developments in syria with andrew tabler at the washington institute of technology. then we'll be broadcasting from the national air and space museum to preview a launch of today's space shuttle endeavor. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2011] .

host: the phone numbers are on your screen. there have been 133 shuttle flights since 1981. nassau -- nasa moves another step closer. we want to know what is the future of nasa. stock dial the in now. million is the

distance nasa has traveled. host: president obama canceled bush paused proposed replacement for the shuttle program, putting in its place bigger plans for sending astronauts to land on an astronaut -- asteroid. you are our first caller. what is the future of nasa? caller: good morning to you.

sometimes i'm hard on you because i think you're more of a libertarian host. that is ok. as it relates to nasa, think obama has a right. i am a big fan of what he's doing with space. a doctor who is an ex-nasa asinine -- astronaut has an engine that is developed, will be able to go to mars instead of taking three to six months. think about that. they compared -- they can stack 3 together. it looks like a lot of the people in congress, particularly in republican districts in the

south, they had a lot of contracts that are tied to the old nasa and they are leery of letting that goal. i am hopeful and optimistic. i do not think the public realizes we're coming at of the jet age and the beginning of the rocket age. you do a great job. host: i want to ask you. can you explain what space ex i? caller:-- space ex? caller: space ex is a private rocket that has three times the power of any current nasa rocket. it will cut the cost from $63 million currently that we use for the -- down to $20 million.

he will be able to take seven astronauts instead of three. host: can you explain what that means for exploration? caller: the government will be able to have their own capsules as well. but private industry will be able to start colonizing space as well. i do not think americans realize how close we are. private-owned, corporate-owned modules. the average person should be able to go up into space. it is going to happen very soon, within the next five to 10 years. you'll see cities develop their own spaceports. mexico is the first state a city where the urgent galactic and you'll start seeing the sub orbital and orbital travel. it is coming very soon.

i am very much a part of the industry. right now i'm working with some folks and i am working more on the satellite because that is going to be a cheaper form of communication. companies will be able to start getting involved as well. it is a big deal. host: a democrat in washington, d.c. caller: good morning. i do believe that the nasa program should be kept upper as far as the innovation -- kept up as far as the innovation and the wonderful things they have given us. i can remember the gym and i'd space capsule -- the jim and i -- gemini space capsule. i think we have done too much to be overlooked by many non- governmental projects, which are good.

we should continue our oversight because there's so much going on up in space right now with many satellites and surveillance equipment that to be detrimental to the security of our nation. you have so many surveillance apparatus there and something called killer satellites. these satellites are specifically aimed to destroy satellites that are already in orbit for specific purposes. one of the things i do believe that nasa should go into surveillance on its expertise as well as salvaging much of the space junk that is up in orbit now that will be crashing down right near a city, town, or state near us. they leave out the nuclear wastes and plutonium. you let the other guy talk a

long time. be fair. host: henry in arizona, you were up next. -- you are up next. the future of nasa. cost structure for building and flying its own rockets is set in concrete at $1 billion to $2 billion a flight. the current budget climate is too expensive. a lot of us think is important that they do explore space and to take us back to what the first caller was talking about, switching over to private, commercial rockets and to get up in space. it is not quite as advanced and high-tech as it has been to get up into space. he mentioned one private company that is doing it.

orbital science that nasa will be able to buy commercial launches from. nasa needs to slim down their cost structure and get to be able to do more exploration for the limited amount of money they will get. host: $18.5 billion is the total budget for nasa. host: if you take a look it spatial programs, there have been six shuttles. 133 total emissions. for under $50 million is the estimated cost permission -- $450 million. charlottesville, virginia.

caller: good morning. i think nasa has a great future. we need to focus more as a country on investing into those kinds of resources. we have some beautiful resources. tapping into those things so we can in the future be able to use those things to move our country forward as far as creating jobs and put more scientists and more people in the field. i think it is a good thing. host: all right. from the "christian science monitor." the number now stands at 65.

host: jacksonville, ill.. what your thoughts on the future of nasa? caller: they were talking about the cancellation of going to the moment and trying to land on an asteroid. we got killian 3 on the moon -- we have got helium 3 on the moon. they know there is helium 3 on the moment and that is a great source of energy because we do not want to drill and america. i do not understand that. with nasa starting back in the 1940's and the 1950's, there was

an excellent program and i did not know what they discontinue the shell. we have had the hubble telescope and a lot of stuff being done with the shuttle. i wish they would continue with the shuttle. host: this is more about what the mission of the endeavor from "the washington post." "about 17 years in the making."

host: there were 600 physicist involved in the experiment. here is a critic who says this kind of science is not worth billions of dollars. he is an experimental physicist in ann arbor. host: he said it is hard to predict what exotic phenomena on the device may find. atlanta,'s go to georgia, a democrat. good morning. caller: my opinion is that i think they need to call some kind of treaty nationwide to ban

the shuttle program. we are coming up against some tough times. there are so many people who have experience situations that have been difficult. it should never be a chance for medicaid and medicare and other things that people truly depend on and to keep going to space shuttle that we're not getting results. if we can find a direct mission to go into space, then i can see us continue it. but to spend billions and billions of dollars on a program and we have all these problems with our roads and everything else in the world. i think it is a waste of money to spend taxpayer money this way. host: the papers are full of headlines about the tornadoes. here's "usa today."

catastrophic.'" the terminator is injured thousands of people. 600 alone in alabama. that is tuscaloosa, the home of the university of alabama. as many as 1 million homes and businesses in alabama were without power. president obama will go down to view the destruction today before he goes down to florida to see the shuttle launch. this is a picture from tuscaloosa, alabama. "disaster alerts could be sent to mobil and keening devices." the front-page story from "the financial times." "more pain in store."

"payback time at chrysler. they are planning to pay back $7.5 billion in loans it received from taxpayers. this is "the washington post." earnings soar along with prices at the pump. we're talking about the future of nasa. caller: i was in the air force and i worked with nasa. i worked at cape kennedy -- or canaveral, i mean. this was before the space shuttle. this was in the late 19th 70's. i think nasa should continue with the space shuttle.

1970's.was in a lakte with tell -- with technology, we can do more with robots. host: we have some e-mails from viewers. host: dw in seattle -- host: we will go to york, pennsylvania. the republican. good morning. you are on the air. what do you think about this?

caller: i think nasa should be shut down. that is how i feel about it. host: hannibal, missouri. caller: i think that nasa's budget should be cut in half. i would cut it in half because money to be used towards education come helping us veterans. i am a veteran myself. they give us a hard time and to make it hard on the people because of gas prices and everything else. the money should go forward to help the people. host: richard is a democrat. good morning. you're on the air. caller: the programs should be

scrapped entirely. is one of 2% was full -- it is 100% wasteful. host: ocean city, md. caller: i think the shuttle's should be used as a vehicle to take us on our first -- take us to the moon. i think if nasa was to put in one of their cargo holds which they say can carry a small bus, the next lunar module, set it up and put it into space and work on it, get ready, send another shuttle off. send the first shuttle to the moon to orbit and sent astronauts back to the service of the mon. -- of the moon. they can check for water. they can bring them back to the

shuttle -- prevent back and put them on the shuttle and send them back to earth. host: we are talking about the future of nasa. endeavor will launch today, weather permitting. the chance of them scrapping them -- of scrapping it as 30%. you can tune in up to 3:47, when they expect the launch. caller: i believe -- back in the to get ini tried contact with a few government officials to work on it. the magnetic launch system would

save and would be reusable if you build it underground. once again the payload up to 25,000 miles an hour, the momentum would carry it up into the earth orbit. it would use of hydrogen and oxygen or any other type of materials that are expensive to reload and also causes pollution. host: a lot of attention will be paid to the contenders -- the attendance of gabrielle giffords. she has been tweeting about the endeavor launch. you can see her latest tweet. this is from about six hours ago. the papers are reporting that she arrived down in florida on

wednesday. she will be viewing the lodge in a private area and the cameras -- -- she will be viewing the launch in a private area and the cameras -- the president will be viewing the launch from another area. diana on the democratic line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: i believe when the budget came out, i thought nasa was going to reduce spending as far as space exploration, if i remember correctly. i wanted to wish commander kelly good fortune on his trip and gabrielle giffords blessings and prayers from us in california

and from me as well. i wanted to make a comment about the people in tuscaloosa. i lived in tuscaloosa from 1968 until 1969 and i went to work for the phone company. it is a real tragedy there. i am pleased to see that the president is going to go there today. it's high time he needs to take care of domestic matters primarily and i have been upset -- i've been up since 1:00 a.m. watching the william and kate wedding in london. host: this is "usa today." nasa has offered seed money. development is expected to take five to seven years. "the baltimore sun" -- excuse

me, this is ""the washington times" saying tourism -- launch gives tourism a needed boost. "thousands of tourists arrive for friday's launch. they expect to launch a 50,000 visitors to attend -- 250,000."

host: we will go to pennsylvania, wrrick. caller: i believe that some people think that nasa is a cash cow at this point in time. the way we are with the economy, we have government officials and we have a governor right now in pennsylvania and he is scrambling to make deep cuts and i give him kudos for that. we need to be frugal with the money that is getting span. i believe that if we're going to do it in the states, i believe we need to do the cash cow

project that the government has and nasa being one, i believe we should go ahead and make deep cuts into nasa right now along with some other projects until we get ourselves back from on our feet again economy-wise. host: here is a story that was linked on the dredge report. it says that they have been told that mike huckabee, a rumored candidate for president, is giving supporters of the nod to seek work on other presidential campaigns. he said the staffers have the blessing to peddle their wares elsewhere. also, we told you about "the new york times" editorial for president obama to take further evidence -- further action in

syria. three senators demanding steps to pressure assad. the escalating crack down by his regime has reached a decisive point. following the path of muammar gaddafi and deploying forces to crush peaceful demonstrations. assad has lost the legitimacy to remain in power in syria." host: we will talk about this issue coming up on "washington journal" around 8:30 eastern time. miami florida, democratic caller. caller: we have not done

anything. we should stop. -- we should stop the race to go to the mona and take care of things down in the states. we have a bad economy. all states are in trouble with the economy. we should not spend no more money going up to the moon. we should take care of the people down here. it is tough to be the police of the world. even our kids in this country to defend their own country, our own country. no going out and getting killed fighting for somebody else. they will never be our friends. that is it. thank you. host: happening this weekend in washington is the washington correspondents dinner. there are some recommendations for president obama. the first one is to be self-

deprecating and then mark -- mock the other guy. you can go to our video library. this is the white house correspondents' dinner hub. the site includes archive video of past dinners, speeches from those attending the dinner and links to facebook and twitter. you can go there saturday night if you are interested in that. caller: the comment on what is happening right now with nasa. this is a strategic transaction. they are saying, the states are in trouble. it is not necessarily that we're cutting certain things. we're cutting certain things and by letting the business community to come into, we can facilitate nasa for the next

transition. i think it is time for people -- what is out there and what really we could use space for. i think there is an analysis between cost and access. the access is changing. the people are reacting to it. nasa is always going to be there. they are privatizing certain aspects to whicit. rather than setting a couple of people up, we used that as a commercial enterprise. host: president obama plans to reshuffle his national security

team. host: "the baltimore sun" asked this question of general petraeus. he will be analyzing intelligence from afghanistan. jeff sessions from alabama, a former ranking member on the judiciary committee, a piece he has written in "the washington post" this morning. logan logan obese -- lara l

will be speaking out on "60 minutes." according to transcripts, she was quoted as saying there was no doubt that i was in the process of dying. kentucky, david. good morning. caller: the way i see it, $450 billion could restore the south. we are over there. not one man said everything i wanted to say. let's take care of the united states. we could stop -- why be the police of the world when we are fighting over here with our own selves. people are robbing from one make it.ne anotheto it is a waste of money.

