rather than a direct outlay. tax expenditures are provisions that the tax code, the deductions, exclusions, that are similar to government spending because they provide financial assistance for a particular activity by groups of people. the largest tax expenditure is exclusion of taxable income of employers' contributions for health care, health insurance premiums, and long-term care premiums. last year, legislation changed the tax treatment of employer- sponsored health insurance, but only other approaches excess and buy list is not meant to be constant -- comprehensive. nevertheless, the daunting long- term budget outlook means that some combination of those or other approaches will ultimately be needed in order to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal course. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you for letting us know what our heart rates are. i will pose the first couple of questions and then we will turn to your questions. to start with, this is obviously not the first time that somebody from the federal government particulate the notion that health care spending on restrained will pose a big problem for this country. as you pointed out, there are some provisions in the health care law with respect to medicare that will slow spending. at the same time, there is a long history of people in the federal government talking about this issue. the commissions and studies have not led to a slowdown in spending. there were provisions in the balanced budget agreement to slow spending on physician payments and medicare. congress has repeatedly fledged carrying that out. at what point are we really in trouble if we don't act?

when will we know we have reached that tipping point? >> teh cbo says that we don't know how to predict whether there is a telling point in federal debt or what that tipping point might be exactly. if the retirement of the baby boom generation is not a surprise. i have been going to conferences for decades noting that when that happens, the burden of social security and medicare and medicaid would go up very sharply and the country should be making some plans for that. as you say, many changes in policy have been enacted but none so far put us on a sustainable path. what is different now is that the retirement of the baby boomers is upon us. the projected increases and spending -- in spending are upon

us. the events of the past few years, the economic crisis, the financial crisis, policy responses to those, led to a very large jump in federal debt relative to gdp. we now start this period of the next decade in a much worse financial position for the government than we expected a few years ago. although we don't know exactly what the tipping point might be, if one proceeds of the next decade with the sorts of policies proposed by the president and recommended by many members of congress, one ends up with debt that is pushing up toward 100% of gdp. i don't think this problem how can be deferred for that much longer. let's >> me ask you something broader. the congressional budget office is supposed to be a neutral

adviser to the white house. as a director, how do you cope with the increase in surreal republican suggestions that you limit your number is. what about them saying you have fraudulent arithmetic? >> most members of congress, nearly all members of congress, are very glad to have an organization like ours there providing independent objective analysis. even though on some specific estimates those members might find the number is inconvenient for them or implausible to them, my predecessors tell me stories of acrimonious partisan environments that they were

again. workled in. we get a tremendous amount support from both sides of the aisle in congress for the work that we do. that does not take away the fact that some members on both sides of the aisle will be on happy with particular pieces of analysis. f analysis. and that is the situatn we are in. i think what is important for us is to always do the best and impartial analysis we can to explain it clearly and then to let the political debate occur without ever getting further involved. >> okay. you don't sound too black and blue. let's go. we only have 06 minutes, so let's start going to your questions. the first is from dave oppenheimer who is a phyician from the san diego. he asks how wealthy a co interactive and allow for the lawsoverning the corporate practice of medicine those

states with such legislation exists? >> that's a good question. >> would you like to expand aco or for example? >> aco accountable to organizations are an imortant avenue through which last year's health legilation and before that a number of analysts think that we can with our health care delivery system to provide a more effective care and less expensive care and the basic point of the accountable care organization is to have some growth providers responsible for taking care of the elmendorf, and to coordinate among themselves and get paid a essentially once, not a piece by piece of the elements of the care provided to me. and then to be paid in a way where if becerra can get high-quality care and provided

to me have a lower-cost some of the savings to the federal governme as go to the providers. just last week there were hundreds of pages of regulations released regarding the aco and. i haven't talked with people all my stuff to read them and i don't know those exactly and i don't know how that would teract with the state law i'm afraid. >> i was told we would have a steady supply. the technical failure but i'm wondering does anybody want to raise their hand and ask a question? >> must e some its 8:00 in the morning when you look alert. >> nobody? >> okay i see one brave soul. >> shout loudly.

>> why would reducing the pain and medicare providers. why doesn't it, people to leave the system? that is one of the concerns. in the past when payment providers have been reduced one reacon tend to be an increase in a numbeof or comlexity of the procedures are treatments that are prescribed to patients. there is a quantity feedback to the direct reduction in price per unit being pad for the procedures and treatments fulfill enough one would xpect some physicians to simply stp providing that procedural trick to the net care beneficiaries we

see that medicaid today, medicaid providers and sources of medicaid are paid on average mu lss than providers and private health insurance. it varies based on states, and because of that, medicaid beneficiaries have more difficulty finding physicians to treat them than people with private insurance to so that sort of outcome is possible if payments go far enough and this is a topic we are to writn our concerns about in last year's legislation but we haven't developed the capacity and a quantitative way the thing that there's a growing amount of research on how doctors an hospitals and nurses and other providers respond to the direct financial incentive the face of that research is still in a

fairly restage and doesn't speak that clearly to exactly what would happen with the cuts of the magnitude that are now in the current lull so the physicians in particular it is for 30% cut roughly in the payment would be well outside of the range of historical experience and it comes after a period of a number of decades in which payments have been reasonably country already said that puts us to a different place so we don't really know what will happen if we got there and if the congress actually let that take effect. the payment restraint for other providers in last year's legislation takes effect gradually over a period of will come every year going forward, and whether sufficient efficiencies can be realized to keep those payments at oral of cost for most providers is also not clear.

i think the concerns ou raised are legitimate ones and are one of the reasons i said in my comment that it is unclear whether those payment reductions will be sustained for long period of time. >> i've got another electronic question. what are the areas of the greatest variation in your health cost i'm going to interpret that, what are you on certain about? >> we least certain about everything. [laughter] >> i said in testimony last week about the estimates that nobody is more aware of the uncertainty of these projections and those of us who are responsible for putting them together. and i think in particular the legislatio moved the health insurance and health care systems outside of the historical experience in a variety of ways. so one very important uncertainty is how employers will respond to the existence of subsidies for buying insurance coverage and the new exchanges

by our estimates there will not be very much dropping of employer sponsored insurance because in fact the subsidies in the current tax code and other advantages will encourage employers to continue offering health insurance as a benefit to their employees. we might be wrong about that. the savings from the provisions in medicare, not the payment cuts so much which are uncertain enough, but the savings from the other provisions, the countable care organizations, the center for medicare and medicaid innovation, the other more experimental parts of the legislation, the savings in those provisions are an incredibly on certain. much more might be saved and we expect but much less might be as well. >> thank you very much for those answers to hard questions. so let's think doug elmendorf for being with us this morning. >>hank you very much. [applause]

>> president obama opposes -- proposes nearly $18 million for nasa next year which is the same as this year. the nasa administrator will go before a senate committee to explain his budget needs and we will have live coverage at 4:00 p.m. eastern. the u.s. house will double in tonight at 11:00 eastern. this is so u.s. speaker john boehner can file the agreement made over the weekend. the house considers the republican budget plan for the next fiscal year. if you can see the house live here on c-span. the u.s. senate will return tomorrow to consider judicial nominations. a little bit later in the week, senators will vote on the spending agreement and possibly policy revisions that republicans want to put in the plan. live coverage of the senate is on c-span 2. >> tonight, fcc commissioner

robert mcdowell on the proposed att/t mobil merger. >> what are the specific harm to consumers? if there are harms, martyr conditions should be narrowly tailored to address those. the merger process should not be an excuse to implement a rule making. >> that is tonight on c-span 2. >> c-span 2, one of cspan's public affairs offerings. live coverage of the u.s. senate during the weekend on the weekend, book-tv. connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube then sign up for scheduled alert e-mails @ c-span.org. president >> obama is expected to unveil new plans to reduce the federal deficit this

wednesday. the house plans to take up the republican 2012 budget plan this week. this morning, "washington journal" into those proposals. host: plenty of more but the discussion now. maya macguineas is our guest. thank you for being with us this morning. you wrote an "the washington post" this weekend -- you are in search of the goldilocks budget. guest: we are starting to see more plans of what is out there. years ago, those of us who were worried about this, were starving for people to get specific. the budget that came out was

much too weak in that it does not address the fiscal problems that we face. the good news is, we are going to hear from the president this week, sometng that is more forceful. we just had the house budget committee chairman, paul ryan, which a lot of people have called his budget bold and courageous it talks of the changes to the budget. there are a lot o good ideas in there. i think a lot of those ideas are also probably too old for the task at hand, which is getting something in place this year. the deficitituation we face is troubling enough. we have to pass something this year that will address it over the coming years, multi-year budget that will reassure credit markets and let people know what is expected. and then continue to have conversations about health re reform and other things. congress and ryan's puts out big

ideas about that, but they are not the type of thing that we can put into law. it is almost too big and it is also lopsided. it focuses on some parts of the budget very aggressively. it does not do much in defense, other than what is already planned. and importantly from a policy and political perspective, it does not cut taxes. although we'd love tax cuts, we have to put everything on the table. also because the problem is so large, we need to look of all parts of the budget. the fiscal commission, last december, put out a bold plan that touches all parts of the budget. it really looks at everything, from the fence to help care, to how to strengthen such as a

charity, reforming the tax code, and they end up saving $4 trillion over the next decade. and it doesn't in a way that i think both sides believe are balanced. -- does it in a way that i think both sides believe are balanced. a lot of people agree ts is the right starting point. i also talked about how the ite house is talking about a narrative. let's protect public investments while we do this. let's make sure not to go so fast that we do not dismantle the economic recovery. those are all important point. congressman paul ryan said the money to look at more structural reforms to entitlement programs. in many ways, they are structured for the past and not the future. we need to rethink how we do things in health care, how social security is structured, to make sure there is space for all of the other things you want

to do. so i talked about taking pages from that playbook, but taking what the white house commission put out there for a good starting point. hopefully, we can have a good discussion to bring forth all of these ideas. but we saw in this recent cr -- this political fighting -- i know it is reality, but we have to focus on bipartisan solutions, focusingn members of congress working together. that is why i am in atlanta today. senators chambliss and warner, who have been spearheading the effort, putting this into something that people can agree on, with members of the senate, including senators coburn, durban -- they are trying to change the debate by working together. i am down here because they will be speaking to a greabig group f

people. that is a long answer, but it is important that we give it to a discussion about fixing the budget. it will take everyone on it. time is not really on our side. host: phone number are on the bottom of the screen for maya macguineas, a grant wood of harvard, has also worked at the brookings institution. -- graduate of harvard, has also worked at the brookings institution. we are talking about the white house and gop's budget plans. we would get to your phone calls in a second. more about this soalled gang of six that you talk about. you say -- a little bit more on this effort from this group of senators, this gang of six.

is it realistic to think that what they come up with can get widespread approval? guest: it is the best hope we have of getting something done that will fix the problem, that well make people feel like they have been treated fairly. this will not be easy. we have delayed too long in fixing our fiscal problems. nobody should kid ourselves that we should just cut waste, fraud, and abuse, reduce international assistance. this is going to have to involve things that people in washington do not like talking about. it will have to have real spending cuts, real changes in revenues. the good news is, voters are willing to that, if they believe they are treated fairly, so they are not the only person that is part of the solution, and if they believe this will actually fix the problem.

it is no fun to go through so much work and have to do hard things and not have fixed the problem. i think the gang of six is doing incredible work. they have been working tirelessly for a number of weeks on putting this into a form that they can all agree on. but it goes beyond that. recently, senator bennett and johans brought together 64 senators saying that they would support this work, encouraging the president to get involved. one year ago, many of us were looking at the senate saying, how can we get anything done, they cannot agree on anything? well, we have seen exactly how you want to see the senate work. a number of senators came together and said we have a real problem that is threatening the nation's fiscal health and we

need to find a solution that we can all agree on. not everyone will love it. i am sure they are pushing themselves to come up with something that they can all agree on. you have different political beliefs. senators durbin and kurt -- coburn to not often see eye to eye, but they believe that the debt poses huge challenges to our economic recovery and to the next generation. so that is the model of how you want things to work. low and behold, the senate has put forth the model of how things should work. it looks like a functioning body again. beyond the ft that they may come up with a proposal that we can work with this year, it has freed new life into the senate and so many other colleagues are supportive of what they are doing. there is no guarantee we are going to get this done, there are a lot of political land mines along the way, but those word about putting together a balanced package and addressing

this, should be pleased about the after that the senators are putting into this. it is a step in thright direction. host: first phone call from herald. columbus, ohio. caller: i would like to make a suggestion. my suggestion is we are to use to casting these arguments in terms of republicans, democrats, liberal, conservative. if either party had two-thirds of the house and the white house, they still would not do anything because there are so many vested interests in every program. for example, this $30 billion, i noticed it and not talk about where they are cutng. it is sort of an ephemeral figure of they are just talking about. i bet we will not see any specifics. host: have you seen any specifics yet, maya macguineas?

guest: i have not. i think they are still being worked out. i am always disturbed at how we try to put these two buckets of democrat and republican out there. you cannot break of all the policy that way, and you cannot move forward on fixing them if you set up two warring camps. the notion about democrats for his republicans is not very good for getting things done. these things are hard to do. of course, there is a constituency for everything. you can believe the people who will be affected by cuts are the ones you will hear from. and the rest of us, whether it is cuts in defense, agriculture, energy, health care, whatever program thatould help to close the budget gap, we will not be crying as loudly, thank you for improving the budget, as the

people directly affected. thereby, you have a lobbying industry, who is able to push back on the changes. what we will hear in the coming months is, i'll want to balance the budget, but do not touch this, did not raise this tax, spending program. everything has to be on the table. certainly, there are parts of the budget that should be more protected than other parts. projected investments are important for our long-term growth. a lot of things that we call investments do not work. we have to be more rigorous in terms of what is working. happen to think protecting the safety net, allowing those things to continue, it is important.

i also think the game about how we reform the tax code is critically important. taxing more of things that we want, like income and savings, is not good for the economy if we do not tax things that we do not want, light pollution or consumption. the best place to start there is the over $1 trillion that we have it in tax breaks. all of these credits, deductions, exemptions, exclusions, cause a loss of over $1 trillion a year. if he were to get rid of the bulk of those, you can bring rates down so aggressively and close the fiscal gap, that you have managed to improve the economy, make the tax code symbol for everybody, get rid of a lot of these distortions that tax breaks cause, and reduce the deficit. but as the caller points out, every person and industry that benefits from the tax breaks

will say, we want to look at these, but leaveine alone. we have waited too long to fix the problem. it will now be a large solution that is necessary a everyone will have to be in it together. but i think there is something good about that. once you realize the task at hand involves all parts of the budget, it does not have to pit people against each other, as much asother budget deals in the past half. this is about voters caring about the well-being of the country. closing the deficit and debt is not just a mathematical challenge. it is how you really strengthen the economy, we focus the budget on the right priorities, come back on the principle that something is worth paying for, get back to a healthy budget. the economy will prosper. that will be the right thing to do for court workers, future workers, and it iseally in the

best interest of the country to come together othis. hopefully, that is the mentality that pushes us forward. host: meant the end, texas. donald, you are on the republican line. caller: everyone keeps saying social security and medicare is in trouble, how to fix it. in 1937, when social security was founded, the law stated that the money would stay in the trust fund and would not be transferred into the general fund to be spent for another purpose. for the last 30 years, secretary of treasury in congress have spent the money to the tune of about $30 trillion. in 2009, on c-span, i watched former secretary of the treasury paulson talk about how

he had put 1.3 trillion dollars into the general fund. all of you experts -- nobody discusses this. it is as if this did not happen. host: any current thoughts of how cial security plays into this? guest: it is our largest government program. right now, it is on an unsustainable path. best thing we can do for this program is make sure that we put it back, so that it is sustainable. but will require some changes. we talk about this a lot. there have been a number of proposals out there to fix social security, and most of them look at the same basic ideas. we are living longer than when social security started. while the retirement age have gone up gradually, need to think about ways for people to work longer, especially in jobs where

they're able to. for many of us, you will be able to work longer. that is an important part of the solution. fewer and fewer peoe are woing to support more and more people who are in retirement and living longer. we need to find a way to have people age as productive flee as possible. stay in the work force part- time, the more flexible about this. another thing we need to think about is where we are " too slow the benefits. benefits and social security cola nasser -- much faster than inflation. there are a group in the top and middle that want to slow that inflation, while making sure that, one, nobody that is retired is currently affected. second, people who depend on the program, hopefully, in fact, have their benefits increase, because they are not really

generous. and a third possibility is thinking about how to get more revenues into a program. the taxable maximum is capped. you could increase how much goes into the program. we know how to fix social security. in fact, it is a lot easier than health care. that is the biggest challenge facing the budget. and we do not know how to slow the growth facing the budget in terms of health care. however,ith social security, emotions run high. i hear a lot of scare tactics trying to influence seniors. i do not know anything about drastically changing benefits for seniors, current retirees. in fact, they tend to grandfather people for a long time. if we started making changes a decade ago, we would have pared people more for making the anges. also, more people know that

social character is a good program, and want to make sure that it is there for younger workers, people who will need those retirement benefitsater. in order to do that, we he to make changes now. the government trust funds, which has saved some of the money forocial security, was used for other government spending. that money is government treasury. it is owed to the trust funds. it will be paid back to the trust fund, but has a profound effect on the rest of the budget. host: let me go ahead and get me other phone calls. portnd, oregon. denise. what is on your mind? call: i am on social security disability. i have been for about five years. i live on less than $1,000 a month. i would be more than willing to givep some of that to support

future generations, get your social security's -- get their social security. i would like to know how that relates to wealthy people's tax cuts. people making over $200,000 a year -- i am not sure where the tax break is right now. host: hold that thought ande would get back to our guest, jim from michigan. caller: hello. i will but somebody to answer, a question on paul ryan's budget. the democrats must of by eliminating single payer. the government gets the worst of it, that is why it is so expensive, because of seniors. you get this voucher.

