we all must work together to make sure that that number changes. military service has always ben a source of american pride, and of course american strength. when i was growing up in baltimore, everyone knew or had someone in their family who was a member of the armed services. in my family, four of my brothers are veterans. now my nephew is. i remember -- this is my first serious recollection as a child. v-j day. i was a little girl, and i remember the excitement of the people in the italian-american neighborhood by lived in streaming into the streets, some just as uncle sam was riding a white horse. he came through the neighborhood with people cheering, and

cheering, and cheering. in our neighborhood we were so proud of our heritage and so fiercely patriotic, but this was the first time i really saw people laughing and crying at the same time, and i learned what the excitement was about. some years later, my father was trying to bring the orioles to the city. in order to do that, he needed to build a stadium. i remember the pride and accomplishment of the baltimore orioles stadium to alter -- to honor our nation's veterans. on the wall of the memorial stadium it said, will not dim the glory of their deeds. -- it said, "time will not dim

the glory of their deeds." especially acknowledged those goldstar and blues star families to join us here today and thank them for their participation and their leadership. [applause] today in the capital, we have a glorious monument, a constant reminder, not that anyone needs any, that our men and women in uniform have served our country so well. it is a statue of president dwight eisenhower. i bring this up because it was his request, this man who served two terms as president of the united states, that he be depicted not in civilian clothes as president, but in his general's uniform, as he looked

when he addressed the troops before the day. -- before d-day. come see that statute in the capital. when our members of congress work on veteran concerns, on a case worker basis, the american legion has come and spoken to us about the priorities for our veterans. we have to establish priorities in order to get the job done. we planted a flag and said, give us a problem, we have to find a solution. malloy just talking about it. i worked -- and no more just talking about it.

i worked closely with the american legion to create a veterans agenda that is important to you. that included the gi bill for the 21st century. [applause] it is a wonderful thing, and i will talk more on it for a moment -- in a moment. when i became speaker, this was on my to do list, and you continued to push for action. we had a meeting. we put forth the challenge. the next meeting, the veterans wanted a report on it. as a result, we have made more progress in the last year for our military veterans and families of them have been made since the original g.i. bill in 1944. consider these accomplishments and take pride in them, because they certainly would not have happened without the american legion.

you said the va needs timely and reliable funding, what we call advance appropriations. advanced appropriations is now a lot of the land. -- now the law of the land. [applause] it said veteran health care was being left behind. we passed the largest increase in veteran health care in history. this means that tens of thousands of new doctors and nurses, a new vet centers, community clinics, and 300,000 moderate income veterans receiving health care for the very first time. [applause] that is something that the american legion called, "a cause for celebration." is said that we needed to put

and end to the disabled veterans tax. the house unanimously passed the disabled veteran relief act last year and we are going to keep the pressure on the senate until it becomes the law of the land. we need your help to do that. [applause] you the american legion said that veterans were facing enormous cost to travel to receive care. we would hear from individuals as i travelled the country, they would come and tell us about this, you said make it a priority. we must deliver care to where lives.ns 11 li we quadrupled travel reimbursement for our veterans. [applause] use of the veterans are having a tough time in this economy.

-- you said the veterans are having a tough time in this economy. we passed a stimulus package to relieve the burden and to reduce the claims burden. you demanded action on behalf of our veterans coping under agent orange. we passed more than $13 billion in disability compensation to these great veterans who have suffered for far too long. just this week, the obama administration took historic action confirming that there is a connection between agent orange and certain diseases and allowing to provide compensation for health care and long overdue recognition too many. i just want to say this about agent orange. i went down to southern california to join a group of veterans who were on hunger

strike. i mostly wanted to tell them as the mother of five children, do not do that. it's not good for your health. but they were determined to call attention to the agent orange challenge that our veterans were facing. they were courageous. some of them were feeling the effects of their hundred. i told them at the time that my brother had served in the military and become friends with dick gregory. dick gregory was there that day talking to the agent orange hunger strikers telling them how to take care -- he had been on hunger strikes before. anyway, the impression from them of the desperation that they had, the sacrifices that had been made for our country, i was

particularly proud when we passed the agent orange legislation debt was recently -- legislation recently in congress. when you said that a former gi bill, a centerpiece of american prosperity, no longer kept pace with our times, we pass to the post-9/11 and g.i. bill. together, we have restored the promise of a full four years scholarship for iraq and afghanistan veterans, and we have made it transferable to their spouses and their children. [applause] this is very important. i know you know this, but i want to the knowledge it. it was the world war i veterans. that they were not treated in a way that was worthy of their sacrifice -- world war i

veterans who knew that today -- that they were not treated in a way that was worthy of their sacrifice. they formed the american legion. when educating our -- educating our nation's veterans is a cost of war. it is a promise we have made to the service members of our country. already, over 300,000 veterans and their families have pursued a degree through this initiative. take pride in that, legionnaires. it would not have happened without you. [applause] i am especially proud of that the vast majority of our accomplishments were done with

overwhelming bipartisan support. there should be no division between democrats and republicans when it comes to supporting those who have warned our nation's uniform. [applause] when a serve -- when they serve, and when they come tom. -- come home. our work will not be complete until every american who has fought for our country abroad can find a job when they, ty coe home. it is a patriotic action to say the we want to ensure our national security. our national security depends on us having a strong industrial

and technological manufacturing base. that way we can provide our troops with what they need when they go to battle and when they train. but our manufacturing base has been eroding in our country. one way to correct that is to make it in america. [applause] not only to manufacturing america, but to enable the american people, and our veterans in particular, to make it in america. it is a national security issue. in fact, a reference to president eisenhower earlier. i was inspired by his actions.

when he was president, it was very difficult economic times. he said that in spite of the bad economy, he made the decision that we would have and build the interstate highway system. where with the money come from? you hear this all the time. where would the money come from? we were in dire economic shape. the president said we are going forward because it is a national security issue for us to have the american people connected by an interstate highway system. not only that, it created an enormous amount of jobs. just think of where we would be of the country had not invested in that infrastructure at that time. it was a very courageous move by a very courageous president. we have a challenge now to

rebuild our infrastructure, which will create jobs in america. our soldiers know that some of the reasons that we go to war can be addressed by having a stronger america here. they know that when they fight, we promised them a future worthy of their sacrifice. that future must provide economic opportunity for them and their families as they make it in america, build our infrastructure, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, clean up our air, make us technologically number one. we are number one. we are determined to be number one. the connection between our returning vets, job opportunities, improving our industrial base, building the infrastructure of america, is a

path the believe we must walk together so that everyone can make it in america, especially our veterans. [applause] our work will not be complete and -- let me just say, in the work in our office, we have the head of the wounded warriors initiative. what we do there is to hire wounded warriors on congressional staff, and we are very proud of this initiative, but also, because it serves as a model to others to hire our wounded warriors when they come tom. it is such -- when they come back. it is such a joy. it is a source of great pride. when our veterans visit our offices, they know that there is someone who understands their needs.