the one man set we got the hubble, we got this. we are already up there. what more can we do up there? we can help ourselves. host: that is david in kentucky. utah. caller: hello. host: good morning, adam. caller: i would like to see nasa keep going. i have learned -- [inaudible] you have to have at least -- you have to have something to dream about. host: are you going to be watching later today? caller: yes. host: our coverage begins at

5 thisthis team -- 11: morning. last caller, panama city. caller: i love c-span. i think they should increase the budget for nasa. we should go to the moon. we should mine asteroids for precious metals. the chinese have started cutting us out of the materials we need for industry and we get a head that off at the past for what they call rare earth minerals. i think we should mine space. host: as a special note, we will return to this issue of the future of nasa for the last hour

of "washington journal." the space shuttle endeavor is making its final voice today appeared is the next to last flight of the entire shuttle program -- making its next-to- last flight. coming up next, we turn our attention to the issue of debt. we will be right back. ♪ >> this weekend, panels on science, american history, climate change, and the constitution. call-ins.

a few highlights of our festival of books. get the entire schedule online at booktv.org. sun up for book tv alerts -- sign up for book tv alerts. >> medical science during the civil war and the advancements made by the north and south. bob dole looks back on his political career during the nixon administration. and an examination of the disputed presidential election between robert b. hayes and samuel tilden. get the complete schedule at c- span.org/history. you can have our schedules e- mailed to you. >> i am writing paragraphs with images. >> she has won the award more

than any other journalist. >> a great thing is the overriding we get to experience similar parts of the human condition but at different levels. >> she will talk more about her craft sunday night. you can download a podcast. it is one of our signature interview programs available online at c-span.org/podcast. live at saturday, the white house annual correspondents' dinner. remarks from president obama and seth myers. our coverage includes highlights of past dinners. live on c-span. fall along with our interactive the video player act c-span.org . -- follow along with our interactive video player at c-

span.org. "washington journal" continues. host: 6 senators are working to handle the debt problem. they have come together to look at this. joining us to talk about what is on the table, paul krawzak, a budget reporter with congressional quarterly, and tim reid with thomson reuters. why is there some much attention being paid to this group of senators? guest: it is bipartisan and the only bipartisan act in town at the moment. there are three republicans, three democrats from the senate. they have been working since december on trying to hammer out a bill to reduce the deficit. as we approach the big debate,

which will begin next week when congress returns, many people see this as perhaps the last chance to get some kind of bid on the deficit. there is increasing pressure on them to come up with that. host: is this seen as a serious effort that could get 60 votes in the senate? guest: it is seen as a serious effort. it will be hard to get 60 votes in the senate and even harder to get the house and the senate to agree. but assuming they do come up with a plan, it is gone to be a comprehensive plan and it will be bipartisan. so it may have a better chance than any other proposal. host: you say it will be comprehensive.

are they writing actual legislative text? guest: exacted. they are basing this on the recommendations from the president's fiscal commission, which cannot with its report last december. they are turning this into legislation. it has been a real challenge, they have said, to turn it into legislation. they have had in some cases to make their own choices and decide, are we going to do it this way or the white? -- or that way? host: when it might then make some kind of announcement of a deal. he said debt ceiling debate begins next week. some said the deadline is july 8 for the debt ceiling issue. guest: they have been tight lipped -- they have not reached a deal yet.

everyone is hoping and expecting they will reach a deal. there is no guarantee. there are one or two funnel all -- final hurdles to overcome. there could be a deal next week but nobody knows. if they do reach a deal, it will be in the next week or two. host: the gang of six -- dick durbin, mark warner, a democrat from virginia, tom coburn, republican idaho senator mike crapo, georgia republican saxby chambliss all part of this gang of six. how did they come together? guest: after the midterm elections in november, saxby chambliss and mark warner

independently of each other started holding tutorials and meetings with other senators because they both felt that the scale of the debt and deficit was such that it was a threat to the u.s. economy. their paths sort of pass -- sort of crossed. the report by alan simpson -- by alan cranston was released. the work four senators who backed the proposal. that was tom coburn and mike crapo. and so chambliss and warner asked those four if they would form them and form this gang to hammer out a bipartisan deal. they did this informant on their own. they have been meeting regularly since december. they have been holding secret

meetings in offices at capitol hill. they had a conference call yesterday and they have spoken regularly in broad outlines about where they are going. i have seen no details. one of the things that makes them so interesting is that they have really -- there have been no leaks from the group, which has increased confidence in each other. host: we are going to try to piece together what they are thinking as far as tackling the deficit. they have not been giving specifics. a few of them have been doing interviews and talking a little bit about their thought process in all of this. police information about senator saxby chambliss and senator warner. senator chambliss was elected

in 2002 and is serving his second term. he served on the armed services committee. mark warner, a democrat from virginia was elected with 65% of the vote. tom coburn was on this program recently and talked a little bit about the gang of six. here's what he had to say. >> you cannot negotiate these things in the press. it is difficult to take somebody like dick durbin and tom coburn, who are at the ends of both spectrum's and negotiate and make hard decisions and hard compromises if you do that in the public line. anybody who is against what you're doing is called to be critical of it. we are not there yet. any comment on what we're doing is not appropriate. and it handicaps the ability to try to come to something that will help our country.

host: we are talking about the gang of six and a possible debt proposal paul krawzak paul and tim reid. here is an emerging proposal from the gang of six to reduce the debt. this comes from bloomberg. host: can you speak to that? guest: the goal is to reduce the deficit by about $4 trillion over 10 years. they are looking at cuts in discretionary spending and entitlement spending. in terms of discretionary spending, they are looking at rolling discretionary spending back to 2008 levels, but not

until 2013. the house republicans have already rolled back discretionary spending to about 2008 levels, or they tried to do that's in fiscal 2011 and will try to do that again in fiscal 2012. there are these discretionary spats -- cuts. they are also looking at making some changes to social security, medicare, medicaid to try to hold down the growth of those programs. those are the programs that are driving the deficit and the debt in the future. host: do we know any details about social security? guest: the legislation is likely to be similar to the fiscal commission recommendation. what was recommended is

gradually raising the retirement age to 69, lifting the cap on social security taxes. currently your tax for social security up to about $107,000. they would increase that. those are some of the key proposals. host: 2 we have an idea on medicaid and medicare, can you speak to that? guest: they have been looking at cuts in both programs, particularly medicare. they are going much further than the president did in his own budget plan that he produced earlier this month. that will be to the right of the president. the ban by paul ryan replaced

medicare with a voucher program for seniors. so this is another reason which makes the gang of six so important at the moment. you have someone like saxby chambliss, a conservative, and dick durbin, a progressive liberal and they are talking about cuts to entitlements and changes to social security. as almost like eight nixon to china moment -- that is almost like a "nixon to china" moment. host: what about discretionary spending? this is what saxby chambliss had to say in an interview. he said --

host: what about discretionary spending and defense? guest: pretty much everything is on the table, aside from it out and out tax increases. they are looking to increase revenues. this is something that a lot of republicans are opposed to. they view an increase in revenue as a tax increase. point isator warner's right. for every 12 cents in the dollars that the u.s. government spends, the other 88 cents comes from medicare, medicaid, social security, defense, and the interest on the debt. host: you touched on this whole

bit. the heat that the republicans are feeling -- you touched on this a little bit. the tax increases. guest: this is a key issue. most republicans are against any tax increase, particularly in the house. what the fiscal commission recommended was a tax overhaul, where you simple thought the tax system, you lower rates, but you get rid of most or all deductions, credits, etc. by doing that, you increase the amount of revenue that is brought in. there are republicans who say that if you increase the revenue, especially if you increase the revenue as a share of the economy, that is a tax increase. the commission proposal would do that. it would increase revenue, even

though it would lower rates. host: senator tom coburn talked about tax code and what the what to do with it. trying to take that away. that is what you see those tax rates. we think everyone should pay their fair share. we have such a complicated tax code. people have put in all these things to help certain industries or helps certain areas. let the money flow where it will. here is your rate. everybody pay your fair share. host: when you say we, who are you referring to? the gang of six. host: michael crapo said --

host: we are talking about tackling the debt and with the so-called gang of six is thinking about doing. roanoke, virginia, your first phone call on this. caller: i was put the debt commission and the gang of six. is there anyone on either of those two -- the debt commission or the gang of six that is not a millionaire? the majority of americans make 40,000, $50,000 a year, i wonder if they have been too removed with their wealth to see what is like on main street america. host: have you heard whether or not this is the status of the

senators? that is a difficult question to answer this point. some newspapers and other newspapers, sometimes they do stories about these senators and their wealth. i would direct our caller to bad. -- i would direct our caller to that. houston, texas. caller: the budget has not been addressing the concerns of the american public. here in texas we have been fighting to get medical marijuana. we spend well over $277 billion . a majority of the american people say marijuana should be available to people who needed or wanted -- who need it or want

it. the budget went down to $2.4 billion in 10 years. host: let's go to arizona. we're talking about debt and the gang of six. caller: i was wondering why every time the budget comes up, they wanted to take away from social security, medicare, and nothing is ever said about taking the pensions that these congressmen are getting after i can remember if it is one or two years in office. they get their pensions right away. why did they not have to wait until they're 65, 70? and why have they not taken this away from them as they take away from the senior citizens and disabled. host: are you opposed to any

reform of social security and medicare? caller: it has been working fine until the government started putting it into the general fund. we're short and now we're not going to be able to get it. .e are going to be bankruptin host: let's talk about the solvency of social security. guest: social security, if no changes are made, about 2037, there will have to be cuts in social security benefits. the bigger problem -- social security has to be addressed. the bigger problem is medicare and medicaid. social security, medicare, and medicaid together are the real drivers of the growth in deficits and the debt going forward. i think a figure that

illustrates this and that is based on current projections, by 2023, social security, medicare, and medicaid and payments on the debt will take up. the up. it will consume all the revenues. that is because those of the fast-going programs. that is why there is so much interest in finding a way to curb the growth of those programs. host: kent conrad was on "meet the press" and he said despite the negative poll numbers, he thinks that they would agree to it. >> we have to decide as a nation, are we going to do some things that we would prefer not to have to do, or to we wait for the roof to cave in.

