hurdle. that is missions that go as far as mars. i would hope the asteroid mission would be the proof we need to get out that far without having to pay up front for the enormous expense of landing. flexible it is not clear how we will pay for the development of those systems given the budget. there's a hope there that somehow the changes. there is also a kind of off ramp. it is called the flexible path. if the nation decides returning to the moon is an important objective and that could be for a variety of reasons. the point of the flexible path is to get the necessary infrastructure in place. everything short of the landers so if we needed to, we could make that decision.

that is why it is flexible. >> thank you. that was a very clear fleshing out of the concepts behind the flexible path. and i appreciate you putting that on the record. i appreciate also you drawing the attention to appendix b of the report and i will quote from that appendix where as you had said, they had said in this case, you used the falcon-9 as an example of a commercial rocket being developed and, " they predictive cost to develop a falcon-9 would have been

between $1.70 billion and $4.0 billion. the development costs for the falcon-9 launch vehicle was $300 million, $90 million was spent developing the the launch vehicle," and so forth. which brings you up to the total of $400 million. if this bears out that is it is that much difference, it corroborates the flexible path and the philosophy of the authorization bill and so to you, i would like you to comment whereas it appears in

the past that we have seen a decline in american competitiveness in the commercial marketplace. does this give you reason now to -- just this one example and the company as another example, there are many others that are out competing. his company and this other company, they will be launching cargo to the international space station on american rockets and it will start this fall. so tell me what you think is the possibility of the turnaround of increasing our share of the commercial marketplace. >> thank you. i think it is very good. i would start by observing that i have never had any doubt that commercial companies could do things cheaper than the

government can. we look at how nasa operates, it operates under a lot of requirements that a commercial company does not have to meet in terms of its oversight, it's many political masters, its historic requirements around issues of management and safety. i am pleased with how space x has done. the space foundation awarded space x its achievement award of 2010 more than a month ago. i think this does pose some interesting scenarios for us. i think a successful space x -- those are game changers for us. i think that they fundamentally change the ability of our

foreign competitors, if you will, in the launch business. that assumes a fair playing field. the current problems we have with itar do create a barrier that says and until those are fixed, it does become difficult for a company like space x to market overseas because those payloads triggers an event that adds expense and made price them out or simply keep them out. is the sure if that answer to your question. i would also with your indulgence make a comment. the nasa involving various things like the ssme and others,

i think that is fine if we agree that what the heavy lift vehicle is going to do is enable us to do other things that require new technologies, innovative thinking, and so on. the concern i have is one of the things the apollo program did is it asked us to do difficult things that have never been done and that resulted in a lot of convention and new technology. if we are depending on existing technology and not interested in developing new technology, that is something that bears a look at as we implement this plan. >> thus, the flexible path which dr. chiva outlined. you had a flexible path to get components into earth orbit, and

depending on what your goal is, at that point, you develop the technologies to get there. we're not going to mars or likely to an asteroid at this point with the technologies we have. it is going to be all kinds of new things. i want to ask capt. colbertson, since the subject of the hearing is the contributions of space to national priorities, tommy, you mention all the nations that are participating in this gargantuan thing that is on orbit called the international space station. you mentioned also this extraordinary relationship that we have with the russians that was born out of the beginning of

the thought of the cold war when an apollo spacecraft docked with a soyuz spacecraft in the middle of the cold war. they lived nine days together in space and that is an extraordinary human interest story. to see the relationship of those three american astronauts now and the two soviet cosmonauts. but you chronicled -- [no audio] evolving into what we see today. you want to give us more comments for the record as a ?ontribution of space >> when the program was envisioned, it was an offshoot

of the decision to bring the russians in. it had been there since 1986. they did not [inaudible] they had learned to operate the station. skylab was operating for 87 days. it was an opportunity for us to participate with someone who was already doing this but also because they were being brought in as a partner providing significant segments of the station that would allow it to be viable and operate. it was important for us to work with them before we started putting pieces together in orbit. together, we built a docking module that allowed the shuttle to dock so we could more easily attached to the space station and transfer people and we developed logistics capability