we also have a lieutenant colonel on our staff who as a liaison with the military. i can see in them, the discipline, the patriotism, the respect for our men and women in uniform. our work will not be complete until there is not one homeless veteran on any street in this, the land of the free and the home of the brave. [applause] our work will not be complete until we have ended the with tax. tax -- widow's this has been a priority. we have already made some progress and we will keep working until survivors are no longer penalized and receive the full benefits they rightly deserve. [applause]

our work will not be complete until we ensure that no veteran in need of care is never turned away from of be a medical facility, -- from a v.a. medical facility, and no one is faced with a mountain of paperwork to deal with their claims. we must continue to make it a priority to deal with ptsd. we will move forward, knowing that we will work with the american legion every step of the way. president obama made a strong statement from the oval office about the new chapter of our nation has begun in iraq. our nation thinks those who have served in iraq, and those who continue to bear the burden of service for our country, including approximately 100,000 troops in afghanistan. when the troops come home from

iraq, we will show them our thanks and the grandest possible way. we will show it by ensuring a smooth transition when they come tom. e home. we will do this with the american legion, and together we will build a future worthy of their sacrifice. regardless of what you think of the war, we celebrate the warrior, and we will welcome them home like the heroes they are. [applause] god bless them for all they do. god has certainly blessed them with their service to our country. our nation can never fully repay the debt the rio to the courageous men and women who repay the debt we go

to the courageous men and women who have worn the nation's uniform. ies, we talk about the family' one of the honors of being speaker -- everyone in congress wants to channel public policy to make a difference in the lives of our veterans. a number of years ago and had the opportunity to visit north korea as part of an intelligence committee trip. very unusual, not many people

go. one of the main issues brought to the table was one, we wanted them to stop developing missile technology and selling it to other countries, but in relationship to these families, and sometimes i think that comes as a surprise to people in this country, very important to us are the issues of mias and pows. every country has to know that if we are talking historically about former wars, or we are talking about what we are engaged in now or in the future, we will never forget. we will always try to get the truth about our mias and our pows. it was quite an honor to be able to speak on their behalf to the leadership of north korea.

it is an issue that is much bigger than any congressional visit. that is why we have those flags flying in the capital as well for our pows and our mias. we will never forget. in terms of not forgetting, i would like to tell you a story about one marine gunner sgt. he was the father of three, living in anbar province. after suffering a serious injury, he was told that he could go home with a bronze star. but he volunteered to stay and asserts. he said he wanted to stay to protect his fellow marines. he defused a nearly 100 bombs during his time in iraq. the last bomb took his life. it scholarship legislation named

for him, passed by congress, a promises children of those killed in the line of duty will receive the scholarship and benefits that their parents learned. i say this because that was not in the original bill. we had to pass special legislation. we had to pass special legislation to say that if the service person dies, the opportunity still exists. he had three children who will now be able to go to college because their father served and sacrifice, and so will the children of so many who lost their parent. we passed this legislation with the american legion by our side. like i say, take pride in all of this, because it could not have happened without you.

you are our nation's strongest voice on behalf of patriotism and honor. you understand the need for continuous devotion to those who are so devoted to our nation that they served in the military. i could never repay their sacrifice. we as a country cannot repay their sacrifice. but we can and we must honor the patriotism, courage and service of all of our men and women in uniform. because of view -- because of you we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. just as our troops leave no one behind on the battlefield, we'd say i leave no veteran behind when they come home. [applause] god bless the american legion. god bless our nation's veterans. god bless our troops and their

families. god bless america. thank you for the honor of presenting my views to you today. thank you all very much. thank you legionnaires. [applause] ♪ >> president obama goes on the road next week to talk about the economy. he will kick off labor day weekend on monday with remarks at the afl-cio labor fest in milwaukee. we will have live coverage of the afternoon event. he then travels to ohio, and on friday, also white house news conference. a look ahead to the 2010 midterm elections tonight on c-span, as our political report publisher joins the senate editor and house editor to talk above the competitive congressional and

gubernatorial races. it begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. following that at 9:00 p.m. eastern, the senate california race. at 10:00 eastern, the arizona governor debate. >> tonight, a book tv prime time looks to the stars. the planetarium director describes death of a black hole and other cosmic quandaries. a guest talks about our planetary neighbors. and another guest talked about the importance of astronomy. now a look at the future of human spaceflight.

the senate science committee held a hearing last april. in this portion, the white house director of science and technology policy. it is about one hour and 45 minutes. >> this hearing will come to order. our space program is clearly at a turning point. earlier this week, the obama administration charted a new course that they have been working on for a long time. i know there is a lot of uncertainty in disagreement and all kinds of things about that. particularly when it comes to propose plans about human space flight. this hearing is an important opportunity to take a close look at those plants and others -- those plans and others.

i believe, from my personal point of view, that we need a new direction. to many, including myself, defenders of the status quo for nasa, be they many or be they few, seemed to justify their views solely based on job impact. i do not think we can afford to do that. the jobs in the west virginia are subject #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and always will be. this is a national program that we are talking about. i think we have to strike a balance between economic development, which means jobs, and modernizing our space program so that we can remain competitive for years to come. nasa's first mission must be to do what is best for the nation.

the american people deserve the most from their space program. nasa's role cannot stay static. the president has challenged the united states government to see greater international collaboration, develop new exploration technologies, and on top of that, i would include vastly expand research. you're doing something up there right now which kills thousands and thousands of people every year in this country. that kind of medical research, engineering research, technological research, all kinds of research, that is the place to do it. and i think we need to develop new exploration technologies. we need to ensure that in tough fiscal times we build our space

future in a measured, relevant and sustainable way. this is not going to be easy. one reason it is not going to be easy is because we are under a more or less flat line budget. most americans do not know that. i did most of them would welcome it if they did know it, but for those of us in government who want to push programs forward, that is a hard pill to swallow. nasa does the current budget of $18 billion may be a high water mark for years to come. so we have to live with that and make the most of it. we cannot assume the agency will have unlimited resources for every mission wants to undertake, so therefore we have to make hard choices.

today look forward to making a robust evaluation for the agency's plan part human space flight. we must measure those goals against our great national priorities for the years and decades ahead. i really feel strongly about that. nasa's research helped create our global leadership in aviation. we need scientific minds to be involved in solving today's and tomorrow's challenges in energy, medical research, robotics. i have talked about these things. i really mean them. in addition, we need to understand how we will support our work force. and protect our industrial base. ensure our national security. strength in international relationships. we have to understand how we use human spaceflight as an important tool of smart power,

exemplifies by the international space station. efforts like this can build stability. they can ensure global access to space and help us move forward toward greater transparency ans we establish the rules of the road, which is what i think we are here to do. ever focus today is specifically on human space -- our focus today is specifically on human space flight, but i do not want anyone to get the agency's broader areas, which include education, science, aeronautics, research and technology of any and all kinds. these are the foundations of our future. they are enormously important. i hope the agency finds that challenge and moves forward again. i also hope we will increase our focus on tying nasa's human

space flight challenges to benefits in these areas. i want to thank all those who said before us today to discuss these challenges, including neil armstrong. in the past, i should say, i have been critical of nasa's financial and program management. i am still that way. as we move toward reauthorization, i firmly believe this committee has a huge oversight role to play. nasa cannot continue done the same path, in my judgment. i turn now to my distinguished partner, senator kay bailey hutchison.

