at the future of nasa after the space shuttle program. at the pentagon today, defense secretary robert gates said there was no evidence that senior pakistani leaders knew that osama bin laden was in pakistan. other issues are the defense department spending review. he was joined by admiral mike mullen. this is about 30 minutes. >> on april 13, president obama announced his framework for tackling the long-term fiscal challenges. as part of that reduction effort, set a goal of holding the growth and based national security spending below inflation for the next 12 years, which would save about $400 billion. the president also made clear that before making any specific budget decisions, we must first conduct a fundamental review of america's military missions,

capabilities, and security role around the world. today, announcing the framework for the comprehensive review that the department of defense is launching, to inform future decisions about spending on national security. first, some context. for more than two years, the leadership of this department has been working on reforming the way the pentagon does business to respond to the deval fiscal situation facing the nation and to ensure that the military has the capabilities needed to protect our interests in a dangerous and unstable world. this ever began two years ago with an overhaul of the department's approach to military acquisition, curtailing or canceling about 20 weapons programs. a continue bustier with a department-wide campaign to generate savings from excessive overhead that was reallocated to the services for reinvestment. new expenses, as well as deficit-reduction bill the overarching goal of these efforts was to carve out enough budget to preserve and enhance key military capabilities in the

face of declining rates of budget growth. the new comprehensive review will ensure that future spending decisions are focused on that strategy and risks and are not simply a mathematics and accounting exercise. the overarching goal be to preserve a u.s. military capable of meeting crucial national security priorities, even if fiscal pressure requires reductions in the forest's size. in my view, we must reject the traditional approach of applying across the board cuts, the simplest and most politically expedient approach, but inside this building and outside it. that kind of an approach preserves overhead and maintains force structure on paper, yet results in a hollowing out of the force from a lack of proper training, maintenance, and the equipment. we have been there before, in the 1970's and 1990's. this review will be guided by a national security strategy, the

national defense strategy, the national military strategy, the chairman's risk assessment, and of the quadrennial defense review to ensure appropriate focus on strategic policy choices first in the corresponding changes in the dod budget second. the qdr provides today's basis for sizing the force, shaping its capabilities. but there's not a strong analytical link between the qdr and the present makeup of our forces. this review will establish that a link, so we can see the impact of changing qdr strategy on force structure, missions, and capabilities. and the only ones computing strategy options are identified should there be begin to consider fiscal and locations and options. to do this, the review should develop specific program options that can be categorized in four bands. the first one is additional efficiencies, continuing the

efforts we launched last year. these changes would reduce dob costs with minimal impact on military capability. we must be even more aggressive in curtailing bureaucratic excess and overhead before considering over met -- changes in strategy or force capabilities. while i believe the department can identify additional significant efficiencies, they will not result in sufficient savings to meet the president's direction. therefore, a second bin involved a serious is declination of established policies, programs, processes, and mandates that drive the dramatic increase in defense operating costs, to include the way we deliver healthcare, compensate military personnel, provide retirement benefits, sustain our infrastructure, and acquire goods and services. the third bin will contain options to reduce or eliminate marginal missions and marginal capabilities, specialized and costly programs that are useful in only a limited range of circumstances. they represent missions that

the department carries out today, that while a value are not central to our core mission or our lower priority. the final bin of the hardest category strategically, and i would say also intellectually, will be specific alternative modifications to the qdr strategy that translate into options for reductions in force structure, or capability needed to execute the strategy. this latter bin will be informed by all the other activities in this framework. in the end, this process must be about identifying options for the president and the congress where the nation is willing to accept risk in exchange for reduced investment in the department of defense. the defense, and the review will be jointly led by the director of cost analysis -- cost assessment and program evaluation, the undersecretary of defense for policy, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

>> pakistan, obviously, has been a key topic for the last four years. we have been there almost two dozen times. over that time, you have dealt with them extensively. do you think you misjudged their willingness to cooperate? do you believe them when it they say that they did not know osama bin laden was there? and mr. secretary, what do you think of congress' suggestion or request that we start tightening funding to actual results in seeking out terrorists? >> i think the investment, certainly that our military has made it and i personally have made, has been one that has been very important in terms of working a critical relationship.

and obviously, we have been through a great deal over time, not just recently, and when you back away from this, the amount of training that we've provided, whether in fact has occurred inside pakistan with respect to their military forces in terms of getting at a growing terrorist threat, that is very much in execution and pakistani citizens are dying regularly. that relationship has been a very important part in terms of they're going after the terrorists in their own country. clearly, we have had challenges with respect to the long-term strategic partnership. i have gone into this with my eyes wide open. we were not trusted, because we left for a significant time span, and that trust is not going to be reestablished overnight. i think the region continues to

be critical and our relationship continues to be critical. there are still challenges associated with things that we think need to be done. yet, from my perspective, we cannot just mail that in and say, gee, would you do this? i take it would be a really significantly negative outcome of the relationship of broken. and so from my perspective, that investment brought us to this position, which i think we need to leverage, to assist in the relationship. not just at my level what the military, but quite frankly, between the two countries. >> do you believe the when they

say -- >> i have seen no evidence since the bin laden rated that indicates -- since the bin laden raid that indicates the top leadership knew bin laden was there. >> i can understand the frustration of congress, and i think senator kerry was pretty explicit in his meetings in pakistan that circumstances have led to a lot of skepticism on the hill. and the u.s. assistance to pakistan is now more controversial than it was before. that said, i think we have to proceed with some caution. we do have significant interests in pakistan. i'd think that my own view would be that we need to continue the assistance that we have provided, the benefits to the pakistani people.

coalition support funds are actually a reimbursement for services rendered for things they have actually done. we have a very rigorous review process for those claims by the pakistanis. they are reviewed by icef and reviewed by our embassy. they are reviewed at centcom and then reviewed again up here. generally, we do not pay 100% based on their claims, but it is a serious process. i think we do need to be cognizant of the concerns on the hill, and frankly, i think the pakistanis need to be as well. but that said, we do have interests in common, and we do need to try and move forward. >> senator kerry went to

islamabad and claims that he pressed the pakistanis on pursuing the leadership of the taliban that has taken a safe haven in pakistan, and also, the hakani network. you, yourself, have done as much as you could to provide protection to american forces. but many of the attacks that were launched against americans are launched from those safe havens in afghanistan. can you understand the frustration not only of the military but the american people at the apparent reluctance of the pakistanis to go after the leadership that has had safe haven there for nearly 10 years? >> well, of course i share the frustration. i understand that frustration,

and i share it. i think we have an opportunity here. the pakistanis -- i invite the chairman to comment. the pakistanis, over the last couple of weeks, have expressed the view that they're willing to go after some of these people and that we should not repeat the bin laden operation, because they will undertake this themselves. i think this provides us an opportunity, and i think we should take them up on that. and it offers them an opportunity to address this frustration and the skepticism. >> the only thing i would add is this is certainly not the first time that this issue has been raised with the pakistani leadership. it has been something that has been raised over the course of certainly my engagement for the past couple of years, and i think they do understand it is a

priority. and it is, i would just reemphasize what the secretary said, it is their desire now to do this themselves. and i think they certainly understand the importance of it. all of that said, they have also had some internal priorities as this terrorist threat has grown internally to them. and in their capacity, in some regards, they have prioritized internally to go after the ttp and others, but they know this is a priority for us. and i think we, clearly, as senator kerry did, all need to make sure that they understand very clearly that this priority is not going to go away. the safe havens for these leaders have to be eliminated. >> you say understand, but have they made a commitment to the u.s. to pursue these leadership members of the taliban? >> i will be specific about

hakani because of my engagement with the general over the years. he has committed to that. i think one of the issues that is a challenge for us is our clock moves a lot faster than his clock. that has been the case so far. i think it will be the case in the future. not trying to give an excuse, but matching those clocks has been very difficult. >> speaking of haqqani, you were there last month in pakistan, and you talked about the strain in the relationship between the isi and haqqani and the u.s. relationship with pakistan. is the right to just turn them over to the united states? >> i think my comments from one month ago still stand from that perspective. i was very clear about the priority for the leadership, in particular with respect to the haqqani network. i will not change that.

>> u-turn over haqqani -- if you turn over haqqani, we will apply that to the to pakistan. >> the approach needs to be a very comprehensive approach, across the totality of government. thinking and individuals during the says this is how we're going to do. but it has to be a comprehensive approach. the secretary talked about the resources, which are considerable. it is certainly understandable that there would be those that would look at that. i understand and i think, quite frankly, the pakistani leadership, military leadership in particular, would understand that. >> you say you do nothing the top leadership by pakistan knew that bin laden was there. do you presume that someone in the isi for army knew he was there and was supporting him?

>> as i said, i have seen no evidence that the top leadership knows. i think, actually, i think there is -- with the evaluation of the sensitive site material and exploitation that is going on, it is just going to take this a little while to see if there's anything else. >> first, i would echo exactly what the chairman said. i have seen no evidence at all but the senior leadership new. in fact, i've seen some evidence to the contrary. and we have no evidence yet with respect to anybody else. my supposition is somebody new. >> can you give the public a sense of what one or two missions will definitely be reviewed? what will be reviewed? can you give one or two examples? >> let me give you an example of the hardest bin, the third one, in terms of strategic alternatives. it has been our strategy for

many years now to be able to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously. if you were to tell yourself, the likelihood of having two such flights simultaneously is low and you could therefore plan to fight sequentially, that would have huge implications in terms of the size of forces need to maintain. but the other side of that is the risk involved if you are wrong. and the other guys always have a vote. so that is the kind of strategy and risk that we want to surface for the president and for the congress. what i am really working against here is what we did in the 1970's and 1990's, which were across the board cuts that

hollowed out the force. we have got to avoid that, no matter what happens in this process. but the consequence of avoiding that is everybody, from the services to the chairmen to the secretary of this department, making topped up to it -- tough decisions, and then the president and congress making tough decisions because they have to accept responsibility for risk. i want to force the kind of discussion. if we're going to cut military, if we're going to reduce the resources and the size of the u.s. military, people need to make conscious choices about what the implications of that are for the security of the country, as well as for the operations that we have our around the world. and that is why i want this review in place, to provide the substance for making those kinds of conscientious decisions were the political leadership of the country, in essence, says

we're prepared to accept this risk in return for reduced investment. >> one of the programs overlays many of these scenarios. to what extent will this -- the pentagon's largest program and about $11 billion a year and as much over the next decade, to what extent will the quantity be reviewed to see whether the program should be scaled back? >> first of all, the country needs the f-35. we need a fifth generation fighter. and in addition to the f-22. so we must have that. obviously, if you are going to change strategies or missions, that has implications for the amount of equipment that you buy. and i would expect that to apply not -- apply across the