what insurance company is going to wanto insure a 70-year-old with cancer. -- with cancer? host: take that voucher idea, which has been out there, as part of the medicare plan. workable, in your view? guest: is, in my view. i wanted to both questions. -- it is, in my view. when it comes to health care, we do not have all the answers in terms of how to control cost. one thing we have to think about is how to put a budget on health care. health-care spending by the federal government is basically open ended for medicare, medicaid, veterans', tax breaks for health care -- all of these things are notn the budget. most of the programs, the largest share, or on automatic

pilot. it just keeps growing automatically. that is probably not the best way to do cost control. there is growing support, which i agree with, to find a way to have a health care budget, which was then put the pressure on how to control costs. one option is theremium support option, with paul ryan has. this brings the dollars back to the individual in a way that they are not now. they direct the insurance where they would be spending it on the insurance, and it puts more skin in the game. it makes it more price sensitive. a bigger issue is how much support for those premiums would grow. they grows budget, very slowly, which is why he is able to generate such tremendous savings in the out years. but the cost would go up slowly for the premiums for the idea.

my personal preference is to look at that as a structural change, but also think about how you allow vouchers to grow more quickly. we want to bring down their growth, but we also have to recognize, part of the reason that costs are growing is because new technology brings along things that people want is the cream and support model, which is good. there is the public option model, which fell off the table, but people should bring it back. there are hybrids, working with a traditional medicare proposal, which is something that people have brought up, which is useful. we have to think about structural forms and we have to realize, none of it will be easy. with health care, we keep on coming up with new thing that we all want. we have to realize that that mean that we will have to pay more. the first caller, i thought it was great. she said she was wling to be

part o the solution. that is a powerful thing that policymakers need to understand. the voters are tremendously generous on helping about this. i was in the airport last week and somebody came up to me and said -- they were on social security -- they said they would give up half of the benefits if they knew that it would strengthen the progr for their kids and grandkids. that is something that you do not hear often enough. people are willing to do a lot. host: before weet back to call tweet --a our guest is maya macguineas. we have a phone call from olney, maryland. chuck. caller: i have a couple of questions.

if we had invested all the money the people contributed to the social security fund and invested the money -- it is supposed to be a trust fund. therefore, if we invested that money and we had an average return of 4% for th last 50 years, we would not be having the discussions. there would be so much money in the trust fund to fund everyone for the next 100 years. i do not understand why they keep a laumann the deferment to borrow this money and use ito fund everything they are funding and we get no results. host: sharon is on the line from oregon. democrat's line. caller: i just wanted to say, my husband and i retired in 1999. when we quit working, we were under the assumption that our 401k, money in the stock market

was going to tie us over until we reached 62, which was when we could collect social security. at this point, we have nothing left. you have to commit to the five- year thing, where you have to stayn, just getting a certain amount of money every month. my point is, social security was not set out to be a welfare program for people. everybody paid into it, the rich and the score, and it was an insurance policy. now, i hate when i hear that nobody is going to get hurt. guest: there is a lot in there, and it is a a good reminder that social security is one of the harder issues to get into, because people have a very

different senses of what the program is meant to be. here is my belief -- it involves a lot of different approaches to social security is important because it is a base amount that will help people have guaraeed savings of some level, and those things can only be guaranteed as ng as the program is funded. we don't have a revenue stream to cover. we shouldn't be making promises without a plan for how they add up. social security should not be anybody's isde timing, because you also need to have personal savings, -- social security should not be anybody's soule retirement, because you also need to a personal savings. the program was an intergenerational program. we started paying benefits out right away.

the money isn't safe for me, it goes directly to my father, and when i retire, my kids' tax dollars go to my benefits. for quite some time, we get additional funds that we saved in the trust fund and they were invested in u.s. treasuries, and that money was spent to finance other parts of the government. that is one of the complicating factors now, that we have to pay the trust funds that we owe money to and the budget is in such poor shape to do so. it was never a defined contribution program where you saved the amou and will be there upon your own retirement. there are other components of e budget that do that and i am open to having savings as part of the social security system. i think that mak an awful lot of sense and. the bottom line is we nd to be saving more for retirement. we are not saving enough. that is part of what we have just seen in the economic crisis recently. we need to find more ways to encourage savings, and that

should probably be diversified said that we of the social security covering up part of it and we also have personal savings covering a part of that. there is a risk in social security that we have promised more than we can pay, and we need to fix that and make sure we have a system that is structurally sound so that people now when they can expect. it is impossible to give 100% security, but we want to have couple of different approaches to savings for retirement so that we are more secure. my personal belief about fixing social security is that the most important thing the people who depend on the program are protected. i do think, as somebody who has lookedor all the different numbers and no one is going to take to fix the system, -- know what it is going to take toix the system, is to ask people who can contribute more have a little bit less benefits to do

so. they are willing to do that if they know th the program will be strengthened for their kids. and working in the longer for people who can -- it is key to stopping this program work and key to our economy is thriving in -- it is key to helping this ourram worke an key to economy is thriving in the future. we need to make sure that the promises we have made are realistic and assure future generations that they can at the same security the generations in the past had. host: an e-mail on the taxes. "solution, if you hold american citizenship, you pay american taxes." texas, you are up now, independent line.

liker: it looks everybody in the last two said what i was going to say, swe need to educate ouroliticians at every level. they have a spending like drunken sailor thing going, and if they ne to be reeducated. we may need to get them all out and get new people that may have some sense in their head. that is my comment. host: 90, republican call for -- maggie, reblican call for maya macguineas. caller: common sense in this country is dead, and it has been approved this morning. i heard a lady call from oregon saying that she has been on social. for five years and she is willing to give ba to help the system. everybody screams and cries about customer service representatives somewhere.

people whohe call in from the telephone be a customer service representative back home? yocan have jobs back here. i just don't understand it. host: "the wall street journal" focuses on the president's speech on wednesday and says taxes on the table. in the paul ryan budget, are there any tax increases at all? guest: there are tax decreases overall. he cuts some of the tax base i was talking about before. all kinds of credits and deductions and exemptions and exclusions. he does a tax overhaul -- we have not seen the specifics of which ones -- to generate savings. overall, his budget is aggressive on tax cuts, not increases. host: what is your sense of the president's proposal that might

come out, i tax rate of those -- higher tax rate on those making a quarter of a million or more. gues my sense on taxes it's that we do not talk about it in a realistic way in this country. the event that there is no political interest from either party to really -- given that there was no political interest from either party to restructure the biggest problems we have, taxes are going to have to go up. i don't know why we are not able to have more of a realistic discussion on this. nobody likes to pay taxes, but if you want to spend money on things, you have to be willing to pay for those. that is a simple principle of budgeting. there are a lot of "no new tax" pledges, and if somebody makes that pledge, they have to show how they would it ever bring the deficit down without raising taxes. there is also a pledge from the white house not to raise taxes on those making less than two

water to thousand dollars a year could -- less than $250,000 a year. i think we are going to have to go farther than that, because we have growing health-care costs, an aging society, investments that we have not invested sufficiently in the past years. at those can have a real effect on our long-term growth trajectory. we need to come first and foremost, restructure our spending and cut government spending. that is the biggest problem we face and with the bulk of the solution is going to be. but i would say, quite frankly, there is no way to do this without revenues. there is no way to do this without cutting into some of the programs that people are committed to preserving to get on top of the fiscal challenges we face. what is critically important is that we do this in a way that smart for the economy. raising taxes does for the most part have bad effects on the

economy. there are ways to reform the tax code that would be good for the economy and would raise renues. that is the model we need to look at to promote growth. the starting point is that you brought in the tax base as much as possible, lower rates, and have revenues to close the fiscal gap. other things that are not in the conversation as much as i would like to be is the carbon tax and gas tax. we need to get ahold of energy policy in this country and look at taxinghings that are part of it would be a very important place to start. it really is driven by spending. if you lk at where the growth of the problem is, revenues are going to be higher than they were in the past. i do not want to take the pressure off what we really need to do, to reform entitlements, but we have to be realistic and everything has to be part of the solution. host: jim, illinois, thank you for waiting.

you are a democrat. caller: i was getting to the point where it is just ridiculous that they want to balance all the budget on the backs of people that cannot afford it. you have got corporate welfare everywhere. they don't want to do anything about that. they give the farmers ago companies $400 billion -- pharmaceutical companies $400 billion right off the top. my prescription is made in ireland, and another one is made in italy. at they charged us five times more than at they can charge anywhere else, because waington lets them get byith it. it is ridiculous that they just keep piling on the people i can afford it least. of the gasoline prices going through the roof. it takes seven months of my income just to pay my medical

insurance and my property tax and my federal income tax, which i pay more federal income tax than most millionaires. host: jack in minnesota now, independent caller for maya macguineas. caller: our fiscal ship, as has been correctly pointed out, is sinking. it obviously has a leak. it would b proper to correctly diagnosed where the leak is coming from. at the leak is not coming, maya, from the mandatory budget or so- called entitlements. that has not ctributed much, if anything, to the last 10 years of leaks, ok? take the social security f the table if you want to "help u" help us on your time at another time, ok? also, the medicare program is only 39% supported by the

general funds. with the leak is, maya discretionary budget, and you know it. guest: well, that is n true, that is just not the case. what we have been having in our budget for decades now is the programs that are mandatory, the ones on automatic pilot, have been squeezing out the discretionary side of the budget. if you look at these by charts by decade, you will see that domestic discretionary, total discretionary budget, used to be much larger than mandatory, and at that is switched. it has been an ongoing budget squeeze on the biggest programs in the mandatory part of the budget now that may be how people want it brought we may want to switch some of our priorities. but you cannot say it does not have an effect on our fiscal

situation. more importantly, going forward, it is where the problem is coming from. again, i would say that just because the problem is growth of certain programs, we may want more of those programs going forward. but we need to be very thoughtful about the more money be put into programs for seniors, for instance, the less we putting in for children, investing in children. is that the right to write off? it is my belief that the best thing you can do for the budget is to make an investment-focus budget rather than a conmption best focused budget. while we have had in this country is -- what we have had in this country is no for investment on borrowing. -- is an over-investment on borrowing. the ongoing squeeze is going to continue. i would say it is reversed -- domestic discretionary, where we just saw cuts, as had a lot more

in terms of changes that other parts of the budget, and that is where we need to look next. host: pat, you get the last word as far as the colors go. caller: i have bn listening, and what i'm hearing from america that is a lot of mean- spiritedness. the republican party has wasted years being the party of no. that was their platform. "we are just going to say no to everything the obama with the democratic party tried to pass." well, i am telling them you cannot say no, you cannot shut down the government, because you work for me, you work for us, and show up and do your job.

now you look like clowns because now boehner has control of the house and he wants everybody to be and i-- at his beck and call. host: maya macguineas, as you take that last fall, moveless back to e thesis -- move us back to the thesis on the goldilocks budget. guest: don't think there is mean-spiritedness overall and that the policymakers involved are as partisan as sometimes seems. they want to get problems resolved and have a tough environment in which to work. we need to give positive reinforcement to those willing to make tough courses and cooperatand solve these problems. the fiscal problems we face are real. if we do not make changes to our budget, which threaten our economy and the threat of having credit markets turned ainst

the u.s. we cannot let that happen. the way forward is going to ve to be to allow and encourage the parties to work together. it is too hard for either party to take this on on their own. there are no good guys or bad guys he, i really believe that. we have to compromise, and ideally, what we would do is this year put in place in multi- year plans to get over the next decade would make sure our debt is on a stable unsustainable level. we look at all parts of the budget -- stable and sustainable level. we look at all parts of the budget. that is the best step to save our economy from what a debt and deficit crisis could otherwise due to us. we he to be willing to pull our sleeves and workogether. i think that the work of the fiscal commission, a lot of members of congress will come forward and say this is the number one issue facing the country. i think the president coming out

this weekend starting to talk about all with the important steps -- and talk about how he wants to proceed or all importansteps. for the u.s. to stay strong, this is an important step to take. i think there is a good chance we can move forw >> president obama is proposing nearly $18 billion for the nasa budget next year which is about the same as this year. the nasa administrator will go before a subcommittee this afternoon to explain the budget request and we will have live coverage starting at 4:00 eastern. congress will be spending much of this on week on spending issues. the house dabbles in tonight at 11:00 eastern. speaker john boehner will file the agreement that was reached last week. the senate will also consider

the measure after they consider judicial nominations tomorrow. the houses live here on c-span and the senate live on c-span 2. >> tonight,fcc commissioner robert mcdowell, proposed at&t/ t mobile merger. >> what are the specific arms to consumers? if there are arms, the conditions is to be narrowly tailored to address those but the merger process should not be an excuse to implement rulemaking, issues that don't arise because of that particular merger. >> that is tonight on c-span 2. on april 12, 1861, confederate forces attacked fort sumter in south carolina igniting the civil war. this month, the nation commemorates the 150 of anniversary of the barman and

next weekend, american history tv on c-span 3 gives you sights and sounds from fort sumter and charleston. we will have interviews with civil war scholars and reactors. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. >> congressional aides on capitol hill are drafting legislation that will fund the government for the rest of the year. the house and senate are expected to pass that legislation mid-week. we talked this morning with the editor of "hot line." booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest for the next 40 minutes or so, reid wilson, joining us from "the hot line." mr. wilson, what is your sense, so far, of the political fallout

following friday night's deal? guest: the immediate fallout is that both sides won little bit, both sides get to claim some victories. but not many people in 2012 will not remember this particular fight. we have next year's budget to deal with. the preliminary sense is that everyone dodged a bullet by avoiding the government shut down, but at the end of the day this freight train is getting closer. the real fights are still to come. host: describe the oncoming freight train. this past week was fairly intense. how much more intense is it going to get? guest: significantly. in the last week we have seen people working through the night to prevent a shut downs over

budget bills that will provide funding for the next six months or so. we have got to deal with the budget for the next year. president obama is going to start talking about entitlement and how to revamp the nation's entitlemenprograms. goingarther, more immediately, you have a dat debate where republicans came to the 112th congress with a mandate to cut spending and government. now you are asking them to raise the deficit to allow government to spend more and go deeper in debt. essentially the last thing they want to do, but it is not an option. they have to pass it through the use, it has to get passed through the senate, otherwise the fledgling economic recovery is going to evaporate. at the end of the day, you have got to get this through. meaning the republicans will need to make a deal. meaning more late night talks. they do not have much time.

looks like the nation is going to hit the ceiling on may 16 and they only have until july before serious consequences come into play. host: our guest is the editor in chief of "hot line national journal." we will get to your calls for reid wilson in a moment. you wrote over the weekend that according to the freshmen, the steel from friday does not cut enough. host: there is a group of 87 freshman republicans in the house. they have a big problem here. they are trying to prove but they are the most conservative possible members of congress. en they do this, the way the to prove you are the most conservative is by voting against your own leadership. just this weekend we saw dennis lot, a freshman from florida, saying he will vote against this

bill because it does not cut enough. we have seen other conservatives say the same thing. john boehner is going to have a problem, republicans trying to out-conservative each other, a trend that is growing. you out-conservative each other by going against what the leadership wants. what the learship wants is the deal that was struck with president obama. if republicans are able to hamstring democrats -- rather, hamstring john boehner against the deal he makes with the democrats, it means you have to give away more to attract more democratic votes. john boehner, at the end of the day, faces a very precarious situation. an immovable force on the republican right. host: talk about the speech the president is more intimate on

wednesday. here is the headline from the post. a new approach in reducing the deficit. tax cuts, back on the table as far as the president is concerned. tell us more. host: it looks like we have republicans over the weekend saying that tax cuts were not completely off the table. both sides are going to have to give up a bit and so far republans have not given up much. the interesting thing is that the paul ryan budget proposal from last week really put republicans in the game in terms of entitlement reform. now president obama is getting involved as well. after allowing the democratic national committee to go after paul ryan for assaulting the seniors. democrats are going to be getting into the fight as well, which may produce compromises in long run, but politically

speaking it is not the best thing for democrats. they want an entitlement fight to portray republicans as callously attacking senr citizens. something that is not good for republicans, obviously. the fact that the president is joining this battle means they may not be able to do that. but in 2012 entitlements will be up for debate in the president's election, congressional eltions. host: are they cutting back on the table the tax increases for those making more than one- quarter of a million dollars per year? that is something i and most of the stories we are covering here. first call, boston, a democrat. caller: good morning. it has been years since i have been done here. my question, more like a comment, people call my president week. but what i think he is trying to

do, he is giving the republicans the wrote to hang themselves. i know that all of those tax cuts that the republicans are putting out there, they are going to push this country into something forced from what it is now. i think the democrats are going to take over again after next year. the republicans have not created any jobs. they went after the president with their power. instead of going after the jobs, to try to bring jobs back to this country, they want to go after the help -- health care. host: linked further to 2012 politics, as that cler suggests? guest: republicans have been trying to porty him as weak

and ineffectual as part of a larger narrative. but obama has done the opposite. he has tried to portray himself as strong and involved. it is key that they got a budget deal done. so many deals got done on the president's turf. showing that he was involved when things could not go well. he would summon the speaker, the senate majority leader down to thwhite house, hashing out the issues. he and john boehner spoke several times on friday. everything that we have seen indicated that the white house wanted to portray, whether or not they wanted to or not, in the end they played a big role in hashing out this field. the stories in "thwashington post" this weekend, many of them

talked about the moments that the president called for, saying that these were some of the most consequential figures in the u.s. government. a big deal. indicating that he was not on the sidelines. that he was involved in this fight. pushing back the narrative that republicans have been trying to spin. host: some of the stories suggest that the president went through. copies of these writers from late in the day. getting involved in the details. who, specifically, is around him? guest: we have seen the three people that were doing the most negotiating. harry reid and hishief of staff, david grow, john boehner, and that the head of legislative affairs in the white house. if need be, obama, owner, and

harry reid got in a room to hash out the rest of the issues. talkingbout policy writers, this is interesting. john boehner did not exactly did everything that he wanted. as a matter of fact, he got very few things that he wanted. two things that he got, prohibiting washington, d.c. from spending money on abortions and providing money for a scholarship program in washington, d.c. to give money to kids that want to go to charter schools. an issue that is near and dear to john boehner's heart. a bit of a legislative win for him. host: tom, and calls reid wilson for the j a called reid wilson are for. go ahead.