>> thank you. i am very pleased to have this hearing, because i am very concerned about the plans that have been put forward. we need to be bold in exploring space so that we maintain our superiority in space exploration. i appreciate, obviously, the two of you. you have been an astronaut, have a distinguished career, and are now the nasa administrator. i am very pleased, mr. chairman, that we do have a first man to walk on the moon and the last man who walked on the man in our second panel.

you were tasked with coming up with options that would save our space exploration and the ability to put humans in space. i find serious flaws in the details of the information put forth by the administration. this could cost billions of dollars, paid for by the american taxpayer. our 40 year legacy of leadership in space is on the line. we need to have a credible plan to take the next step forward, enhancing our investment of the last four decades. we need to build upon our existing capabilities.

we do not need a presidential commission to manage the transition of nasa workers to other jobs or other places. we need a plan that preserves their extraordinary talent and challenges them to work on new goals and technologies, to build a bridge from where we are to where we want to be. every assumption in the president's proposal that was made about the potential development of a new technology or the emergence of a customer base beyond nasa to support a fledgling commercial space industry is another source of risk, and another point of potential failure that could undermine our human space flight capability. we must leveraged our existing capabilities as a work force to reach our goal. that is why, for me, the discussion begins with the international space station, which underpins our reason for sending humans into space in the short and midterm while we work

on new technologies to take us deeper into space. flying out the shuttle program on the current schedule before performing an analysis on space station equipment and will need to be done to extend the life of the shuttle, which is the president's goal, is a risk. it is particularly risky when those potential needs have not been matched against the existing or anticipated cargo capabilities the will provide our only means to bring cargo to the station in a world without space shuttles. i have proposed stretching out the remaining settle mission's -- remaining shuttle missions over the next two years. that would allow for the analysis and planning that we must have to minimize the risk to the international space station and bridge the gap, the

gap that has been a concern of mine and also senator nelsons since it was first proposed four or five years ago. the space station provides our primary reason for current and future space flight, and thomas the entire business case for many of the emerging commercial -- and almost the entire business case for many of the emerging space-bar companies. -- emerging commercial space companies. i do not accept arguments that a vehicle our engineers have never had complete access to is safer than the space shuttle to carry our and astronauts to and from the space station. i am hopeful that dr. golholdre

can answer some key questions on behalf of the administration today. have we taken every step possible to reduce the risks to the space station? how will engineering and technology and dances from $9 billion of investment in the consolation program -- technology advances from $9 billion of investment in the consolation program be used? why wait until 2015 for the selection of heavy lifting vehicle design? what will happen if we do not have some iteration of consolation, and private providers struggle with cost overruns and ultimately failed? will american taxpayers have to build up these companies? what other options will we have a this point to do whatever it takes to continue building the vehicles because the nasa capability has been dismantled?

why not reform nasa contracting practices rather than putting all of our emphasis on a still developing commercial sector that may not be able to deliver. those are just a few of my questions. between the proposal i have advanced, the thoughts of other members and the recommendations of the augustine report, there are many ideas about how to reach bold new goals. american exceptional as and demands that we do better than the proposal that has been put forward that does not have the plans to implement it in a safe and secure way. mr. chairman, i would just say that i stand ready to work with the administration. i would like this administration to have a legacy of continuing our pre-eminence in space. i do not think the proposal that has been put forward will do that, but i certainly would like to work in a bipartisan and

certainly collegial way to achieve a goal that i think is the same as the president's, but i do not think he is putting forward the plans to achieve the goal. i want to help put that together so that we will spend our taxpayer dollars wisely. we will not throw away the billions that have already been spent. the space station now has eight contracts waiting to go up to utilize the space station. there will be more if we know that there is true availability with the shuttle that we can control and-there is a gap there will be a short gap, not a five come eight, possibly tenure gaps -- five, eight, possibly 10 the year? as we attempt to try new things.

-- possibly 10 year gap as we attempt to try new things. >> i now call on senator nelson from florida. >> there is a great deal riding on this hearing today. we are preparing the way to start the markup in your of the authorizing legislation. this is being done in the midst of a great deal of uncertainty about the future of nasa. we're very fortunate to have the witnesses that we have set the table, who clearly got to give us some direction. we're very fortunate to have

the three that will follow on the next panel. this is such an important hearing because there are people all across the country, including this family called a nasa family, that has space flight in their jeans, that are looking to us to exercise our legislative and of procreative function -- and appropriate is -- appropriations function to determine where the space program is going from here. there are a lot of us who have given a lot of advice to the president. i think he in large part is --

his speech at the kennedy space center reflected that. we asked that he consider a strong vision statement. we specifically set a vision of going to mars. he did that. we asked that he consider not the cancellation of the constellations program, but the restructuring of that. in fact, we want that to have the capability of giving us flexibility in the future, and we receive that from his statement. we asked for the extension of the international space station's life, instead of being caught up in 2015, which was previously going to do, which is completely insane. it is 2010, and obviously we do not want to shut it off for years down the road -- four years down the road.

we received that commitment from the president. some of us asked that, since there is a hardware ready for an additional shuttle flight, we asked that he consider that. although he did not announce that in his speech that the kennedy space center, it is my hope that is under consideration at the white house and nasa at this point. we also asked the president for the completion, the save completion of the current space shuttle manifest, even if it has to be flown into next year. and that the increases in funding for the other critical parts of nasa's budget,

including science and aeronautics and earth observation, and the breakthrough research and development be there. and he has proposed that. but the authorizing and appropriating committees continue to review with the president's proposal. we hear in the legislative branch are going to try to continue to work with the administrative -- with the administration to try to revise his plan and change some parts of it. it is in that spirit that we come here today to take a deeper look into the details of the proposal, and specifically hamas, some of us are -- and specifically, some of us are going to explore the implications of the plan, including the impact on national security, the work force, the

industrial base, and our international posture. we're going to look at the plan's overall integration, including the schedule and the cost. then we are going to be looking at he said that it is as late as 2015. we would like to speed that up. we want to establish the rationale of such a proposal and were the benefits and the challenges lie. day, mr. chairman. >> i should call on the center because he is ranking on the subcommittee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a important hearing. i agree with my colleague on the subcommittee and the stakes are very high.

i will give my full opening statement for the record. it underscores what i said that i am extremely concerned by this plan for nasa by the administration. i think it is clear that it should be very concerning to the entire space community and the american people. my fundamental concerns are these three. number one, i am convinced that it will absolutely relinquish our leadership will in human space flight, certainly for our lifetimes and maybe longer if we follow the proposed path. number two, i received the senator's comments that complete reliance on the public sector for the capability of their is no evidence to supply in the

near term. it is -- there is no evidence that it can supply this capability in the near term. i want to support that sector. i do not want to put all of our eggs in that basket. number three, we would be in the process of a fundamentally making that a research institution almost solely. you mentioned the broad category of nasa missions, that we should remember all of them. we should start with the core mission which is exploration in human space flight and i really think that this proposal puts too much emphasis on other

ancillary missions. i welcome all of our panel's, especially these gentleman and our second panel, but i would just make one suggestion, which is that the original idea is to have our other three panelists go first so that we can go into more of a conversation and get more reaction from the administration officials and their testimony. we have heard from the administration before, several times, about the new vision and about the budget submission and i am happy to hear from them again, but i honestly think that it would be far more of a real discussion to have the of the three panelists go for some to have the administration listen and to have all of this added onto that. that would be my suggestion to the chair.