board for everything in terms of looking at these strategic equation is, if you will, have to do with the amount of capability that you buy or that you invest in. i would just make the point, and here is where the rubber meets the road on this. we must buy a new tanker. we must buy if it generation fighter. we must replace the ballistic missile submarines toward the end of this decade. there are a number of things the army must reset after afghanistan and the marine corps as well. there are some significant new investments that must be made, so how do you pay for that in the context that we're talking about? those are the kinds of hard choices that i want to surface and have people address. because, frankly, as i said in my opening statement, both within this building and outside it, the easiest thing is to say cut defense by x%. i think that would be the most

dangerous approach of all. >> at camp lejeune, you got everyone's attention when you said you were concerned about operational security. this notion that you had a white house agreement, can you explain a little bit more -- with respect, did you get sold out by the white house? it is a very clear on camera that the white house was talking extensively about the mission. what was the agreement? why did it fall apart? did either of you gentlemen try and do anything to get it back in the box? but expressed your concern about pumping up security around this deal. i am assuming you can i give us any specifics, but can you say, have you had to do anything to pump up security around the team and the family since they

have expressed their concern? >> first of all, my comments at camp lejeune, i did not single anybody out. and in a way, every one of you probably knows the answer to this question better than i do. and my concern is that there were too many people in too many places talking too much about this operation. and we have reached agreement that we would not talk about the operational details. and as i say, camp lejeune, that lasted about 15 hours. so i just -- i am very concerned about this, because we want to retain the capability to carry out these kinds of operations in the future. and when someone to detail is available, it makes that both

more difficult and risky year. now with respect to the seals and my meeting with them the thursday after the operation, they did express concern, not so much for themselves but for their families. and all i will say is we have been taking a close look at that, and we will do whatever is necessary. >> we have, from my perspective, gotten to a point where we are close to jeopardize seen this precious capability that we have. and we cannot afford to do that. this fight is not over, first of all. secondly, when you now extend that to concern with individuals in a military and their families, from my perspective, it is time to stop talking. and we have talked far too much about this.

we need to move on. it is a story that if we do not stop talking, it will never end, and it needs to. >> what would you say to troops and families in special operations units who look at this, and they may say i am concern for my family? what do you say to them? >> the response inside the community is the same that we had inside the military, that they are taking proper steps based on their concerns, first of all. and secondly, the whole issue for us in terms of operational security is an absolute requirement in some many of the things that we do. we have had, and it is not all

just leaks from one part of the government. we have had far too many retired members who have spoken up, and we just need to get off the net. >> how do you assure the american public that no u.s. aid money for pakistan ended up helping them to broaden their nuclear program? and the war powers act is coming into play on friday because it is 60 days after the libyan operation began. does this bill plan to ignore that actor will be 60-day deadline affect what you're doing in libya? >> the war powers act question as above my pay grade, so i would refer you to the white house. >> [inaudible] >> their many lawyers advising the white house, and i am not one of them. on the coalition's support

funds, they have to document. it is money they have already spent that we are reimbursing and that they have to file a specific claim for. so, you know, how they spend money -- money is fungible. but when we reimburse them, it is for a specific thing they have done with respect to the war against terror in pakistan or in support of what we are trying to do. >> your post -- your supposition is someone in the pakistani government knew about bin laden's presence. should in pakistan pay some price for that fact, it is a fact? will they be encouraged to continue doing what they have been already doing? >> i would invite the chairman to comment, but i would say that if i were in pakistani

shoes, i would say i have already paid a price. i have been humiliated. i have been shown that the americans can come in here and do this with impunity, and i think we have to recognize that they see across in that and it cries that has been paid. but if the leadership does not know -- i mean, look, i have done it as much about accountability here as perhaps anybody. but i never fired anybody because they did not know about a problem. i fired them because once they found out about a problem, they did not take it seriously. so if the senior leadership in pakistan did not know, it is hard to hold them accountable for it. >> it there willing to tolerate even mid-level people knowing of the supposition is somebody.

we do not know whether was, you know, a retired person, whether was low-level -- pure supposition on our part. it is hard to go to them with an accusation when we have no proof that anybody knew. so i just want to underscore, it is my supposition -- i think it is a supposition share in a brine this government that somebody had to know, but we have no idea who and have no proof or evidence. >> how important do you think this, your words, this humiliation was in sort of changing the pakistani mindset in going after high-value targets that in the past they have been hesitant to do for us in the region? >> i do not think we should underestimate the humbling experience that this is. and in fact, the internal soul- searching that is going on in side right now. before we even talked about

external effects, internally, and i know for a fact that is going on, and they are not through that. because they have been through a lot tied to this. and their image has been tarnished. and they care, as we all do, and they care a lot about that. they are a very proud military. can i relate that to any actions that have occurred since? i would not make a direct correlation. we talked earlier about senator kerry's visit and other things that we think are out there. actions need to be taken, so we will see specifically. but i think most of the focus right now is that internal focus to address the challenge of how this happened and what we should do about it. and then sort of next steps for them internally. they're not ignoring the external requirements, but most of it is an internal.

>> admiral, are you worried that the recent events in pakistan have undermined the position of our best friend there, the general and the president, because they're under pressure? they're humiliated, as has been used, and less able to help us. going back to the budget, last time you raise the nuclear try and modernization. would you look at eliminating one leg of the triad for cost savings are set off the table? >> from the standpoint of the relationship, and in my discussions since the raid with the general, and actually, another senior leader, reaffirms the desire to have a relationship, but i think we both recognize it is going through a very difficult time

right now. so the specific steps that we need to take are yet to be determined. i think we need to give them some time and space to work on some of the internal challenges that came out of this, while at the same time, there are some near-term things that we think actions need to be taken. he is not just a peer of mine, but he is a friend. he has been through a lot. as a leader, i can tell you, at the top of these organizations, it is a pretty lonely place. from that standpoint, is out with his military. he's working his way through that. i am certainly sympathetic to ms. need to do that and at the same time, move ahead. >> i would just repeat in essence what i said before on the budget issues. if the political leadership of this country decides that it must reduce the investment in defense by hundreds of billions

of dollars, then i do not think we can afford to have anything that is off the table. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> president obama will be at the state department tomorrow to deliver a speech on middle east policy. we will have live coverage tomorrow morning. and later, the former director of national intelligence is on capitol hill to talk about reform of intelligence agencies. he will be testifying at a hearing at 1:30 p.m. eastern. >> history, as you know, is much more than just politics and the

soldiers. it is social issues. it is also medicine and science and art and music and theater and poetry and ideas. and we should not want things into categories. that is all part of the same thing. >> sunday night, part one of two weeks with david mcculough, when the americans to meet the great journey in 19th century paris. next tuesday, voters in new york's 26 congressional district will elect a representative to replace republican chris lee, who resigned in november. the two candidates are jane corwin and kathy hochul, who met

for a debate earlier this evening at the studios of wxxi tv studios in new york. therom rochester, thosvoice of voter 2011. the special election being held in the 26th congressional district. >> welcome. i am the news director, and i will be moderating tonight's debate. joining me are the panelists. and of course, we have our candidates. first we have kathy hochul, running on the democratic and working families line. and jane corwin running on the

republican, conservative, and independent line. we invited a third candidate, jack davis, but he did not respond to our invitation. when did not invite the green party candidate because he did not qualify under the debate guidelines. we begin with opening statements, the order of which was determined by coin toss. >> thank you very much for hosting this event. i decided to run for congress because i look at the federal policies coming out of washington and i believe our government is taking this country and the wrong direction. i grew up loving the american dream. the team from a middle-class family. my parents did not have college degrees. we worked really hard, took some chances, had a great people working alongside us, and we were successful. when i was a kid, i remember

delivering phone books with my friends. as a teenager, i used to proofread the phone pages. after going to college and getting my m.b.a., i came and worked in the family business and the rochester area. i also helped as chief financial officer of finances, working alongside the c.e.o. backing up a regional decisions, and joined the board of directors and help with strategic decision making. but the time was sold the business in 2004, we had created about 700 jobs. that is something i'm very proud of. we had hard times, too, though. if we almost lost our house at one point because it was the collateral on the bank loan. there were many times when we had trouble making payroll because of the cash flow was tight. we did not take paychecks to make sure our employees were paid. those are the types of the decisions that need to be made, and i understand tough times myself and i was not afraid to make the tough decisions alongside my family.

i look at what is happening now and i am afraid the out of control government spending, the excessive taxes on small businesses are making it impossible for our children to have the same opportunities i had, and that is what i want to go to washington, because i want to change those policies, get rid of excessive spending, create an environment for jobs and strengthen our economy. those of the policies i consider a priority, i look forward to talking about them. >> thank you, ms. corwin. you have two minutes, ms. hochul. >> thank you for hosting this debate. during the past two months, i have so enjoyed traveling through the 26th congressional district, having conversations with roberts of people in the diners, grocery stores, and that the small businesses here in rochester.

that has been a great experience. during those conversations, i have done a lot of listening. what i am hearing from people is concerned that i share, that we need to get our people back to work. to do that, we need to help small businesses. we also hear about the need to get that under control and cut spending in washington, something i agree with. i also hear very strongly from these people who did not want the government to end a program as we know it, the medicare program that is there to protect our seniors when they most needed. this is a concerned the people i am talking to. here is what i said, i will go to washington and work very hard to help our small businesses by cutting their tax burden so they have the resources to grow and expand, and i will work to cut spending, but i also ensure that the wealthiest people in this country, the millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share, just like the people on main street do. and i have told them i have made a commitment that i will take to my grave that i will fight any

plan that tries to decimate medicare. that is something people in this district feel passionately about, and also proud to receive the endorsements because they like my ideas, they like my passion and my commitment to do what is right. and i am looking forward to this debate some people concede declared that differences between the candidates. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hochul. there will be two minutes response and one minute for a bottle, and we will go on to the next question. this first question will be directed to ms. hochul. >> in a profile piece, your mother was quoted as saying she is like a dog with a bone. she does not let go and does not take no for an answer. she meant that in a favorable way, your tenacious and fight for what you believe in, but

that could also indicate that compromise may be difficult for you. many voters are frustrated about partisan politics and what often seems to be the inability to compromise on capitol hill. what example can you offer to demonstrate you are willing to give up something in order to gain something else? >> bring my mom into this, huh? my mother is right. when it came to removing the freeway tolls and our committee, that is something i fought for. i fought for people with a great deal of passion, but you are right, but people do not want us to continue the partisan bickering but creates the gridlock or nothing gets done. i think that you can tell by the support i have received. most of my supporters, many are republican business people who trust my judgment. i have worked with republican legislatures -- republican