caller: in the 1940's, the bolivar tacked 40%. i cannot criticize anybody for that, but where are the american companies? this is what it comes down to. i work for multinational company. we are just an american company by name. there are no american companies anymore. i actually do not think they think about america. in chief -- every place spirit is really annoying. we send our jobs overseas. it is just frustrating. st: reid wilson? guest: one of the things that will be interesting to watch is how they react to the budget deal, worker for the debt

ceiling. on friday, and looked like the deal may not get done and there would be a government shutdown, we saw the value of the dollar fall a little bit. i think that will be fascinating to watch. keep an eye on how the dow jones says in the next couple of weeks, gas prices. while these budget fights will play a role in the 2012 elections, the biggestill be the economy. how voters feel, whether they are optimistic about the future. we have seen in the monthly jobs numbers, in the unemployment report, a serious swing towards a recovery. but wheer or not that is sustnable, given rising gas prices, unrest around the world, the u.s. economy, how it is being dealt with in washington, d.c. will play a critical role in president obama's re-election. host: reid wilson is our guest,

taking phone calls. pam from west virginia. caller: mr. wilson, i often wonder why we cannot go to a flat tax. not a republican their tax, because it is not really a fair tax. the working man spending and hundred% of his income, the rich only 1%. no deductions, 10%. then the irs can go after the underground economy that pays nothing. i have worked for two major corporations and they did not pay a dime in taxes. the other thing is, we should all bowed out every incumbent every election and find people to serve, like the founding fathers intended. it should not be a career.

host: what about that idea of a flat tax? any legs? guest: republicans will talk about reforming the system, but in large part, that means reducing rates. the tax system you are referring to would eliminate the income tax and institute a sales tax, which some people have talked about as a proposal. mike huckabee was big fan of that in 2008. one thing that is interesting in this whole debate, that taxed discsion is something republicans are going to have to deal with at some point. it is not likely they will get away with the debt ceiling increase, with the fiscal year 2012 budget without closing loopholes or raising spending. and given the fact that everyone is trying to out-conservative

each other, who will be the first to criticize republican leadership for whatever budget negotiations -- coessions they end of giving in order to get the larger ones in terms of spding cuts? host: that is interesting. in "the christian science monitor" they say that for the gop, for office holders, they will not touch this subject. they are referring to it as the third rail, as with social security. guest: here we go with kicking off a 2012 presidential competition, an appealing to the most popular basis. not that anybody likes taxes, but three states that have a long history of voting agast increases of any kind whsoever. if eryone is tried to be the most conservative, there will

not be much appetite in the republican party for making compromises, especially on anything that raises government revenues. host: phone call from shelby. caller: first of all, thank you for c-span. you guys are the most objective. i have a comment about representative brian. he wants to overhaul medicare and medicaid, i agree. i know it will ner work. i think people would listen to him more if he included his own health care plan. everybody in the senate, if they say, we are going to do this, everybody is going to pay the price. any comment on that? guest: let's talk about paul ryan's budget for a minute. the fact that he has gotten people into the debate, in terms

of entitlement. a lot of people say they are willing to talk about cutting entitlements. we often do not see a lot of proposals that indicate they will. even with ryan's budget, he is the chair of the committee. we have not seen an endorsement from speaker baker, eric cantor, or kevin mccarthy, any of the republican bigwigs. no one has said, i favor this proposal. they have praised him for bold steps, for good, strong leadership, but ey do not say they will vote in favor of the bill. even the freshmen republicans, the ones that want to cut the most, will say they are in favor of a bill that cuts $4 trillion of out of the budget in the next decade. the conversation is easy to start, hard to finish. we will see congressman ryan

does, especially with president obama coming out this week talking about entitlement reform. host: they are supposed to vote on this this week, right? guest: there will be voting on the resolution to fund the government through september. that was the agreement reached between john boehner, obama, and harryeid. they have plenty of time to debate that. washington, d.c. gets pretty hot in the summer, and it just got hotter because of this debate. host: next phone call. judith is a democrat. caller: good morning. i have some thoughts about this excellent debate. i know that president obama would to the right thing. he said once, make him do it.

we have to show him our needs. what we do not need as a country is the funding of research, development, employment of our resources for wars. this has been an absolutely missing item in the budget talks. i am still waiting to hear where our resources are going. this is a great country. whatever problems the world has, we have the expertise to solve them. i want to hear, especially from c-span, who has such a good name for disclosure. so if half of the resources and

money of this country are going to wars, we are going to be in more trouble. guest: one of the things i have been fascinated by in the last couple of weeks is how little people are willing to cut the budget. everyone wants to cut spending, but if you name a specific program, they are almost entirely event coming that specific thing. whether it is medicare, medicaid, defense spending -- unless it is federal earmarks or foreign aid -- which make up 1% of the budget, nobody wants to cut anything. americans were asked, what percentage of the federal budget do you think goes to public broadcasting? the average response was 5% of the federal budget.

those two entities get a couple hundred million dollars, which is a fraction of a sliver of the federal budget. there are missing priorities here. we all want to cut something, but we do not want to cut that, what ever you just said. whether it is npr, planned parenthood, which survived this last budget cut, or whether it is social security, medicare, defense spending, which make up 80% of the budget. host: in "usa today" -- then move on to talk about the presidential race, on e gop side. guest: at the end of the day,

the tea party movement played a clear role in this. they were against the short-term rather caller: continuing -- continuing resolution 24 individuals were already against it. we had mike pence, another freshman, and i were the are far out on the tea party side. they want to be ahead of this. they want to be the darlings of the tea party movement. take a look at who is capturing the attention of the presidential field. michelle bachman, the congressman from minnesota. she is hugely popular. and she is raising the money to

prove that she is popular beyond just showing up on glenn beck's show. in the last quarter, she raised more money than mitt romney reyes, which is -- raised, which is an ieresting way to uge her strength. she is a big deal, in terms of her support with the tea party crowd, and that has made her a big deal with the republican field at large. that tells you a little t of how influential the tea party is. all of the contenders will try to kowtow to the tea party base to convince them they are the bestossible candidate, the most conservative, the most able to reflect those values. we have seen less of an argument of about who is the more electable candidate, more about who is most conservative, most

in line with the tea party movement. i think that is a telling state of the republican party right now. host: dixon from north carolina. caller: i am a proud pro-life republican baby boomer. i hope nobody wantso call in and say that i am a killer, wants to kill women, anything like that. i think that the flat tax would really save this country. i am 61, soon to be 62. when i started work a long time ago, i was a door-to-door salesman. i think gas was $0.50 a gallon.

i was waiting about thinking -- thinking about waiting until i was 66 until retiring. i have decided to retire now because of the price of gas. i am being taxed to death. i would be better off drawn from my social security and staying home. if we could have a flat tax, a certain amount, i would be better off working. look at how much money the government is working by retiring at 65 on to norman in san francisco. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have two questions.

i would like to know, first of all, i am sure you gentlemen carry a lot of weight. i am a minister of the lord jesus christ. i have a lot of knowledge into deeper things, but i will not t to that right now. i'm will get to the basic facts of the issues. first of all, we have too many chiefs and not enough indians. first of all, why are we so ignorant to allow both congress's, and whomever president, to not really understand the needs of the military -- i do not want to be etic, but there could be

another shutdown. this is just a band-aid on a cut of the united states that is still going to bleed. my own brother crutch which it west point, third in his class -- graduated west point, third in his class, in economics, smart as the teacher teaching him. living in scottsdale, i have met some of the most prominent mines over the years from major corporations host: reid wilson, any insight you want to add their? guest: yes, he was talking

about understanding with the military is going through right now. what we saw over the last week is both parties retreating to their old corners, in order to make the same arguments we have heard again and again. democrats tried to make this fight about the abortion riders. we heard from the previous caller about republicans wanting to hurt women, going back to that argument that has been used. republicans, on the other hand, tried to pass a continuing resolution that would fund the military throughhe end of the year to the tune of $514 biion. that is sort of turning the debate into a troop funding bill. we had members from both sides talking about how important it was to make sure that the troops that their paychecks come at tetra

-- pay check etc. both president obama and john boehner won it to focus on -- wanted to focus on expenditures, spending. both sides, both congressional bases, retreated to the school nurse and made those allied demands. i think that shows that those people who are paying attention are the republican and democratic bases, run and the independents host: we heard arguments about defense, we heard arguments le into the night. how challenging is it to cover all of this? all of this behind-the-scenes netiations? you are hearing and seeing the up front language in the briefings. guest: i heard about one

reporter who was lamenting the fact that by the time he walks from his office to his car, the white house had issued a veto threat, eric cantor had responded, and the white house had responded to him responding. it had gten pretty fast paced. the folks at nationaljournal.com or hear pretty late that night. everyone sort of bonds over the sorts of things. host: what is the assessment of speaker john boehner over all this? multiple trips to the white house, multiple phone calls? how is he being viewed? guest: everyone recognizes because of this large class of two-party -- tea party for

prison beds, everyone understands he has a tough task. but he passed the test and was able to guide republicans who wanted huge cuts to a compromise. compromise is not something that a lot of republican primary voters want. there will always be t party groups and people who do not want john boehner to make a compromise with democrats, but the fact is, the democrats control the white house, and this is something that they have to do. whether they vote with him, for the steel, en mass, remains to be seen. he was clearly worried about this. he was worried about having to sell this to his base. he was treated to a standing ovation in a conference meeting,

which moved him deeply. er the last week, that is a momentary indication of how worried he was about the ospects of having to bring a deal, cut with democrats, to his own conference. the fact that he was able to get it passed speaks to his leadership ability, the fact that he has some semblance of control. host: mathieu from los angeles. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am an american. i was raised -- clean up your own backyard before you start helping your neighbor. our backyard is a mess. we are helping our neighbors and to order our best for them. i do not want to sound racial or anything, but we have between 15

million and 30 million people in this country from south africa, europe, everywhere. maybe it is time to close the gates and maybe we can emphasize getting rid of those people that should not be here until we can afford it. we have to clean up our own backyard. i go to the grocery store every friday. i was in the store and barely anyone spoke english, including employees. everyone in california has this ebt card. basically, food stamps. at the same time, i see that these are working people, they have this card, and since they are worki illegally, they do not have to pay taxes. so they have this card, they collect under the table money,

and that is a lot of jobs. we do not have to cut anything. we just need to get rid of the waste, get rid of the excess people, until america is strong enough again. it is wonderful, but when to cut back on that. i knowt is a big issue. i love everybody. but we nd to be cleaning up our own backyard. we should not be taking away from our senior citizens. host: reid wilson? guest: very interesting that we are already starting to see the immigration subject come up. congressman jeff flake is the representative running at the moment in arizona. we are hearing about some republicans starting to run.

jeff like backed comprehensive immigration reform in the past. now he says he is for an enforcement-only approach. those who support that do not necessarily trust him. i think immigration will be playing a big role in those primaries and in the presidential primary, too. one way to demonstrate how different are from the field is to come out with a real plan to change the situation at the u.s.-mexican border. that will be a fastening the -- fascinating debate to watch. but there is definitely in danger of rublicans have the to do that. spanics are growing at the fastest rate of any minority in the country, now about one in every six american is of hispanic descent. they provide a significant base

for the democratic party. president obama's reelection campaign will base itself so heavily on hispanics and african-americans, they are considering investing in states that john mccain won, including arizona, but also in other states that we think of as deep red territory, states like georgia and texas. those states are changing so rapidly, demographics are shifting so rapidly, they are now on the table. they have the potential to be swing states. if not in 2012, then by 2016, 2020, they could be on the table. host: tom is from pittsburgh. welcome. caller: i need some clarification in reference to what our fine congress and president has done in the past five weeks.

we had a continuing resolution that came out and it's both and they cut $10 billion. the second resolution to both of the cupp $14 billion. in this budget they we're finalize this week, $30 billion. that is a total of $262 billion cut, or did they simply add them up and come up with $30 billion? guest: as i understand it, the $30.5 billion in cuts are new. sometimes you will hear the number of 78.5, somewhere around $70 billion in cuts. that is because those additional moneys are from accounts that the president wanted to grow department. that would not agree to, so some people are counting that as a cut. those are new cut through the end of this fiscal year, ending in september.

when that comes up, we will be talking about a new series of cuts. host: one of your from twitter -- what you think, reid wilson? guest: there are a lotf people in washington that do not want to raise the debt ceiling. the tea party freshman, for lack of a better term, say they do not want to raise the debt ceiling. they came to washington specifically to cut spending. now they are being asked to raise that spending. it is nothat one party wants to raise it, one party does not, or that they both want to. whatever john boehner what, he has to bring along a lot of his own freshman republicans. he cannot do this deal just with democratic votes. he certainly does not want to do it with just republican centrist

and moderate votes. that will lead quickly to a challenge to his authority. this is a fine balancing act that john boehner has to do. the debt ceiling will really test his relationship with conservatives in his own conference. host: one more minute with our guest, reid wilson. in the immediate near-term, what will the next few weeks look like in the budget battle? guest: we will start actually passing a compromise that was cut between baker and harry reid, president obama, through the house early this week. that will go through the senate. they will pass that as well. the president will sign it, and i would not be surprised ijohn boehner was at the whiteouse for that signing. then the debate goes over to the

debt ceiling. thiss round one of a three- round fight. round two will be tough. president obama and harry reid it to go back to been negotiating table to talk about w they can get this debt ceiling raise done. a lot of people will be mad at john boehner because whatever compromise he makes will not be good enough for everybody. you cannot please all the members of the house or senate on anything. we are going to be dominated by talk of spending, the economy, over the next few months, and even into 2012, as e economy recovers, that will be the dominant issue. i think you will see a lot of discussion in the republican field of their various economic plans, cutting taxes, about cutting spending, because of that, and it will dominate the

general elections as well. whether the economic trend lines are good enough to get president obama reelected, we will have >> nasa's administrator will go before a subcommittee this afternoon to explain their request. if we will have live coverage of 4:00 p.m. eastern. if congress is spending much on budget issues. the summit will also consider the measure, after they consider judicial nominations tomorrow. the house is live on c-span and the senate live on c-span2.

>> tonight on the communicators, fcc commissioner robert mcdowell on the proposed at&t-t-mobil merger. >> what are those specific arms to consumers, and if there are harms, then those conditions should be narrowly tailored to to address those. but it should not be an excuse to implement a rule making some core issues that do not arise because of that particular merger. >> the communicators tonight on c-span2. >> president obama recently signed a national directive on the way the country response to major emergencies like the oil spill in the gulf, problems at a nuclear plant, or possible terror attack. brian kamoie explains that. this is about 50 minutes.