>> i will come back. should you become chairman sunday, you can arrange that. if you could keep your remarks to about three minutes. >> faq for holding this hearing today. but you for your service and thank you for being here. i want to work in a collegial way with the administration in order to make sure that we continue our leadership in space, but i cannot take as optimistic of a view of the president's plan. for nearly 50 years, we have been the leader in space exploration. the proposal by the administration to kill the program and turn the orion

vehicle into a lifeboat, would be devastating. that is not my word, that is the words of the commanders of apollo lavin, 13 and 17. with the termination of the shuttle, we will be, for the first time in 50 years, unable to go into low earth orbit and we will put ourselves at the mercy of the russians. second, we will dismantle a world-class work force that will be virtually, if not completely impossible to reconstitute. third, we will relinquish our status as leaders in space exploration. i do not look forward to the day one novel explain to my children what the chinese are putting their flight on the moon over hours. we have spent nearly $10 billion on the consolation program. why in -- while it is not a perfect project, it is below of the land. congress has been clear in

reauthorize in this program in 2005 and 2008. additionally, language was included in the appropriations bill, prohibiting the cancellation of the constellation program and i look forward to discussing the the letters and documents that i have received about programs that have already been cancelled. no laws have changed. congress has not taken action. we read in "the wall street journal" about these programs being canceled. we need to stay on course. we need to extend the shuttle to assure that the u.s. has access to space and we need to expedite the areas rocket to insure access to low earth orbit and we need to expedite a

heavy lift vehicle and not wait until 2015. the united states leads the world in space exploration. it is a quality admired around the world. we should not see an inch of it go to other countries. the president and this administration will be remembered for killing america's leadership in space exploration and that is not acceptable. >> thank you, senator. that was perfect timing. senator brown back? >> i am a strong supporter of nasa. this is a great topic and it is very timely that you are putting this together. i am looking forward to working with you and other members of the space program. i am a strong supporter of nasa and the commercial space industry and i have a steadfast

belief that the united states needs a vision for the space program. i have been a proponent of the space shuttle to use cutting edge research. with the impending cancellation of the shuttle, nasa has great opportunity to have a space program that leads the world and it will be firmly embedded in opportunity for all. but opening of commercial space, it ensures a strong feature for the aerospace industry. i met with mr. augustine two weeks ago. you could not get a better guy to talk about this. he has been around a long period of time. we have a tight budgetary atmosphere. we have to be able to fit our goals and our dreams and our

desire is within that. what he sees is that we need to be able to integrate commercial space into doing things in los base or -- low orbit. we need to move forward as a nation that leads in space. it will have to be under a different design than where we have been going. i look forward to the discussion of that design. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, and senator john's. >> let me offer a very brief thought. like most americans, i grew up with a tremendous amount of admiration for neil armstrong. i thought that this man and all the astronauts were enormously courageous individuals.

therefore, you can only imagine that i would give his testimony a great deal of weight as i think about this hearing and prepare for it. early on, he said something that was very compelling. it was very concerning. he said that with regard to plan, he hasma i's yet to find a person in any organization that had knowledge of the plan prior to the announcements. rumors abound that neither the nasa administrator nor the wasident's staff knowledgeable about the plan. this guarantees that there will be overlooked requirements. how can such a chain of of this

happen? a plan that was so visible to so many was contrived by a small group in secret that persuaded the president that this was a unique opportunity to put his stamp on a new and innovative program. if that is the way that this was brought about, that is enormously concerning. where does this come from is the question that i have to ask. it is not only the concern expressed by others about what is happening here, it is the method and manner by which we got there. once again, it appears that a complete lack of transparency in the administration, and there is just too much of that.

>> mr. chairman, i want to thank you for having this hearing. i have to a knowledge senator ill nelson -- acknowledge senator bill nelson. for making sure that the various missions of nasa are functioning properly and getting the proper attention. i would only have two questions for the panels when they have a chance to answer, and that would be what is the safest and economical launch vehicle to fly it into low earth orbit and the international space station and what is the plan to develop and test a heavy heavy lift launch system. i think that our space program is at a crossroads and i

certainly would look forward to working this issue with members of the committee and with nash of -- and with nasa. >> and now, dr. holden, i am honored to ask you to give your testimony. you were director of the office of science and technology. you have been helpful to me on energy matters and other ways. i think that you were terrific opponent -- appointment. >> chairman rockefeller, ranking member hutcheson, and members of the committee, i am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the ministrations of a strategy for u.s. human space of exploration activities. this administration is steadfast in its commitment to space exploration and to the mission of the national aeronautics and space administration. i fully recognize that we play a vital role in our nation in advancing scientific discovery,

stimulating technological innovation, enhancing our economic strength and inspiring our public and our kids about the potential of science and technology and maintaining u.s. leadership internationally. among the several challenges that face this a administration was the technical and budgetary difficulties of the u.s. human spaceflight program that we have inherited. nasa stood up the most open committee related to space that has ever been undertaken. as you know, the committee concluded that the consolation program had become an executable -- on executable -- un executable.

it exacerbated decades of under investment in new technology and innovation. it persists in the pursuit of that costly program while failing to meet its objectives and it would have the further liability of continuing to shortchange other critical activities including robotic missions, space telescope, earth observation and aeronautics. it was clearly timed to push the reset button. a decision process engaging nasa and the white house was initiated to flesh out a set of options, drawing on the committee's findings and maximizing sale level of exploration and achievement attainable by realistic budgets for the president's consideration. the result was a set of proposals for activities in budgets that were rolled out as part of the fiscal year 2011

budget request. the key elements for maintaining and expanding human space exploration deserves discussion here. we want to extend the life of the international space station to at least 2020. we would receive benefits from it, providing a focus for increased u.s. astronaut presence in space over the decade ahead and that maintaining the valuable international partnership that the space station represents. we want to utilize commercially provided the crew and cargo services. it will result in what we believe would be more timely and cost-effective united states

capabilities for that purpose than the previous program would have provided. we want to increase investments in transforming of technology and expand the reach and cost of the exploration of the space. beginning to expand decades -- we want to increase human exploration missions including an orbital mars mission in the 203'0's.'s a -- about work force issues, there are some near-term job losses in store as a result of the retirement of the aging space shuttle fleet in early 2011. that is not a new problem. the decision to resist -- retire the shuttle was made in 2004 by the previous administration

based on the findings of the columbia accident investigation and the need to develop less costly and safer technology to get our astronauts into orbit. in the era of limited budgets, it is the high cost of operating the shuttle that would consume the money to develop a successor. the administration recognizes the pain and hardship of job losses in the community affected and we are taking a look at reducing those impacts. this would create new jobs in many places affected by the shuttle job losses as well as the $3 billion that would go into heavy lift rockets and additional billions in other new technologies. we think that it is likely that the magnitude of the job losses will be smaller and their duration shorter under the new plant and under the old one. but they will still be real.

therefore, further steps are being taken to mitigate those losses. in closing, let me say that the president and i appreciate the committee's interest in the space flight program and the other important missions of nasa. we are convinced that the new plant is the best way forward and we are optimistic that we can get it done. i am looking forward to working with you and i will be happy to respond to your questions. thank you. >> thank you, sir. and now, the administrator of nasa, who flew with senator bill nelson. the floor is yours, sir. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the

opportunity to appear before you today. following the president's important speech, nasa is grateful for the guidance received and looks forward to working with you to implement the bold new direction for the agency. given that you have my detailed written statement, i will try to keep my remarks very brief so that i have time for questions. i would first like to the knowledge the incredible contributions of my astronaut colleagues who are on the second panel. both neil and jean, the first and last humans to step foot on the moon have dedicated their lives for the unforgiving pursuit of space exploration and have improved the quality of life for americans and the next generation of explorers and they continue to contribute by providing their remarks on today's important topic of spaceflight.