legislators on many issues. he blasted the republicans i have worked with it in the erie county legislature. i believe my reputation and my records show that i am willing to go down to washington, rolled up my sleeves, do what is right, and i have no problem standing up to my own party when i disagree. just ask elliott spitzer and david paterson. i am willing to do that. i think more than anyone, action my independence and willingness to fight for the residents. if there is a good idea, i am with them. i think i'm very excited about that opportunity and i feel confident. i have the temperament to work with both sides of the aisle. >> thank you, ms. corwin, one minute. >> i agree that partisanship in washington as a problem. in the two years i have been in

the new york state assembly, have worked very hard to make sure i work across the aisle and try to, but the best solutions that can be had to help the people. i worked and co-sponsored a bill with assemblyman sam hoyt to increase the raffle proceed so not for profits can raise money for themselves. i am also working with him on another bill that will help a local business help expand their business and grow. those are the initiatives we need to work on together, and that is what my track record in albany has been as well. as far as washington is concerned, i am a very independent thinker. there are issues i did not agree with republican party on. china and a policy regarding the manipulation of the currency, i am a believer that we need to make sure our trading partners are trading fairly, and that is one way to do it. >> thank you, your time is up. next question? >> ms. corwin, over the past

week, much attention has been paid to a videotaped incident between person of your staff and jack davis. as some have called a day set up. did you authorize the actions of your chief of staff and have you considered firing him? >> i did not authorize that activity. my chief of staff was acting after-hours on his own time, not taxpayer funded time, acting as a volunteer on behalf of the gop, and to be quite frank, i had no awareness of it. i was preparing for a debate the night before. i was not aware of anything going on. as far as i am concerned, look at the video and it speaks for itself. it is up to the people to decide how they feel about that. but he is not acting as a member of the assembly or my employee, so, no, i have no plan of doing that. >> thank you, ms. hochul? >> if someone on my staff had done that as an employee, that

would have been fired. -- they would have been fired. >> thank you, next question. >> the 26th congressional district has long been a conservative, republican-leaning district. if you are elected, it may be because of the presence of a third-party candidate. if you win next week, how would you represent the interests of those who have not voted for you? >> as county clare, received 8% of the vote and i am always fighting for -- as county clerk, i received a 80% of the vote, and i am always fighting for this 20%. i think people have known, i have had the conservative party endorsement every time i have run for office. i subscribe to keeping costs under control. also, although these people may be conservatives and registered republicans, there with me 1/2% of the issue of medicare.

they cannot support the idea of it -- there with me totally on the issue of medicare. all i need to do is tell you have talked with hundreds of people, hundreds of conservatives and republicans, and there with me on the issues. >> ms. corwin? >> there is another political scare tactic on the part of a career politician. a website says that missed hochul's claims about the decimation of medicare was given a rating of "liar, liar, pants on fire." i work hard to represent all the people in my district. i would absolutely do the same thing as a member of congress, picture i represent everybody. >> thank you.

the final question? >> you have said that support a plan put forward by paul ride that would turn american medicare from a guaranteed benefit to a voucher system that would cost future recipients more money. some polls indicate this is not popular with some americans. would you consider withdrawing your support of that plan? if not, what makes the plan the best way to ensure the medicare program remain solvent t? >> the plan i am supporting is not a voucher system. what it does is it creates medicare for anyone under the age of 55. that would be like medicare part d, where the government pays the premium directly to the insurance plan, not the individual. there is no doubt involved. as far as additional cost, that issue west addressed through the

at the program in new york state. i would be very supportive of an opportunity to rollout a bill at the federal level to address any additional cost that may be there. the important thing is to understand we have a problem. according to president obama and the medicare board of trustees, if we don't do something about medicare now, it will be bankrupt by 2024, 13 years from now. if we want it around for current singers and future generations, we need to make changes now. i am very supportive by plan that will ensure that seniors currently get the benefits they are enjoying are expecting and create a program that will have for the future. >> ms. hochul? >> i think republicans in washington would be surprised to know it is not a voucher program since that is what is, it planned to tell people, i am sorry, you cannot have that

guarantee program that yet paid into center high school job. that is not there for you, we will replace it with a voucher, $8,000, your on your own, good luck. that is the program. that is not me, that is the wall street journal, the chicago tribune. we ought to stay with the facts. it is a voucher program that ends medicare as we know it. for current seniors, they are affected because it eliminates the doughnut hole which eliminates their prescription s.ug hocost >> from this point on, the questions will go to both of you. you will each have 90 seconds to respond, then 45 seconds of rebuttal for each of you. before we go back to the panel, i just want to stay with medicare one more question. it really dig into the

specifics. i will start with you, ms. corwin. what exactly would you do to keep medicare solvent? >> do exactly what the plan proposes, to ensure that the benefits for people 55 and older stay as they are, to ensure that under the age of 55 insurance premiums are paid directly by the government to the insurance plan on behalf of the individual. the individual would choose the plan and would be mandated the minimum number of services. and i would fill that bill that hole with an appetite program -- with an epic type program. we have to take action now. what my opponent is advocating is to do nothing. if we do nothing, the plan goes bankrupt in 13 years. somebody 55 years old today will turn 68 and have no benefits if we don't do something now. raising taxes will not cover it. we cannot raise enough taxes to

fix the problems with medicare. we need to take other actions. i'm supporting a plan. i have yet to hear of any other plans. it is not just a career politician thing to do. since it has come down the road, and more the problem because it is not politically expedient and ignore the fact we are facing a major crisis if we don't take action. >> ms. hochul? >> it is a traditional technique, scare everybody to justify what you are trying to do. you are trying to balance our budget on the backs of seniors so you can continue tax breaks for multimillionaires in this country and helped keep the corporate loopholes that allow big oil to get away with what they do at a time when the highest gas prices and the nation's history go to their profits. that is a question of priorities. i understand the need to cut the deficit. i am they're totally. the problem is that nobody in washington is addressing right now is getting the underlying

costs of medicare under control. why is our health care costs so high in this country? the largest percentage of gdp it has ever been, and we have to deal with that. i have solid ideas. we don't have much time. place.is a panel put in i just up with some representatives this morning on this panel to find ways to have treatment options that are more cost-effective. a prescription drugs. in my judgment, if the house of representatives was not bought off by the pharmaceuticals, we would have a quicker way to get generic drugs to the market and we would be able to leverage our buying power to take a 48 million beneficiaries collectively and to the pharmaceuticals. it was an option on the books. republicans rejected it. there are ways to get costs under control without scaring seniors that are being told there will be nothing for them in a few years. >> you have 45 seconds, ms. corwin. >> it is interesting because she

was supportive of the obama health-care laws which included a cut to medicare advantage. it we're hearing contradicting opinions. i am opposed to the obama healthcare lost. i believe they do nothing to address the real problem of health care which is the excessive costs, and i am supportive of programs such as having insurance plans compete across state lines. pulling coverages for small businesses, a tort reforms. that is something not a lot of people talk about, but i think it is very important to reduce the cost for health care. >> thank you, 45 seconds. >> i am glad to respond to that. what my opponent is ignoring a something the wall street journal pointed out on april 6, the wry and budget includes the same medicare costs and our cost savings and reimbursements to hospitals and insurance companies that health care plan that obama past did. it is very disingenuous to say he supports the ryan budget

totally, which includes the sink cuts in medicare. you cannot have it both ways. >> thank you. we turn things over to the panel now. >> parents and other community members in buffalo and rochester are becoming increasingly frustrated over the fact that students are failing to graduate. the nation's education system is not working for many families. what would you do to speed the pace of reform, and what reforms would you favor? >> ms. hochul? >> there are a lot of reforms, and the reauthorization of the secondary education act will give us an opportunity to evaluate some of the no child left behind provisions. i am getting mixed signals on this program. i need to think carefully before we re-evaluated. as we talk with teachers and administrators, i am not sure we have solved problems.

we need to support our parents. it had started so important because a lot of parents, they don't have the resources available and it more rigid they did not have the resources available to more. i oppose any cuts in head start because they don't have the same opportunities. those are important. even beyond elementary and secondary education, i oppose cutting the pell grants. that is something i feel strongly about. it is so important to have our kids be up to get college educations and support are middle-class families were having problems making tuition payments. cutting pell grants at a time when we want to encourage the work force of the future to get an education is the wrong set of priorities and i did not support that. my opponent does. >> ms. corwin? >> i agree that no child left behind, i think it is something we need to carefully analyze.

one area where i am supportive of president obama is his efforts to introduce competition in schools, particularly charter schools in the inner city. we have had tremendous success with that and i would support any initiative that would encourage that. it gives parents the opportunity to have a more active involvement in their children's education as well. it is interesting, i keep hearing how my opponent wants to cut spending, it every step of the way is saying, not here, not here, not here. that is the reality of what we're facing. we have 14.3 trillion dollar debt, $46,000 for every man, woman, and child in our country. if we had to ask people to pay that out, how would that happen? but we need to do is invest in education, but we have to invest in it in a smartly. i think introducing competition and charter schools is the way to go. >> ms. hochul?

>> i have had everything on the table. reform, defense spending, that is something republicans in washington and my opponent does not think is right but everyone in the district is, which is required rich people to pay their fair share. when times are tough, we have to share the sacrifice. to think our kids and middle- class families and small businesses should bear the brunt of it and our seniors and particular by this plan to turn medicare ago a voucher program because times are tough, i think that is wrong. i think the wealthiest in this country ought to step up and pay their fair share. i also look at our defense spending priorities, aid with foreign countries. i am serious about cutting our spending. >> ms. corwin? >> the problem is my opponent's plan for tax increases would put taxes on small businesses. as a small-business owner, i know what that impact would be.

that is why we are in a jobless recovery, because the policies of this administration are against small businesses, preventing them from creating job. we need to keep more of that money in the pockets of small businesses said they can invest in themselves and in new workers. that is very important. i am all in favor of simplifying the tax code, streamlining it so that we make sure there are not loopholes for big corporations. i'm in favor of that. but they also believe we need to bring more of the profits of large corporations that come from overseas. >> your time is up. the next question. >> this is about gas prices. in buffalo rochester, the average price is about $4.05. what if anything should the federal government do about the price of gas? >> the problem right now is we don't have a comprehensive

energy policy. we depend to much on foreign oil. what i propose is we do more drilling domestically, both in the gulf coast, north dakota, alaska. i think we should also look at drilling for natural gas. we keep hearing about the shell and the southern tier of new york state. i have vertical gas wells in my district with farmers and property owners, and it can work, but the regulation has to be in place to make sure that it is done safely. i would support any initiative that would allow it at the state level to create the regulations to make it safe, and i think we could do that and that would help reduce gas prices. >> ms. hochul? >> and if the costs are too high in this country, and i disagree with the philosophy of the ryan budget which continues the huge tax payer giveaways to big oil at a time of record profits for them at high gas prices.

i agree on the issue of getting our independence from foreign oil under control. this goes back to the 1970's. how many of us thought that was the last time we would be beholden to countries and politics in the middle east? we did not learn any lessons then. i hope that we have learned them now. i am in support of looking for domestic sources, but continued tech gear giveaways to big oil included in the ryan budget is the wrong set of priorities -- but continued taxpayer giveaways to big oil is the wrong set of priorities. >> we should look into reducing the subsidies on big oil companies, eliminate them. but we also have to make sure we have them there for the small oil companies. increasing competition in the industry will help control prices. i also support renewable energy, but they need to be researched and developed in the private sector or in partnership with universities.

it is important that consumers pick winners and losers when it comes to oil subsidies. >> you support the ryan budget. i support that. i am consistent that i opposed the rise in budget. they have some cities and of the support. >> there has been a lot of talk in this race and tonight about medicare. what about social security? there are a number of proposals out there aimed at addressing program long-term solvency. >> i go back to the 1980's with the long term sustainability of so security being questioned. we got together with the tip o'neill, the hall commission,

and worked with ronald reagan at the time to come together and come up with solutions. problem of -- part of the problem comes with the high and important -- high unemployment. medicare and social security are driven by the fact that we need to get more people back to work. i will go to washington, open up our tax code, and find ways to support a small businesses on main street, support the jobs, and pay more into the system. it is a long-term solution, but it is the way we need to be in. we have had various of love 0.6% unemployment -- of 11.6% unemployment. the otherest of the country is around 8%. if we can just create the opportunity for small businesses to grow, a lot of these problems will take care of themselves.