>> the president's highest priority is the safety and security of the american people. he is committed to securing the homeland against 21st century threats, by preventing terrorist attacks, preparing for emergencies regardless of their cause, and investing in a strong response and recovery capabilities. we aim to prevent what we cannot and respond rapidly to what we must. in support of that commitment, last week, president obama signed a new policy directive on national preparedness, ppd8. it outlines the systematic strengthening of our system in responding to acts of terrorism, a significant how to get -- accidents, and acts of

nature. i like to describe what our department started doing to move out and embody, its principals and leave time for discussion. i brought copies for those of you here this morning and the directive will be posted later today to the website at the port -- the department of homeland security and the federal emergency management agency. our approach to prepared this, which is reflected in the ppd rest on three principles. first, we are focused on and all of nature in -- nation approach. we are seeking closer collaboration between the private and nonprofit sectors. as we have seen during countless incidents, which have informed our development of the directive, from the 2009 h1n1

pandemic to the response of the bp deepwater horizon oil spill, our efforts are strengthened when we use the resources that exist in our communities. you can see it and hear it in the approach of the fema administrator, craig fugate, who talk about those who suffer disasters not as victims, but the survivors who can help their community respond and recover. craig has initiated a whole

community planning effort that recognizes communities are inherently strong and resilient, even in the face of disasters. this approach relies on the understanding and using the true needs of the entire affected community, engaging all aspects of that community, the private, nonprofit, the public sectors. in defining those needs and advising ways to use them, and strengthening the assets, and institutions and social processes that were well in committee on a daily basis to improve resilience and emergency management outcomes. you can also see it in craig's rotation program that brings private representatives into the food operations center, so that the government can learn from and leverage the private sector's expertise, avoid trying to recreate functions that the private sector does well every

and learn how and where our best efforts best apply during emergencies. and you can also see all of government approaches to identify over the horizon and short-term threat. the u.s. government continually attacks, assesses, and brianne sutera threats. the national counter-terrorism center brings together the entire intelligence to review and prioritize these threats into the threat matrix. across the federal government, the focus has turned outward to how we integrate our efforts with one another and how we integrate better with the communities we all serve. second, we seek to build the key capabilities we would need to confront any challenge, capabilities at the fine buy

specific and measurable objectives. these are the cornerstone of preparedness, rather than rigid approach is that apply only in certain scenarios if certain assumptions come true. it focused on capabilities will enable integrated and flexible efforts tailored to what we know our unique circumstances of any given threat, has our, our actual event. for example, building flexible capabilities such as search and rescue and medical search enable the response to a wide range of incidents, regardless of the cause. and to fix -- fema cozy hold of approach reflectsa's this.

this effort is a concrete step in making the call of the nation, whole of committee principal real cops in operations. -- real in operation. just a few weeks ago, the cdc reduced -- released 15 capabilities to service the national health prepared the standards to assist local and state public health departments with their strategic planning. third, we are actively pursuing more rigorous receptor systems so that we can measure and track our progress over time. we simply need to do better in articulating our current level of preparedness and demonstrating what innovations have worked. fema, and hhs are very actively evaluating their grant programs, aligning them around the outcomes to be achieved, and

seeking to clarify program guidance so we have better data to answer key questions such as, are we prepared? how would we know? and how better are we this year than last? consistent with these principles, we undertook a comprehensive review of our national prepare this policy. as part of that review we spoke with 24 national representatives that represent a range of the stakeholders. law enforcement, paulick health, emergency management, -- public health, emergency management, the national guard, and i am encouraged to see that a number of those representatives are with us this morning.

but for a few minor exceptions that are noted in our newt has eventual policy directive, or ppd. the directive calls for an astonishment of an overarching prepared this goal that identifies the core capabilities necessary for the spectrum of prepared this, which encompasses five broad missionaries. prevention, those capabilities necessary to avoid, prevent or stop and actual act of terrorism. protection, those capabilities necessary to secure the homeland. mitigation, those capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and property by taking steps to lessen the impact made

by disasters. in response, the capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the environment and meet basic human needs after an incident occurs. and recovery, those capabilities necessary to assist in a recovery. these capabilities will be defined in terms of risk and objectives. first, the risk of specific threats and vulnerabilities, which are in debt defining -- aimed at defining risk factors, who need to keep a loaded, where and when and how much is needed and why. -- who needs a capability, where and when and how much is needed and why. there are specific objectives

that will define each capability. the directive also calls for prepared is to guide activities to help the nation to meet the national prepared this goal. this was of a planning, organization, equipment and training and exercises needed to build and maintain domestic capabilities, which you all recognize as the prepared this cycle of the effort. -- preparedness, cycle of effort. we got clear feedback from our stakeholders. one size does not fit all and communities have differing needs based on the risk they face. that said, we believe it is important to come to agreement on a few critical priority capabilities that most communities will not share. for example, medical surge, for information sharing, so that committees can concentrate on what they need instead of a one size fits all approach or a one

size fits non-approach. none approach.ts the ppd requires us capabilities based planning for works across the areas that i mentioned -- protect prevent, respond, recover and mitigates. the national disaster recovery framework is a requirement already provided in statute. kunduz, the frameworks for prevention and protection and mitigation will similarly galvanize planning around the key parts necessary for those activities. the intent is not to produce an

unwieldy and long documents that take up space on our shelves. of our stakeholders were also quite clear on the need to streamline and rationalize all of the guidance documents and plans. we recognize allowable level especially about the same person -- at the local level especially that the same person who has to put together the grant packages that we call for is the same person who has to respond to the next fire or heart attack. we want to move away from overly burdensome requirements. we will aim to continually streamline and simplify. there are many federal departments and agencies that support activities across the national preparedness of spectrum. the ppd specifies a number of roles and responsibilities. the department will undertake the interagency efforts to develop and prepare the goal.

these are multiples -- multidisciplinary efforts by design and will involve many departments and agencies. we have also in the ppd and otherwise placed a renewed emphasis on community preparedness, which we believe is a cornerstone of our national resilience. the public plays a critical role on our nation's emergency management team in every type of incident. our goal is to empower americans about the information -- with the information about the risks we face and what we can do to protect ourselves and our communities. for example, during the 2009 h1n1 vlaenderen, the city -- the communicated -- the 2009 h1n1 pandemic, the cdc can

indicate clearly with what parents could do to protect their children and their families. comfortable that when we provide americans about the risks they face and what they can do about it will take effective action. the cdc has published steps with how to take care of your family, including what to be prepared with and how to get involved in community efforts. given your expertise and interest in this morning's topic, i am also confident you are among humby most prepared audiences i could imagine -- among the most prepared audiences i could imagine, but i would be remiss if i did not mention the basics here.

is no surprise to you that, yes, our resources are constrained. our thinking need not be. so that we measure and track our preparedness, efforts over time, based on the key efforts i have talked about and communicated our level of preparedness to the congress and to the american people, we have prepared this report every year. a clear articulation on the return would receive for investments and preparedness is even more critical in this fiscal environment. the good news is that the nation is better prepared to navigate a catastrophic -- catastrophic incident than ever before. this is true first and foremost because of the ongoing integration of efforts across all levels of government, but also because of the active engagement of the private

sector and the non-profit sector and individuals and communities. ppd aims to have -- to enhance further these efforts. by actively breaking down barriers between levels of government we are more agile in confronting unique circumstances. for example, dhs, hhs, and the department of defense are implementing the president's executive order 13527 to dispense countermeasures' during a large scale biological attack. those departments have broken down barriers, and for the first time we have seen hhs, cdc, and dod planners working side not just -- working alongside not just teach others, but local leaders and managers to get

rapid distribution of the countermeasures that would be necessary to save lives. in addition, as we saw in that earthquake in haiti, and as we are seeing in the current response to japan, many agencies -- hhs, dod, the nuclear regulatory commission, the department of energy -- are enhancing collaboration on the ground to active management assistance. our response is so we can learn lessons of the unprecedented earthquake and emergencies. we are seeking and smarter approach and reducing decision points through a strike. reducing failure at your

emergency application. on the outcome of front and the establishing well understood protocols for communication and coordination and practicing them through exercise is hot, such as the of coming national level exercise, or mle 2011. it will stimulate a catastrophic major earthquake in the central united states region, which includes eight states. while the president's new efforts will enhance these. i want to thank you for your time and attention this morning and your interest in our national interest and a look forward to our discussion. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. that was a great overview of the directive and also of preparedness in general. something i think everyone in this room believes in. i see a lot of my former colleagues from the bush administration as well as new colleagues from the obama administration. prepared this is a bipartisan issue that is actually out there today. i cannot think of a better sign of bipartisanship and you in my former office. >> we still have a few things that you left. [laughter] >> on a serious note, resilience is a word that our task force, that we mentioned at the beginning, is focused on. it is not a buzz word, but it is a word that we affixing and if you could provide us with a better understanding of what

resilience means to you and the obama administration and how that interact with what you just discussed, i think that would be a useful way to start this conversation. >> that is a very useful question. thank you. when the president integrated the staffer from the national security council and homeland security council following the presidential study directive no. 1, he created a resilience directorate which bans the full range of preparedness throughout response activities. we decided very early on that we needed to approach this in a way that is easily understood so we did a little research based on at the research skills that i learned here at george washington. some 2000 disciplines used the term "resilience" from systems engineers to people who work in

ecology and what became clear pretty quickly was that it was not going to be of for "spending six-eight months arguing about the precise 38 words that would be in one single definition of "resilience." rather we would focus on a few key principles of resilience that we thought all the activities and those of to advance could see them there. those principles included withstanding. we have to be able to withstand an incident. we have to be able to adapt to change. incidents bring us different circumstances. then we have to rapidly recover. those three principles --

withstand, adapt, and rapidly recover -- became the organizing principles around our resilience activities. we think the owners and operators can see themselves in that. they need to be able to withstand a structure and, rapidly adapt to change. we believe that applies at the individual and family level to be able to withstand on prepared ness steps to have taken. you will see his principles articulated in the national security strategy. the principal is featured in the quadrennial homeland security review. all of these efforts to support, we have gone beyond the definition alone and gone beyond that it is simply a buzz word.

we believe these efforts will enhance not just our resilience of our nation that will enhance the resilience of the american people who can withstand events and rapidly recover. >> let's roll out a specific situation that i think the world is facing. nuclear preparedness. we are all very familiar with the disaster in japan. many of us are asking now how well prepared are we in the united states? as recently as today in "the the washington post" is calling that into question. could you address the nuclear prepared this specifically? >> as i mentioned, we will take

a very close look at the response in japan so that we can learn the lessons there. we have done a number of initiatives and efforts to aggressively prepared this nation for radiation emergencies of any type of because, as you know, we could experience a radiological emergency from an improvised nuclear device, radiological dispersal device, but i will highlight a few of those efforts. in june of last year, we issued the second edition of planning guidance to state and local colleagues for prepared us for an improvised nuclear device which included planning considerations for sheltering, evacuation, and communicating with the public ahead of these kinds of events.

you follow the instructions of your local emergency management to have the best information about what is happening on the ground. we think it important to communicate had these types of events. it is the second edition because it takes into account the latest scientific evidence from a number of studies that studies of the government have a funded to understand better what actions would be most helpful. the advice may differ depending on the type of event. we try to focus on what are the right planning considerations and how do we communicate with the public? the nle in 2010 focused on

events related to radiological of emergencies including a september 2010 exercise that included states and local governments around the accidental release of radiation from nuclear power plant. just a few weeks. -- weeks ago, the cdc convened after two years of planning a conference on preparedness for radiological emergency that involve former 50 -- 450 experts. even in the midst of a response from the all assembled in atlanta to discuss our preparedness for this. this is planned well in advance which allowed us to question what was coming two years from now so we could be ready.

we have taken a number of steps to improve prepared ness for in a wide range, but we will take a very close look at what is happening in japan so we will learn even more. >> for all of us who went through katrina, it is a typical conversation comparing and contrasting katrina, but the key is we went to make sure the government learns from those mistakes. do you feel today we are better prepared as a result of katrina? can we meet a higher level of preparedness as a result of what happened in japan? >> i do not want to talk about specific events because they are each unique. it shows us why the focus on capabilities is what we believe is the most effective way to approach this. if we build out certain core

capabilities, we will be able to respond to a wider range of incidents. we know that based on guidance, planning, coordinating, training, and equipment that local health, local law- enforcement can put those things together in ways that they need to respond in the most agile way. this approach on focusing in on key capabilities and being focused on what we can achieve. >> i would like to take some questions now. please raise your hand if you would like to ask a question. i will look to my task force first if anyone wants to ask a question. marco right here. front row. again, a special thanks to our task force members to have been working these issues.

we will be putting out our first review very soon. >> i am on the task force. i applaud the administration for getting this out. it has been a long and difficult process and hopefully will prove to be a productive one. my question is around a measure of prepared ness. as part of your report, it has to be done. you have to base it on standards, definitions of various level of preparedness and the challenge has always been on agreement on what they ought to be so what do you view as the next steps to achieve some discrete set of measurements that people can agree to, by and to, and apply resources for? >> engagement of the stake holders with a focus on the key capabilities. the cdc, if you go to cdc.gov,

you can see the 15 capabilities working with their stakeholders of the state and local level they said that these are the core things we need to focus on for a surge to distribute medical countermeasures. the implementation of the directive is the next step. the consultation is where we go from here. it's certainly recognizes that we cannot all doing here of the federal level. they are not federal solutions that we identify for every community what they think -- what we think they need. we need to focus on their understanding and try to focus on the core capabilities and

agree that how we measure. >> also on the front row, alan? >> former chief operating officer of the american red cross. >> thank you. discussion,in the they are critical and i understand if you do not want to go to specific events, but when you look at a disaster the size of katrina, the only groups that can bring the number of people to help the displaced survivors are ngo's whether it is my old organization, american red cross, salvation army, catholic charities, the list goes on and on. it is probably still true that the assumption is that the ngo's have the resources necessary to implement short notice and held a large number of displaced people.

that is not necessarily true because it is hard for angioplasty warehouse supplies -- ngo's to warehouse supplies large enough, not just for a house fire, but for a truly large numbers of displaced people. it is a flaw to believe that ngo's will be able to respond to a large migration of people. i am interested in your thoughts on that. >> the key principle includes the non-governmental organizations as well as planning with the state and local colleagues or with individuals and planning. it is only through the exchange dialogue working together to understanding both the capabilities of of the nonprofit sector are, what the challenges are, what we might do to address those, so without any specific incidents or

assumptions you describe about what has been done in the past, i think we need to continue to evolve our approach with how we work together collaborative leave -- collaboratively. many that are on the front lines of responding in a gauge the non-profit and the ngo community. we have seen it in the all of the incidents we have seen in this administration to the bp oil spill, and we will continue the dialogue so that we do understand what you can and cannot bring to the table so we set realistic expectations and we do not make plans based on assumptions that will not become true. we have not fully understood

with capabilities are. i take your point of fully understanding is needed and we will need to do even more. >> the next question? don, former deputy assistant secretary of defense. works for the national response framework with us. >> the thank you. former assistant deputy secretary of defense. thank you for being with us today. thank you for all that you do. thank you for continuing to move the ball up the field. when the difficulties associated with much of the fine work you have done and the things we talk about here is even at the inter-agency level, as we would sit at the old of drg, the response would get from many agencies when he discussed

the need for this type of preparedness, planning, capability development, was out, "was not covered under the stafford act? how will i pay for that? i do not have the people to send off for training required interoperable planning system." commensurate with many of the new things in the new ppd, a relaxing of the resources and the leadership needed to get everyone in alignment to be able to execute this fine plan? >> the interagency, as you know from your prior experience, very robust discussions on how to build those capabilities. we encourage discussions that focus on making the best and most effective use of the resources that we have. i cannot speak to ongoing budget negotiations or requests,

but obviously the discussions around resources speak directly to the all nation approach. that is making sure that we have a leveraged the resources that exist not just at the federal level, state, or local level which are all similarly constrained, but look to the private sector who does things like supply chain management and logistics, and the movement of people and things very effectively. leveraging those resources, the non-governmental organization community, and that is not with an intent to shift costs but to leverage the resources because those people want to help. they are members of that

community and it is in their personal and professional interest to be actively engaged in the response to the community level. you are absolutely right. we did continue to have robust discussions of how we improve preparedness efforts which takes leadership conversation. the president issuing a new directive would be a call for improved preparedness. >> the next question is from a guy who epitomizes the bipartisan nature of, and security and was called into service post-9/11 as a democratic congressman and served in the department of defense. thank you for your service as a marine and then in the bush administration. we have had many conversations about katrina, him and i, of this is something he is passionate about.

>> and good morning and thank you for the kind words. good to see you again. as i review ppd 8, it seems to move away from the scenario- based planning towards capabilities-based planning. my question is if we were to have a truly catastrophic event like to trade at or fukushima where the local community experiences comprehensive and dramatic damage. in light of the damage of the local level, for instance in new arlen's one-third of the police department did not report to work -- in new orleans where 33% of the police did not show up. if you move to capabilities placed planning, in the aftermath of a truly catastrophic even, who would

assemble them into a deployable force? in the aftermath of such a crisis, would you be able to quickly assemble the capabilities in order to save the maximum number of lives? >> scenarios do not go away. there are still very useful, but in the evolution of our approach to planning, we have been starting with core capabilities in how they are scrutinized -- coordinated through which we bring those in deployable ways. we're going to continue to look at the nrf and other plans necessary to make sure they take capabilities into account.

let me move away from that for a second. what we have seen throughout the incidents that we have confronted is that it really in is the mixing and matching of capabilities at all levels of government that allows us how to do things. planning is incredibly useful in terms of identifying gaps, etc. i will borrow from general eisenhower that no plan survives first contact. what we are seeking to do through the use of scenarios to achieve their requirements through conversations to identify core capabilities than that allow us to have a more detailed operational-level discussion, if you will, about how those are brought to bear. it is just an evolution in the

approach because what we have seen in the incidence we have confirmed that we think the best way to approach a this is the focus on those core capabilities and then have the free marketplace to have the conversation about how they apply. >> other questions? darrell probably helped through this process and we recruited him to g.w. a few months ago. >> we still feel the loss, but we know that george washington is safer. >> i would like to ask about an international aspect of policy. if we have an avian flu break out in asia or they're really is a release of radioactivity

in some measure of foreign soil that could impact the united states, what are the aspects of international cooperation that are embodied in this ppd? >> largely focuses on the development of our domestic capabilities, but certainly events such as the h1n1, , they can be brought to bear as needed. we are working on international cooperation. many u.s. government agencies are on the ground in japan providing technical assistance. again, as we look to identify with capabilities we need here, we are also looking to strengthen our partnerships. among the first instance that

the administration faced was that the pandemic, they want. our conversations about our capability to develop a vaccine and an antiviral in a quick manner was immediately a global conversation. our experience of their lead the president to propose a counter measure initiative that he first introduced in the 2010's did the union address that focuses -- state of the union address about effectively developing counter-medical measures. we have made a number proposals pursuant to that initiative to remove the bottlenecks in the development process for medical

countermeasures. that is the example of the kind of capability that, while they may start domestically, the threat that we face and the incidence is that we've already experienced are truly global in nature. and longer answer then perhaps you wanted about how we see this affecting our international collaboration, but we believe a focusing on developing domestic capabilities while in tandem enhancing international partnerships is the right approach. >> any other questions? >> i care about how these issues in fact state and local officials. where the rubber meets the road is on the front lines. i will ask a question, but i have been to turn to the fire chiefs. i was looking for them to ante up. adam is a member of the steering committee but he is the fire chief for the city of alexandria.