of course they don't want to cut social security. do you want to make social security solvent? yes, they do. will they support tax reform to get additional revenue to reduce the deficit? i think the answer is yes. host: what is the political reality? to deal withhave the american voters. the polls show that they want to deal with the debt. this issue is linked to the debate we are about to have about raising the debt ceiling. people say if there is a failure by congress to raise the debt ceiling above $14.3 trillion,

interest rates will soar. there has been recent polls that show an overwhelming number of americans do not want the debt ceiling to be raised. they have work to do when it comes to public opinion. guest: is hard to believe that it could be because of this will be comprehensive legislation that will have to go through different committees and to be examined. it is hard to believe that could all happen in time for a debt ceiling. it will be something much simpler and more straightforward. host: independent caller from georgia. your necks -- your next -- you

are next. caller: i have a comment and question. a $14 trillion4t debt. i feel that if the government printed its own money, would we even have this problem? we borrow money from the federal reserve. i am curious -- out of the $14 trillion debt, are we in debt to the federal reserve? if so, how much? i am curious how much we are in debt to china. guest: the this figures from

the -- the latest figures from the treasury department's , it treasury department's $1.15 trillion, which in terms of the overall debt is a relatively small number. there have been signs of a slow, gradual decline in chinese loans to the u.s.. the chinese make very few public comments about this. they are quietly watching this. they are clearly concerned about this. you do not want to lend $1.10 trillion to somebody to see them default. in terms of the federal reserve number, i am not so sure. host: paul, do you have any ideas? guest: note.

host: he talked about the issue of our debtors. -- creditors. guest: bondholders, others would take a look at this and say that the acknowledged -- de that it's it's acknowledges their problem and is doing something. host: tim reid, how does the dark gray on the s&p on the country's debt play into the negotiations and the gang of six's efforts? guest: it increases pressure on them to come up with some sort of deal. it also, some have argued, strengthens the hand of republicans who are demanding that any vote to raise the debt ceiling must be linked to a serious plan to cut the debt. the s&p threat of a downgrade has, in some ways, strengthen their hand, and given them another negotiating tool.

host: suit in new jersey rights in this -- host: was the riverside, california. stephanie is a democrat. caller: good morning to read i have a couple of comments and a question. i believe senator dick durbin is up for reelection, and that is why he joined this gang of six. i do not really trust him. my comment is when they say increase the revenue by expanding the tax base, i am assuming they mean increasing the revenue by taking out the middle class deductions, thereby expanding the tax base. i do not believe that the republicans have any credibility because they have already given

up tax cuts to the rich. i have a question also in regards -- excuse me. this does not make sense. none of it makes any sense. thank you host: paul, what did you hear in those comments? guest: there are a lot of democrats as well as republicans who like the idea of simplifying the tax system and elimination -- eliminating deductions and credits. you can do that in various ways. the fiscal commission recommended doing it in ways where you bring in more revenue, and they also recommended making the tax system more progressive, which is to say the more affluent would pay a larger percentage of their income than they are right now. you could do the same tax simplification where you do not bring in additional revenues,

keeping them where they are. so, there are different ways you could do it. if you could do it in such a way that the middle class -- well, the middle-class certainly is a major contributor to the tax base -- so, you cannot avoid tax in the middle class, obviously. host: what about the mortgage interest deduction loan -- that sort of tax expenditure, how much does the treasury lose from that alone? guest: i am not sure how much they lose from that. there are about $1.10 trillion in tax expenditures, which you could also call tax breaks. they include the home mortgage deduction, and employers deductions, and a lot of other conductions. host: that is what the gang of six has said there are high in

up, with a three-to-one ratio by getting rid of these tax breaks. guest: right. it would be $3 trillion in spending cuts, and $1 trillion in increased revenue. host: this e-mail. host: was goatish report, louisiana, kim is a republic -- let's go to shreveport, louisiana. tim is a republican. caller: good morning. god bless those folks in alabama and carolina. everybody pray for them. my first comment is mr. tom coburn makes more sense than anybody in congress. if you listen to the men, how the discusses things -- we have to strengthen -- strait and the

tax code out. it is very simple. the rich, mr. gates, and mr. buffett, will not be able to jump the loopholes that everybody talks about. it is the tax code. they have all of these write- offs from different things of the people that -- different things. all of the people that collagen to seize them that -- that called in to seize them, that live on the government, not the seniors, but the parasites that live off the government, we are in a mess. you have to wake up. if mr. tom coburn, and mr. dick durbin could sit down and work something out for america, but we will need to get behind them. host: we will leave it there. let me turn to tim reid and talk

about the bush tax cuts. why has the gang of six done about that. what could happen to those? guest: they have not been specific about them, but they have been looking at letting the tax cuts expire, as they are due to do next year. politically, it is a difficult issue because we are fast- heading into an election season, and try to get anything in washington done is difficult, especially tax cuts. host: you touched on this with senate leadership and harry reid say in social security should not be a part of the negotiations. how about house republicans? how have they viewed the so- called gang of six? guest: well, many are fiercely opposed to an increase in revenues by closing tax breaks.

they, obviously, would be more supportive of entitlement programs, but, again, the issue of tax is a very, very vexing one, particularly among house republicans. there is about just over 50 so- called tea party members in the house who i find it very difficult debt a few of them could find themselves back in this. -- back in this. i think a lot of them are simply not going to back this. host: we're talking about the gang of six efforts of the plan to cut around $4 trillion in debt. a little bit about dick durbin -- he was first collected 27 in 1996, serving his third term, reelected, serving as majority whip, and he will be up again in

2014. covington, kentucky, gary, an independent, go ahead. caller: the tax code definitely needs to be revised. i am thinking that nobody wants the taxes raised because just a little bit each year is not helping the dollar grow. we need to pay off the interest of this money, people. if all americans, no matter what you make, if one day, when time, when the year, for maybe a couple of years even, one day, you're pay, whatever you make, whether your bill gates or the guy at mcdonald's, everybody across the board, give one day. make it aloft. the right to work in america -- nobody makes money like we do. we give up one day, it is a large chunk of money. host: st. augustine, florida.

debbie, a democrat. caller: yes. i was just calling. i hear all that is being said, and i am disabled. i was disabled young, but i wanted to say how proud i am to be an american. i do not get very much money, but what i do get is all i get, and if it was not for them, i would not have any medical health. i also understand the problems we are having. i had no idea that ran across me a couple of times. you know how our stars will do benefits and different things to make money? why doesn't america buyout

america back? why don't we stand up for america. host: are you on social security? caller: i am on medicaid. host: ok. caller: so, anyway, that is what i have to say. host: thank you for calling in. charles in connecticut. go ahead, a republican. caller: good morning, greta. that is a lovely necklace, by the way. i hope these six guys are holding out of conversations. as far as social security goes, is it not time that we realize that this is just mathematically a wrong system? it has been from the beginning. we have 43 people paying for one retiree when it started, now we

have about 2.9 to 3.1. it will only get worse. it needs to be a privatized system. host: let's listen to what mark warner, a democrat of virginia had to say on april 17. >> let's start with something that takes a lot of ideas from the simpson balls commission, puts everything on the table, and i assure you we will make everybody mad because we are touching on every part of the problem -- of the entitlement programs, looking to make social security more sustainable. we will lay this out, and our hope is people from both parties will check their republican hat, and a democrat hat, and say let's take this on because my belief is this is our biggest security issue. >> and i did hear you say you need to reform social security to do this. >> part of this is math.

host: paul krawzak, let's talk a little bit about debt/deficit, the difference, and what they are starting -- trying to do? guest: and the debt is a difference between revenue and spending -- the deficit is the difference between revenue and spending each year. the debt is the amount the government owns. the debt grows as a result of the deficit. for example, this year the deficit is well over $1 trillion, which will be added on to the current debt, which is about $14 trillion. host: please in -- this e-mail -- guest: the $14 children cannot be paid off in 10 years. -- the $14 trillion cannot be paid off in 10 years.

the debt would take years, years, and years to pay off, and probably would never be totally paid off. what you want to do, or what these different lawmakers are trying to do, is find a way to curb the growth in the debt, so that eventually instead of growing, it will start decreasing. host: why the $4 transfigure? guest: this is a figure that would start to reverse the growth in the debt, and the growth of the deficits, and it was a figure they thought could realistically be accomplished. other proposals heaviest similar figures. the house budget proposal offered by paul ryan, that would

cut $4.40 trillion over 10 years. the president has proposed sort of a rough plan that would cut two $0.50 trillion over 10 years, and about $4 trillion over 12 years. host: we go to tampa, a democratic column. -- democratic caller. caller: if i start rambling on, please just a rapid up. host: ok. caller: you guys both right for journals. you need to do something like we do with the kitchen table. i set the kitchen table and say how was the money coming in, where is our income coming in, and what are our expenses? everybody talks about it, but they do not know what to do a sides of the ledger are. where is all of this money coming from, and where is it going to? if the american people something

to work for terror they're talking in general terms. host: what is it like to crunch the numbers for the federal government? guest: if you really boil it down, you look at how much money you take in from taxes, and how much you spend and your entire government budget, which ranges from the pentagon, to medicare, medicaid, and social security, to health and food programs to the poor. as things stand at the moment, the government is paying out more than it takes in in in tax revenues. the key to the debate is bell rate of the expansion of these programs, -- the rate of the expansion of these programs, which is the great worry. sometime after 2030, the cost of medicare, medicaid, and social

security, will consume the entire amount of money that the government brings in. host: tim reid touch on this, but the debt ceiling debate should begin next week when congress returns. here is the front page story from "the washington post." host: they mentioned kent conrad, joe mentioned, mark prior, and the senator says she is hopeful something would be included. new york,o syracuse, mark, a republican. caller: we do not have as many people working as we used to, and we need to get the big corporations to step in and be

creating jobs. we would be pains or security and federal tax, and big companies that took our jobs, and supply the money from the federal government that i was pain, because i have been soaking off of the government for the last six years since i lost my job, and i am not paying taxes any more. if i were paying taxes, and had a good job, they would not be short so much money. host: mark, this is what the simpson-erskine bowles deficit commission had to say. host: is the gang of six were to take that recommendation, what are businesses and about the prospects of that? guest: there would like to see a tax rate cut, it is currently a maximum of 35% corporate tax rate. that is higher than a lot of other countries.

so, that makes the u.s. corporations less competitive. so, corporations would like to see the tax rate reduced. there really is agreement, not only among a lot of republicans, but democrats, too, the corporate tax rate should be reduced, that that would be good for the economy. that would not necessarily reduce the amount of money paid by corporations. if they might pay more. you would be eliminating the deductions, and the tax breaks as well. host: tim reid, anything to add to that? guest: again, we've not talked about jobs here, which is an important part of the debate, not just politically, but economically. if you can grow the economy, reduce unemployment, your tax base revenue increases, and that is another key part of try to reduce the deficit and debt.