>> un fortunate, i do not think that will be enough to go back to the fact that president obama and people who are running the program have come out last weekend said that, if we do not make changes to social security, the social security fund will be bankrupt by 2036. that is not scare tactics. that is a fact coming from the democratic administration right now. we need to address social security. whenever we do, i would propose that we are not raising social security taxes, not privatizing the fund, and those who are wealthier do not receive social security checks when those who needed more or those who are ill can receive the checks. overall, we need to address the program. right now, i'm focusing on medicare and medicaid, making sure we can to irresolution their until we actually solve the problem. we will not able to stop these bankruptcies from happening. i have not heard plans from the

aside. all i keep hearing are poking holes. let's come up with a real solution. let's have a conversation about what we can do to solve this problem so that seniors and people really need the services and benefits can continue to have them for future generations. >> you have an opportunity to respond. >> that is consistent with the position on medicare, the program that we have all been to our entire lives, you will pull it out from under people who really needed. -- really need it. we made a promise to our employees, when they worked their entire lives, when they reach a certain age, they can count on it. we need to be the responsible was here in washington and solve these problems. stop the big taxpayer giveaways and stop taking care of the budget on the backs of our seniors when it comes to social security and medicare. i just will not go there.

>> like i said, we need to address the big problems. if the continue to kick the can down the road and avoid making introductions of proposals having the discussion of the debate, we will not come up with a solution. quite frankly, that is why i got involved in government at the assembly level in 2008. as a person coming in from the private sector, it does make sense to me. we recognize the the problem. we have the statistics to show what we're facing. but no one wants to step toward and introduce a plan. i am introducing a plan. let's put this out there. let's talk about this. let's come up with a solution. all i am hearing is that we cannot do this and cannot do that. but i have yet to hear another proposal. >> thank you. >> all the candidates in this race have said that we need to create jobs and government can only create the environment. we have heard so much that

they have almost become a cliche. give me one thing you intend to do a congress to create jobs in the 26th congressional district. but with that piece of legislation look like? >> i would start with public hearings to address a the overregulation on the part of agencies. if you look at the fda and others, you'll see the regulations coming out of those agencies is really interfering with the in small businesses. i will start with having public hearings and look at those regulations and see where we are paring those back. i would also look at the tax code. again, we cannot raise taxes on small businesses. we need to go back to the tax code, simplify it, so it makes sense to people, so it makes sense to small businesses and they knew what they are a begins and address that issue. -- what they are up against and

address that issue. >> i took the tour of the optics facility and no so impressed to learn that, because of the assistance that we received from washington, that unfortunately, the rise in budget estimates, -- the ryan budget decimates, 52% of those prayers were started at that agency. with the rise in budget, those kinds of projects would end. the proper -- with the rise in budget -- with the ryan budget, those kinds of projects would end. since 1986, it has been since we had a major overhaul of our tax code. i will make sure it will be a level playing field.

>> your rebuttal? >> they are rigo. there is more government. that is what i keep hearing. at the end of the day, my opponent is supportive of more government. she increased spending by 51%. at the ottawa bureau, it was 29%. -- at the auto bureau, it was 29%. it is more government and more spending. what happened to the private sector? what happened to having partnerships with the university of rochester to make those projects happen? i am supportive of government grants. i think the process at the university of prague -- university of rochester would be successful. we cannot forget that it is the private-sector that knows how to create jobs, not government. >> i guess this comes out of the cannery. you had the chance to vote for a 10% across-the-board spending

cut that andrew cuomo supported. your only one of two republicans to oppose it. i am sure that you say you wanted more. a 10% across the state agencies shows commitment to cut costs. if you say you will go to washington to cut spending, but your record, when you have an opportunity to do something meaningful, you would not support andrew cuomo's efforts to cut spending in our government. all i have to say is that you have to look at the record. >> what will you do to reduce the nation's deficit and rein in the government spending? >> great question. it is on the minds of the people in the district constantly. i have said, where differ with my opponent -- i am willing to put everything on the table. let's look at our defense spending. secretary gates has proposed

about $178 billion in cuts. let's take a close look at those. let's look at our aid to foreign countries like pakistan have demonstrated their not exactly our friends these days. i'm willing to look at -- this is something that my opponent and the republicans in washington will not do -- raise taxes on their friends who are the wealthiest people in this country, the millionaires and billionaires. i think it is only fair in these times of record-high deficits that we look at everything, not keep pushing the burden on our seniors and our small businesses and our families we'll let everybody else get away with the continuation of tax cuts that were put in place years ago, tax cuts that led to our problem right now everybody remembered that bill clinton had a surplus when he left office. this has been in the last 10 years when we got into trouble with excessive spending. i want to get it under control. we have to look at both sides of the ledger. that is what i am willing to do to make those tough decisions.

>> president clinton had a republican congress. i think that had to do with what was going on then. if my opponent says that everything is on the table, i'm willing to say that that means she's willing to cut entitlement programs. it will ensure they provide the benefits to seniors that they desperately need now and make sure the program is around for future generations. i am not looking for across-the- board cuts to entitlements. defense spending, i agree. we should look at defense spending. we heard about the $600 hammers or the two engines for the fighter jet. we need to make sure that our military have the means and support that they need to be successful in their endeavors. we also want to make sure we are not being stupid about spending. as far as raising taxes, my friends -- the ones i am protecting with these, my friends are the local gas owner

-- a gas station no order or the cleaners. that is a $500,000 business. that would increase taxes if my opponent were in congress. those of the businesses that we need to be supporting. we can continue to raise taxes because we do not have a revenue problem. we have heard this before. we have a spending problem. that is why we have a $14.30 trillion deficit. >> my opponent has a television ad out that says that i am trying to cut entitlements. did i andaffiliat independent fact jet. they were all lies. i will not touch -- our local affiliate did an independent check. i will not touch

medicare. as far as the taxes, i disagree with the democrats' plan in washington which would have the tax cuts expire for people making two hundred thousand old and above. i would raise it to $500,000. >> your time has expired. >> just to get back to the accusation -- just because "the buffalo news and" says so, it does not mean it is true. we can talk about the underlying cause of medicare, being the obama health care laws. price waterhouse camera today and said that it is expected that the -- price waterhouse came out today and said that it is expected that the cost will be going up due to obama healthcare laws. clearly, the obama health care laws that might one of supports will be added to the cost and adding to the problems of medicare. we need to repeal those laws and provide a program that

will provide for future generations. >> you just brought up health care. that is what i want to talk about. it is a major concern for many families. for those with insurance, killing up with rising premiums and copays is -- keeping up with rising premiums and copays is a challenge. health reform measure was signed into law last year and the debate continues in washington. many say it should be repealed. should we keep the current health care law? should we change it? if so, how should we change it? or should we repeal it? if that is your answer, how would you address these issues? >> you are absolutely right. the obama health care laws passed last year are a disaster for small businesses. i have been traveling throughout this district and have heard from many small businesses their concerns about the cost of

health care. those laws do not in creek -- do not address the increasing costs. what taxes, healthcare is getting more expensive and that is why people are not getting it. we need to reduce the cost of health care. i am talking about reducing the obama health care law, pulling coverage for smaller businesses, tort reform. the state of texas, when they kept their tort reform, the non- economic malpractice award, they reduce their costs. but they had doctors moving met -- moving back into the state. we have a doctor shortage here in the state unlike any other state. tort reform would help the two problems. in order to avoid having to address the health care issue, the health care costs to employees, they will try to

nationalize health care. that is not something any of us want. that is how i would propose it, to repeal the obama health care laws. we can ensure that we provide coverage for pre-existing conditions and for adult children to stay on the plan. >> thank you. >> the health care law passed last year is far from perfect. i have said that since day one. i agree that it did not get the underlying health care costs under control. i opposed the 1099 provision which was an additional reporting provision on our small businesses. we need to continue that kind of fine-tuning. i like my opponent, who supports the right and plan -- the ryan plan, protection for people with pre-existing conditions is eliminated in his plan.

the economy is tough. they can i go to a job that has health insurance. times are tougher and when those kids to have the knowledge that they can stay on their parents' health care plan until age 26. that is important to me. plus, the health care law passed last year had tax cuts for employers who provided benefits. let's fix it and move on. there are a lot of other issues. i am not willing to throw it out the window like my opponent is. >> only 50% of businesses would qualify for this tax credits. -- only 15% of businesses would qualify for this tax credits. if we address the cost, really tackle the problem with health care, then we would be able to offer pre-existing conditions and adult children as well could deal -- a problem with the obama health care law is that it cut $5 billion out of the medicare programs.