i appreciate their thoughts and ideas and it was very it beneficial to have the opportunity to discuss their concerns over the past three weeks and to present them with a brief on our plans for the future space flight. the 2011 budget request is good for nasa because it sets the agency on a sustainable path that is tightly linked to our nation's interest. during his visits, the president committed to nasa missions. the president also outlined an ambitious effort for the development of groundbreaking technologies, increasing the numbers, scope and pace of manned and unmanned space

missions and to make human spaceflight safer and more efficient and to help create thousands of new jobs. the president has laid out the goals of this new vision which include a sequence of deep space destinations for human exploration beginning with crude test flights, crude flights and a human visit to an asteroid and a human mission to orbit mars by 2030's.00030's -- the budget request includes funds for research and development of heavy lift launch vehicles. on may 3, nasa issued a request for information seeking general information regarding potential loss -- launch of

architecture's for current activities. regarding our plans for orion, the president has informed me of worked that focuses efforts on a more efficient design to provide emergency escape from the space station and advanced spacecraft to be used in future missions. this approach also will preserve a number of critical jobs needed for our future deep space programs. we have put together a formulation team, including headquarters and center personnel to provide an approach that meets these requirements. this team will report to me within three weeks on how to meet these requirements.

the doctor has talked to you about the work force initiatives, so i will not cover that, but i will say that the task force will explore future work force and economic development activities that can be undertaken for aerospace communities and others and we hold that meeting this morning. nasa expects to submit a budget request to congress in the near future. that will identify requirements for the zero ryan crew capsule as well as funding requirements. finally, regarding further research technology innovations, this represents a unique capability which the united states and its partner nations can use to conduct a wide variety of research in biology, chemistry, physics and engineering fields that will help us better understand how to keep astronauts healthy and

productive on long duration space flights. it will play a key role in technology demonstrations and engineering research associated with exploration. mr. chairman, in conclusion, americans and people worldwide have turned to nasa and our work it gives people the ability to imagine what is barely possible. we get to turn those dreams into real achievements for all humankind. this gives nasa a road map to even more historic achievements as it spurs innovation, employes americans, and engages people around the world as we move forward. i would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. >> they do, very much. -- thank you, very much.

a variety of priorities have been suggested. i suggested in my opening statement what was not what we always continue to do. i mentioned human space flight. dr. holden, starting with you, how would you list, if you're looking at the future, the budget requirements, the priorities of nasa? >> mr. chairman, as i have indicated, i think that nasa has a number of important responsibilities. we really have to think of how to advance all of the important ones. clearly, human space exploration

is an important element. it has been and will continue to be an immense exploration for every new generation of american young people, bringing more of them into science, math and engineering and strengthening our economy and enabling us to address a wide variety of other issues and it is important to understand and explore the universe around us. at the same time, we have to maintain the aeronautics activities of nasa, including its contributions to a next generation aircraft. we have to maintain the contributions of nasa to the non human exploration. i believe that under the president's plan, or we can do

all of them in ways that will move us forward as a society. >> if i am talking about medical, scientific and other kinds of research, those would fall somewhere below? >> not at all. i am talking about research. we need to do more research in the universe. we need to do more fundamental science. we need to use the capabilities of nasa for technology development, some of which will be used and spend off into a viable economic contributions across our society. what i am saying is that we need to maintain those functions of nasa and i am saying that i believe that we can do it with a budget that the president has set forward. >> mr. chairman, i woke up this

morning and i went on line and i listened to the white house tapes from november 21, 1962. it was a heated discussion between president john kennedy and the nasa administrator who was our marine and a pilot. i did not know that until this morning. the discussion was about the question that you just asked. the administrator was asked if lunar landing was a top prairie for nasa. the administrators said no. he said that it is science, technology development and for quite some time, they went back and forth arguing about it. it is easy for me to answer your question that the top priority for nasa is human space flight development and pushing us beyond low earth orbit. everything else is second. it is only for the execution of human space flight that we can

open up the avenues for us to do research and development. it is the desire to go to places like marcel will draw on companies around the world to develop capabilities that will allow us to go places like that. short of one to send humans beyond the bounds of low earth orbit, we have a number of federal agencies that can do my job. that is a personal opinion. >> i appreciate it. >> i have listened to both of you and you have focused on the science and going beyond low birth or the as low priorities and i agree with you. -- door beyond low earth orbit priority is -- as low

priorities and i agree with you. there is the vast field of medical technology that we have already gained immensely from space exploration. but there is more that is going on right now. nasa and nih have a memorandum of understanding. nih is working on treatments for cancer. cell and organ is an aging, reducing -- things that can be done in microgravity conditions. the space station is a key component of the research that you are championing and i know

that you say this is part of your focus. yet, we cannot have a space station that will be productive that will be stable that we can be sure will fulfil the billion dollar investment that has already been made in that vehicle without the assurance that we can get people out there, that we can get the cargo that might be needed in the later years because it has been extended. i come back to the question, if you do not look at the stable source of getting people there, how can you say that science is going to be achieved? that is my concern.

if they raise their rates because they are the only means that we have, so that it is so prohibitive and we could be spending the same money on our own capabilities and learn from that. we could have a blowout in the ies.ercial company i you are putting all our dreams and hopes into this commercial investment. what are you going to do if there are overruns, which there already are? are you intending to have the taxpayers then have no choice but to go forward and spend more money? why not do it in a tried and

true 40 a year recorded institute, which is nasa, why do you put so much emphasis on untested sources to ensure that the space station will be utilized to its full potential? >> center, there is only one untested source. of the two competitors, it is space x. they have a phone pegasus and a number of other spacecraft for many years. they have flown payloads into orbit and they know what they are doing. it was the subprimal on the system that we just had an incredible success on at white sands. if i have to say why i have confidence, it is because they have shown the ability to put

things into space. when you look at research on the international space station, i cannot agree with you more. i am comfortable with my partners, the russians, because they have the best record of safety and reliability in terms of access to space. they have flown 90 missions without an accident or a loss of life. there is no other source of access to lower orbit that can match that record. the last thing that i will say is that as good as other companies are, i would defy anyone to say that the american industry is any good or better than they are. boeing and the other american manufacturers can match if not exceed other companies. i and competent -- i am

confident with what the russians do. >> i could not agree more. >> the one comment that i would add to that is to remind folks that all of the rockets and all of the spacecraft is changing the acquisition model. >> here is the key. this is what i was going to say. it is not that we will not rely on private contractors, but it will be under the auspices and control of nasa. there tried and true 40 years of experience, not giving them $60 billion, which is what is in the , without's proposal all of the other aspects in -- the training, the testing, the mission control, there is much more than building the rocket,

it has to all fit together. what my concern is is that your terminating the constellation. in your budget, you have $2.5 billion to terminate. that is the termination. there are reports that you were terminating contracts or that you are making it essential that they self terminate. for $2.5 billion, we could have another space shuttle. we could spread out the space shuttle for that over a year. you could have to in a year. -- you could have two in a year. i am over time. i appreciate mr. chairman. >> you wanted to respond? >> i would make a statement that mr. bolden is too modest to make.