hitchcock let's talk about triggers. if nothing is done -- host: xbox talk about triggers. if nothing is done, the gang of six, according to bloomberg news, is putting and triggers for automatic spending cuts and tax increases if congress fails to act. that debate coincides with the debt ceiling the vote, as some have recommended putting the trigger on that vote as well. guest: this might be all the way that makes whatever legislation that come up with more palatable. if you put in a trigger, there are various ways to put in traders, but basically what a trader says -- trigger says is that if a debt or spending goes over a certain point, you have automatic spending cuts, tax increases, or something like that. what is attractive about that is

you do not have to make all of the decisions about spending and taxes right now, you can put those very hard-to-make decisions off, if you have a trigger mechanism. these trigger mechanisms have been tried before, and have worked to some extent. the cap in the 1980's required automatic spending cuts if the deficit targets were not reached. it worked for a while. host: the senate finance committee is expected to take a look at this issue of trigger's next week when they meet. for more information, go to our website, c-span.org let's go to st. louis, missouri, nevada, an independent scholar. caller: first, it is not a spending problem. he is true that many people did

not want to see medicare, medicaid, or social security cut, it's because these are programs we have paid into for decades. i think americans want the ceiling raised so we do not go into default, but we spend more on defense than all other countries combined, billions in subsidies to the oil companies, the rich making above to wonder if it thousand dollars a year get all of these breaks. they deserve to pay more. secondly, the real problem is these free-trade deals which not only shipped millions of jobs overseas, they have lost cost trillions in tax revenues, and leslie, the republicans are really going to pay the price for trying to privatize medicare, and at the same time sucking up to the rich with tax cuts. it is all because of the campaign financing system. they are being bribed bearis ho: we will mobile -- pride.

host: we will move on. let's hear from tennis. -- tennis. caller: there was a mention about the currency situation by donald trump, and i am curious if the could play a key role if we as a country could hold foreign-currency like a rack, for example, do you not think this could -- like iraq, for example, the not think this could reduce their debt as a whole? host: tim reid, any thoughts on that? guest:, another key issue is a huge trade imbalance america has with china, and that is one of the reasons why president obama announced his desire and intention to increase exports, doubled exports over the next five years. whether or not they could hit that target, i do not know.

again, there are currency and trade issues, and especially with china, that are not helping the u.s. economy. host: terrible, maine, tim is a republican and our next phone call. -- caribou, maine, tim is a republican and our next phone call. caller: my question is what did not be better if we switched from a foreign policy of intervention and preempt of war, to stopping a focus of empire? would that not help bring money back into this country because a nation-building has cost as $1 trillion a year? >> let's talk about the budget of the pentagon. how was that part of the equation? guest: is a big part of the equation. defense spending has roughly doubled since the september 11

attacks. so, spending is a big part of the spec -- discretionary spending -- host: defense is a big part of this -- big part of it? caller: it is more than half of discretionary spending. certainly, democrats in particular would like to see significant cuts in defense. many republicans oppose those cuts. this is the first duty of the government is to defend the country, and we cannot afford to cut defense a lot. defense is part of the mix, but it really is dwarfed by the growth in entitlement programs, which is the real driver of the debt. guest: in terms of defense spending, there have been cuts proposed by president obama and

the gang of six wants to go further and cut it even more. they asked the pentagon how many private contractors that currently employed, and the answer was between 1009 thousand. they want to make further cuts. to john, a go democratic. caller: a few years ago i had a heart attack, and it sent into a community hospital. i spent about 30 minutes there in cardiac arrest. the bill from that was over $30,000. and i had a $5,000, 15-minute helicopter ride to a private hospital, with private doctors, private pharmaceuticals, spent six days there with open-heart

surgery, and the bill came to almost one-quarter of $1 million. medicare and medicaid picked up the majority of the bill, and the rest of that sent me into bankruptcy. whose fault is it that it cost me that much money? medicare, medicaid, or the private sector that rode the bills? guest: the deficit commission talks about the rising costs of health care in general, but what did this say about medicare and medicaid? did they give any details about bringing down the cost? guest: it is worth noting that a large portion of the health-care reform, which was a divisive piece of legislation, a lot of that focused on making efficiencies to the way health care is delivered to consumers, and that is a case in point, if the system was made more cost- effective, those massive bills

would not have arrived. host: dan, a republican in texas. caller: i have an observation or two. it seems we have arrived at a set point where we have an ever- growing under-class of mergers, and they do not care who has to pay the taxes. we need to fix that. i exclude social security because people on social security spent an entire working lifetime paying into that program, and they are entitled to the return. all these other hand out programs have to be done away with, or the nation is done as we know it, that is least my opinion. host: we will go to pennsylvania, fred, an independent. what are your thoughts? caller: we will not get anything

done until we get rid of the corruption, that seems to be an everyday occurrence. i had from many years ago, about 20 years ago, he got a statement from medicare saying these are the services we provide for your father in the previous year, and he was telling me the story, saying it provided about $30,000 worth of stuff. i called them up and said it was a big problem. when they sent me that for the previous year, my father had been dead for 10 years. host: waste, fraud, and abuse -- is there enough of it to make a dent in the dead? guest: there is waste, sok -- fraud and abuse, and always will be to some extent. you do what you can to eliminate it, but even if you eliminated

all of it, that would not solve the problem. host: we are talking about the gang of six. we have a couple of minutes left. one of the members as kent conrad, a democrat from north dakota. he is retiring. he is serving his fifth term right now, first elected in 1986, and reelected last time was 69% of the vote. you also have on the panel tom coburn, who many of you have seen on this program. the republican of oklahoma. he was elected in 2004. he, too, also served on the deficit commission. then, senator michael crapo is a republican of idaho, and he was first elected in 1998, serving his third term, reelected with 71% of his vote. arlington, virginia, republican line. go ahead. caller: i am a polish american

from arlington, virginia. i had an interesting comment from my colleague from chicago -- the moment you outsource u.s. technology to another country, you have to provide the blueprints. the moment you provide the blueprints, you will give the know how to a country like china. so, they do not need us anymore. at the same time, we are losing thousands of jobs in the manufacturing industry in the u.s.. this is very dangerous, and we need to address this issue. regarding the comments of the two speakers today, yes, we do is to cut the pentagon and the state department turned we cannot build an embassy in a small country like a rock when we do not have the infrastructure money to spend in the -- in iraq, when we do not have the into structure money to spend in the u.s.. host: we will leave it there and

get a response from tim reid. guest: that thomas speaks to one of the core arguments of the white house breach of that comment speaks to one of the core arguments of the white house -- that thomas speaks to the core arguments of the white house, which is if you cut too quickly, you risk growing the economy. at a time of such massive deficits, it is a difficult argument to make, and an argument that divides many economists. host: tim reid is a senior political and economic policy reporter with thomson reuters, and paul krawzak is a reporter for congressional quickly. thank you for being here. we appreciate it. coming up, we will be outside of site -- we will be live outside of the smithsonian air and space museum. the space shuttle endeavor is

expected to lift off in florida today at 3:47 p.m. eastern time. we will have live coverage starting at 11:15 a.m. eastern time. up next, a syrian political unrest and violence. ♪ >> what i try to do is tell a story with visuals instead of words, so i am basically writing paragraphs, that this happened to be with images. i think the great thing about being dead journalist and -- a journalist is the variety that we get to experience some many parts of the human condition as so many different levels current >> she will talk more about her craft sunday night, on c-span's "q&a," one of our many signature programs available online.

live, saturday, the white house correspondents annual black-tie dinner, starting with red carpet arrivals at 6:45 p.m., and then later remarks from president .bama carry our highlig at c-span.org follow along with our interactive video player. president obama has announced a number of changes to his national security team, with current cia director leon panetta replacing robert gates as defense secretary, and general david petraeus to head the cia. track their careers, including their earliest appearances of mine at the c-span library. it is washington, your weight. steve -- your way. sunday, "in-depth" with your

questions for tobor machan, whose books include "the man without a hobby." "washington journal" continues. host: andrew tabler is the next generation fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. here to talk about u.s. response to syrian unrest. how did it all starts in syria? guest: a little over a month ago, a number of children ages 10 to 14 years old scrawled on a wall that the people of the fall of the regime, the same slogan from the protests that brought down the mubarak regime in egypt. they were arrested, taken to damascus, and for two weeks they

did not tell their parents where they were. they kept them without communication. it is an area that is typically loyal to the regime, and this and drove them into the streets, and they began protesting. after the police sought a wave of protests, counter-protests, and crackdowns. host: how has the protest evolves? what are the issues? in guest: first, they were around the george -- jordanian border. one of the issues was left in a law that allowed the president of syria, president assad, to rule by martial law, and the second complaint was regime corruption, which is an enormous problem. slowly over time that evolved into currently, after the regime

has now killed hundreds of protesters, now people are out right demand in the fall of the regime in syria, and it is very hard to understand exactly how we will get out of the spiral of violence anytime soon. host: how has the u.s. responded so far? guest: at first, they did not think they united states would be a direct threats to the regime. the syrian regime is a minority regime. these kind of regimes are galvanized against the kind of splitting that we saw in egypt and tunisia, where the military would break away and oust the ruling family because of networks of minorities that are around the family. over time, last friday, which -- the debt. ? toll, it was not only the largest -- the death toll, which

is one of the bloodiest days outside of libya. that caused a change in u.s. policy. host: the numbers now are 400 killed? in guest: it is hard to independently verify these figures, but we're talking about 400 killed, and some estimates are higher. the death toll is getting higher and higher. as a percentage of the population -- sara is a much smaller company than egypt, the protest now hard digging into syrian society, and causing a lot of anxiety, not only among the protesters, but also among the rest of the population which has so far stayed out of the protest. host: was on the table for the administration? what are they considering? guest: there are a number of measures. the present would have to issue

a new executive order that would outline human-rights violations in syria as a threat to u.s. national security interests, and then after that, certain individuals who are responsible for the crackdown would be designated. did not have a lot of assets in the united states, but it would have been knocked down effect, where any global bank that does business with the syrian regime would risk u.s. business and the state cut ties with those individuals host: could that be effective? guest: yes. what we're talking about is leverage. it is not tactical leverage. it is strategic leverage. it takes time to roll out. the syrian regime has repeatedly demanded that the united states lift sanctions on syria. it is that, and anecdotal

evidence and other research that shows those measures have an impact. will it bring down the regime immediately? no parent would make life much more difficult, yes? -- would make life much more difficult? yes. host: what kind of pressure are they feeling? guest: ceram policy has been criticized by republicans -- syrian policy has been criticized by republicans on the health -- on the hill. that explains into some republicans calling for the recall of ambassador to syria, robert ford, who was appointed in a recent appointment, late last year. of course, abroad, there have been -- has been some resistance to the obama administration's actions and try to bring this before the security council,

specifically russia, china, and india, but the european union is on board with strong financial sanctions, along with a session today at the united nations human rights commission. host: sent -- senator mark rovio put out a letter yesterday. this morning, here is the headline -- joe lieberman, lindsay gramm ", white house to break publicly with the syrian president and to impose sanctions against members of this government. let's go to mclean, virginia. ben is a republican there. caller: i have a question for mr. andrew tabler were a suny-

dominated government to take place -- power in syria following a possible fall of the president assad regime, what would be your prediction for the stability of the country? some people are saying there might be a lot of violence, revenged violence winter at what is your thinking? host: before it will show you that, let me -- before you answer that, let me show the breakdown. guest: it all depends on what the fall of the regime would look like. the president assad regime is about fall% of the population, and those around them are

israelis, and jews, christians, and they all make up about plot% of the population. -- 12% of the population. the regime cracking as it did in egypt and tunisia is not likely because the fellow whites and the other minorities feel like they're backs are against the wall. it forces disciplined. as the protests continue, i think it is likely that what we could see in terms of the fall of the regime is then it's degradation in the face of the protesters. that has the potential to be chaotic, and during that time, you could see a lot of violence, and there would be questions about who would come to power, and they did not have a lot of action on the ground.