it is disingenuous to say that we will protect medicare when we support a plan that cuts $500 billion. >> the right and budget plan -- the right and ryan wright and budget- the ryan healt plan does not save money. republicans admit that it does not save money. you cannot run away from that. that is a fact. >> the united states has reached its $14.30 trillion debt ceiling. would you vote to raise it? >> only with spending cuts. >> i would do the same thing. i would want to include some

sort of spending cut, something along the lines of spending limit that would make it a percentage of gdp, something that would be going forward. certainly, if we want to do spending cuts as a savings cut, we need to get spending under control for the future. >> i agree. we have to be reasonable. we have a temporary extension until early august. now's the time. responsible people in washington should roll up their sleeves and get it under control. i do not want to see a repeat of a short time ago when our country was brought to its brink of shutdown because people would not work together. i supported that compromise plan to continue the budget through the rest of this year -- $38.5 billion in cuts. i support continuation of cuts as part of the package. i think democrats and republicans need to get their act together. i look for to working with them. >> i also support the $30.5

billion cut. but let's bear in mind that that worked out to a 1% cut in this year's spending. that will not get us going in the right direction. we need to be talking in trillions of dollars as opposed to billions of dollars. if we do not, we will come up against the debt ceiling on a weekly basis compared to what we're doing now. >> we now have a question from sean carol. >> i am going off script already. i want you to define what you see as the role in government. i hear you both talk about the role in government. the say in extra dollar spent or added mean you support what? >> i believe in the private- sector and its ability to create jobs. i also think the private sector is better or more effective at delivery of services.

what the federal government should be working on are those things that should be taking care of that the federal level, things of national defence, things like infrastructure. we need a safety nest, absolutely, but we have to make sure that we're not bankrupt in your children's future to provide it. as members of congress, we need to work with colleagues from all of the country to come up with solutions that make sense for the entire country, keeping in mind what makes most sense for people in the 26 congressional districts. as a member of congress, that is what i would work toward, looking at what issues matter morse the people of this district and going to washington and advocating on their behalf. >> i think what you're hearing is a defining difference between myself and my opponent. i believe that our federal government would make a promise to our people, particularly our seniors, that when they get to a certain age that they will have guaranteed health coverage through medicare instead of saying leave it to the private sector. that is exactly why we had to start medicare in the first

place. our seniors were left to the private sector. there were the largest of the people in poverty in this country. our country family said, you know what? we are good people. we don't do this to our seniors. do nothing bishopric that contract. i think we have to have a role for educating our kids. i do not want to leave that for the private sector. i want government to have a role in making sure their kids have a premium education. i have not heard a word about law enforcement, have important that is to protect our interests, national defense. it is in the no-brainer category, but i think we need to look out for our people. that is the contract we have appeared that is the constitution. we look out for the welfare of our people. we have to do our best to make sure we do not get in the way. the government that we all pay taxes into has a bigger role than simply defense, as limited

as my opponent would make it. >> i think the best government is the government closest to the people, closest to the local level as possible. our educational system is administered by the state. i think that state and local governments should be doing that. i think the federal government's role is to offer a larger plan. but it needs to really be decided at the state and local levels. as far as the safety net is concerned, we absolutely have to have one. that is why i am working so hard to protect the safety net that we have. i want to make sure that seniors to have the benefits that they have counted on and i want to make sure that seniors in the future will have benefits they can count on. that is why i am trying to protect medicare. >> my opponent just acknowledge that health care costs went up 8% last year alone. the seniors of tomorrow are left out in the day because the voucher program does not account for any escalation in health care costs.

today's prices is what you will be dealing with 10 years from now. the wife is taking care of by a program that the has been paid into. and the 54-year-old wife does not have it. we are not that arbitrary. i do not think we should be having the age warfare in this country. we have an obligation. we may promise to people. we will take care of them. we will fix the underlying cost of health care, which drives the underlying cost of medicare. but i will not throw it out the window. >> what is your opinion on the repeal of "do not ask/don't tell" and the administration's decision to not defend the defense of marriage at. >> i support the administration on both counts. >> i believe that, as the chief executive, his responsibility is to uphold laws of the land.

he takes in both to that effect. when he arbitrarily decides not to do that, he is more of a chief justice rather than a chief executive. tell" as "don't ask/don't it is my opinion that, if the military leadership believes that it is an appropriate policy for them, i would support what they would support. >> i support the president's position on board foboth. >> ok. >> all the candidates in this campaign are from erie county. but this district includes portions of seven counties, many of them roll. assuming that jobs and taxes are important to everyone, what are the three most important local issues as you see it in the 26th district -- new jobs, no taxes. that is everywhere. >> again, we have to ensure that

we allow for -- like the university of rochester, for example -- they have tremendous research going on there. we should be helping the private sector to be commercializing some of that research. i think that is a great area that, as a federal representative, i would be able to get involved with and try to help happen. as far as agricultural issues, we want to make sure that agriculture is the number one industry in this district, that we are allowing that to be successful. i think we need to be working very closely with the 2012 farm bill and make sure that the policies created through that are beneficial to the farms in our district. i am supportive of initiatives such as the peace bridge, which will expand economic opportunities for the entire region. i think that is a way to bring about new business and help businesses to have products to sell to others. >> thank you. >> agriculture is a huge in this

district. i am concerned about leaving our farmers out in the cold in the budget.an the folks i have visited are concerned about not having the support they need. i am hoping to have a slot on the agricultural committee so i can look out for small businesses, small farmers that we have, compared to the agribusinesses out west. infrastructure, if you look at the reports in this district about the quality -- about the quality of our bridges and the roads that we step into, we want to make sure that we have the resources is allocated to this area and they can transport the goods and services across our highways. did this thing would be interesting is if we could delve deeper -- a farmer came to me and give me a plastic bag that had grass pellets --

>> your time is up. >> absolutely, going back to the agricultural issue, is the number one industry in our area. the former representative of his seat had a cultural advisory board. i would continue that effort. that way i would have the ability to reach out and communicate with members of the agricultural community, to be able to give me directions about the policies they are looking to be successful. also to be a member of the agricultural committee and the dairy caucus. our dairy farmers have terrific ideas. they're talking to me about solutions to the current subsidy programs, programs that would be much less costly and would still give them the benefits that they need in order to be successful. i look forward to working with our agricultural community. >> i think this area could be a real catalyst for alternative fuels. on one end of the district, we have the power facility there.

we have wind turbines, the great universities -- we should try to make this quarter between buffalo and rochester, with all of our farms in between, an opportunity to be showcasing innovative ideas for alternative energy research. i wanted to washington and in short order with the right people to bring the resources back here. i think it is exciting. i think it could be a replacement for our old allies on the manufacturing base. i think we need to start re- engineering and give ourselves a chance to have a new industry. >> that ends our question round. we will now go into closing statements. we have about a minute and half for each of your closing statements. the order was determined by a coin toss. >> thank you very much. we have a clear choice among the candidates in this election.

i am very much a believer in cutting wasteful spending. i have a track record for doing that. my opponent increase spending. i support reducing taxes. my opponent made it clear that she intends to raise taxes, on small businesses who do nothing except stopping to create jobs. raising businesses -- raising taxes on small businesses will make that happen. i think it is important that we get the private sector partnering more with the university of rochester and the university of buffalo to make sure we are commercializing all that terrific research that is coming out of our university system. having cut and companies like that, it is a very significant employer in this area. we want them to bring their overseas operations back from overseas and invest and our people here. we have a tremendous work force. we want to encourage

development and research and investment here in western europe. i think we can do that if we get the policies in the right order. i come from the private sector. i came from a fairly -- a family situation where i lived the american dream. i have running for countries because i want preserve the american dream. that is what our constitutional calls for and that is what i want to go to washington and 54. >> first of all, 02 thank you for coming here and for participating in this debate. we're literally just a few days away from a very important election day. i think these debates that give people the ability to see the crystal clear differences between us. it is all about the question of priorities. my priorities are looking out for the middle class, the small businesses that are families -- and you know i'm looking a for seniors. they do not want to lose the guaranteed health insurance through medicare that they have been promised through our

government their entire lives. i feel very passionate about that. when times are tough, let's cut our deficit, let's cut their spending. but i am not prepared to throw our seniors under the bus and let them bear the brunt of the debt in this country. we continue to allow corporations that ship jobs overseas to be able to get off with corporate lose -- or the loopholes and tax breaks that are not available to mom-and-pop businesses on main street. it is all about priorities. i am so proud to have the chance to even run in the state. i am a passionate person. i am a fighter. i will look out for people every single day. >> this concludes our "voice of the voter" debate. thank you both for joining is. and they give to our panelists.

wxxi supports the community foundation. the elections next tuesday, may 24. from the studios in rochester, good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tonight on c-span, a senate hearing looks of the future of nasa after the special program.

then russian president dmitry medvedev. then a news briefing with defense secretary robert gates. on tomorrows "washington journal," a look at this gop presidential field. consumer product safety chairman i. aniston among -- tanenbaum.n lon >> no one leaves and live by themselves. >> was 2011 commencement speeches on memorial day weekend and surge more than 800 past commencement speeches from politicians and activists, authors, residence, and other world leaders at the peabody award-winning c-span video

library. it is washington your way. >> with the nasa space shuttle program ending in july after the final shuttle mission, former international space station commander frank culbertson testified before a senate subcommittee today about the future of nasa and future space flight. his last flight was in 2001, when he went to the international space station on board the shuttle endeavor. this is just under two hours.

[gavel]

good morning. we recently celebrated the first space flight by alan shepard. the president's bold statement to go to the moon within the decade, that was within nine years. that was announced three weeks later. i remember, years ago, when i was a young congressman, i was on the floor one day of the house and the speaker, tip o'neill, saw me and he motioned me over to sit down with him. he knew of much participation in the space program.

he said, billy, once upon a time, i was a young congressman from boston and i was at the white house. he said, i have never seen president kennedy so nervous. he said he was just pacing back and forth like a cat on a hot tin roof. he says, i called over to his white house aides and said what is wrong with the president? and they explain to him that we were getting ready to launch alan shepard on a redstone rocket. the soviets had surprised us three weeks earlier or weeks earlier by putting guard aaron in orbit. and here we were on a rocket that did not have enough for wait to safely get that mercury capsule up into orbit.

and the whole speech of the united states was on the line. of course, the rest is history. alan shepard flew and gus grissom flu, even though his capsule sank in the atlanta. he had to swim for it. in the meantime, the soviets put up a second or the flight. 10 months later, here we put that redstone -- i mean, we put that mercury capsule on top of an atlas rocket and john glenn climbed in knowing that it had a 20% chance of catastrophe. then, of course, the rest is history. these successes in space have become an expression of our technical prowess, announcing to

the rest of the world just how capable we can be and how this spirit in this country, this can-do spirit, can overcome extraordinary obstacles. we have enjoyed a steady stream of benefits that have come from the concentrated investments in enabling the technology and producing space applications. basic research, human exploration, earth observation, national defense, these are just a few of those that have resulted from us being a leader in the global economy. as a result, spinoffs have

improved our livelihoods of all of us earthlings. the technology spawned over the last 50 years has changed the way we live. space-based technologies have become pervasive to the point that many times we do not realize we are relying on them. and i am just astounded over and over that people say, well, nasa needs to advertise more of what it does. nasa does. every year. they put out the books of spinoffs. you think about this book being put out for several decades, just how many of the technologies that have spun off have added up.