>> how does this policy had knowledge the fact that local first responders are always going to be the first deal with disasters and emergency incidents within the broader concept of federalism? >> the conversations to understand what is possible and what is needed at the local level certainly knowledge is our federal system. as the presidential directive, it does nothing to change that, said the natural response from mark -- framework will be evaluated. there is no change to the fact that locals will always be the front line. a renewed emphasis on individual and community preparedness actually aims toward bringing individuals and

families more into the equation such that it named reduce the burden on local response. if those who can prepare do, the needs of public response systems should reduced accordingly. the ppd recognizes there are respective roles in the system and it does not change that. and also recognizes that we truly do need to understand from our state and local colleagues perspective, how do we must help them develop with that understanding in mind. >> other questions? >> we have talked about local

government, all of the private sector stuff? anyone from the private sector want to ask questions? ok. i will ask open-ended questions. how does the private sector fit in to this? >> there are members of their community and we see that and recognize that they have the same interest in that we do in withstanding events and recovering rapidly and adapting to change. it is an area where we have a great opportunity to understand even more of what can be brought to bear. the example that i gave, and it is one of many. it is a language issue. the private sector may not fully appreciate -- and this is an observation -- what goes on

in the operation center and what types of questions the government is asking. what are the immediate actions the government is attempting to take. how could the private sector expertise assist in that effort? on the other side of that equation, we may be using the government operations centers to recreate functions that we have that neither the expertise nor the time to deliver. and that exists in the private sector and are available for the discussion to understand what is there. so we believe the private sector and members of the community have an interest in protecting their employees. we think there are resources there that bear further exploration and conversation. so we think it is an area for great opportunity for advancement. so we will continue those

dialogues. >> my last question. my assumption is that this is the beginning, rather, the head. there are a lot of things that will have to be carried out by the agencies and likely through an interagency process. can you describe how that will occur? >> absolutely. as i already mentioned, because the conversation with the interagency, with our stakeholders, really did shine a light on some key principles, the departments and agencies have already moved out according to some of these principles in developing some key capabilities around certain disciplines in engaging the private sector and engaging individuals and families. that is not to say there's not, you know, a good deal of additional effort that is now required to implement the president's direction. but the best news is that departments and agencies did not wait, because these principles

were important to them as well. they have started to take action already. so we will move into the implementation phase with departments and agencies with further outreach to our state and local colleagues and individuals and families to enhance our national preparedness. >> let me present this token of our appreciation, the hspi coin. thank you for being here today, brian. >> thank you very much. thanks, all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> and nasa administrator will testify about nasa's $19 billion budget request for fiscal year 2012. it includes funding for space shuttle and international space programs, science, and future exploration systems. starting at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> congress will be spending much of this week on spending and budget issues. the house will gavel in tonight at 11:00 p.m. eastern. so john boehner can file the spending agreement that was reached last week.

with the bait plan for this wednesday. the senate will consider the measure after the consider judicial nominations tomorrow. the house is live here on c- span, and you can see the senate live on c-span2. >> tonight on "the communicators," the fcc commissioner on the proposed at&t-t-mobile merger. >> what are the specific arms to consumers? and if there are arms, they should be narrowly tailored to address those. it should not be an excuse to implement rulemaking. two issues that do not arise because of that merger. >> tonight on c-span2. >> let's meet one of our top winners from this year's student competition. it asked students to produce a video about an issue, even, our topic that helped to better

understand the rules of federal government. today, we go to bloomington, indiana, and talk to the third prize winner, and a eighth grader in middle school. hello. >> hello. >> why did you create a documentary but the funding of indiana's educational system? >> i made this film because of the past year, our school -- [inaudible] they took out several classes, cutting foreign languages. i wanted to create a documentary about that. >> what did you learn about the financial state of india and those educational system? >> i learned that there's not enough for the programs. we're in a crisis. cuts have to be made. >> do you think the financial state of indiana as education system is affecting your education? >> it could have it there were other cuts. this year, i would not have been

able to -- [inaudible] i would not have been able to win this contest. my future goals would have been affected. >> what role do think the government should play in the improvement of indiana's education opportunities? >> provide money so we can keep important class is like foreign language in business tech in our school. >> what did you learn from your interview with the superintendent, dr. tony bennett? >> he plays a key role in helping indiana's educational crisis. he is the man that everyone goes to. he is in charge -- [inaudible] where the money is supposed to go. >> in your interview with mr. tony bennett, he says high expectations can outweigh a limited state budget when it comes to student achievement.

what does he mean by that statement? >> as long as we can basically keep high expectations, we can overcome the education crisis. >> what is the message to but to share with people through your documentary? >> i would just like to share that, basically, many things need to happen to solve this education crisis, not just in indiana but everywhere else in the u.s. things need to happen. >> thank you so much for joining us today. >> thank you. >> here is a brief portion from his documentary, improving educational opportunities in a time of crisis. >> some communities, some activities may be more or less important. to those of you than other activities and to others.

we have to begin to have those types of discussions so that we a dignified how important athletics are, how important the arts are, how important these things are. is it related to our core mission? >> standby, going live in five, four, three, two, one -- cut. i am sorry, kids. this program is being cut due to budget cuts. we are eliminating all classes in all programs that do not have a direct impact on test scores. tonneaus computers off. you need to leave. >> begins to this entire video and all the winning it documentary's at studentcam.org and continued the conversation at our facebook and twitter pages. >> the co-founder of the united farm workers union spoke recently about what it was like a the time the union was formed

and issues the union is now committed ywca to. committed hosted this -- the ywca hosted this conference in washington. it is about 25 minutes. thank you so much. it is wonderful to be here for the summit on women, money, and power. i think this partnership is very exciting. also, we have now 36 organizations that have co- sponsored the whole summit. so this is so important that we work together, as you all know, because these are really tough times for everything that we want this country to be for women, for children, to end racism, promote civil rights, and human rights. even though we could be a little discouraged at this time, i know

that eventually we will prevail. frankly, i see this as a backlash, as temporary. our nextlash is going to be terrific. -- our next frontlash is going to be terrific. especially with us all working together. [applause] nauert would like to introduce a dear friend, a founding member of the majority board, a person i have worked with now for a really long time. all these decades just keep going. and we keep on persevering. dolores huerta has been an absolutely incredible leader for labor, for workers' rights, for human rights, to end discrimination against immigrants, for reproductive choice, feminism. and she never, never seems to tire.

as you know, she was the co- founder of the united farm workers. and she was probably -- well, i know she was. she was their toughest negotiator. in fact, when they got in a jam, there would always call delores to go there and finish negotiations. it is because she never takes no for an answer. she is indisputable. i do not understand. at this stage -- i should not say that. she can take a red dye at any time, and i have to tell you, she took a red eye to come at this conference, because she squeezed something in right before. i will never forget, when we first met, she gave a speech that absolutely i can still remember about pesticides.

and the lack of toilets. not in some third world countries, but in california for farm workers. and how the pesticides were not only shortening their lives, but their children's lives. and that the outrage is that she spent i do not know how many decades fighting for sanitation and toilets in the fields here. she led the great boycott, and i still do not eat many grapes. -- she that the grape boycott. now she tells me you should not eat them because pesticides. anyway, she is a treasure for this country and for this world. really one of the great human rights leaders of our time, dolores huerta. [applause]

>> i think i will barrault her box. is that ok? thank you. thank you very much. this is very exciting. it is the very cosmic moment, i believe, today, having the leaders of the feminist majority, the leaders of the ywca, and all of us coming together here in this moment of crisis. this is such an important moment. some of our board members are here. i want to introduce them to you because they're doing such important work. not all of our board is here. but i want you to meet some of them. we have mavis leno, who is in

charge of afghan women program. she travels all over the world, bringing attention to the plight of the women in afghanistan. we also have lorraine shineberg, who does a lot of the work on video and researching those people out there for women's rights. and of course, the founder of the feminist majority, peg yorkin. [applause] please give -- please give them a big round of applause. [applause] we have assembled so many great feminist minds here, that i just want to implore you to please stick around. go to the workshops. there will be really great workshops. when you come to washington, d.c., it is not just to see the sights. at this summit, you get the kind of information that we need as women because there is a war against women. there is a war against women. you can get information from these workshops to be able to

see how we're going to stop this aggression, stop the institutional violence -- that is really what it is, against women's reproductive rights. did you know? there's this big crisis right now in our government. who would think that this is so outrageous that there would be willing to shut down the government over women's right to choose? i mean, isn't that mind-blowing? i mean, to think that those people on the hill -- and i do not know what kind of tea their drinking -- [laughter] their drinking some kind of weird tea over there. hopefully we will not let them get away from it. we think of back in the days of the 1960's and many of you here were involved in the rights movements, doing all kinds of protests, that we would think right now that we should probably be doing sit-ins at the offices of all those right wing conservative people that think they can get away with it.

we have to make sure that when we leave this conference that we go back to our districts and call everyone that we note to e- mail our congress people and say to them, what are you crazy people doing over there? you know, this is just outrageous. we had one of the fear some writers for women's rights from the house of representatives with us, and she has been doing so much great work in terms of women's health, mammograms, making sure it is mandatory to do the dna tests, and more. she made a statement that we think as women that we have come so far. but we know we still have a long way to go. because when we think of where we are at as women in terms of representation in government and in our world -- will drop two statistics. one says that it is 59th in the world. we're behind liberia. in africa.

now we're number 70 in the world when it comes to women's representation in government. think about that. and we know that out of the u.s., we're probably about 16% represented. we, supposedly the most powerful country in the world. when it comes to the corporate world, which we know has a much influence on government today, we're somewhere between 4% and 8%. women, we have a lot of work to do. we see what is happening, and we know -- again, those tea drinkers is what i am going to call them, are putting up a lot of women to run for political office. they're getting a lot of attention, a lot of media attention. so we have to kind of distinguish between the women, and i think it is important.

we have to distinguish between women and feminists. right? women in feminists. that is very important, because what is a feminist? if the minister is a person who is going to stand up for the reproductive rights of women. right? number one. that is important because we know, as women, we cannot fully attain what we need to attain that we do not have control of our bodies. number one. and we have to have -- feminists are people that really stand up for a labor rights, education, the environment, lgbt writes. you know, this is what a feminist is. i urge you all to get a button like this that says "this is what a feminist looks like." ok? by the way, the men in the room can also be feminists. not just the women. it is important to distinguish because we are going to get snookered by these tea drinkers.

there will sit, we have a woman running, so we should vote for her on the contrary, they are against everything women need and want. we kind of take away the attention from the public with the relationships we have with the economic meltdown. people have lost their homes due to mortgage fraud. they have kind of distracting the public. they said, it is the fault of these immigrants, all these people coming in from other countries. first of all, we have to remind everybody that, unless you're a native american, your family came from somewhere, right? you know, all of us are immigrants to this country. we came here or were brought here against our will at one time or the other. we ask for legalization for our immigrants, this is nothing new. we're asking for the same thing

that other people -- the same type of rights that other people have had in this country over the years. every single democratic group became to the united states was legalize it one time or another. -- every immigrant group that came to the united states was legalized at one time or another. in the 1920's, we had more foreign-born people in the country than we had native-born citizens. this group has made it appear like immigrants are the ones that are draining finances, which of course, they're not. it is the bankers and these other people. whatave to remind people t the contributions of our immigrants have been. number one, they feed our economy with purchases they do in contributions to social security. over $35 billion. over $35 billion. most of that money they will never see because they have to use is social security number. they have to borrow a social

security number. and the people that are doing our gardens are putting the food on our tables. some undocumented worker. yet, they're taking care of our children, taking care of our elderly in nursing homes. and yet, they're being victims of deportation. families that have been divided. you will not believe this, but some of these families that have been divided, they have actually put up their children for adoption without the permission of the people that have been deported. isn't that outrages? the other thing is that, the one question people never ask is why do people come here? why do people come to the united states? why did they leave the beautiful homes in guatemala and places that we go to as tourists? because there are no opportunities. why are there no opportunities? we are very responsible for that. because we have these free trade agreements that allow us to

ship our subsidized corn from the midwest, from iowa, illinois, kansas, we ship it to in mexico, and we displace millions of farmers. they cannot compete with the agricultural business here. they cannot compete. some millions of them are being displaced and are out of work. they're not going to starve. they're going to come to the united states of america. then we have the big stores like wal-mart. they're going to mexico and central america. again, the displaced thousands of shopkeepers. they have nowhere to go. they have to come to the united states. then we have the big factories. we take up the profits. we take up the natural resources, and the people are left behind as low wage earners. [alarm sounds] i believe that is the fire alarm again.

>> [inaudible] [laughter] [applause] i think that is meant for us. we have a fire alarm going on in congress right now. [laughter] in world war ii, what we did with japan and germany, after we defeated those countries, they were our enemies, what did we do? we sent them millions of dollars to build their economy. we have sony and mitsubishi, toyota. there were all built with american dollars. the same thing with germany. the difference is that american companies did not go into japan and germany and take over their economies. we let them build their own economies. it is a difference in latin america, where american companies go in and take over the economies. so the free trade agreements in colombia and other places, we need to call our congresspersons and say did not sign those agreements. number one, we know they're very bad for the working people over there, the labor unions.

we need to rethink it. it is not just mexico and south america. this is why other countries in the world and not like us that much. we do not use our technology to help them. we just want to take over their economies, and this is wrong. as part of the free trade agreements, we send american jobs overseas, as we know. in addition to attacking immigrants the way that our conservatives have done in this country, now guess what, they're going after teachers. right? teachers, we saw what is going on in wisconsin and going after their pension plans, public servants. as a negotiator, when you're at the table negotiating for your workers and negotiate a medical plan or a pension plan, workers are giving up wages. that money is part of their wages. when you have people going after the pension plans, this is like you're taking away the wages

they are earning. these are the things we have to really be aware of. and our labor unions -- gino, what our labor unions? labor unions aren't organization of workers to death -- are an organization of workers to defend themselves on the work site in the community. when we go after labor unions, we are saying we're getting rid of our middle class in our country. because labor unions create our middle-class. we have got to have labor unions, and we're going to have a democracy. if we do not have the middle class, we do not have a democracy. then that means that those are in power, the greedy. they can stay in power. they're going after labor unions, because they feel that labor unions will get people out to vote and they will vote for people that are here for the working people, not for the corporate powerful. this is the kind of situation we're in right now, and it is very dangerous.

going after education -- now, if we do not have an education citizenry, then the greedy and of the powerful can stay in power. and going after the public school system, going after our teachers, this is a menace in our society. we're in a very big crisis right now. we have to understand that we are the only ones that are going to be able to solve this crisis. we have to get out there and recommit ourselves and understand, and go to the sources of information that we need we need to go listen to rachel maddow, you know? [applause] yes, even colbert and jon stewart as sources of information. how many of you subscribe to "ms." magazine?

this is a very important source of information for women. it was started by gloria steinem and is now owned by the feminist majority. this is where you can get your information. you can get it on the web. so subscribe. you see who is on the cover of this. nancy pelosi. you need to knowm that tos." magazine is the only magazine to but nancy pelosi on the cover, even though she was the first woman speaker in the united states of america. this shows you that the discrimination against women is so deep that it would not even put her on the cover, but "ms." did. please subscribe to this magazine. we have a feminist majority boos that there, and you can fill out a subscription if you do not have one. i love the theme of this summit. aquino, eliminating racism. this is something we really have to work on.

we have to eliminate the racism. we have to eliminate sexism. we have to eliminate homophobia, also. right? [applause] it is not right to discriminate against people because they have a different sexual orientation. i want to ask all of you to join me in a little chance that i am going to talk about. i am going to ask this question -- ask the question of the audience. what is the scientific name of our human race? sapiens. we have a knowledgeable audience here. -- homosapiens. we hear the word race thrown around a lot, but we actually only have one human race, only one human race. and we have a lot of different cultures, a lot of nationalities, but we have only one human race. and i like to throw the question, where did our human race began? africa.

sometimes we forget that. we forget that. our human race began in africa, and it went across the globe and across the planet. they went to asia. people god lighter skin. came down to the bering straits of the americas. one of our tribe got really lost in into the work was really code, and they got really, really white, right? [laughter] so now, they have to go to the tanning salon to get the color back, right? [laughter] [applause] so we have to remember then that we're all africans. we're all africans of different shades and colors. we are all one family. and we can say to all of those xenophobes out there and the kkk, get over it, you are africans. right? get over it.