people in syria are hungry for a new political future, and new political dynamics, so they might quickly became traction. host: is there an opposition leader, one person that folks are pointing to? guest: there are a variety of leaders appear the most recent is the national initiative for change, which has over 150 people from inside of syria the head signed up for this declaration, as well as the exiled, some of which are in washington, some of which are in europe, but one leader has not emerged from that pact, and this is a constraint for -- against a resistance. host: what about the muslim

brotherhood? guest: so far, we have not seen protest in the areas where there are strong. that is because the regime launched a draconian crackdown in february, 1982, that was centered around there, but also used artillery and killed about 30,000 syrians, and many more disappeared after word. the fear factor there remains supreme. the muslim brotherhood came out yesterday and that protest for today. we will see if people come out protesting in those historical a pro-moslem brotherhood areas. the organization itself was likely -- largely wiped out on the ground long ago. host: there have been calls for more protests today? guest: that is right. syrians are on the street, but it is not clear exactly where.

there are a number of areas. because it takes a while for the verification of the protests and the video clips, we will expect them in the next couple of hours. host: we go to bulk up raton, florida. -- and booker raton, florida. jeff, go ahead. caller: did the headline that egypt is preparing to open up the gaza border and syria, and egypt were planning to build a naval base of large proportions, and the fact that wikileaks seemed to indicate that most of the sunni countries, saudi arabia and the emirates, would love to see the united states take out iran, which seems to be the of a winery and all of this -- the

so-called democratic protests -- the only winner in all of this -- the so-called democratic protests spread what is your opinion of finally doing the deed, taking out the nuclear facilities and been done with this? veeco host: andrew tabler? guest: i did not know what the best method would be to deal with iran on's nuclear program. sanctions on the work to a certain extent. i think it is the assessment of the united states and israel that the pro-iran program -- that the timeline has changed. you have more time. a lot of people in the region are watching this. it has strategic implications as well for lebanon and israel, in that very clearly, hezbollah, which works on behalf of a ram, is saving their stockpiles of long-range weapons.

they are locked and loaded when it comes to missiles and it creates a very dangerous situation that could be set off by an accident, or by a desperate syrian leader who is trying to hold onto power and decides to start a problem with a neighbor. host:" the new york times" frontpage -- host: lets go hartford, michigan. mike is a republican. good morning. mike, you have to turn the television down. kirk, an independent in tulsa, oklahoma. caller: the question i would

like to ask is why is there this big hypocrisy in syria? for example, bahrain is going on for weeks and weeks, they are attacking doctors, killing people. yesterday, four people were sentenced to death. two others 25 years to life, and nothing in the u.s. media about it. this all happened way before the demonstration in syria. host: andrew tabler? guest: i think is a variety of things. first of all, i think it is in terms of this scale. second, because bahrain is an alliance with the united states and with saudi arabia, many people are worried about and iran and influence spreading in bahrain, and therefore it does not get -- i would say it's not

a matter of coverage, that is up to the media, but in washington and elsewhere they focus on the immediate crisis at hand, and i think a number of people in washington see what is happening in syria is very worrisome paris some people see opportunity -- worrisome. some people see opportunity and that a regime that is against the united states could come tumbling down, and that opens up an opportunity to break the resistance access of iran, syria, and hezbollah in the coming months. host: let's go to a democrat in new orleans. caller: i think the u.s. and europe should support the change. they should not stay idle. china is moving very strongly to become the superpower.

they are funding the african union. they're moving closer to iran and other nations. china will still the gap if the u.s. or the european nations to not move. the other thing is paranoia about moslem groups. that is really an unfair characteristic. there are religious elements in every society. the u.s. has the christian coalition and other groups from all face, and even some crazy groups. that is part of society. host: we will leave it there. andrew tabler? guest: getting to your last point, i agree with you. if i think the line there is not so much individuals who are observant, or who are fundamentalists in terms of their look at religion, but had any type of advocacy for the use of force, or the use of bombs, weapons, or any attacks to

pursue their goals, it is a red line, and should be stopped at all costs. i think you are right. there are some stereotypes in this regard regarding the muslim community in the united states, and hopefully, over time, we will be able to parse those all much more fully. over time, as we come to deal with this problem, people will get better at handling its parent host: andrew tabler, -- handling its. host: andrew tabler, what you think will be the impact of the so-called new york times headline this morning.

she called it is true that syria is not libya. -- guest: it is true that syria is not libya. the administration's position has been one of pressure. u.s. national security interests are different in syria than they are in libya. libya is one of human rights associated with terrorism, of course, and president obama outlined as in the obama doctrine, and also there are oil interests which have to do with oil shipments to europe and refining. syria, because of its makeup, and geographic location, there is not concerned about there being chaos or devolving into something that is not

manageable. at a certain point, the united states might have to get involved in military action in syria. i do not seen as likely in the immediate future, but we do not know what direction he is going, and until we do, it is hard to make predictions about what the obama administration will ultimately do. host: the history of syria, talk about the current president, how we came to be in power, and his brother. guest: president assad came to power in june of 2000. he inherited power from his father who had seized power in a military coup in 1970. his father was one of the iron man dictators of the arab world. it was during his time that we had a massive crackdown on the muslim brotherhood in his country in 1982. because when president assad had

taken power, his father had relied on the soviet union, socialism, and extreme repression to rule the country. but, he was also a man who had a bell with glove, anti -- a man with a glove, and coopted many regimes. by bringing these sunnis are around the regime, and allowed it to survive, and made it much more stable then, for example, the minority regime in iraq. president assad had a problem. dead, any news u.s. to open up the country to the outside world. they have a long, capitalist history, but the problem was how

to maintain power wall opening up the country to the outside world. so, -- power, while opening up the world to the -- the country to the outside world. he announced that he would issue reforms, but never got around to doing so, or putting them into writing. even when he did put them into writing, the measures completely contradicted other parts of syrian law, so what happened was not only were people's expectations raised, and not met, but they were increasingly living online as the internet expanded throughout the country. people trying to do business in syria, corruption been a major issue, because the law was not clear, the only way to clear up matters was to pay members of the security services and largest part -- large cash.

that corruption is the mortar that holds the country together. the problem is, the reforms to be launched, they should of been launched 11 years ago, he will have to rely on the people. this is a real dilemma. he might not get out of it. this is a reason why people are exploring their options with syria. host: and the role of his brother? guest: he is in charge of the fourth brigade, which is an elite unit in charge of the crackdowns. he is known as a very brutal, severe person. he could be somebody that is considered under u.s. sanctions in the coming days, but that is not clear. host: will go to yonkers, new york, carl is a democrat. caller: mr. antar toddler, any opinion as to either the

political -- mr. and it tabor, any opinion it -- , mr. andrew tabler, and the opinion why the u.s. it is not willing to press? it does seem to be a sore point for many in the region that there would be a double standard as it applies to what is certainly the only nuclear power in their region, against a grimace that are made outside of the region -- agreements that are made outside of the region. host: let's get a response. guest: israel is not a signatory to dead tree be. i think the obama administration -- to the nuclear treaty. i think the obama administration has made it clear they will talk to israel about coming to some accord -- some kind of a combination.

i did not know where this is on the agenda at the moment. i think the administration is bogged down with trying to deal with protests that are sweeping through the arab world, and we will have to wait and see. there is an upcoming board of governors meeting for the iaea in june, but i doubt it will be raised at that meeting. host: one last fall,. clyde is a republican in discrete, south carolina -- goose creek, south carolina. caller: i was wondering why obama is going down soon alabama [unintelligible] i would like to know why he does not do something about the two people they have in jail in iran. he said he would do something about it. host: we will leave it there.

we're talking about u.s. response to syria. let me ask what our viewers should be watching for on this story? as you say, protest again today in syria. new guest: look at where the protests are located. if they spread in terms of scale, then we definitely can see that's crackdown has not worked. we are heading into a spiral of violence that could continue for some time. . .

>> we're going to the space museum located on the national mall between the capitol and is part of the smithsonian's collection of museums which line the mall in this part of washington, d.c. and it's one of the newest museums. it was built in 1976, about 7 million visitors a year come to see america's space artifacts, including argument facts from the apollo and gemini program progrs as well as moon rocks and many other things. we are going to talk about the future of nasa given today's endeavour flight due to take off at 3:47 p.m. eastern time. we are joined with stewart

powell of the houston chronicle who has covered the space program from a washington perspective from years. mr. powell, about $114 billion has been spent on the shuttle program since its inception in 1971. what have we gotten for our money? >> one of the most important things is the sense that we can get to space and back. the technology has enabled us to build a space station, which is still in orbit and there are still astronauts up there today as we speak. it has enabled us to put the hubble telescope up into high altitude to see the cosmos and it has been a platform for american technology to continue to develop over time. >> as the space shuttle program winds down, this is the second to last shuttle launch today. what is the future of the space program in general? >> the good news is that we do have a future for our

space program. the bad news is it is going to take a long time to launch astronauts deep into space beyond the orbit that we have been using since 1981, and we're not going back to the moon. nasa projects going to asteroids by 2025, and going to mars' orbit by 20 35, so we're going to have to wait before we see the moon landing excitement that we saw in 1969 but i think we are on a path to get there eventually? >> through what program? >> they have revised manned space programs to prolong them and develop new spacecraft for deep space exploration and new rockets to get us out there, new capsules to project astronauts an enable them to operate in deep space. it will take time before we see that on our televisions and get the national excitement we have had in the past. >> if are interested in the future of nasa and america's space program, we will put the numbers on the screen.