not only gps, but look at the data for noah and what that has done for whether and prediction of storms. look at the nasa satellites that complement the earth. based observations, not only whether, but climate change. the space assets have changed the way we defend the station. they have been integrated into nearly every aspect of the u.s. military. we now see the fruits of intelligence operations by blending intelligence with a

surgical operation. these benefits, along with numerous spinoffs and the efficiencies given by the application of space technology. we have gathered up some high- powered folks here. they are here to talk about the importance of space activities and the contributions of these undertakings to our national priorities. frank culbertson, a retired astronauts, captain at the u.s. navy, retired, he is a veteran of three space flights and serve as the commander of the international space station during expedition three. that is another thing. i am amazed, frank. when you talk to people, somehow they have gotten the impression that the space program is being

shut down. we have a space station up there that has six astronauts on it. when the space shuttle docks, it will have a lot more astronauts on it. >> 12 now. >> and it is 120 yards long. you think, looking in the stance of a football stable, from one end of the end zone to the other -- just how big the international space station is. so we are looking forward to you steering your experience of law 146 days in space.

ham.ott pull o he leads a team providing services to educate and inform government officials, industry, news media, and students about the space programs around the world. was a member of the review of the u.s. humans space flight plans committee and is also known as the av listing committee and is now the president's council on science and technology. we want to get out on the record

your thoughts and what we can do for the future. there it are a lot of penetrating questions. i want to turn to our ranking member senator bozeman and then, of course, i want to turn to our committee. >> with your permission, i will go ahead and yelled to my ranking member. >> of course. while you're waiting for k to approached the microphone, i want to say that this excess is that we have had in the nasa bill that passed last year as well as a lot of the funding that has now implemented the nassau authorization bill, this

young lady is responsible for a lot of that. so thank you. >> mr. chairman, i think you. we have worked very hard to try to move nasa forward. i think that the authorization bill that brought together the need for the commercial investment and the commercial opportunity, along with the use of our work force that has the experience of some many years and building the rockets and the launchers, together, we believe that we have a good way forward. what i hope we can hear from you today is that we need to adhere to the authorization strategy and that is the way we should be proceeding. i think the chairman and i and

senator bluesman and -- senator bozeman and senator rockefeller are concerned about how slow everything seemed to be moving. about a couple of months, we will be relying on the russians to take americans into space. we have one more shuttle that will be going up the summer. after that, we're looking at maybe 10 years if we do not really start focusing on this and making better progress of russian taxiing for our astronauts to the space station where we must use the opportunity for the unique research in that space station if we will reap the benefits from the investment that we have

made. i hope we can hear from those of you who do have expertise in that area on how we can move more expeditiously and assure that we get our vehicle up and running sooner rather than later and fully utilize the space station and its capabilities. we have astronauts in the air right now. we are all wishing them well. it was really this committee ting first heard from dr. kin and being guilty use the technology for energy and the dark matter and the cosmic rays for future energy resources. that excited this committee. because of the work of many of us on the committee, including,

of course, the chairman, we will see that spectrometer be a part of the space station. we just need to make sure that we can get our astronauts of re on our own ticket very soon. we hope you will help us figure out how we can move it along " more quickly than it is right now. -- along more quickly than it is right now. thank you for jumping in on the subcommittee. he has just been the greatest advocate and quick study. he is enthusiastic and we really appreciate your being on the committee and all you are bringing to it. thank you. >> senator bozeman. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to be part of the subcommittee and to help us move forward. the chairman and i worked at a

meeting this morning. one of the emphasis at the meeting was that we need to work together. i think that the relationship that you have had in regard with this issue is a great example of that. this is something that we all agree on that is so important to our country. i really appreciate you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing today to help further inform the subcommittee and the record on the importance of our nations' participation in the global space economy. and the 10 years told that we may have in leadership in that realm. i am glad that senator hutcheson is with us today. her longstanding dedication and commitment to the nation's space program is both an example and an inspiration to me as a civilian to the work of the subcommittee as its ranking member. i also want to a acknowledge the

successful launch on monday of the shuttle mission commanded by mark kelly. i hope the entire crew and those on the space station success in carrying out this important mission, to expand the site of the capabilities of this unique national laboratory and provide a central spare and replacement supplies to ensure the health and vitality of the space station systems. i had the pleasure of going to the kennedy space center at the end of last month for the planned launch of the mission. unfortunate, the electrical problems for the ems hillary unit prevented that launch attempt. i was unable to see the lines. my experience during that visit was very meaningful. natalie was i able to see and talk with some spot -- some -- somele -- summer's remarkable and skilled members.

i was also able to sense the spirit and dedication of the workforce as well as their strong desire to have clear guidance and direction from their agencies leadership as well as congress and the administration for the future. these people know how to do what needs to be done to ensure this nation's leadership in space. all they need is direction and resources to go do it. they need that now. as you know, senator hutchison has noted many times in committee when we are at a crucial point and are space mission programs are deteriorating quickly. recently cannot allow that to happen. the congress provided a clear path to move the nation away from the present this. in the 2010 nassau authorization

act, it is too late for the provisions of that act to be intimated -- to be implemented. i look for to hearing from witnesses and more about the great benefits that we receive as a nation from our space program and a reminder, again, of what you expect in nevada. i yield back. >> senator rubio, did you want to make a statement? >> just briefly. thank you for holding these hearings on america's space programs. they're very important. this is such an important time as we near the last launch the shuttle program and continue to ask ourselves what the future of the space program is for america. america's space program is not simply something we do for fun. it has the commercial impact. it has a significant nasa security component. and it really helps across

industries. in florida, we have all kinds of industries who exist because of the space program. they are spinoffs of things we learned a long way. the only caveat and i do not think we will answer that question today, i have a deep concern about where we're headed. that is literally and figuratively as a program. what is the short term and the long term for the program? this program has always functioned best where it knows it is going, when it knows its destination -- not just the place, but its purpose for existing. the sooner we can have that question answered, the sooner we can see what the american space exploration will mean in this century in terms of where we want to go and where we want to be. -who will make some -- i hope you'll make some progress this year. thank you for holding these hearings. >> thank you, senator. i will arbitrarily go by alphabetical.

we want plenty of time to get into questions. alphabetically, it would be dr. chyba. >> i was hoping you would begin at the end of the alphabet. [laughter] chairman nelson, senators hutchinson, senator bozeman, senator rubio, thank you for giving me an opportunity to testify on this important subject. in 2009, i had the honor of working on the flight plans committees that issued its final reporting at the end of that year. the committee formally thiceaseo exist in 2009. today, i am testifying solely in my capacity. the human spaceflight committee was established to review nasa's record and to offer

possible alternatives. we concluded that it could not be executed. the committee considered a variety of alternatives -- five principal integration options were evaluated. pawlenty engagement and mission safety -- no architecture would provide missions beyond the north orbit until close to 2030 under the fiscal year 2010 budget. the most important contribution of our committee is the free market for considering human spaceflight. first, the report emphasized that the mission had is not about destination. frame in the discussion this way and choosing a destination and searching for reasons to justify

that choice. the committee concluded that human space flight serves a variety of interests. but sending human beings beyond the no. 4 but with the enormous expansion for time lines that that intel's does not make a contribution to these areas that are so cost-effective that they come in themselves, justified the decision to go beyond the northshore bay. this goal embraces the international space station as a means to an end, rather than a destination that we have left behind. second, the report insists on scientific integrity. human space flight should not be exaggerated. we learned that early march had withstanding water on its

service. the sedimentary rocks could retain early records of life on mars. we have learned that there are many other ocean world in our solar system, moons on the outer planets that host liquid water motions, motions that are as big as our own. we have learned that other solar systems are common and that most of the mass energy in the universe is not made up of the kind of matter we are familiar with here on earth and we do not quite know what this more exotic mass energy is. third, the committee's report calls for the government's space agency to concentrate on the harvest of zero problems associated with their goal in space flight. for the rest, the commercial sector should play a bigger role. the commercial sector should fill in behind nasa while nasa spearheads exploration out into the solar system.

nasa can seemingly have the budget to develop new space flight architecture or it can have budget for ongoing astronauts operations, but not both. it has to -- this is the ultimate reason for the upcoming dast launching. the nasa authorization act of 2013 should be to expand human presence beyond the north or bit. i important objective identified is to existing capability of long existence in the no. 4 red -- in the north orbit.

there will always be arguments over absolute numbers of funding, but the authorization bill provides their best chance of bringing costs down and creating a vibrant human spaceflight future in the northern orbit. we will want to ensure the funding to maintain its core capability does not prevent the development of a commercial ecosystem. that may be our best longer-term robust future in space. to conclude, 40 years later, the decade of apollo is still remembered as nasa's hero age. but nasa of the hero cage was spending nearly $20 billion

evidently, we are not going to spend $10 billion more per year on human space flight. that could allow exploration on reasonable time scale. that is not going to happen, but if not, our experience should triumph over hope, and we should have a model different from the apollo model as we move forward your good >> -- move forward. good >> we are at 18.5 million for two years. that is what we are looking at. >> good morning.

i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the contributions of the space program to our imperatives, especially since this occurs in the same month we commemorate the space flight and so says. kennedy's i have logged 144 days in space, and while every day in space is memorable, there is one day that will remain in an my memory as long as i this remains a constant reminder of why america's commitment is so vital to our collective future and why we must not retreat from

leadership in space, especially in light of recent events. 10 years ago, i was the only american physically in space. i called my capt. with results. he said, we are having a bad day on the ground. we were stunned as he described events in new york city and washington as they unfolded. i was able to grab a video camera and focus on the spreading smoke and dust and fell of thing manhattan. -- that fell on manhattan. after we learned our children were saved, i learned the captain of flight 77 was my naval academy classmate.

it became personal to me. we gathered for our reunion. the letter continued with, it is horrible to see smoke pouring from your own country from such a vantage point. a dichotomy of being on a spacecraft dedicated to improving the economy on earth and seeing things destroyed when the knowledge that everything will been different from the time we launch is a little discomforting. i have confidence in our leadership that we will do everything to defend her and our families and to bring justice for what has been done. a month later i observed the invasion of afghanistan from space. was even better perform three weeks ago.

our peaceful venture to use space ground now and served times for the space program. everything was different as we landed in but also different onboard. our relationship with the ground change. we spoke to a larger variety of people than had been planned pre-flight, from royal people to walter cronkite, twice. i spoke to over 40 schools while i was up there. it was as if they were looking for us to prove that humanity can work together to do good things. they wanted to look into the sky for something positive they could do to help others.