[applause] and because we are a family, then that means we have to stick together. we have to support each other. we have to come together. we can no longer be in our separate silos. the ywca cannot be over here. the feminist majority cannot be over here. immigrants' rights groups, labor groups, and rental organizations. we have got to come together, because this is the only way we've got to all march together. all of these great women that fought for women's right to vote, their shoes are very big. the only way those are going to

be filled is, all of us have to be there and be committed to work together. it is done just enough to be in our organizations. we have to put on our 10 issues and get out there and vote. we can see what some people did not vote, what happened. i am happy to report that in california, we did very well. we got the first african- american woman elected as attorney general of the state of california. [applause] the most progressive state ever, a latino elected in southern california. it was the housekeepers, the food service workers, they were the ones out there knocking on doors. it is not enough to vote, we have to hit those phone banks. we have to go out there and knock on those doors. if not, this is a democracy.

this is the only way we can do it. we have got to run for office. there are going to be open seats. a few years ago we were able to get the largest number of women elected everett to the california legislature, and the largest number of latino women -- ever elected to the california legislature. in my foundation, and we organize at the grass-roots level, we organized hundreds of people to come together. these are poor people, an immigrant people, in urban women, but they are able to create miracles once they know they have the power. when they say what is the power that we have, it is in our person, just by coming together

and meeting together and marching together and doing what we have to do. we are the majority. wewe don't do anything, if don't exert that personal power have, nothing is going to change. like all of those leaders that came before us that we have had this conference here, in order to follow them, we have to also take their example and build on that example. we cannot sit home. we have to get out there and work. i want to invite you today to come to the workshops, listen to these great minds, get the information and knowledge that we need, but his we have so much work to do. -- because we have so much work to do. we are one human race. there is a word from south africa that means the women are coming together to fight for

social justice. i want everyone to shout that word at the top of your lungs, and make it really, really loud. 1, 2, 3. wonderful. now i am going to do something in spanish. i am going to say viva to the ywca. we have to make child care are right, not a privilege. just showed "viva" as loud as you can. let's do one for the feminist majority.

let's say one for nancy pelosi. viva nancy pelosi. as we say, yes, we can. the president stole that from me. let's say it in spanish. si, se puede. >> president obama is proposing nearly $18 billion for nasa's budget next year. it is about the same as this year. we will have live coverage starting at 4:00 eastern. congress will be spending much

of this week on spending and budget issues. the house dabbles in tonight at 11:00 eastern so speaker boehner can fault the spending agreement that was reached last week. the senate will consider the measure after they consider judicial nominations tomorrow. the houses live here on c-span, and the senate is live on c- span2. >> tonight, sec commissioner robert mcdowell on the proposed t-mobile murder. >> were the specific harm to consumers? the merger process should not be an excuse to implement rulemaking for issues that do not arise because of that merger. >> "the communicators," tonight

on c-span2. >> jay carney said it could be armageddon in terms of the economy. president obama will unveil his deficit reduction plan on wednesday afternoon. it is expected to include reforms to medicare and medicaid and social security. >> before i get started taking questions, i would like to remind you at the end of the week last week, the first lady and joe biden are launching a national initiative to support american servicemen and their families tomorrow, april 12, at the white house. it aims to spark action from all sectors of our society, citizens, communities, businesses, nonprofit, faith based institutions, philanthropic organizations, and government.

to ensure american families have the support they have earned. i just want to remind you of this important event tomorrow that will begin several days of focus on this by the first lady and dr. baden. you are also aware that general mcchrystal has been asked and accepted the job of leading the advisory panel that will oversee this effort. with that, i will start with your questions. >> a couple of questions on the spending debate. senator obama back in 2006, of leadership failure in terms of [unintelligible] and a son of country's financing the u.s. government's rezko fiscal policies -- reckless fiscal policies. >> what i can tell you is that

the president's regrets that vote. he thinks it was a mistake. he realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the help of this economy and the global economy that is not a vote that even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with. you need to take very seriously the need to raise the debt limit so that the full faith and credit of the united states government is maintained around the globe. the consequences as many have said would be like armageddon in terms of the economy. the impact on interest rates, job creation, and growth, would be devastating.

outside of government, including henry paulson and others said that it could cause significant and long lasting financial disruption. jamie diamond said if anyone wants to push that button, failed to raise the debt ceiling, which i think would be catastrophic and unpredictable, i think they are crazy. the point is that the president, through his actions spoke in the first two years in office when he demonstrated through the way he created the health care recovery -- the affordable care act and with its deficit reduction bill to into it, through his agreement on friday to enact the deepest discretionary spending cuts in history, has shown that he is committed to deficit reduction.

we do not need to play chicken with our economy by linking the raising of the debt ceiling to anything. we should do that right away. >> he cast that vote five years ago and issued his strongly stated views. order this year we did hear that it was a mistake. when did he come to the realization that it was a mistake? >> we ask him, and he made clear that he now believes it was a mistake. he understands that when you are in the senate, you want to make clear reimposition if you don't agree with policies of the administration, but there are many other ways to do it. also, there is the fact in this case that the efforts to link this to the president's commitment to deficit reduction or unnecessary, precisely

because he is demonstrating his commitment. on wednesday when he lays out his vision for long-term deficit reduction, the president at commitment is established an economic impact of holding hostage the debt ceiling but to other considerations would be catastrophic. the need to move on this is quite clear. >> one question about that speech you just mentioned. should the american people expect this to be a speech in which president obama literally layout a plan with specifics akin to the budget from mr. ryan? >> oh would like to not preview the speech in any detail. i would like the president to speak for himself on wednesday. he will very clearly laid out his vision for deficit reduction, the need for it to be balanced and bipartisan, the need for it to address the long-

term drivers of our debts, and for everyone to share in the burden of bringing our fiscal house into order. beyond that, i would rather not get into the details. i would rather him do it on wednesday. >> staying with the debt and deficit, are you exclusively ruling out attaching any specific spending cuts? the republicans have clearly said they will be seeking a larger spending concessions to agree on raising the debt limit. >> without negotiating from here, i will say that we support -- we believe we should move quickly to raise the debt limit, and we support a clean piece of legislation to do that. concurrently, the president is going to demonstrate on wednesday his commitment again to deficit reduction.

we believe that he has established that and he will again. he looks forward to working together with members of congress in both parties to find a resolution to our long- term fiscal issues that is bipartisan and can be supported by the american people and that is good for the american economy. he believes separately we should raise the debt limit so that all the good work that has been done to move this economy forward, to create an atmosphere where we are growing regularly, creating jobs month by month, that all that progress is not put into jeopardy. that is what happened if we were not to raise the debt ceiling. >> you have a gang of six out there. >> the president has set in the state of the union and has noted sense that there has been a lot of good work on the issue. he believes that the fiscal

commission he set up last year and reported its findings at the end of last year helped create an environment unlike any we have seen in washington in recent years, that creates the potential for bipartisan cooperation and compromise on these very difficult issues that require everyone to give a little bit and not get 100% of what they want. he looks forward to working with members of congress of all kinds and thinks there is ample evidence that the potential for finding common ground is there. >> why wednesday? what did he not lay out his plan in the budget proposal? >> i appreciate the question. leadership is not about, in the president's view, laying out

positions to score political points. he made a very deliberate decision as we look forward to this year and the year began, that he would -- because he was serious about the need to address long-term deficit reduction and debt -- that he would put forward a 2012 budget that makes a serious down payment, that demonstrates his commitment to deficit reduction, more than one trillion dollars in deficit reduction. we need to remind everyone that the president late for that 2012 planned two months ago, and does it in a ballot this way -- lake forward that 2012 plan. it protect the investments that will help us grow in the future. he also said he looked forward to working in a bipartisan way, having a conversation with those

lawmakers who are committed to doing something about this in a reasonable approach. the decision was putting up a specific plan at that time with a lot of details as a way to reduce your chances of success. the environment for the speech he will deliver on wednesday is we are now a situation, having accomplished what was accomplished on friday and reaching an agreement on fiscal years beginning in 2011, that includes the deepest spending cuts in history, and the greatest spending cuts as a percentage of gdp since 1982. we have an environment now, having dealt with last year's business, we can move forward and tackle some of these long- term issues. the 2012 budget that he put forward is very much a down payment on that, a blueprint for

the balanced approach he needs to be taken -- he believes needs to be taken. >> speaker boehner says there is not a chance that the debt ceiling will be raised without significant spending cuts attached to it. >> i will remind you of something that the speaker said earlier this year. if we were to fail to increase the debt limit, we would send our economy into a tailspin. he also said "financial disaster not only for our country, but for the worldwide economy. you cannot create jobs if you default on the federal debt." we cannot have said it better. that is a vivid description of why this is such an important vote and why you cannot hold it hostage to something else. the president's commitment to deficit reduction was established on friday, was established in the 2012 budget

proposal, in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression, in the way he grew up and work with congress to pass the affordable care act. it is important to remember, when we are talking about the drivers of the long-term debt, we are talking in sizable measure about health care spending. that measure has reproduces the deficit by $200 billion in 10 years and more than one trillion dollars in 20 years, again demonstrating the seriousness with which he takes the need to address the deficit and the long-term debt. >> your help -- heralding the biggest spending cut since the reagan years. that will not even pay for what we are borrowing this month. >> i agree that the reality of our six-month continuing resolution is that it is but a portion of the problem.

that is an argument we were making for a long time in urging congress to get done with that work. but it does do is demonstrate a commitment to spending reduction, spending cuts, and a commitment to making tough choices that are not the kinds of choices that in an ideal world president or the democrats would want to make, but it shows his willingness to compromise and find common ground, that it can be done. if we all work together, we are all reasonable, and all willing to retain our principles and priorities, but be willing to negotiate on the issues in a way that allows us to reach an agreement. >> just for the government to continue functioning, the debt ceiling will need to be raised about $1.90 trillion. you are heralding $38.5 billion, or $78.5 billion.

you are talking about a drop of water in an ocean. it is nothing. i don't understand how you can say this demonstrates -- >> first of all, your dismissal of the size of the spending cuts is remarkable, given the intense interest in every half billion dollars as recently as last week on the hour. all of these things are difficult. what was established on friday was that if the leaders they focused on the need to do what is right for the american economy and the american people, they can reach an agreement that is good for the american economy and for the american people. these things build on themselves. we believe that the bipartisan tax cut that the president signed into law in december, which no one in this room, i dare say, would have predicted in the wake of the midterm

election as a possible outcome laid the predicate for that kind of bipartisan cooperation we need in divided government, and has had a great deal of positive impact on the economy. independent economists will tell you that it has added significantly to our growth so far. the agreement the president reached on friday laid a predicate. all of this stuff is hard. all of these negotiations will be difficult, but what the american people should take away from what they've seen happen in recent days is that there is reason to hope that we can work together and get the work done that the american people expect us to get done. >> does the white house have any comment on the latest from libya, the negotiations with colonel gaddafi and from the ivory coast? >> we are glad to see that mr.

gbagbo has been arrested, because as you know, we have made clear that he was no longer route the legitimate president of the country, that the elections that displaced timber free and fair, and we have supported the efforts of those who would bring him -- commit -- convince him to remove himself from power. we have been very involved in the effort at the international community level to help make that happen. we welcome that development. on syria, i would say that -- on libya, i am sorry. [laughter] intel that the unrest in the region is broad -- you can tell

that the unrest in the region is brought. on libya, our response to the cease-fire is that what matters here are actions and not words. colonel gaddafi and his forces, his regime, know full well what they need to do. they need to stop menacing the civilian citizens of libya. they need to pull back from the cities and garrison themselves, and that would be a good development. we are in no way causing -- pausing, or letting up the implementation in any aspects. the resolution continues and will continue as long as necessary. we continue to pursue our diplomatic and economic measures to tighten the noose around gaddafi and those members of his regime who continue to

try to cling to power in order to achieve the result of having him step down from power so that the libyan people can decide their future and pick leaders who will respond to their aspirations. >> on the talk shows it was said that social security is not driving up the numbers right now. the fight is already going to be hard enough in getting things moving. why add a hot-button issue like social security to the discussion? it is going to be hard enough without this. >> i think what david plouffe said is that the president has for a long time made clear that we do not believe that social security is driving our deficit problems in the near and medium term, but he also welcomed the

efforts to further strengthen social security for the long term. that is the president's position and the position that david plouffe was echoing yesterday on the sunday shows. >> on congressman ryan was the past he said let's get 2011 and then we can talk about 2012. are there any elements are aspects that the president agrees with in the ryan plan? >> he agrees with the goal that we need to address our fiscal issues, the things that are driving in creating debt and driving our deficits. we strongly disagree with the lack of balance in congressman ryan approach. we believe is not appropriate and would not be supported by the american people to have a fiscal plan that relies on dramatic restructuring, reform

of the programs that provide security to seniors and poor and disabled people. at the same time, it gives enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest americans. again, we understand that people will come to the table with different views. the president believes that we have to have balance. we have to be sure that we protect the most vulnerable in this nation as we approach this problem, and a plan that congressman ryan laid out does not do that. it fails the test of reaching that balance. >> medicare and medicaid are on the table in part of the discussion. our polling shows that any kind of cuts to medicare and medicaid is -- americans are overwhelmingly against it. how does the president convinced

the american people is worth taking on? >> i am not going to get into specifics about what the president will lay out on wednesday. the president understands very well that health care spending is a major driver of our deficit and debt problems. he has shown his understanding of that by the way he addressed it in the affordable care act and achieved savings in that the will save over one trillion dollars over 20 years. he has shown it in his 2012 budget proposal which achieves another $60 billion in reductions. he believes we can achieve those savings in ways that protect the people these programs were designed to support and help. preview the to president's speech. but i will say is that it will be a balance -- he believes we have to have a balanced approach.

these things have to be on the table and we have to approach them in a balanced way and make sure the programs and the approach we take in the end is balanced in terms of the sacrifice it requires and that it protects the very things that we need to invest in in order to continue to grow in the 21st century. growth is one of the most important things in terms of creating the economic environment that allows us to drive down the debt and deficit. no matter how many programs to cut, you will not get very far if the economy does not grow and jobs are not created. going back to the debt ceiling, that is another reason it would be a catastrophic folly not to raise the debt ceiling. at a time when growth and job creation are moving forward and

helping us pull ourselves out of this recession and put people back to work and create an economic environment that will allow us to address our deficit and debt issues. >> is the president telling the republicans he will not sign a bill unless it is clean? >> what i will not do from here is pretend that you are john boehner and i am the president and hash it out, but our position is clear, for all the reasons i have laid out and that speaker boehner and congressman ryan have laid out an economist and others have laid out. we cannot play chicken with the economy in this way. it is too darn risky. it is not appropriate.

>> isn't that exactly what you are doing, setting up the game of chicken? >> no, we are saying this is an issue that every leader in congress of both parties agrees has to be done. i am saying that the effect of the economy on playing that kind of game would be too severe, to catastrophic. it was sent all the wrong signals to the market's and to those who -- to hold hostage by both -- a vote, in exchange for some proposal that one party wants is not the way to treat this issue. it is too dangerous to do it that way.

the dangerous thing to play chicken rather than compromising? >> the dangerous thing would be to hold hostage the simple raising of the debt limit, which everyone agrees has to be done, regardless. in those statements i read to you, they were not equivocal, they work regardless, we have to do this. so we should do it, and at the same time we are showing how serious the president is. he is showing how serious he is about moving off of friday's agreement towards having a serious conversation about the long-term deficit and debt. >> on the deal that was reached on friday night, [unintelligible] do we have any details or do the

details exists, or are they does not telling us what they are? >> what was agreed upon friday night was a fairly detailed framework that includes the things that dan laid out and the leaders agreed on, and now up on the hill, the fine print is being worked out. but the outlines of the agreement were very clear and were agreed on by the leaders. that process is now proceeding up on the hill. it takes a little bit of time, but that is what is happening now. >> should we expect the president's to embrace the work of sense and-bolts --simpson- bowles and their team? >> he thinks the work they did was extremely important. he does not agree with every

proposal in it, but it was very important and help create the environment we are in now in which we find republicans and democrats who are serious, willing to address the issue in a serious way which starts with an understanding that you cannot do this unless you do it in a balanced way. you need to look at entitlements, tax expenditures, military spending, you need to look at all of these issues. you cannot simply/entitlements, lower taxes, and call that a fair deal -- you cannot simply slash entitlements and lower taxes and call that a fair deal.

he is optimistic that if the leaders are all serious and we move forward, we can actually get something substantial conflict for the american people pri >> center reed said he will not support tinkering with social security. it does not believe it is an emergency. does that say to the white house that social security is part of a deficit plan, maybe eight nonstarter in the senate? >> i am not going to preview what the president will say on wednesday it septet he also believes that social security is not the issue when it comes to our short and medium-term deficit problems. he also will look at ways of strengthening social security to ensure that it provides needed benefits to recipients going forward. i am not going to preview what he is going to say on wednesday.

>> will get to the point of primary balance [unintelligible] running of the zero yearly deficit? is that the goal of this debt ceiling vote? >> i do not know specifically what the secretary of the treasury -- i am sure treasury would be a better place to go for the answer to that question. >> when you want to issue a veto threat, you make it known. you have not issued one, is it not fair for us to realize you have not issued a veto threat of a non clean debt ceiling? >> i am not aware of a piece of legislation we need to issue a

veto threat on. we are making clear what our position is, and the secretary of the treasury has made it clear going back to january. we are not suddenly paying attention to this issue. we have been talking to members of congress about this for a number of months because it is so important. that is our position. it is not a question of issuing veto threats. it is a question of making it clear to everyone in washington and around the country how important this issue is. i know is esoteric to a lot of americans who have their own problems to deal with. the best way to explain it is that the united states, the most powerful economy in the world, needs to be credit worthy. the impact of anything it would do, that the congress would do that suggests that the united states was not credit worthy

would be calamitous. i think that is something americans can understand. it can be framed in a way that sounds bad politically, but the reality is, the united states is the largest economy in the world. it is looked to around the globe as the anchor of the world's economy and must establish through this vote its creditworthiness. >> [unintelligible] isn't fair to say wednesday speech, that you hoped those members who fought for the president should get more serious on entitlement -- entitlement reform?

project uponnt to members of congress what action they will take after hearing the president's speech, but i will say that it will demonstrate the president's seriousness about deficit reduction. he hopes that it will signal to members of congress in both parties that he wants to work with them in a bipartisan way to address these issues that are ourrted, that's a fact capacity to dominate economically in the 21st century the way they did in the 20th, to win the future. part of winning the future is to make sure that we have our fiscal house in order. he looks forward to working with republicans than democrats to do that. >> is the using of residence as a negotiating tool during these last minute talks, saying you can let the budget restrict this

or restrict that? >> i would just say that the president made clear the lines he would not cross in this negotiation. one line he would not cross which has been made clear in some of the reporting was the insistence by the republicans that a measure be included that the funded a program that gives women's health services to poor people across the country. he also has said from the beginning that we have to make tough choices, and he has to agree to things that in an ideal he would not want to agree to. that is the nature of compromise. you do not get everything you want, but if you know what your priorities are, you protect the very essential things that are so important to growing the

economy and making sure we out compete the rest of the world in the 21st century. >> you said that the republican budget which cuts entitlements and lowers taxes is not a balanced approach. >> i think that is an effort to track to get me to preview what the president is going to say. balance include shared sacrifice. the president has made clear by his actions that he understands that healthcare is one of the major driving factors in our deficit and debt. he has shown he understands that by the deficit reduction he has already put into place. it says a lot about the environment that we work and live in, the fact that this

president signed into law a bill that reduces the deficit by over a trillion dollars does not get acknowledged as often as it should as far as deficit reduction. he continues to show in his 2012 budget proposal that savings in health care are essential to any balanced approach. you are asking me to say something specific about what the president is going to say on wednesday, which i am not going to do. savings and health care are essential to any balanced approach. that is pretty clear. >> yesterday everyone said we should be able to reduce the deficit while increasing the debt limit.