the safety would remain under the oversight of nasa. this gentleman was in charge of the corps when he was an astronaut. he knows how important that is. while he has been administrator of nasa, there is no shortfall in the oversight of the private sector in delivering astronauts safely. >> let me make one quick point. i am not against the private sector. i am against the private sector being the only source of this mission. >> signature nelson? >> signature hutcheson, i think that is a good point. space is a very forgiving kind of environment. nasa has always run the programs being built by contractors, not contractors

running the programs with oversight of nasa. that is a new way of doing business. needless to say, there are some that question the wisdom of that. the fact is, if it does not work, or if it gets extended way out, then we do not have a backup system for our partners, the russians. they have a limited capability of getting stuff up and back with the size of their craft. i want to get into the normal decision making process because normally what happens is that nasa sends to the office of management and budget, by november, their budgets. there suggested budget. normally, omb then sends the

their iterations back to nasa. but that did not happen a share. instead, the pass back from omb came right at the time of the announcement of the president. as you know, the president had to go down to the kennedy space center and change some things because of the mistakes that were made in the rollout which unfairly characterized the president as an opponent of human space flight. this center knows him to be an avid opponent. i want to ask you, when omb came back, backomb console you in the nasa budget?

>> the answer to that is, absolutely. let me answer that in more detail. as you know, this was not an ordinary year. it was a year where the determination was made after the receipt of the augustine report. of the priorities and the structure of the human space flight program was corn to be necessary. of necessity was the process figuring out what that -- what that process was. there have been a number of suggestions, including one that we heard in the opening statements. neither i nor the nasa administrator was involved in this process. i can assure you that the president's decision in this matter was not hasty and was not

lacking of input from advisers. >> let me interrupt you. i am on limited time. when did the massive administrator -- when was he consulted in the period of time to weeks before the rollout of the budget? >> senator, i do not want to get into the deliberations and how they took place. uni both know that i cannot do that. >> let me ask you this. were any of the directors at nasa consulted? >> senator, may i answer the question? i think that i know the answer better than the doctor in this case. i became the nasa administrator

in july. beginning in august, there was a very smart young man sitting behind you on your wife that was my brain -- my strategic brain. he will tell you that beginning in august, we have periodic series of planning meetings along the -- among the senior management and every senior leader in management. this one on for a number of months. during that period of time, because i am a marine, you know that we do disaster training. we discussed every potential outcome of the budget and i month where i asked everybody about the worst-case scenario which is what happens if everything goes away and we get nothing and we have to start from scratch?

we knew that that would not be good. we determined that we could recover from that. the leadership of nasa has been involved in the deliberations that led to the submission of our budget proposal since august. the doctor has said that the results of the augustine proposal were delayed and we found ourselves late in the process in doing things. when i have come to talk to most of you, i accept the blame. i am six months behind, conservatively, where i would have the normal budget process. we would have discussions with members and their staff packable fall. we could not do that because augustine came out and win back to the drawing board again and continued to discuss -- and went

back to the drawing board again and continue to discuss the issue. this is my budget. i am here to defend it. i think it is the right thing for us to do. >> i would like to say one more word to finish my answer, if i may. the president heard from a lot of people in the process. he heard from me, if he heard from the administrator and a center in nelson, he heard from you. -- center in nelson, he heard from you. -- senator nelson, he heard from you. my own view is that out of that process, he got the best and most balanced program for nasa. that includes the human space flight dimensions that the country can afford. >> thank you, senator nelson.

>> mr. bolden, a lot of our concerns are about the capability of the commercial sector to do what we are asking them to do, on time, on budget, but not all our eggs in that basket. it was reported to me that in the conference call with mr. armstrong last week that you had, you told him that you would do whatever it takes to make commercial work, including bailing them out. even if that would mean a bigger baylor-bailout than chrysler or gm. >> i am not sure that i said that. i will do everything in my power to facilitate the success of the

commercial is entities. i have to have that. the department of defense has to have that. the budget does not allow me to continue to build and operate in low orbit if i want to go explore. i am a contingency planner. the commercial sector may have difficulties. we will do everything in my power to facilitate their success. that is what i meant when i said anything. >> what i read was more specific than what you just said. did you say-did you use the sort of language that i use? what i do not remember using the sort of language that you used. >> it made quite an impact on other folks about the

conversation. it raises my concerns. >> i always have people talk about conversations that i have had. i am involved in the conversation and i tell you what i said. i am not sure who else was in the room. i know who was in the room with me and i know who was on the line. >> ok. i am talking about direct participants that were taking notes. as we sit here, the thing that the timetable or the budget for the commercial program, do you personally think that will stay on timetable and budget? >> i think we will stay on a timetable. if we stay on budget, it will be the first time that anybody has made it on time.

>> why is it that nasa is taking actions by shifting the termination liability costs onto the program, which is not the norm? i understand that that is occurring in this case. that is not the norm and there has been no decision by congress in terms of -- >> this is on the mind of every supplier that nasa uses. i just reminded them to read their contracts. >> did you send a letter to the hubble contractors and to the telescope contractors? >> we did not have to send a letter to the hubble contractors because they

delivered without any problems. they continue to exercise oversight because it has been a fiscal challenge for us and it remains a fiscal challenge. >> are the termination liability is being shifted onto the program it is my understanding that they are. it is my understanding that this is the case because of the administration plan as opposed to other -- >> the responsibility lies with the company. that is contractual. that is not something that we change. i cannot change it because it is in the contract. >> what other contractors did you send this letter to? >> we have it sent to the prime contractors of the consolation program. >> what other programs to do send it to?

we did not have any other program that was concerned about termination liability. there are other programs that are going through the same thing. and the rest the decision of botched the risk decision -- the risk decision lies with the board of directors. they have to decide if there for to put the money in the bank or if they are born to spend it on people. it is a risk decision that they have to make. if things are going well, companies do not worry about it because they assume that there will be no problem. that is a risk that the company decides. if you talk to any business, they will tell you the same thing. >> mr. chairman, if i could have one final question, you talk about the budget constraints which are clear and

obvious, but the bottom line is that this mass of budget is an extra $6 billion over five years. is not going primarily to exploration. maybe $1 billion is and that is mainly research in that program. it is a major increase going elsewhere. isn't it true that with those significant increases in resources, other things could have been done to focus more immediately on existing programs in human space flight? >> is always true that one can make different choices in allocation. we think that we may the best choices in allocation available to us under the circumstances. the decision to invest more in development and technologies that can take as faster and farther as opposed to continuing to invest in the existing

program which was already way over budget and behind schedule was a very conscious decision. the source of u.s. leadership has always been advanced technology and the august in committee report -- the augustine committee report continues to lead. we could not have it both ways. we could not continue to invest in the old program at the levels that it was requiring and invest in these other possibilities. >> center, if i can add one thing -- senator, if i can add one thing, it was a matter of taking $6 billion and spreading it over five years in investments in technology development, aeronautics, science and commercial or taking that $6 billion junk and putting it in one year for the consolation program, not knowing

how you would get to the next year. the recommendation was that you take $3 billion, and that was one of the options that they offered. the fiscal times as dictated to me my fiscal responsibility to the precedent which was to take $6 billion and instead of putting it in one year and then wondering where i would get $6 billion the next year, then spread it over five years and get a grip on our technology development and restore science and aeronautics and people are happy. you cannot find anybody in the science and aeronautics community that will not tell you that this is an incredible budget for them. if you cannot find a university president who will not tell you that this is a great budget for

them. i just came from mit and harvard. >> i do not want to interrupt you, but you're going to have to learn time limits. keeping it brief. otherwise, you eat up the they do notme and like that and it will not vote for what you want. >> yes sir. >> after the last shuttle flight, it will be the end of this year or the beginning of the next? > >> that is our hope. >> what will be the next mission to lower earth orbit? >> when will be the next nasa mission that is powered with a massive rocket?