stewart powell has covered the space program for years. again, we are standing in the outside entryway of the space museum on the national mall here in washington, d.c. and our first call to stewart powell talking about nasa comes from wisconsin. thomas, you're on the line. please go ahead. caller: yes, thank you. i know we spend a lot of money and spend a lot of time investinging in research in mars. i wonder why we haven't spent more time going to the moon? guest: well, president obama decided we had been to the moon and it was better to spend our effort on going beyond the moon and the big change he undertook after taking over the presidency was to shift the focus of

nasa from returning to the moon, which was the goal under the bush administration, to deep space exploration and extending the life of the space station five years until 2020. host: president obama is due to be at cape canaveral today, correct? guest: correct. host: will jobs be lobs in the space program because of the end of the shuttle program? guest: jobs will be lost. the decision will come with how much money they can save with systems that looks like an aircraft, flies into space and comes back to what we were using in the '60's, which was a capsule on top of a rocket so there is a change underway but they're trying to protect as many of those jobs as we can. host: so we're returning to the old apollo rockets with capsules back to landing in the ocean? guest: in the ocean or on

land. in the russian program, they land on land. our astronauts come back from the space station on russian capsules, so -- host: we're just a couple blocks from the capitol. who are some of the big advocates for nasa up in the capitol? guest: senators and congressmen from the states with nasa facilities, such as the johnson space center in houston, kennedy space center in florida are very active on this front, because not only do they want to see the technology preserved but they want to see the jobs preserved, so from their perspective, any change in the space program that jeopardizes jobs is a key concern for them. host: our next call comes from paul in illinois. hi, paul. caller: hi. how you doing today? host: good. caller: i am so concerned that they will not follow up and keep us going in a space program. the space program has benefitted the american people, the world, so much

with the technology that gets developed just to get our people up there and back safely, just to be able to live there. it will be the downfall of america if we don't continue it, because other nations are vying for it. they're fighting for it. there's even the talk about territorial fights for space on the moon. we need to be there. we have to be there. that's the future of america. with that, we will take the rest of the world with us, too. host: mr. powell. guest: well, i think we're seeing a generational shift in the space program. all these artifacts behind us and the shuttle program that is still underway are as a result of the space race against the russians. now, the next phase of space exploration is going to be multi-national cooperation and i think there is a feeling that we can share the cost and do some of the things that everybody wants us to do, but the usa stamp,

the flag and so forth on the spacecraft is just not going to be there anymore. host: mr. powell, a lot -- what is the public-private partnership? how has that worked? how will that work in the future? guest: it's shifting from the u.s. government spacecraft to take us into space to a blend of u.s. government spacecrafts that are being developed for the next phase while commercial spacecraft are being developed to take care of getting astronauts and cargo up to the space station that's on orbit, and this has been a very controversial transition under the obama administration. the bush administration was very keen on u.s. government spacecraft and didn't support commercial development as much as the obama administration, but this administration has really pushed forward on this, giving, i think, $6 billion over five years to help these commercial spacecraft companies develop the capability to reach

orbit. host: nasa's budget is about $18.5 billion this year. increase, decrease? guest: the bad news for nasa is it is going to be a flat line budget for the foreseeable future. the negotiating point that the administration perceives putting up on capitol hill, every budget cycle for the next five years is roughly where we are now. we're not going to see a big increase. we will see a shift of focus within that $18 billion -- more support for commercial, more earth science, less immediate manned space exploration, so it is a shift of focus under the same amount of money. host: from oklahoma, mike is on the line. please go ahead. we're outside the national air and space museum on the national mall in washington, d.c. caller: good morning. why is nasa continuinging as we go farther into the solar system, and i know we have had lots of unmanned exploration, is it necessary to have humans there? can't we continue our

exploreation simply with robotics and non-human craft? thank you. guest: well, this is a debate that has been going on within the scientific community and within nasa for many years, robots versus people. i think there are some capabilities an knowledge that we develop with sending men and women into space. there is additional activities that they can undertake that no amount of robotic equipment can duplicate, but i think it's going to be a bend in the future, both manned and and robotic. host: mr. powell, talk to us about the endeavour aircraft itself. guest: this is one of the last shuttle flights today. there will be one more flight after this in june. the endeavour will be retired and given to one of the many sites that competed for a retired orbiter. the space shuttle program began in 1981, so many of these spacecraft are very old, but they have been well

maintained and i think as a nation we have accepted the risk that these spacecraft can get our folks up and back and i'm sure that's what's going to happen on this flight. host: what's the purpose of today's mission? guest: the biggest goal of today is to get this alpha magnetic spectrometer into orbit which is a device to measure cosmic rays and dark matter that is in space. it is really a physics kind of exploration that is underway with this device. it has been on the manifest for many years. it's been knocked off and i think scientists and astro physicists are excited to see this thing get into orbit. host: next, joe from pennsylvania, you're on the line with stewart powell. good morning to you. caller: good morning to you. my feeling about nasa is that i think nasa is done. when you have multi-national forces put together to for

future travel. i don't see britain, france, i don't see anybody else involved with this, and by the way, when the hubble is up there, why can it not take a picture of the moon landing that we have will a long time ago? thank you. host: mr. powell. guest: well, the hubble is taking deep space photography that we have never been able to have access to. we've seen developments in the solar system early in the life of the cosmos that we were never able to see before and i think scientists have really valued the output hubble has provided us a few years ago they went up and repaired it so it has continued operational life. in the scientific community, it has yielded unmatched results. host: from maryland, peter is on the line.

go ahead with your question or comments. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i worked as a federal worker in huntsville, alabama for a while, and i was down there when they had the opening of a propulsion research facility, i guess, outside the marshall space flight center and there is a long hallway of all kinds of different propulsions that they're researching and the most interesting thing i saw there was there was an already-built nuclear rocket that was built back in 1969, and there hasn't been a spacecraft built around it. in other words, the engine was proven, tested and proven, but a spacecraft was never built, so i thought

isn't this really the best way to speed up the times to get to an asteroid or get to mars that you would simply build a spacecraft to go around the nuclear rocket that was already built 40 years ago? thank you. guest: well, there is an effort underway in nasa to develop next generation propulsion. as you watched the shuttle take off this afternoon, you're going to see huge flames and huge power from the solid rocket booster which is essentially designed to get the spacecraft off the earth and out of the hold of gravity. if we can develop something we can put in orbit and then project our spacecraft from there without leaving the earth but having the fuel and the system already on orbit, it will enable us to get to places like mars or asteroids much quicker. it will expose astronauts to much less risk of cosmic rays and so forth, so i

think nasa is definitely looking at the next generation of propulsion. host: when did you start covering the space program and how did you get interested in it? caller: well, i was working for the hearst newspapers in washington covering the pentagon and they offered me an opportunity to cover texas issues in washington for the houston chronicle. i sort of joined the nasa press corps in 2008. it was at a changing period in the space program. we went from the bush era, which was we're going to the moon in 2020, but they didn't provide the money to get there in 2020, to the obama administration, which really has made the most dramatic shift in direction in nasa i think since the kennedy era. host: how is it that the space program is spread out between florida and houston and you've got huntsville, alabama. you have a location here in washington, d.c., et cetera? guest: i think one word --

politics. anytime you have a national program that has widespread support acrosss the country and capitol hill, you're in a better position to get in the budget fight. houston got johnson space center thanks to linden baines johnson. the kennedy space center was created in the kennedy era. huntsville was created when the world war ii groups came over from that's in huntsville where heavy rocket development is underway. i think from the get-go they decided to spread the facilities around the country. host: are any other countries operating independently as far as a space program goes right now? guest: well, we have international cooperation onto space station. i think nasa hopes that will blossom into further cooperation on deep space exploration, but we also have china, india, you know, a lot of other countries

trying to develop manned space programs and many people expect a chinese astronaut to be walking on the moon in the next ten years. there won't be any americans up there to welcome them, which i think a lot of people would like to see, but there are other countries looking at unilateral space efforts as well. host: our next call comes from tom in florida. hi, tom. caller: hey, how are you doing? host: good. caller: good. yeah, i've worked down there and also got clearance and i was very impressed with what i saw, and i thought it would change everybody's viewpoint if they got an opportunity to go to huntsville and see what was going on and all of the smart people. that's an understatement -- that work there, and also my nephew worked on the apollo program, which was awesome in its scope and power and

size, so i think if we can afford to blow up people and rebuild their countries, we could spend what, $20, $30 billion to put it into good use. thank you. host: thank you very much. mr. powell, talk to us about the international space station. guest: well, it's a program that's been underway -- i think they started building it in 1988. it is a multi-nation space effort. japan is involved in it. there is some question about how much china should be involved in it, but i think it is the platform from which the next generation of space exploration is going to come. we are going to see more countries participate and take a share of the cost, a share of the risk. i think the united states will always be the preeminent space influence, but i think by spreading the wealth -- strike that. spreadingth costs, we can go further faster than we

could on our own. hoy stewart powell is with the houston chronicle and we're talking about the nasa space program in front of the air and space museum and just a few blocks from the capitol, and a few blocks from the washington monument as well. next call for our guest stewart powell comes from michigan. william. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. fascinating. i love this kind of topic. just a couple of comments. to those naysayers out there that say $20 billion isn't worth it, if you didn't have it, you wouldn't have the cell phones that you're talking on to people, computers, and i could go on and on. the future of cancer, too, would be growing and gravity and crystals and the like. people take a chill pill. this is one of the best investments you can make. i agree with the gentleman that is with you there, sir.

private industry sending up space modules you will have private corporations with their own modules doing research and companies like space x will suit them up. the cost will go down for a human to get up there. virgin atlantic has trips for $200,000 and i wanted to ask your guest, sir, what does he think we're coming out of the jet age now and at the beginning stages of the rocket age. i don't think that most americans or most human beings on planet earth realize the fantastic time that we're living in and i'm really looking forward to when i can take a ride and i also want to comment about the space station putting up a module to research artificial gravity. thank you for taking my call. host: mr. powell. guest: well he had many questions, some of which i hope to answer.