>> the point i have made is that the president's demonstration of his commitment to deficit reduction continues. it was demonstrated with his 2012 budget proposal and again when he came to an agreement with speaker boehner and senator reid to cut discretionary spending more significantly than ever before. it will be demonstrated again on wednesday when he gives his speech. >> when did the president decided he needed to give a speech on deficit reduction? was it during the final days leading up to the agreement on

friday? >> no, and has been long planned. as i have had this job and get up close to the president and the way he thinks about these issues, this is very instructive. sometimes in a way that does not satisfy the press and others in washington, he approaches his engagement in these issues always with an eye to where do i want to go? what is the result i am hoping to achieve? he has been thinking about this for a long time. he telegraphed that in his state of the union address and he was thinking about it beforehand in discussions of how he would approach this. under any circumstances, whether there had been -- if there had never been a showdown over a shutdown, if there had never been a dispute over fiscal year 2011 spending, he was committed

to addressing our deficits and debt this year, this spring, and he will do that. he will continue to engage in the way he engaged in the cr negotiations. it is not an opportunity to score political points, but to advance the cause of finding a way to do the business that the american people want us to do. that might sound corny, but it really is the way he approaches it. he will do it while protecting the principles he thinks are so important, but to answer your question, he has been thinking about this for very long time. >> who all has he consulted with outside the white house on this?

some have been very clear that the deficit is a long-term deterrent to growth. >> i don't want to reveal the phone calls and meetings, but i can tell you he has had discussions about this with the number of people and stakeholders beyond the circle of congress and his administration. of course includes the business community, labor, and all sorts of individuals and groups that he comes into contact with. as part of the way he conducts his presidency, he has conversations about this issue and a variety of others. get intoant to individual conversations or meetings he has had. he appreciates greatly the work that erskine bowles and senator simpson did. he feels like it created a

framework that may help us reach a deal and the compromise. beyond that, i don't want to get into it. the national security adviser is traveling to saudi arabia and the united arab emirates to meet with leaders and discuss regional issues. there is a lot going on in the region, obviously. he looks forward to meeting with king abdullah and the crown prince in abu dhabi. one of the things he will be able to do with the crown prince is discussed the uae's participation in the coalition and the enforcement of un security council resolution 1973. he looks forward to the trip.

our relationship continues to be very strong with saudi arabia. we have conversations with their leaders regularly. >> have you given any consideration to giving a speech after his own presentation of the 2012 budget but before the republicans -- having him second to the republicans make it sound like -- >> here is the point. he put for the 2012 budget proposal to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars and included within it the kind of balance he thinks is essential to deal with our longer-term deficit and debt issues. he made clear that it was a

downpayment towards the longer- term goal. he believes that the approach that he took was the smart one to create -- to help foster the environment that will hopefully enable us to reach a bipartisan compromise on an admittedly very difficult issue. i think he has demonstrated ample leadership. the compromise that was reached on friday would not have occurred without president obama's leadership. i think that has been made clear by some of the reporting on the process. the bipartisan deal that gave tax cuts to working americans, including a payroll tax holiday that is helping american steel every week with higher gas prices and helping drive economic growth in 2011 would not have been reached without presidential leadership. none of these things happen without presidential leadership.

how you decide to use your capacity to lead is very important. what he decided he did not want to do was draw some lines when he felt at the time that the best way to approach it was to call for a bipartisan conversation and to create an environment will -- where real compromise can be achieved, not to win a political argument. >> i thank you for your kindness. >> it is my turn next. i just wanted to thank you. >> on the president's trip to chicago on thursday, there are no official events on the schedule that i see. i see he is staying overnight. anymore't have scheduling events to announce at

this time. >> does the dnc pick up the cost for that trip? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> will the first lady becoming to chicago also? >> i do not know. >> what kind of strategy -- how do you think he will approach this in terms of getting an agreement? what is the endgame as far as getting something from congress? >> it is precisely his desire to reach a result that prohibits me from laying out our strategy of

from the podium before he has even given his speech. he will speak to this on wednesday, and obviously we will continue to fill in details in terms of how we are approaching it and how we believe the process should work in the days going forward. >> when the president talked to at ban ki-moon, did they talk about events leading up to -- >> i will have to get back to you about conversations about the ivory coast. the president has engaged on this virtually every day during this time. you know about the video that he taped and the calls we have made and the engagement we have with the united nations which has a security presence in the ivory coast. in terms of specific conversations, we would have to

get back to you on that. >> leading into everything that happened friday, americans were very concerned and were speaking out. they are very scared about budget cuts and losing jobs and not being able to get their irs checks, possibly. then saturday the president reached out to america for about 10 minutes. wednesday, what is the president going to promise americans after all this emotional turmoil over the budget? >> without getting into specifics are previewing the speech, i will tell you that he will promise to approach this issue the same way he approached the cr. he wakes up every morning thinking about what can i do to advance the cause of growing the economy and creating jobs?

how can i make sure that people who are looking for work can find work? what should i not do that would in any way jeopardize those goals? there is nothing that matters to him more than this. for those who have doubted, for reasons that i cannot quite understand, the president's commitment to deficit reduction, it has been amply demonstrated. he sees it not as a goal unto itself. he sees it as part of his overall vision for growing the economy and making sure that america in the 21st century is as great and strong and prosperous and fair as it became as we worked so hard in the 20th century to make it what it is. that animates everything he does when it comes to demand it

reached -- when it comes to domestic policy. >> has he or will he sit down with general mcchrystal, and secondly, given the makeup of the house republican caucus right now and the nature of the deficit -- debt ceiling fight, does the president really expect that whatever he lays out on wednesday is going to deal with any legislative action, or is it more that he feels it is more important to [unintelligible] >> he very much hopes and believes there is a possibility for everyone to approach it in a

responsible way and with the commitment to try and get something done and to compromise. you very much believes that this can produce tangible results and real legislation. before the 2012 election, absolutely. he very much believes it can and should happen. >> what efforts are you making to get information on or secure the release of the four journalists, two of them americans, who were detained in libya last tuesday? three of them, including claire gillis were last seen thursday and a libyan detention center. >> the state department is working very hard in order to do what it can to facilitate the release of those journalists. i cannot go into detail about

what they are doing, but be assured that they are working on it and that we take this very, very seriously, as we did when other journalists were detained. >> in those past cases, they have always let the journalists talk to a western embassy or something. that has not happened in this case. >> there is great concern. the release of any journalist detained unlawfully are inappropriately, and in this case specifically with those journalist in mind, we call on and demand their release. >> tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the first walk in

space. is there going to be any recognition of that? >> we certainly congratulate the russian people on that historic accomplishment. we did get to the moon first. [laughter] it is an amazing thing, and i know the way that he was revered for his tremendous accomplishment. >> did you deny reports that the u.s. has been quietly urging withdrawal from israel? >> in order to achieve a two- state solution for israel and the palestinian people to live together, side by side, peacefully and securely, the two sides need to sit down and

negotiate a compromise. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] clark's tonight, fcc commissioner robert mcdowell on the proposed at&t-t-mobil

merger. >> are there any harm coming about? what are the specific harm to consumers? if there are any, then they should be tailored to address those. "the communicator's" tonight on the c-span2. >> what john the events for the debate from the house and senate floor, the white house come and around washington on line with the c-span and video library. search, watch, click, and share with everything since 1987. what you want, when you want to. >> we are glad that the senate appropriations subcommittee hearing to hear testimony nasa administrators. he will talk about his agency's

budget request totaling $18.70 billion. this hearing is expected to get underway shortly live on c-span. the house is coming in for a brief session at 11:00 p.m. eastern for paper work. later this week, the house will vote on a spending bill to fund the government until september 30th. that is expected on the house floor wednesday. the house is expected to vote on fiscal year 2012 and president obama will lay out his ideas on medicare and medicaid spending this week. coverage of all of that here on c-span and on the c-span network.

>> we are waiting for the nasa administrator to testify at this hearing for the 2012 budget for his agency. politico giving some background to this hearing and continuing debate over the agency's direction. the 2012 budget calls for an increase in spending to help commercial rocket and space companies develop transport to the international space station

and cancels a bush to administration program to build a more conventional news system which is being funded and the 2010 continuing resolution. we see the chairwoman of this committee and this is about to get started live on c-span. >> the subcommittee on science will come together. today, we take the testimony of administrator hon. astronauts

and general charles boden for the fy12 request and talked- about how this might be in light of what we have just gone through. the administrator, we are glad to see you. we want to thank you for coming and we remind you that this hearing normally occurs on thursday morning but we could not get you when we thought we could. senator kay bailey hutchison and i did not wish to delay the hearing because it would have taken us after the easter- passover recess and we wanted to be able to really get cracking on our 2012 appropriations. we think you for doing this. we look forward to your testimony.

i am glad to see you and glad to be here. both of us, all of us were declared essential. but we just went through last week was a cliffhanger and it rattled many people. it certainly rattled us. we felt it would have been a disaster had we had a shot down for the economy and the reputation of the united states of america. we have now been called upon to accept $78 billion of cuts from ,he president's 2011 request $39 billion below the 2010 level. that was the marquee have given us. havell of our staff's worked through the night and i would like to thank senator

staff.on -- hutchinson's we all worked pretty tirelessly to meet our obligations to be able to report out a bill in the subcommittee but tonight at midnight. we want to hear from you about where you think that you are. we are very proud of nasa. this is the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's call to send a person to the moon and return them safely. from our human space flight, the visit to the moon, the vision to go further, we are so proud of what we have done with human spaceflight and we look forward to supporting human space flight initiatives. when we look ahead at space science, the hubble space telescope, to others in the area

of earth science, planetary science, protecting power, it is all important. we know that what nasa does is part really creating the new ideas for the innovation of the economy. in a speech to the maryland roundtable come every time nasa goes soft, it takes the american economy with us. nasa is about innovation and drugs. last year, congress gave nasa a new path forward. the ranking member and i worked with senator bill nelson -- nelson on a new authorization bill. are like to complement the gentle lady from taxes with what she and council member nelson were able to achieve. it met the priorities of the president in the space coalition here in the senate.

we need investments in science and aeronautics, but we also must remember we want human space flight to be sustainable. we need to go to the international space station and also broadening our human reach beyond earth orbit with the o'brien capsule and a heavy lift rocket. we have a lot of ambitions and now we are trying to see if we have the wallet to match. who will work tirelessly to implement and balanced space program. last year, we agreed to 19 billion. it will not come out quite that way, so far this year, we are anticipating an appropriation, if we stick to the president's request, at $18.70 billion. the signs request is 5 billion

and we also need to make sure that important projects like that do not get out from under us, like the james webb telescope and there is more in the questioning. i am also concerned about aeronautics research. i believe we are falling behind in that area. our european counterparts are making very heavy investments in the aeronautics research and they would like to dominate civilian aeronautics. well, i'm just not thinking it is fun to go to the paris air show to hear what they are doing. i want america to go because we are the best of the best. we know that the budget requests to $20 billion for a new rocket andy o'brien capsule for the human space flight program we

have to take a good look at that. we are also very impressed with what is going on, however, with how this relates to cargo. we think that will be a very big success story and we will be able to take cargo through on manned space -- unmanned flight. we will maintain accountability and oversight, but we want to get to you rather than my opening statement. i turned to the ranking member, and we have worked andnow for three terms, have we not? we are definitely colleagues here on this matter. i turned over to senator kay bailey hutchison. >> thank you, madame chairwoman. you have, indeed, been a partner in trying to make the very best efforts for nasa in

all of its missions. are particularly when they convene chairwoman's stock for working with mine so closely to ensure that not sound does have a balanced plan going forward that will achieve the results that we all want. thank you for coming in and as mentioned, we are at some very major anniversaries and some major crossroads. we are about to see the end of the nation's ability to lost r -- launched our own astronauts into space. the space shuttles have served us well for 30 years and made it possible to construct an amazing science platform in space, the international space station. while nasa should be making plans to fully utilize the station, i do not think that is happening. we could be working with our

international partners, universities, and with companies that could capitalize on our unique national lab in space. it was the commerce committee in our authorization that created are part of the space station as a national lab in order to attract private and university, academic funding for research. that is just beginning to bear fruit. now i see the administration placing our investments in the space station and its capabilities at risk as well as our future exploration capabilities. once the shuttles are retired, we will be reduced to buying seats on russian vehicles for the foreseeable future. the russians have been our longtime partners with the space station, but we should not expect them to shoulder their space station program and hours when we should be able to do it

ourselves. nasa has the arion capsule which has investigated to given time and resources in to carry our astronauts. yet come to this day, nasa is refusing to allow us to move forward. the president personally revived awry and last year and congress followed. we are reinstating it as a vehicle that will take us to an asteroid or back to the moon. i heard from your assistant administrators last month in the commerce committee that they understand that the authorization law directs the building of the capsule and a heavy lift vehicle. they know that orion fits the bill as a multipurpose crew vehicle and that it will take very little to modify contracts as allowed for in the authorization law. even the scope of the contract would need letter all -- little alteration. like the president, i have no problem continuing to call this a ryan, yet we see no movement

from nasa to continue the program at all. this budget proposes only $1 billion for orion in the fiscal year 2012 while the authorized level for the same your calls for $1.40 billion and the plan for ongoing work prior to the knesset cancellation attempts would have had it at $2 billion. this deliberately hamstrings the ability for a ryan to reach our ability in 2016. the fiscal year 2012 of vision, offered as a variant of the authorization, is the creation of new prime contractors and providing them with the development funding. it is the hope of nasa that providing venture capital that they will then be able to usher in an era in space set off -- space exploration. there is little proof that what is being promised can be a reality. the commercial orbital

transportation services program is beginning to show promise, but it is significantly behind schedule. last year, nasa proposes 60% increase in funding to assure the program would be successful. because it had been slower to produce results, the one under 35 flight has now become critical for the near term viability of the space station. the nasa authorization leaves primary crew delivery vehicle to the space station open to commercial entities with o'brien as a backup. however, given the track record for cargo and masses underfunded budget proposal, the nation could find itself with neither option available when our latest renegotiated contract with the russians and. what we have done is allow for a mix of government and commercial to cover all of our country's needs.

nasa needs to find a proper and justified balance without putting our human space program at risk. i know that commercial companies could eventually become successful, but i do not feel that the information available justifies such a large investment of federal dollars this year for commercial vehicles. i also believe that the same scrutiny that has been placed on our other manned vehicle should be applied to commercial kreuz to ensure the viability and safety of our astronauts is insured. mr. administrator, i will put the rest of my statement in the record, that i am hoping that we can establish a partnership going forward that it hears to the authorization wall, that is a balance, that provides the funding for commercial vehicles, but not at the expense of haut- rhin and all the capabilities key is what we have already

spent millions to do going forward. thank you, madam chairman, and i yield back to you. >> i would like to acknowledge the presence of the senator sherrod brown from ohio. do you want to say something or will you wait? >> first off, thinking for welcoming me to the subcommittee in all the jurisdictions and nasa is particularly important to me. i appreciate you coming to cleveland a number of times and speaking at the city club and laying out an exhibition. i am concerned, as i know we all are, at what the budget may look like in the months ahead with h.r. 1, the paul ryan budget introduced in the house last week, and with the fervor on tax cuts that seems to be sweeping some parts of the house and senate and what it will mean on funding one of the most

important parts of the federal government, the innovation, the research, the mission's committee aeronautic advantage that we have had as a country for decades. would to make sure we continue to be leading, but if we're going to cut taxes and continue to cut taxes on the wealthiest people and continue to understand the important parts of government, and we will lose that scientific age. -- the scientific edge. i know that each you are helping us to not lose that and i appreciate your work. thank you, madam chair. >> administrator? >> chairwoman and ranking member, good afternoon and it thank you for the opportunity to discuss the nasa fiscal year 2012 budget request. thank you to be here -- thank you for being here, senator brown. as chair, you continue to provide critical leadership and oversight of our nation's space program. i would like to recognize a

longtime member of the commander, senator kay bailey hutcheson, as ranking member of the subcommittee. i want to think both of you and the members of the said committee for the longstanding support that you have given to nasa. we have a common passion for science, aeronautics, and space exploration and the benefits they bring our nation. i look forward to continue to work together in the same collegial fashion as we have in the past. it is my privilege today to discuss the president's fiscal year 2002 budget request of $18.70 billion by nasa. recognizing the president's commitment to fiscal restraint, i am pleased we are proposing to hold funding at the level appropriated for fiscal year 2010. the fiscal year 2012 budget request continues the agency's focus on a reinvigorated path of innovation and technological discovery leading to an array of challenging destinations and emissions that engage the

public. madam share, you and each member of the said committee should have two charts before you to which i call your attention. chart #1 is the pie chart and shows at a very high level discussion of nasa's proposed fiscal year 2002 budget which represents a balanced and integrated program. the nasa authorization act of 2010 has given the agency a clear direction. nasa is moving forward to implement the details of that with fiscal year 2002 budget. as you can see in charge two, the president's fiscal year to dozens of budget request for nasa funds all major elements of the nasa authorization act was supporting a diverse portfolio of key programs. these are tough of fiscal times and we have had to make some tough, difficult choices. reductions have been necessary in some areas so that we can invest in the future will living within our means.

this must request and maintains a strong commitment to human space flight,, aeronautics, and the development of new technologies along with education programs that will help us win the future. it carries out programs of innovation to support long-term drawbaugh growth and a dynamic economy that will help us out innovate, and educate, and out build everyone in the world. along with their fiscal year 2002 budget request, we published our 2000 tow strategic plan. if you or your staff does not have it, we will make sure we get a copy to everyone. the core mission of nasa remains the fundamentally -- remains fundamentally the same since our inception. it supports our vision, shown inside the strategic plan to reach new heights and reveal the on non said that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind. on march 9th, we completed the