-- nasa rocket? >> the next mass of mission will be flown on a commercial rocket just as the shuttle is. it will be a commercial rocket that we least. >> which rocket will that be? >> the first rocket will be space x. and then early 2012, it will be taurus ii. that will allow us to work on contract. right now, everything is on their time. i gave them $250 million apiece and they have to demonstrate -- >> bull posted as to the international space station? >> will take this to the international space station.

>> the first rocket that will take as to the international space station will be about 2015. >> so, five years from now, your estimation is that those commercial rockets will be available to texas to a worker for the >> yes sir. >> what are we waiting until 2015? >> we are not waiting. i asked the president to challenge me. a originally, it was in 2015. if i have to wait until 2015 to make a decision, that is the largest amount of time before i can start building a heavy lift launch vehicle. i cannot give him a recommendation on the architecture for a heavy lift launch vehicle because i am not smart enough. >> what about the area's rocket? -- aries

>> i am not sure that we can sustain the technology that is going into barry's right now. -- aries right now. i am trying to find a record that the intelligence committee and nasa can use and that may not be a solid rocket motor. >> how much money have we spent on the rockets' 04? >> on the consolation program, none of it has been wasted. >> your point to be able to make a decision on a new rocket instead of the rockets we now have? >> i will use the products that have been developed as part of the program that i do not have to put permanent habitats on the

moon. we worked with general motors -- >> i want to give back to the rocket issue. if we have already invested billions of dollars in this heavy lift technology -- >> no sir, we have not. >> how much money have we spent? >> the investment in aries i reduces the money in the areas v rocket. >> you cannot break out the different parts? > >> i cannot right now. not on the different components of the consolation program. >> is that something you can get

for us? >> yes we will get that for the record. >> are you terminating the consolation program? >> the 2011 budget proposal is very explicit. it calls for termination of the consolation program. >> but that is the proposal. you understand that that is not the law of the land? >> i am understand. >> that is my time. >> i want to follow-up on that the questions about the schedule for commercial space flights. this is new information to me. so, nasa is going to be paying for initial flights in 2011 on

two vehicles? >> falcon ix and taurus ii are the first two vehicles. right now, it cost $250 million as part of a space at agreement for them to go off and develop commercial capability. >> but they are going to launch something in 2011? >> felt in ix will actually launch at the end of this month -- falcon ix luxury launch at the end of this month or early june. >> what will they fight -- a what will they fly for you in early 2011? >> they have to navigate

themselves to the international space station. get to the point where they can dock. they have a number of demonstration flights that they have to fly. >> and now will be the first demonstration flight that they will be doing, in late 2011? >> let me go back and look at the record. there is a series of flights that they have to fly, and i want to make sure that i am giving you accurate information. it is a progression. >> how many flights are they going to be flying before 2015, which is when you sent them up to the space station? >> let me get the from the record because i do not want to give you -- each has a certain number that they have to fly. they go into a cargo resupply,

but that is the contract. i do not know the specific schedule dates of the flights. >> i think the more specific you are on this -- because a lot of people have a question about how you're going to stand this up to capacity. are these going to be manned flights? >> no. their cargo only. we have a long way to go, and when i say a long way to go, they have to demonstrate the ability to get cargo to orbit safely in an unmanned vehicle. there are several flights along that. >> when is your year marker for when they will have a manned space flight? >> my target right now is for them to have their first crew of flight for me in 2015.

>> first crew flight? so the first one will go to the space station in 2015? ok. i am struck by the augustine report. i have known him for some years. he is a solid american. but i am troubled about -- it feels like we're losing control. it feels like we're losing leadership in the manned space arena. yeah, i gather from his data and the things he is saying that there is not another way for us to continue human space flight on the budget he believes we are going to do. is this strictly a dollars and since issue then, director? >> everything is a dollar and since issue. -- cents issue. if we want to explore beyond

lower earth orbit, we have to free ourselves of the day-to-day operations. i have to free myself from the $2 billion annual infrastructure costs. i do not fly a single shuttle mission, i pay $2 billion a year just for the infrastructure. i have to be able to free myself from that to be able to do beyond lower earth orbit. >> is there any other way for us to continue an aggressive human spaceflight program with the dollars you have talked about, other than the ones we have prescribed? >> i have selected a group of astronauts this past year. and number of them are in training to fly and the international space station right now through 2015. we are getting ready to make subsequent assignments to fly 32020.

we do -- through 2020. we do not intend to stop going into space. we have a lot of work to be done on an international space station. >> but the russians are going to be parting as back-and-forth. >> the russians have been guarding us back and forth for 10 years. -- carting us back and forth for 10 years. >> i am asking about human space flight in the budget we have proposed here. >> that will not allow me to do what i have planned to do. >> i have a short question. >> i have about 20 more questions, but i really do not want to make the astronauts or

mr. augustine way anymore. prince sorry because this is so important. >> i know. i'm going to ask one short question. this is all very interesting to me. putting this together was difficult. there was combativeness and suspicion. cured comments about a secret society formation of a plan -- you heard comments about the secret society formation of a plan. mr. augustine can comment on how we joined that group. in my mind, we cannot be settled or comfortable with where we have been going. part of that is based on the history, the mystery, at the mysticism, the culture, and the romance of a sense of 1962 and

thereafter. america needs to catch up in the world. we are behind in virtually everything we do from telecommunications to science, technology, engineering and math. and it just takes science, technology, engineering and math and ask one question. going into the far reaches of the universe is something which i will ask about later on on another day. but if we do not do our work in science, technology, engineering and math, all of what you're talking about, all of what you are working on is going to be less and less possible as pure and fewer americans attach themselves to what leads to what

nasa does. i noticed in the budgets that you refer to something called, "inspiring the next generation." it used to be that you could just mentioned the name john glenn for the two astronauts that are about to come out. -- or the two astronauts better about to come out. the head of the discovery channel and just told us that more young people watch the discovery channel then watch espn and other cable channels. a fascinating, a powerful statement. a young generation waiting to be

inspired, of their own choice, reaching out to be inspired by products which happen to be there. u.s. something called an education budget. -- you have something called an education budget. you are putting less than 1% of nasa's budget into what i call education, which i look upon as future generations waiting to participate in adventures. can you respond? >> there are direct and indirect ways that we contribute to education. i am glad you asked the question. we fund more than any other federal agency more than any other company in the world. i went to the international championship that inspired kids. we have something flying on the international space station right now called sears --

spheres. these are balls invented at mit program by college students who are doing research. we just rolled out an award in boston on monday. we're going to extend the opportunity for middle school students to program a seer -- sphere or a set of spheres that will fly around the space station. to me, that is inspirational. a kid does not have to become an astronaut. >> last november, the president ruled out and educate and innovate initiative based around partnerships with the private sector, including, by the way, the discovery channel. the discovery channel and time warner cable are combining to offer two hours of afterschool

exciting science programming free of commercials around the country. over half a billion dollars pledged in kind support from private industry and foundations to help us improve education in this country. administrator bolten and i were out this week as part of national laboratory day, which is all about improving the science and engineering labs available in every middle school and high school in this country. nasa is part of an administrative partnership that engages as well at the nsf. the department of energy and of course the department of education, we're doing a lot of this. the president is ecstatic about what is being done. linked to the is success of the educational programs which promote through the white house and the department of education. >> thank you. senator nelson. >> thank you.