the key debate that we have seen since the space program began is what benefit does it give us here on earth? there is always the quest for knowledge and to push back the frontier of knowledge, but i think nasa argued that they have generated a lot of contributions to medical society both in medical science and in other areas. that's the kind of debate we will see as we push deeper into space and continue to spend money on the national space program. host: what is due to launch in june and what is the purpose of that program? guest: the atlantis, the last shuttle due to launch in june is a final supply run up to the international space station before the end of the shuttle program, and at the end of that period, we're going to be reliant on the russians to get us to space on the soyuz capsule, which has a much smaller capacity and it can carry, you know, it carries fewer astronauts and fewer pounds of cargo, so for the period

before we develop the next generation spacecraft to replace the shuttle, we're going to be relying on the russians. host: the museum of air and space is just opening and students and other tourists are going through security to see some of america's space and aeronautic artifacts. there is lunar rock that you can actually touch inside the air and space museum. patrick, new jersey. good morning. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i have heard a few callers likely listening saying we don't have the money to pay for this. i think we can pay for nasa with a small cut out of defense, which is easily taken in way over budget but i think they should start their focus on energy where the discovery channel has done showings that solar

panels put into the, like stratosphere or higher can actually provide solar power. many countrys, the amount of solar energy produced in one day can power the united states for an entire year, so i think that all we need is funding to be able to get up there and also to, i think there will be a lot of international interest that will be moving in that direction. your thoughts? guest: well, i think we are at a phase where we're going to be developing scientific knowledge in the kinds of areas that you're talking about. i think it struck me that we went to the moon in 1969, and the last astronaut walked on the moon in 1972. if you go back in time, christopher columbus came to this country in 1492. it wasn't until the 1700's that they developed a thing

to use at sea where they could understand longitude. they sort of advanced scientific knowledge after they had landed essentially in the western hemisphere. that is the kind of thing we're going through. we're filling in some of the blanks on some of this scientific knowledge with the next phase of the program, and there is not going to be dramatics and we won't see it on t.v. and there won't be as many artifacts as there are behind us, but we are at a phase that is very important for advancing the understanding of space and how we fit in. host: beth from new york, you're on the line. guest: i'm thinking of the movie project x and the defense and nasa have tied together. basically an ounce of prevention is worth a lot more than $6 trillion in research to save the planet, so it is a bogus argument to spend $6 trillion on nasa to

help our gas guzzling ways but be that as it may, i will go back to my first point. i've heard from quite a few sources that they're going to start shooting monkeys into outer space. you mentioned deep space exploration, and that the head female doctor head of research at nasa quit over this because the obama administration signed a waiver because it's considered animal cruelty, and again, it's going to be a $6 trillion thing to study radioactive effects on monkeys. i'm hoping that project is going to be tbs continued. does he know? guest: i don't know about that specifically program but i think the debate we will have will balance the needs here on earth with the goals of advancing human knowledge in space. host: but you have heard nothing about more animal in space? guest: no, i have not. host: when is the last

animal that was sent into space? guest: with the mercury program they sent up chimpanzees and the russians sent up dogs. this was early on before they had any sense of how space would affect individuals, so to my knowledge, nasa is not sending animals into space at this point. host: bill in washington, we are talking about the future of nasa and america's space program. you're on the air. caller: hi, how are you doing? i have a question i wanted to ask but i have a comment real quick. a couple seconds ago you said we will depend upon the russians to get into space, and i can't help but think what americans in the eisenhower and kennedy era would have thought if they heard that statement back then. i had a physics professor in the '90's that if they would build an observatory on the far side of the moon it would make the hubble telescope obsolete overnight s that true? guest: you're beyond my pay

grade on that point. i don't see how that would compare to the hubble. host: what was the purpose of president bush saying we want to return to the moon? what was the goal? guest: i think we have to see it in context. he made that statement and laid out the blueprint for going to the moon moon by 2020 after the columbia accident in 2003 and this was to revive the space program and revise the justification for the shuttle program in the wake of losing a second shuttle and the lost of seven astronauts. host: how many shuttles have been lost? guest: two, the challenger in 1986 and columbia in 2003. we lost 14 aboard shuttles and three in the early stages of the apollo program in florida in a fire on the launchpad. host: six were built in total, correct?

guest: ok. host: so that leaves endeavour and atlantis still active. guest: right. host: where are the other two locateed? guest: the enterprise was built as a mockup to test the ability to test the shuttle on top of an aircraft and they used it to test the impact of damage on the tiles, on the heat tiles, which is going to the intrepid museum in new york. this is a political political controversy, of course, the intrepid museum in new york would get a former shuttle. houston, of course, wants one and didn't get one. we're hearing a lot about that in houston. host: where is endeavour going? guest: i forget where each individual one is going. one is going to los angeles, and one is going to new york, and one is going to the air and space museum here in washington and one to the kennedy space center in florida. host: and the mock up is at the air and space satellite

facility at dulles airport. guest: and they will move that to the intrepid museum on the hudson river. host: next call comes from mike in ohio. caller: $20 billion is nothing compared to the money we have put out to get out of the holes we have dug. if we go to private companies, we will losing everything. look at russia and mess they're n they're still trying to climb out of the mess that they created themselves. i feel that $20 billion could be easily gotten if we audit the government, get rid of all these czars we have that are controlling us we can't lose the race. i mean, so many experiments and everything have been created as far as doing experiments in space for here in america. what can we do?

guest: there is no race in space anymore. it is what got us into space in the beginning in the '60's in the space race against the russians. that's really over. we've won that race. now we're moving into the next phase where there will be multi-national efforts sharing the cost among many nations, and you know, there's a lot of political heartburn about relying on the russians to get our astronauts and our cargo up to the space station that we built, but in reality, you know, we are praying the russians for those seats on the soyuz capsules and the russians have been cooperating with us since the mid 1990's when there were dockings between the shuttle and their myrrh space stigs much we're in the next phase which is collaboration in space. host: do you know the status of richard branson's space

tourism proposals? guest: there is a lot of he effort by entrepreneurs to provide this opportunity and to make money from this process. i think what we're going to see more immediately is things like space x and so forth developing spacecraft that can reach the orbiting space station an resupply it and get our astronauts up there and we are now turning to the commercial spacecraft in much in the same way we turned in the early 1900's to federally support its mail carriers to help sustain and get the airline industry underway, so we're subsidizing the development of these spacecraft and i think that's what we will see before we see a lot of space tourism. host: stewart powell is our guest. the space program is our topic. we are in front of the air and space museum on the national mall just a few blocks from the capitol, a few blocks from the washington monument. the air and space museum opened in 1976 is part of the smithsonian museum's

collection of museums which line the mall in this area of washington, d.c. eric in maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. my question for mr. powell is that he made a statement concerning this is the biggest shift in the space program since the kennedys, and it must be a shift backwards because where we're going is nowhere and it's a shame. host: do you have something to add? caller: i was waiting for his comments. host: thanks for calling. guest: we have to distinguish between a destination, which is what we're used to, going to the moon, a goal set by kennedy, a goal we met in 1969 and finished completing in 1972. we have to distinguish between the broader areas

now, deeper space exploration, better understanding of the universe. they're softer goals than landing at a destination, and i think it's an adjustment for many of us who came up with the space program and saw what happened as a result of it. my daughter, for example, you know, she's not going to see the kind of gee whiz television coverage of the astronauts landing on the moon that we saw, but she may benefit from the effects of the kind of exploration and scientific developments that are taking place at the space station and hopefully at the next generation of space exploration. host: stewart powell, have you been to cape canaveral for a launch? guest: i have never seen a launch. host: have you been to the control room in houston? guest: i went to cape canaveral and kennedy space center when obama went down there to deliver his speech, the turn in the road for his policy and they have a great visitor's center at kennedy space center. host: president obama is due to be at the launch along

with gabrielle giffords, wife of the captain of today's endeavour flight, mark kelly. new york, matthew. caller: hello. good morning. how are you? i just had a question that i would like to think into the future rather into the immediate quandarys, if you will, but nano technology and nano materials in relation to building an orbit and to our existing space station, is that being taken seriously by nasa or anybody in the scientistic field? host: why does that interest you? guest: arthur c. clark brought this up a long time ago and from what i have read in my own little interests, it seems to be a very economic way to get us into orbit. we could get into bypassing rockets and needing all the monies to blast us out of orbit, we could take these

space orbits based on lasers or devices that use a lot less energy and to zoom us up into orbit and to a space station it is connected to and from there we could go to mars or anywhere, really, but as long as we're outside of the earth's gravity, we have all these processes are a lot easier, from what i understand. host: mr. powell. guest: well, the goal is to get on orbit where we can launch to deep space exploration. as i understand it right now, we're still relying on rocket power to get us into orbit. the question is what the next generation of space propulsion going to look like that we can launch from orbit and i think that is still being developed. there is a lot of different efforts underway. in the short term, we will use rockets to get into orbit. host: from florida, alex. caller: good morning. hello. yes, i have a question for you in regard to american

media talking about the russian space program, in particular, i hear a sense of hostility but tend to diminish it. my son works for the russian space program and showed me proof where in regards to the space station all they say about it is the american basically space program and russia, which has one and a half times space in the space station, and more complex equipment was built by are russia is there is

annoyance by that as we peek, i'm sure you know, in russia, german, french, dutch, chinese, in russia, under russian leadership, preparing to go to mars. it's a long process, but there is no united states. in the united states, you speak about an international under american leadership. what is that? hello? host: alex, i think we got your point. stewart powell. guest: well, the reality is we are going to be parter inning with the russians no matter what we do in the next phase of our space exploration and our activities on the space station. i had not heard of any independent efforts to get to mars by any country. it's not feasible.

it's too costly. when and if we get to mars it will be a multi-national effort involving the united states and other partners in the long haul to get there. it's going to take a long time. there will be a lot of are risks. there will be a lot of studies. when we do it, it will be an international effort from earth to the next planet. host: stewart powell, does the military still have a strong interest in space exploration? guest: a strong interest in exploration and satellites, launches and service. nasa is a civilian space agency. the air force handles the launches of military satellites into space and so forth. the shuttle has been used in the past for secret missions to get satellites into space, but we are going to continue to see this divide between civilian space and military space. host: with the demise of the shuttle program, what is going to happen to the johnson space center, cape canaveral, et cetera? guest: there are going to be job losses at these

locations because of the shuttle program. host: they'll still be out liesed? guest: they'll still be out liesed. houston is where mission control is and the where the astronaut corps is trained and where the managed programs for spacecraft are managed in houston. johnson space center has a promising future in a downsized space effort and a prolonged space effort but i think many of these centers will continue to have a role, just at a less robust level. host: about 7 million visitors a year come to the air and space museum here on the national mall, a couple blocks from the capitol, a couple blocks from the washington monument. it opened july 1st, 1976. sally, west virginia, good morning. you're on with stewart powell of the houston chronicle. >> guest: good morning. i'm calling with the perspective of how many people we are going to lose, how much intellectual capacity we are going to

lose with the downsizing of nasa, and i find that really disturbing that -- excuse me. i'm so nervous. anyway -- guest: that is a good point. the intellectual capacity that could be lost, the challenge that we face is developing engineers and so forth that can deal with the space demands and develop the hardware and the technology and so forth that we are going to need to get deeply into space. if there's not a space program that's well funded and seems to be robust and going somewhere, a lot of kids are not going to go into those areas of study and they're going to choose other careers, and so when we do need the cadre of engineers and so forth, they may not be there, and so i think that's a real concern, but there's so many diverse