they wanted to hear that a world still looks ok from up there. some of us were alive when we went to the moon, we still have the ability to deal with that, and everyone remembers the significance of the moon landing and how proud it made them to be alive then. we can do great things beyond the horror we have to deal with day-to-day. we should be glad that we have a place for our children to aspire to work.

the centerpiece of our space flight is not only one of the most amazing feats of human engineering but also a human cooperation that will help pave the way for humanity's next grade wheat to the moon and on to mars. space exploration is the true march of progress. it is a tremendous example of soft power. the ability to expand our capabilities because of our goals and technological leadership. i was well aware of that projection as a career naval officer of sovran and a fit in almost 40 countries around the globe. i also saw the benefits of

partnering with our former advocates. i believe the iss is an ideal platform for conducting scientific research and developing technologies needed to execute missions to the moon and other destinations. my mission doc with the space station for the last time. we will continue the job that was done many weeks ago. i want to give my tribute to the team that has made it possible for so long. they have done a fantastic job. my hat is off to them, and all

of my former aircrafts are in museums. this happens, and we are transitioning to a new phase. the solar ray the powers and now the facilities has a surface area that could cover the u.s. senate chamber three times over. the capabilities include 22 external location for experiments. even though we are just reaching the full potential, restores has already demonstrated its promise. it will require a robust system and now and transport. we can debate the timetable, but

in the end, nasa is pursuing industries that will be safe and reliable. the combination of private and government endeavors will help research. i think we need to go to the station as often as possible with as many spacecraft as we can run. this bill moves us in that direction curio many members of -- direction. many members share my beliefs. i was sick when i read our report on the space program but said they were around 1% of the

mid-70s's. the reality is that it is less than one-half of 1% of the budget. if it were 1%, we would probably not have to have this hearing. finally, it is not a foregone conclusion that the united states will remain the premier space nation and will reap the benefits of leading the march to progress. that is why i am glad this is being held, and i am honored to sit beside people who care as deeply about space as i do. i am proud that our nation continues to inspire people around the world. my mother and father's generation during world war ii took on the responsibility of leading the nation.

you have to set an example. you have to shine a light on the unknown and put begins in the scion, like the space station. great things can be done. it is my duty to spread the word that leadership and space is vital to our future. it is one we should never consider surrendering easily. always, we show we are leading. thank you for this opportunity to testify at this hearing. >> senator nelson, members of the committee, i would like to thank you for your service to

the nation, and i would like to thank you for your opportunity to offer testimony. our mission is to advance endeavors, to inspire, enable, and propel humanity. implicit is this -- in this is that it really does enable us to stare and greatly, achieve our goals, propel us into the future. first, the data is from 2011. the staff already has copies of this. over the last six years, the global space economy has grown by 48 per cent sign -- by 48%. the average rate increase by an

ethnic -- from about 5% to 8%. that is one strong industry and a good investment. well government entities continue to play a major role, the spacey economy today is predominantly commercial -- commercial satellite infrastructure accounted for $189 billion in 2010. the united states remains the largest government player. the products have remained a part of daily lives. most people read the benefits of technology without probably

knowing it. they have proven to be higher -- it cannot be overstated. it has its origins in espn and, as other internet services are the grandchild of america's investment in this program. satellite weather and countless other applications are the descendants of the corona spy satellite program. the u.s. aerospace industry, which accounted for 50% of the wealth generated in america,

built its muscle on government space investments. space shuttle international space station -- uniquely, u.s. international investment have spawned new industries that could not have even been imagined when those were made now. today we have renewable energy. we have technology used in everything from triggering a seatbelt end air bags in our car to orienting smart phones. today we have precision guidance

technology that allows eye surgery. today we have advanced environmental and cleanup technologies. good today gps is the fundamental architecture for finance, inventory management, and law enforcement, and personal navigation and around the world, and because nasa acquired no technology to shuttle the main industry -- a main engine, we have hard technology. none of these activities were expected. these were the result of our previous national investments in space. the next thing i would like to touch upon is security.

the program has brought tremendous benefit to national- security. our leadership in space has been a preeminent factor in american soft power. quoted dumas nor the political realities americans have dealt with. the exploration of space will go ahead, whether been joined in or not no nation can expect to stay behind. the soft power of the round is often one of our best and

national security -- of the program is one of the us national security tools. i wonder if any of us will ever know how huge a role space played in catching osama bin laden. science and engineering was also gaining momentum. the apollo program was expected and intended to double the number of american scientists and engineers. doing the hard things requires our best and brightest minds. developing this intellectual capacity and requires inspiring, challenging, and exciting work to do. when america has made that investment, we have never failed to achieve greatness. >> thank you.

it is an honor and a pleasure to talk about the importance of the nasa space program and role of space in national priorities. our industry sustains nearly 11 million jobs nationwide, including many high skilled positions. our organization was disappointed that the proposal to underfunded nasa deal the and $18 billion authorized level. given the current fiscal environment, we believe the proposed $18.7 billion is the minimum required for the program. the funding distribution should reflect the budget priorities as outlined in the 2010 mass authorization act.

substantial uncertainty remains over the direction nasa will take. the impact of dozen cr are causing -- the impact is causing are rippling effect in the industrial base and highly trained workforce. now the u.s. is paying russia over $6,000 a seat to get crude to the space station. it is important they remain adequately funded to be on track. two generations of americans may never know the time when americans were not engaged in space flight, but let's the clear. without continued investment, this could be the last generation of americans to be part of this society.

this has led to considerable work force uncertainties in the industrial base, where firms are faced with decisions to the highly skilled personnel go to a lack of funding for -- to a lack of funding. this sends mixed signals to industry and places these complex space programs at risk of cancellation and jeopardize its prior tax payer investments. interruptions negatively impact on large companies and could be catastrophic to smaller firms. as an example, only one firm in the united states produces a chemical necessary for solid rocket propulsion. it is used in space shuttles and

a wide variety of nuclear reaching military systems. as costs rise due to a smaller head -- in a wide variety of of military systems. the capacity loss could lead an industry incapable of building space stations in the future. nasa cost space programs remain an excellent source for inspiration in science and mathematics. aia is committed to education. we hosted 600 students across the country and out who the team american rocket challenge. while the students are clearly motivated, for many students, the lack of continuity is impacting the attractiveness of

the aerospace and professions. in 2009, a study found 60% of students found the aerospace industry to be unattractive. one reason may be the uncertainty of nasa programs. just as the recent wall street crisis turned young people from its financial careers, uncertainty in aerospace also hurts them. a robust program will attract students and also benefit national security programs, many of which are classified. a robust and sustainable space program is essential to rebuilding our economy. and we believe that a fundamental driver of the economy has been investment in space-driven exploration. a number of new space systems are being developed by entrepreneurs.

in conclusion, the u.s. space program is better critical junction. -- at a critical junction. approachack is an that will have an infinitesimal impact on the budget. instead of the embarrassing situation of buying crude launches from russia, our nation's future will hopefully include one on more on our current crew of vehicles supporting the space station and possibly new commercial space stations and a heavy lift launch, but this right and inspiring future is dependent on our nation continuing to make the investments necessary. i thank you for your time. >> all of your written statements will be made a part

of the record, and i will start with you. i am going to ask one question, and i am going to flip to you, senator hutchison. doctor, you participated in the commission, and one of their recommendations was the flexible path, which informed a great deal of the authorization bill senator hutchinson and i work don -- worked on, so how would you respond to the criticisms of the incremental approach or headlines that come out about a rocket to know where -- nowhere? >> i appreciate the question.

as you know, the augustine committee presented a set of possible options. they did not make recommendations among those options, but a flexible path was one of those options, and the analysis of the different possible options, flexible path right best among virtually every metric, so i am not surprised that was the option that was chosen. it also has a great advantage of providing the best budget profile. if you imagine a scenario in which you're going to the moon, you have to develop landers. that was a very capable of slander. and with the flexible path, you do not have to develop all of the lender -- lander technology.

if it is not framed well, it is easy to love the criticism, but in the end, and -- to levy criticism, but in the end, we have to think about what our future looks like. i have said everyone looks back on the apollo program with admiration, but we also need to draw lessons from the 40 subsequent years of space flight. twice since apollo, there have been efforts made by u.s. presidents to launch of apollo- like initiatives. george h. w. bush announced his space exploration initiative, but the budget was not there. that was initiative to go to mars. george w. bush had his space exploration plan that led to oregon.

they had been planning against an all estimates state of $10 billion a year. that was lower virtually instantly as well as not taking into account the stations, and ultimately with president obama's and budget, we were looking at close to $7 billion a year, so i think we have learned from experience that kind of apollo vision, as desirable and inspiring as it is, is not working for us, so we need a different approach, and i think the right approach is an approach in which we still keep our eye on a human move into the solar system, and our experience is we are not going to do it by announcing an apollo-like program. we have to develop a kind of

infrastructure or an ecosystem that has a variety of ways of encouraging the events of human spaceflight -- the advance of human spaceflight, and that includes this robust commercial center, but the government is going to have to provide the station as a destination, for this remains to be demonstrated, but let's hope there turns said to be a commercial market for flights and with an additional private station that people want to go to. that remains to be seen. simultaneously, because the commercial sector is not there yet, we have to have a heavy

launch vehicle capability to l. dewitt -- will allow us to move out into orbit. i support the bill as an approach to this. flexible path is not a mission to nowhere. it is a mission to expand human civilization to our solar system. it tries to do it in a way that has the hope of being sustainable. and providing us with the future. if you look back at some of the reports about our future in space, too many of them included dramatic artist renderings of what the future would look like with rocket ships everywhere and astronauts in backpacks going into every possible to -- direction. i respect that vision but i think our citizens and children need more than depictions of what that looks like.

i think flexible path is our best hope of obtaining that future. >> senator hutchison. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that very much. we tried to make the balance right within our budget constraints. a flexible way for word that does support private innovation but also keeps our expertise and what has already been proven also as an ongoing effort. we hope we got the balance right. the chairman and i are all concerned about the delays. the decision, the seemingly

unmotivated approach to modify contract so that you keep the industrial base. from 14,000 contractors that have been in the space shuttle work force, we're down to about 7000. we have cut our expertise and work force in half. what we were trying to do was create a new vehicle where these people could be transferred and keep their expertise rather than have them leave and not be able to get them back. i would ask mr. slazer and either of you as well, maybe the captain as well, what can we do

to motivate real movement in nasa? so that we keep the basic work force, the goals that we are -- all have, everything you said today. and yet have the private sector continue to innovate but to keep the balance we have tried to create and see some success. i would ask any of you who would want to step up. we are getting frustrated. >> i do not have a good dancer or the right technical solution for the launch vehicle. they have several options to proceed with. one thing i will give you from my experience watching the space station program in the 1990's

was that after it was redesigned for the upmteenth time to keep the program alive, it was decided to fund the station at about $2 billion a year. thatpretty much kept to funding level. by keeping to that level, they look like a bell curve. if you know what you're finding is going to be, if an effort is made to protect that budget, to allow them to manage them effectively, we have this remarkable asset that is in space today. the request did not reflect the authorization. there was also a onetime expenses.