doctor, did you have any discussions with the department of defense about the effect of the cancellation of the solar program? >> yes, we did. we had a number of discussions with people in the department of defense. i have to say, in all honesty, the department of defense's still looking at it. the initial conversations communicated to us that there would be an impact, but it did not appear to be an unmanageable impact. those considerations are going on. i am understand, even as we speak, but i continued to believe that those considerations are going on. >> those considerations are going on, but would it surprise you that there is a complete record in front of the senate armed services committee by general chilton, who is one of the general's charged with the

strategic defense of the country, as well as the other general, general clark, who is vice chairman of the joint chiefs, who has his portfolio of strategic defense, that in fact the dod was absolutely shocked that nasa said they came up with this program to cancel the testing on the solid rocket since nasa has 7% -- 70% of the industrial base of the .olid rocket motor does that surprise you? >> we are aware that that is going to be an impact. the d.o.t. obviously has an interest in this domain. i think they're caked -- the dod is obviously interested in

this domain. i think they are capable of maintaining their interest. i believe there will be a solution to that issue going forward. >> did you have a discussion with the administrator within the week before the budget was rolled out to let him know what the final president's proposal was going to be? >> no, i did not. we certainly had it within two weeks. it was well before the last week. yes, we did. >> so you knew what the president's proposal was going to be even though you were in israel? >> but think of them up before i went to israel.

i was in israel -- i think i found out before i went to israel. i was in israel when the plan was rolled out. >> is there a discussion going on within nasa now that you all are considering adding one more shuttle flight to the manifest? >> that question has gone all the way up. i have told people that there is potential that i would like to fly the mission for logistical reasons. it would have nothing to do with jobs are anything else. if i have supplies i can get on the international space station, i would like to take every opportunity to do that. it is not an easy decision because i will have no launch on these vehicles to back it up. that affects my decision to do that. >> but you do have plans that,

with the worst happen, the crew could take safe refuge in the international space station. >> we have contingency plans to include what happens to the crew if they cannot get to the international space station. everybody always assumes you get to the international space station. it is a long way away. it is 200 miles. if they back end of the order comes off, you do not get to the space station. i do not want that to happen. this is not a trivial decision. >> what would be the cost of the continued aires one testing? >> i will get you the exact numbers, but it is in the neighborhood of about $1 billion-$1.6 billion. the variation comes because if you are testing an aires one vehicle, and the plan is that it

will more akin to an area's roman 5 -- that it will morph into an aries v vehicle, there is nothing that will help absorb that cost. in the tester. -- i am a tester. i can no more ask for a test of an area's vehicle if there is something i can do with ben o'brien vehicle. orien the call. orien vehicle.

what i do not want to do in any crew module, is i do not want to settle on the design and configuration in 2010 when i know that the first time i am going to send as human beyond lower orbit, the earliest is 2020. if i settle on a vehicle today, fled in 2013, and the crew has to live with the same vehicle in 2020, they're going to be relying on a vehicle the seven years old. i do not want that final configuration internally made until as close as possible to the flight. >> then why have a half baked one? why not rely on the soviets? >> i need to have my people, american industry, continued to work on space crafts. otherwise, we lose the skill.

we lose the talent. also, it is important for national pride and other things that we have an american-built vehicle that is thought the international space station. -- that is docked at the international space station. i can do that. >> we have reached the point where we have only time for senator warner to alaska hopefully one question. hopefully it aske one question. we have two astronauts waiting for us. but the subject is that interesting and that controversial. so i do not apologize for it. >> quickly, you mentioned the educational foundation. i do think there are interesting opportunities to leverage the

energy generated in this sector. i know how my colleague from florida feels. i know there is controversy iran the issue of commercialization -- and around the issue of commercialization, but assuming the commercialization moves forward, the challenge of nasa will be to ensure the safety of these commercial vehicles. have you thought through how you set the standards between a

commercial context, and is there some analogy we can draw between setting safety standards for commercial aircraft? >> we have thought through very seriously and we continue to think it through. i have a group right now that is going to report to me on something i call insight and oversight. senator rockefeller talk about how we cannot continue to do things the way we do. we have too many boards, panels and oversight committees at nasa. i have asked our folks to find a way to get this back to something reasonable. we do not need all the oversight committees that we have. that is costly and it consumes time. a great example of the type of oversight i would like to have is our relationship with the russians. the russians do a flight. before every flight they do

flight readiness. i have my people in the flight readiness review. when the russians had their two dynamic reentries in the past few years, we got all of the data on the mishaps and we learned what had happened and what they did to correct it. the disadvantage to commercial is that they do not have the experience. we have had 90 successful missions. that makes me a lot more comfortable with them than with an upstart commercial company, but i will make them successful because i will establish standards. we of thought about it a lot. >> there was experience the langley had with faa in terms

of commercial aviation. there may be something to learn from that. >> we are all intimately involved in trying to make general aviation and commercial aviation flights safer for everyone around the world. every day we are learning new lessons. >> i have a question for the record. >> submit those for the record. this has been a very interesting first panel. it has taken a long time, i think because there is uncertainty. i have questions about nasa. i always have. i still do. but we're working our way toward something. there are conflicting points of view. there are some the one it this way and others the one that way, and some that are trying to find a third way, and i guess i am in

that category. in any event, thank you for being here. we will now be in recess for 30 seconds. [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> president obama says that a new jobs report showing private sector growth in august is positive but more needs to be done. president obama goes on the road next week to talk about the

economy. the president will take off labor day weekend -- will kickoff labor day weekend on monday in milwaukee. he then travels to ohio and will have a news conference on friday. >> tonight, book tv prime time looks to the stars. the planetarium director describes death by a black hole and other cosmic quandaries. we talk about our planetary neighbors and the importance of amateur astronomy from seeing in the dark. we continue the senate science hearing them -- senate science committee hearing now on the future of space flight. the head of nasa's human space

flight program joins them. ñyscgg?dsz >> i want to welcome and neil armstrong, commander of apollo

11, and norm augustine. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, and i express my sincere appreciation for being invited to express my views on nasa's new plans for human space flight. new, non classified national program concepts are typically accompanied by substantial review and debate in a number of venues. the process is occasionally frustrating, but it ensures that all of the major issues, performance, cost, safety, schedule and so forth are examined in some detail prior to

a public proposal. after the tragic loss of columbia and its crew and the completion of the accident investigation, the chairman of the accident investigation board noted that nasa needed a long term strategic guiding vision. president bush after reflection proposed such a vision. finished the international space station. returned to the man. establish a permanent presence there. the venture are in would -- venture onward toward mars. that division was analyzed, debated, and improved upon with congress for nearly two years. you then concluded, nearly unanimously, that it was the appropriate policy for our country. three years later emperor --