133 mission, one of the final three shuttle flights to the international space station. discovery delivered a robotic crew member and supplies that will support the scientific research and technology demonstrations, that was a joke by the way? ok. we are currently preparing and ever for mission 134 which will delivered the of the magnetic spectrometer. it will enhance knowledge of the universe in to the understanding of the origins of the universe. this will be the 36 shuttle mission in the final flight of the endeavor. with the impending completion of the shuttle manifest, it is my plan to announce my decision regarding the recipients tomorrow, april 12th, 2011, on

the 30th anniversary of the first space shuttle flight. the space program continues to venture in ways that will have long-term benefits. there are many more milestones in the very near term. our priorities in human space flight in the 2012 budget request are to maintain safe access for american astronauts to lower orbit as we will utilize the international space station, and to facilitate safe, reliable, and cost-effective u.s.-provided commercial transport for supplies as soon as possible and begin to lay the groundwork for expanding human presence in deep space, the moon, asteroids, and eventually mars to the development of a powerful heavy lift rocket, and pursued technology development to carry humans further into the solar system. these initiatives will enable american to maintain its position as a leader in space exploration for generations to

come. at the same time, in our other endeavors, the priorities are to extend our reached with scientific observatories, to learn more about our home planet, the solar system, and look beyond the origins of the universe. this budget requests of fondas of 56 national -- mass that missions and 20 more in the various stages of development. for one example, on march 17th of this year, after traveling more than six years and 4.9 billion miles, the nasa messenger space ship entered orbit around mercury. the messenger spacecraft august the first look at the planet from orbit. it will help us understand the forces that shape it and provide a fundamental understanding of the terrestrial planets and their evolution. in addition, we will pursue groundbreaking research into the next generation of aviation technology and carry out dynamic

education programs that help develop the next-generation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics professionals. that is a lot, but nasa thrives in the big things. we have increased human knowledge in our discoveries and technologies have improved life on earth. in spite of the difficulties we have encountered with the very critical james webb telescope, we have made changes in our management, increased oversight from my office, it continued to work to revise a space line by the end of april that will include options including likely funding some areas. the official plan will be submitted as part is the the part of the fiscal year 2013 budget. i want to commend the nasa work force, both civil and contractors across the nation for their dedication to our missions during this time of transition and change. these workers are our greatest asset. they make us all proud. they fully understand the rest

of our exploration and welcome the challenge. they will be the ones making tomorrow happen. in these are exciting and dynamic times. the challenges ahead are significant, but so are the opportunities. we have to achieve big things that will create measurable impact on our economy, world come and way of life. i thank you again in appearing before you, and i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you, administrator bolden. i know you have given us a former ample and detailed statement. i ask unanimous consent for all testimony that this detailed testimony be included in the record. >> thank you, ma'am. >> we have in other hearings. talking about asking administrators about the consequences of the cr.

rather than going into that today here's what i suggested. at midnight, the senate appropriations committee will produce their bill. as i understand it, it will be on the internet at appropriations.senate.gov. am i correct? >> i defer to you. >> it will come out around midnight. my suggestion to you is that when it comes out, i know you are going to scrub it to see what we did so that you know what you need to do. when you do that, it would be

useful if you could share with senator hutchison, myself, and senator cochran what that means in 2012. it will be speculative number games. we will consult with the leadership there. as full partners, scrub what we have done and tell us what it means for 2012. in effect, you will be below 2010. >> we will do that. proposedgo to 2012 as by the president and your advocay. -- advocacy. we want to join the goal in out innovating and out educating.

we need to be critical of the money. i would like to raise questions about those things that could be targets for big cuts, particularly those who cannot spend the time like our colleagues at the table. let's start with the james webb telescope. it is scheduled to be 100 times more powerful than the hubble telescope, but we were troubled about its management and its use of money. we asked for a report which said it was technically sound but a week, meaning nasser, had a sense of urgency, but management was keeping on track for the deadlines and expenditures. you and i have had a private conversation about that, but could you tell us now what is

now set doing to have a sense of urgency and that number two it has top-level attention and has not been delegated to the coordinator of the coordinator of a coordinator and we now have this spectacular opportunity because, quite frankly, on a bipartisan basis, we cannot sustain technology with repeated cost overruns. the house will not put up with that. with no money to spare, we will not either. this telescope is important. tell us what you will do and what your management and urgency activities are. >> as a told you then, there was not anyone more disappointed and angry than i. when it got to the bottom of the situation, we found ourselves in

trouble. we have moved with urgency. as i mentioned in my opening statement, the telescope continues to make exceptional technological process. i have made some significant management changes in nassau of -- in nasa. i have delegated might associate administrator to oversee the program for me and he meets with the team on a regular basis several times per week. he also meets with some of your staff year. the team consists of rick howard at nasa headquarters. the associate administrator for science and it goes directly to him now. i extracted it from its former division in astrophysics because was unfair to the program of that magnitude in the after physics division. >> what are you doing meeting

with the private sector on building in? >> we are meeting with northman grumman. they have made some management changes and i would defer to them to explain to you what they have done, but we communicate with them on a routine basis. chris is usually talking to gary every week. >> you have the sound track. now, tell me. how much money is needed to keep webb on track for 2012? >> we are working to complete the bottoms up assessment that will allow us to bring in a baseline assessment hopefully by the end of this month. >> do you know? this is not argumentative or adversarial. i am trying to drill deeply on this issue. >> we honestly do not think that we need money in fiscal year 11

that will allow us to continue to carry the program to the point where we can make what we think now is a reasonable launch date of 2018. if something happens and we find we have more funding in 2011, we will put it to use to accelerate the testing or some of the other developmental work. right now, we are looking at how much we needed to add it to 2012 from this committee. >> going back to the report, which now is advisory, they say they needed $500 million each year, 2011 and 2012, and it is not there. >> i respect to the report. when we look at what they said and where we are in these fiscal times, i cannot responsibly bring myself to this committee or any other and propose that someone tried to find $500

million for the foreseeable future. we are working at the baseline and there will be some additional spending that will be required, but we have not arrived at that yet. we hope to have to an original estimate by the end of this month. >> my time is coming to a close and what my colleagues to be able to deliver does it fit. i know they have a keen interest. we have big tickets in human space flight and the telescope is a big ticket. we really appreciate the president at. $5 billion -- adding $5 billion -- yes? $5 billion to the science budget. we are going to live in the fiscal time in a time of austerity being a very spartan.

everyone here is for more frugal government. i am ready to be frugal, but i do not want to be foolish. let me tell you what i am worried about that will be foolish. we scamp now and we then end up paying two or three times later. that is what i do not want to. i need a realistic picture because this is a rational group of people who work together. we needed to hear truly what is needed to and not what you think you can get the omb to agree to. or we can get the house or ourselves to agree to, but we need to know that. i also need to know that if we do not spend the money now, when will we spend it? will it ultimately cost us more? i think we have been around the track on some of these things. either they grow and become a boondoggle.

i am concerned that if we do not do the right thing now and that it will cost us more in the future. we really do need your wise counsel on this. we think the president's support of science. -- we thank the president's support. senator? >> i will defer and go after. >> senator cochran? >> madame chair, thank you very much for the leadership of our subcommittee and working in concert with our other committee members. mr. administrator, we appreciate your cooperation with our committee in your presentation today. despite some uncertainties about the fiscal year 2011 budget, i am hopeful that we can stay on track to meet the goal of developing the heavy lift

capacity for operation by 2016. i am hopeful that is a 130 ton capacity. i know that your advice is important in keeping us on track in terms of taking the right steps with the funding of those activities that will help us reach that goal. we would to be sure we have ample rocket testing results and an infrastructure to support this capability. we know that safety, confidence , natural interests -- national interests are all goals that we share. we know you are on the same team and we appreciate your leadership. you mention in your written testimony about the investment importance for a 21st century launch complex. this strikes me as a way to

describe what we have in the nasa facilities in mississippi- louisiana area which have become so important to the launch infrastructure. do you have enough funding requested in this budget request to ensure that we meet the updates to keep the schedule that is in place for fiscal year 2011 and 12 to improve the rocket propulsion testing infrastructure? >> as we have discussed, the 2012 budget will support this continued development of our testing capabilities at stennis. we went to complete the testing of the 8-3. as you are probably well aware, stennis has become rejuvenated and reinvigorated. we have had three tests of the a

j-26 this year which is the rocket produced by arrow jump form orbital sciences. we have a test supposedly going on today and when we get the 83 test done, we will test a bigger and more advanced engines. >> what are your views toward using existing rassa infrastructure with regards to testing commercial launch vehicles? >> we have demonstrated our capability to do that. the first time we tested an engine at stennis was the aj-26. it was a ukrainian rocket that had been modified for domestic production and also a rocket we are currently talking to erakat and it has the potential -- talking to aerojet. >> do future plans involve

subsidizing commercially on the testing infrastructure elements? >> i do not use the term "subsidizing." we provide the test facility. that is what stennis is. it is for the united states and we want to get everyone to come there to do their tests. we will make sure that we are competitive in terms of cost, we will take all comers. >> thank you. thank you, madame chairwoman. >> senator brown? >> thank you, madame chair. good to see. the previous administration declared 10 help these centers and lathes responsibilities for each. when we spoke prior to your confirmation, you assured me the policy was no longer needed because tell -- nasa had 10 help the centers. we were promised the etdd program with the 2012 budget

request. we are giving money only been told that a significant portion will be at glenn. nasa has a history of allowing the centers to fight among themselves and not a day goes by where i hear if nasa glenn will be getting a mission. instead of collaboration between and among centers, they want to encourage the competition. i have seen what happens when congress provides nasa latitude to shift funding. two questions on this issue. do you have a serious commitment to the goals of the previous policy of 10 healthy centers and the people who work there? second, how will you work with congress to detail a more specific plan for the 10 health centers? >> i have a very serious commitment to nine or 10

functioning, efficient centers -- nine and the propulsion lab. help the is a relative term. this -- because of the fiscal constraints we are all under, the centers are stressed. you talk about h.r. 1, for example. a change like that would have a dramatic effect on a center. i have the best center directors in the world. i have the best work force in the world and we are doing everything we can to make sure that we balance the work across the 10 at nasa centers. we want to make sure that we of a balanced portfolio in the agency. we want vibrate involvement in technology development, science, and human space flight. what we are trying to do, which is different than the way it was before, is that i am not asking every center to be capable of participating in every single

thing we do. i want to find out what their sweet spot is and let them do that. the center directors enjoy that and the members of the work force enjoy that. i am committed to making sure that all of our centers say as strong as they can. >> and i can be assured that the work will be at glenn regardless of where the office of the chief of technology is located? >> the answer is yes. >> they do not necessarily believe that. >> i know the center director does. he understands, and as he has probably told you before, he is not worried about having titles, but he is interested in having contracts and the work. the program management office at a center does not mean that the center is going to handle the bulk of the work in the program. it just means that is with the focus of the oversight will be. gleenn is where much of the work

will be done. glenn will make out well. >> let me shift to an issue we have spoken about many times. i would like you to detail the selection of the shuttle and the process of nasa overtook in deciding where the retiring shuttles would be exhibited. i never heard you, your top assistants, the white house, or anyone else, talk about this commission that supposedly was put together four years ago that will apparently decided the disposition with the nasa authorization law that set out guidelines and the world that the commission is planning. can you explain, won a, who is going to decide? >> commission on deciding where the orders go? >> yes. >> if there is such a thing, i do not know about it. i will make the decision this afternoon. if i need to consult with them,

someone should tell me quickly. >> we make that decision based on the last person you talk to? -- will you make that decision based on the last person you talk to? >> no, sir. >> "yes, sir" would have been preferable. >> for once, i have no dog in this fight. >> said the decision is yours and there is no statutory commission? >> and not to my knowledge. i have made an effort to keep people, not the president, but people close to the president informed of the process we are falling. i have made an attempt to keep the staff here in the house and senate and the process that we were following and we offered to brief people on the process. we established, i think, 10 criteria for consideration. we had a 29 applicants for an order.

all of them met the criteria in varying degrees. what i will base my decision this afternoon is based upon points that were assigned to the degree to which they met the criteria. it has nothing to do with where it is or anything, but just how they fell out in the matrix of criterium and the points awarded for it. there will be 25 people who will not be happy. four will be really happy. >> the three shuttles that will been sent to these three locations, are you also deciding on the enterprise, the one that has never flown or only on the three that will have a flown in? >> the decision is being made on the distribution of all four orbiters. the smithsonian is in competition with everyone else. i have four orbiters to dispose of.

i know i am being picky, but all of them have a fun. enterprise was the first or better in the conducted on the approach and landing tests. it flew 3 times and had challenging things happened to it. it is a vehicle in and of itself in terms of being a pioneer. those four will be distributed around the country to the four places. >> has the enterprise been promised or is owned, by some definition, by the smithsonian? >> the smithsonian is in the recipient of all artifacts from space flight. we are working with the smithsonian and my committee to determine how we go about that. i will make that announcement tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. >> can i continue for two minutes, madam chair? this matters a lot to dayton, ohio.

if those -- if one of those three that has been defined as having a mission, going up, and the enterprise is defined as less so, generally, if one of them goes to the smithsonian, does that mean the enterprise will go somewhere else? >> if one of them ends up at the smithsonian, they only get one. i will take possession of an enterprise and it will be up to nasa to determine where the enterprise does. >> if one of these three goes to the smithsonian, can you make a decision tomorrow? you will decide where some go the consolation prize, some call it much more than that, make that decision then? >> i make the decision between when i leave this session and when i announce it tomorrow where all four space shuttle

orbiters are going. when i make the announcement marked it will be very specific. it will cite the order and its destination. -- the orbiter and it's destination. this has been as pure as i can make it and free of political involvement. i can say that until i am live in the face, but there will always be someone who has the opinion that it was not the case. the team that i put together before i became the administrator has done an incredible job over the last couple of years and i would just hate to see at their word being castigated by someone who had undue influence. >> date now ohio is within one day of the -- >> i know theat very well.

>> the only two prominent people i know are not from ohio are nelson mandela and mother teresa. senator hutchison? >> the nasa authorization bill allows nasa to modify any contract from the constellation program and it seems that a ryan would be the perfect candidate for such action. -- orion would be the candidate. you would use the expertise that we have already invested to go to the next generation of vehicles. the president himself brought back orion last year. your staff and managers of green -- agree orion is the vehicle and falls within the scope of the law. yet, it does not seem the

contract modifications are happening. do you intend to modify the current launch vehicle as directed in thte law? or will this be strong out so it cannot be revived? >> there may be no requirement for a modification to orion. it was designed as a deep space exploration vehicle. the basic information that we have the today says that the scope of the orion contract, the existing contract, as a deep space exploration vehicle, easily matches the scope of what the column of the purpose crew vehicle. it may come down to the fact that the scope matches so well that there is no need to modify the contract.

in any of the contracts that we have today, we cannot pay the amount of money that was contracted in number of years ago. there will be negotiations among us and all of our contractors because we have to get costs down. we may have to descope the vehicle. it s the design reference. i do not care what the name of it is. >> let me ask you this. are you taking the previous contract for the constellation, which is no longer, and modifying those so that we get the next generation, the orion, both launched and capsule? >> that is our hope. we have had the lawyers and procurement people looking at mapping the scope of the existing contracts to what it is we want to do for a ball.

heavy lift vehicle and a multipurpose crew vehicle. senator cochran mentioned a home 130 ton vehicle and that is-- mentioned a 130 metric ton vehicle and that is what we judge is needed for deep space exploration. it will be an evolving program. the first vehicle may only be 70 metric tons, but eventually it will be 130 metric tons. and >> the budget request for the two. dollar billion, which is level until 2016-- the budget request for the $2.8 billion, which is level, are you telling us you are transporting that in a timely manner so it will be done in a timely way even with the

flat budget you request? >> we are using the expertise and assets of the constellation program. the vehicle orion is already in testing for a multi-purpose crew. lockheed martin under the constellation contract, which i am not allowed to terminate, because the constellation program, which still exists, i told them that we should focus on putting our money on technology and assets that could move forward to deep space exploration systems. that is what we are doing. we are not making much progress on a heavy lift vehicle right now because it is not clear that the aries configuration is one you want to go with. the design vehicle for a space

launch system is not been -- not the aries system. there will be some modification needed to go to a shuttle- derived system. >> you say you are not able to cancel orion, but the authorization bill took the place of any previous supplementals or appropriations. the law is the authorization bill. are you saying that you believe they were fully utilizing the previous consolation contracts for the next generation vehicle and that we are not wasting money pursuing something that is now obsolete but that you are expeditiously using that money for the orion vehicle?

>> we are complying with the authorization act. i am out of my league, so i will ask your staff and my people. my understanding is that i am still governed by the 2010 appropriations law which says i cannot cancel. i can do no action, taken action to cancel the constellation program or to stop any expenditures on the program. what i did though was i said we wanted to spend the taxpayers' money very prudently. in some cases, we stopped doing things that were in the constellation program because we knew they were not going anywhere. there were things that have not begun yet and contract have not even started. i said, "okay. let's not start them let's just stop right there." >> let me jump in. senator hutchison, they are

right. the authorization you and senator nelson did did not remove the prohibition on the constellation. however, i think if we all just sit tight and think of what we will be looking at as of this d.r. moves forward -- as teh c.r. moves forward. your questions are excellent. >> they can modify and use common sense to know that the authorization bill takes the place of the original 2010 supplement. you are going to get more help. our concern is that you had not been using the