after the challenger was lost, we made a one time of preparation. that came in under budget. the rest of the program was not disrupted. if you throw disruptions into the plan, it makes me it more difficult for nasa and the industry. i do not know what the right answer is. i know you have a letter you sent to nasa to figure out what the responses on that. once a plan is agreed upon, sticking to the funding profile is the most important thing to can do. >> do you think we still have the expertise in the employees that are left? there has been another round of layoffs following the shuttle that comes down. do we have enough to fill the nasa part of the mission or are

we getting bled to death so that we will only have the private sector? >> i observe nation would be that many of the people being let go are on the operations side. their experts said operating the space shuttle system. while we need to have those capabilities, it is the small tip of these -- spear, it is the design engineers. on that level, we may be doing pretty good. right now we have the least three commercial crew systems being developed. we have the orion multipurpose crew vehicle. there are a number of activities relative to the launch vehicle that are going well. i would not say we are super healthy but with the programs we have now, but we need to figure

out the transition of work force. expertise is important. you need to run the systems. >> we have one more shuttle. is there anyone who is concerned about whether we still have the curb -- capability to do the last shuttle? to make sure we have everything on the space station that a shuttle can take. when we go to use it, we will not have much capability to take things to the station. >> i think i can address most of your question. i'm pretty close to the people at the centers. i talked to them about things are going and what is happening with the missions. your first question was do we still have the expertise? my answer is yes.

there are a lot of good people still there. it is unfortunate that people are being laid off. the major hit this to the contract work. these people have been in the program for decades. they have the same corporate knowledge and expertise as what we attribute to nasa as a whole. they are the arms and legs and in many cases the brains of what goes on. it is an issue and a concern. hopefully people have done the blast -- best planning they have good. the remainder of the workforce is still extremely competent. still capable of making the right decisions and conducting operations safely. as well as moving out of programs currently in the authorization bill. i believe we have people on both sides of the table to execute

what has that asked of the country. we need to continue to have bipartisan support. one of the problems has been the debate over what many would see as a partisan issue over the details of the direction of nasa. i think we need to get that bind us and decide we have a plan that can be executed and that people need to move rapidly on that. it will be a mix of commercial endeavors and government endeavors. we need to continue to focus on the technological capabilities of the plans and the teams that are working on them. the business experience the might be out there, we need to be cautious but we also need to encourage access to space by many people and companies. as i said, the measure of whether we remain a great nation is whether we can get through

this difficult time and maintain our leadership in space. it will require a commitment from both the congress and the government leadership. >> when you are referring to a bipartisan, the congress is speaking very forcefully of one mind. however, the administration and congress is what you are referring to is -- as not being in sync. >> i am just a witness. [laughter] >> when you said bipartisan, a bipartisan effort, we have one. we passed an author is and -- authorization bill. >> i think the whole government is to take a lesson. >> i share your frustration in this regard. whether you support the

flexible path or not, we have an authorization that sets out where we are going. nasa has not always had that. the congress has taking great pains to set forth what is now a law. i am astounded that someone from nasa is not sleeping on a couch in each of your offices and working this on a daily basis. it gives nasa the opportunity to get the enterprise focused about what the law of the land says will be done. i think the letter you sent to administrator is a good step. i think some additional meetings are called for. so we can make sure the agency is implementing what they have been given. >> thank you.

>> senator, if i may make one specific comment. the subcommittee has been given a commercial market assessments by nasa. there is a one page appendix that i would suggest would prove useful to examining. the agency looks at, does it cost evaluation of the falcon nine spacecraft. the price out how expensive it would have been for nasa to have built that rocket. they get an answer of $1.7 billion at the low end. they also state they examined -- that it cost them $400 million.

that suggests that, if that is real, if that difference is real, that is encouraging about the future. it would be good to learn as much as one can as to how to do things differently. it may mean that the commercial sector could play a much more ambitious role. the other thing is, why would it have been that much more expensive for nasa to do this, especially at a time when the claim is that one of the issues facing asset is how to develop the heavy launch vehicle within the budget profiled the committee has given them. i would hope that kind of examination could be done in a cooperative way. let's roll up our sleeves together and figure out what changes we want to make. there is an implication that

there is a much less expensive of doing things. perhaps that would evaporate under closer examination. >> i would like to further suggest that the government has not always been terrific at estimating markets. i say that from the point of view of somebody who worked on the elv program in its early years. it is astounding how bad the estimates were. i was -- i would encourage the committee to look toward a disinterested party to get an objective view on these costs. >> as someone who also worked on the elv, industry was also part of that mr. estimation. -- misestimation.

between the two companies, and most of the money was put in by lockheed martin or boeing, we wound up with two families of launch vehicles. it was the first one that had been built since the 1970's. we wound up with a new rocket factory. three new pads and a capability that has not had a failure yet. if you want to look at how programs can be managed with government involvement but still produce tremendous results, elv does have some lessons. >> your points are well taken. i think there is a future in the private sector which is why we created the balance in our bill. we also have to have the

reliability, the backup systems, and all of the extra efforts that must be made when you're talking about human space flight. i think going at a measured pace is what we ought to be doing and assuring we're not moving so fast that we end up not having something that is reliable and also that we have all of the safety backup systems that would be required and so the we do not have a big cost overrun. so that it will be more expensive in the long run because you are at a place where you do not have backups, you do not have any kind of alternative. and something does not work in the when you have, it was

mentioned that you could put it off to the private sector. that is not a good business model. i think the balance we struck would be a measured and safe way forward. if it is a difference of four hundred million verses 1.5 billion, that is what we ought to be looking for. >> thank you, senator. the authorization bill requires nasa to look for these types of deficiencies that we have been talking. better acquisition, better contract in, with an eye of bringing down the cost.

>> mr. pulham, you mentioned a number of measures, one of those was to inspire the world. would you elaborate on that in a second? but i would also like you to comment in regard to those things, how we're doing as a nation right now in regard to those things that we all agree are important. >> there are three key words in our mission statement. in speyer, enable, and propel. the inspiration part is a lot easier to do when you have a visible program as opposed to when you do not know what is coming next. if you have that program, that enables a lot of things to happen. it enables technologies to of all.

and enables people to create programs to engage teachers and students. it enables all americans to see what is going on and take pride in it. as my colleagues have noted, americans think we are putting a lot more into this than we have. you want to propel our nation in terms of its global leadership. you want to propel our scientific base, our engineering base. you want to propel our young people into programs that are difficult programs and to get them there without requiring mathematical remediation. and to maintain that intellectual capital that i talked about. i'm not sure if that answers your question but i think it is

important we have a vibrant space program. the international space station is near and dear to my heart. i worked on that program down in alabama. the fact that there is not more -- that is not more known that that program is up and running and there is a tremendous amount going on there is detrimental in terms of our being able to support other space programs as a country. the people do not get that there is something wonderful happening, they have a hard time believing something else wonderful is going to happen. leveraging that international space station is important. at the level of teachers and students, and we have an academic branch in our organization, they get the whole

space station thing once you start talking to them. if they come off the street into your classroom, they may not have any knowledge. but when you work with them they latch onto it and build programs around a. we have taken over a failing inner-city school entered into a space academy. the kids use the latest software to calculate when these -- space station is coming overhead. my worry is that however we implement this path, we do it in a way that people can see that something exciting is coming. >> thank you very much. i agree totally. doctor chyba, i know you worked hard on the commission. there aren't lot of different pros and cons in coming to your

decision. would you agree the important element of any heavy lift vehicle would be the degree to which they maximize the use a previous investments in vehicle development, propulsion systems, and infrastructure? >> i should make a distinction between the committee's work and my own view. the committee presented options. while a factored into its analysis other options as a metric, the cost of sustainability, there was an explicit matter, like a work force metric. the committee presented options and did not make recommendations. my own view is that given that we are in this delicate position of trying to move toward an

expansion into the solar system while we have to maintain and foster this commercially driven -- i do not think we have much choice but to build as much as possible on existing capabilities. there may be a price to that. that could mean that we have a system that costs less up front but has higher recurring costs in the future. i hope that the way to mitigate that would be to make the system as -- as possible. the main engines are being discussed that will move toward a disposable version of the shuttle engines that would be less expensive. so long as it can evolve so there is a prayer of bringing

down recurring costs, i think that is the way to go. i do not think we have much choice given the budget. >> as a commission member, somebody that worked hard and went through a number of different options and finally chose the flexible path option, i am curious. the authorization bill worked hard to push that down the road in order to get done. i'm confused about the administration's path. being somebody who is new to the committee and working hard to understand, of the paths that you try to explore and things, where do you see them going as a part from the authorization? >> as you stated, the choice of flexible path was not our

committee's. it was the choice of the subcommittee. as i read the president's remarks, it was what the administration was picking. since i am here in my personal capacity, i am not in a position to assess the motives of the administration any more than i can assess the motives of -- >> i do not mean the motives. you are in a position, we have all of these options. one was chosen. where do you see -- if we move along the path, where do you see that going? what is the path? >> without trying to speak for the administration, speaking on my own impression, it remains to

be proven that we can do this. that is the first thing i would say. i hope we can because i want to have a human teacher in space. but we have not done this successfully before. where we have kept flying, maintaining a station, we are developing the capacity to launching. and we're developing a heavy lift vehicle and trying to go beyond lower orbit. if you ask me about where it is going, we will find out, can we do it? it seems to me an enormous challenge that will require all hands on deck. it will require cop -- cooperation between the hill and the administration with nasa where the sides are not recalcitrant but they are

rolling up their sleeves to work on a national objective. it seems to me that the first thing that we can hope for with heavy lift is that we do things in lunar space, we get away from lower orbit the not farther than the moon. not to land there, that is too ambitious. but we demonstrate that we can get there. we would need to develop, assuming that orion is the vehicle, we will need to develop an air lock so that astronauts can leave the capsule. we would be to develop a deep space have attacked that could accompany a ryan on longer missions. we have to look for objectives that are new and interesting

that maximized these other benefits including scientific knowledge. let's maximize these other benefits. i suspect that those next missions would be near an asteroid. that would be unprecedented in mission duration and -- and ambition. another objective is protecting civilization. we know these objects occasionally hit the earth. we had a 15 megaton explosion in the atmosphere that flattened 800 square feet of forest. these things happen. the happened 100 years ago. learning more about asteroids is and everybody's interest. i think that makes sense as the next objective. next objective. beyond