areas now for exploration and for scientific development that i think kids coming through the school systems and the universities and so forth, i think they're going to find plenty of related fields that will be useful in the future of our space programs. host: i want to return to a topic we touched on earlier, though, the difference between manned and unmanned space programs. is it important that they be manned? guest: i think there are some things that they can achieve with manned spacecraft, and they're willing to risk the lives of astronauts to achieve. i think we've seen a phase where with the reduction in space flights we're seeing more reliance on remote sensors and remote robots as they go into the deep space exploration, and our ability to harvest that information has gotten a lot better so i think we're going to see a

blend where we do use manned spacecraft and manned missions for some things and we use robots and other devices for other things. host: charles in virginia. caller: yes, i agree that the larger satellites and probes into space is the best thing we have. i wouldn't be watching decent television right here, but i'm really disappointed with what's happening, because i was disappointed when they got rid of the mercury program. i thought that the mercury program -- i wish you would comment on that. i wish the mercury program had been kept in space because i'm thinking that it was better but it had so much politics involved. thank you. guest: that's a good question. the when the mercury program developed it was in the teeth of the cold war. we were racing the are russians to get into orbit

and from that, we built the gemini program and the apollo program that eventually took us to the moon, again in the context with a space race with the russians, who was going to get to the moon first. the situation now is such that we're not racing the russians to get anywhere. we're all on the space station together. we're getting there together. we're coming back together, and i think that, you know, the next generation of space exploration and development is going to be a multi-national effort that we all share in. host: now endeavour which is due to take off this afternoon at 3:47 p.m. eastern time with president obama at cape canaveral watching, the first launch since 1992. caller: i have two topics i would like to bring up. one is intelligent properties. the united states government has developed many, many

ideas and everything in their space program, and when private companies develop intelligent properties, they protect those, that information, and laws to do that. why can't the united states do that get some income from it? that's one topic. another topic is using the space program for political reasons. i'm concerned that one of the main reasons we lost the space program is because it was viewing the earth and had gaining information, adequate unsubstantiated

information about global warming and the effect that it is having on the planet, and so -- host: that's two topics, larry. thank you. stewart powell, first of all, the benefits to corporations. guest: the commercial spacecraft companies will see intellectual properties as they develop spacecraft to reach orbit and that's part of the incentive of developing this is that they have something they can sell and hold on to. i'm sure that will be worked out between the companies and nasa. the global warming question, have we learned about global warming because of the space program? absolutely. that's one of the reasons that we're seeing a shift in the space program with the greater emphasis by the obama administration on earth, science and monitoring the impact of global warming on the earth and trying to come up with better scientific knowledge and understanding of what is going on. that's a clear result of the space program and the obama administration's emphasis on

that is a part of the $18 billion we're spending a year on space. host: the estimated cost of a space shuttle mission, $450 million permission. robert in georgia, you're on with stewart powell of the houston chronicle. we're talking about the future of nasa. guest: you mentioned a few minutes ago that your daughter may not be able to see the miracle of a human walking on the moon or an american walking on the moon, but she might be able to see an american walking on the bottom of the ocean, if we could change our priorities, because it seems to me that you mentioned 1492, columbus discovered america and since then, we have only explored roughly 3% of our oceans. the priorities should be the oceans. thank you. host: that's a really good point. there is obviously a community in the government and a community in the academic world that shares

your point of view. 133 space shuttle missions have taken off from cape canaveral and c-span will be live at 3:47 p.m. eastern time when the endeavour is due to take off. our next call comes from john in new jersey. hi, john. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i would like to chime in on what the last caller said that we know more about space than we know about our own oceans, and there is plenty more life here on earth than in the solar systems that we study. thank you. host: appreciate your comment. guest: we have the national oceanic administration, which i think is the focus on scientific research in the oceans, but this is a debate we're always going to have about whether we explore the oceans or explore space, and it is the balancing act and obviously space has won the edge at this point.

host: over the years, how often has nasa been a political football or politically controversial? guest: for a long time we were bipartisan program that enjoyed support on both sides of the aisle on capitol hill. as this change has taken place under obama with the shift of focus from destinations to science essentially, i think there's been more of a strain within the bipartisan cooperation, and we've seen republicans who are very keen on spacecraft fight to protect spacecraft and we've seen some democrats fight and emphasize science and more support for the science. host: a call from david in florida. caller: hello. a very good question about

why you didn't point the hubble telescope at the moon to prove you really went there, because all the films of the moon are very fuzzy. then you said you had 400 clear tapes but you couldn't find them. have you ever found those 400 clear tapes to prove that you actually went to the moon? guest: i'm one of those people that believes we went to the moon. host: what is neil armstrong doing these days? guest: he became involved in the debate about the shift in direction for nasa and it was a rare moment when an icon of the space program essentially challenged the direction that the president was taking. there were other astronauts also, neal certainen who had been the last man to walk on the moon and wanted them for focus toward later deep space exploration, so he is living a quiet life and by

design avoiding the spotlight. host: he really has. some of the other astronauts have been out there. guest: that's right, yeah. host: last call for stewart powell from the houston chronicle comes from russell in california. caller: good morning, gentlemen. how you doing today? host: doing well. how you doing? caller: great. my question is the curiosity of in the past the shuttle has had to push the space station back into its orbit because it is slowly falling back to earth. when the shuttles get retired, what and who is going to be responsible to push it and maintain it in orbit as the gravitational pull drags it back to earth in a slow way? guest: the international space station has maneuver ability and i presume that the calculation is that they can manage any kind of slow descent from the space

station and don't need the shut toll do it. host: what is the future of the shuttle program? what do we spend? guest: we spend $100 billion. the obama administration said instead of crashing it into the ocean in 2016, which was the plan in the bush administration, they extended it five years to 2020 to try to use that as the base for the exploration and scientific knowledge that we would achieve had we gone back to the moon, so the space station is alive and well until 2020 and there is even talk depending on where it is then, they might even extend it beyond that. host: is someone going to inhabit it at all times? guest: yes. host: how many are up there? guest: i don't know but they have had as many as 6 or 7 at one time. host: nasa released

thousands of photographs from the hubble telescope. have you looked at those? guest: i have not. host: what is the status of hubble? guest: it is operating thanks to a shuttle mission two or three years ago when they went up and repaired it. host: do we know where it is? guest: guest: it is a very high orbit. the orbit it is in has a lot of space debris. that is always a challenge managing the space debris making sure it doesn't collide with the hubble. host: is the issue of space debris something we have to address? guest: absolutely. within the last months, astronauts had to go to the rescue capsule onboard the space station to. >> wade the passage of space debris. they calculated that it would come too close. it ended up going in a different direction. there is a lot of space debris from destroyed spacecraft. there was a chinese and anti-satellite test in 2007 that left a lot of debris up there. when the shuttle mission went up to support the hubble, the shuttle went to

support the hub 8, it was -- the hubble, it was one of the most dangerous because there was so much debris at that time. host: we appreciate you spending nearly an hour this morning in front of the air and space museum on the mall in washington, d.c. guest: my pleasure. host: as we continue our discussion about the future of nasa and america's space program in just a minute, we're going to talk with one of the curators here at the air and space museum to hear about what is new at the museum, what is available for visitors, et cetera, but we want to continue to take your calls analysten to your comments about the future of nasa and america's space program. seth in georgia, you are on the air. what do you think? caller: i think everything is great, but i want to ask quick question. wouldn't it be better if we sent 50 million americans to mind the kuiper belt? it seems to me that that's where our economy should be pushing and it would solve almost every problem we have

in america with our economy, putting american people in outer space at a rate of 50 million using a space elevator that they talked about before and to mind the kuiper belt? host: appreciate your comment. we will leave the question as a rhetorical one. robert from west virginia. you are ron c-span. caller: hi. my question is more toward the interest of investigating more on the anti-gravity and artificial gravity aspects of nasa. will they continue or are they investigating these programs? host: sorry, our guest has left. we won't be able to find that out. at least we won't be able to find that out from strew art powell, and -- from stewart powell and as we continue live from the air and space museum, we're now pleased to

be joined by jeremy, the aeronautics cure ater here at the -- curator at the smithsonian institution. give us a quick brief overview of the air and space museum and what's available particularly when it comes to people interested in space and seeing some of the artifacts guest: the museum opened in 1976, so for 35 years. it is the world's repository of air and space artifacts. downtown on our mall on occasion we have 110 major artifacts that include -- you talked about space, the columbia module, apollo 11, the first manned mission to the moon, john glenn's capsule, a replica of the sputnik satellite and artifacts from charles lindbergh and spirit of st. louis and chuck yeager's coat is there, who broke the speed record in 1947. there are smaller artifacts that document the people, whether they be pilots, manufacturers or people on the factory floor that build

the flights in the 20th century. host: i have been in the museum several times and we have shown our viewers the spirit of st. louis that hangs inside the entry. is that the actual one or a replica? guest: that is the actual. host: how much of it has had to be rebuilt? guest: i would say 100% near original because the aircraft, after making the flight across the atlantic and two goodwill tours across the united states and latin america came straight to the smithsonian institution by the efforts of our legacy curator, paul barber, so as it left that last major tour. host: you said that you have a satellite facility and storage. how many in total do you have? guest: in total, 50,000 artifacts but that includes 300 airplanes and spacecraft, and between the mall location and the small

percentage of what we have on display is at the hassi center. host: where is that? guest: near dulles airport in chantilly, virginia. it is open to the public. we have a parking fee. people can see more stuff. host: there are vines out in front that says the museum is renovating. are you renovating the displays or some of the infrastructure? guest: we're updating the infrastructure, so we're doing bathrooms, walkways, carpeting but also doing new galleries. our newest gallery to open, pioneers of flight, which opened late last year was a gallery that was already in the museum in 1976 and we reinterpreted it, so it is a new gallery that has new stories, new emphasis for our visitors. host: is the smithsonian getting a space shuttle? guest: it is. host: which one?

guest: we're getting discovery. nasa announced we will receive discovery, which is the oldest flying shuttle. it's significant in terms of documenting that story of routine access of space and making space practical as well as a means to scientifically study the universe as well as the earth. we're really excited. host: when are you getting it? guest: discovery made its last flight earlier in february, early march, and we should be reseffing it in 2012. host: why does it take so long? guest: nasa wants to study the airframe and how it works in space, so it is a research tomb and the same thing with enterprise, which is in our collection. it takes a lot for under the circumstances to get ready for the shuttle to come to a museum. host: when do you lose enterprise? guest: hopefully it will be a seamless transition. enterprise will leave the

hangar and then discovery will come in and take its place. host: our guest, jeremy kinney, the aeronautics cure ater at the aeronautic space museum. we appreciate you allowing us to talk about the future of nasa. guest: thank you very much. host: we have time for a few more calls. gary next from arizona. hi. caller: hi there. how are you doing today? host: good. caller: i'm 73 years old so i have been able to be fascinated by the space program from its inception and i'm really sad to see it coming to this end. i really hope we can continue to fund the manned space program. it saddened me that we have to rely on a foreign nation to take our astronauts up and down from the space station, but anyway, i'm glad that you're on the air with this. i h