to carry not only our crew members but the cargo associated with their experiments and to supplement what was going on on the mir as a cooperative partner. we have to learn each other's way of doing business, each other's way of doing engineering and operations. we have to live in each other's control centers and factories. eventually, visit each other in their homes. at the working level, at the management level, it became a close-knit, tight team that was able to do with almost every problem that came out, including the life-threatening ones that occurred. that trial by fire allowed us to develop the trust that was necessary to go from there to the international space station. we do depend on each other. neither of the countries could go it alone on the international space station at this point and the partners depend on us to do our part to keep working and

keep it as a valuable research station. that development of that relationship was critical going forward. if i could expand on that, the relationships we are developing within this country in the commercial world in relation to what nasa is doing is the development of something critical that goes beyond the technology and the hardware that is being built. understanding how to bring commercial practices to development of spacecraft and rockets, that will make things more cost-effective. the oversight in the key areas of the decades of flying people in space and flying hardware in space and combining those two makes it a valuable experience. we overlook the relationship -- we cannot to overlook the capabilities as we're going forward and i would like to see that continue. engaging with the russians to finish answering your question was critical to being

successful. we learned a lot and overcame politics that still to this day overlay everything but allow us to make a phone call between program managers and make a decision in a few minutes on what needs to be done in the next hour to keep the crusade. >> we often forget that when we talk about the contributions of space to national priorities which you have very eloquently outlined a number of them. the technological spinoffs and so forth. the one that the captain has mentioned was and has been invaluable. >> if i could just add, the first time the components what put together, when was russian and the other was american. they had never touched each other and they were attached going 18,000 miles an hour in a vacuum and fit perfectly and that has been true of every component between our countries that we have taken up there.

because we have worked on the trust and secondly, the communication that allows us to understand each other's capabilities and each other's hardware. it allows us to know about each other as a people. both ourselves and the people we're working with. that in itself helps make as good leaders and it helps keep the peace where we can in the world. >> well said. senator? >> thank you. what actions do you believe congress could or should take that would enhance the ability of the u.s. aerospace industry to continue its record of supporting the nation's technological superior and competitiveness in the global economy? >> to follow-up on eliot's comment relative to exports,

satellites were put on the munitions list, maybe the only thing that was put on a munitions list. and its regulation has caused or helped cause the decline of u.s. market share in commercial satellites, a 70% down to 25%. it is still well below its historic norms. at the component level when i used to work on delta launch vehicles, we would have nozzle extensions from france and other competitors who had bearings from switzerland. we do not export. we have such a difficult time exporting hardware and some of the suppliers we have in the u.s. industry are the best in the world and could compete but for the difficulty of getting things to be exported. i think that when we look at the national export initiative, we

have to look at where is your sustainable industry. where do you excel? we excel in aerospace and largest we're the contributor to the balance of trade in the server + category. $53 billion last year but it could be more on the space side if we could look at the rules us better.ould make hi to maintain an industrial base requires a certain amount of activity. it would make it easier for the air force and nasa to not have sped -- have to spend so much or to try to maintain capabilities. it would make this better competitors. one of the reasons why our i.t. industry is good is because of competition. boeing is good because there is airbus. they constantly try to outdo the other. the wind up with lower costs and

an industry that is forced to be better. that is one of the best things we can do is reforming our export regime. >> thank you. what role does nasa's missions play in america's leadership in space? >> i think there is a number of things. clearly as i discussed in my remarks, the impassiveness of what we have done grand -- contributing to our soft power and leadership, whether it was the shuttle mir, when we do these things, there are technical and financial aspects. the message we send around the world about what kind of nation we are, we are a nation of leaders, we are a nation of

great technological prowess really causes the world to u.s. in a way they would not if we could not do those things. i think the contribution to soft power is paramount. i also think the contribution that nasa makes to the intellectual capacity of this nation is not totally and thoroughly understood and i would not pretend to totally and thoroughly understand it but i know a few things. students at whatever grade level and we're teaching space in pre- k now. they grasp what is going on in space, the grass what nasa is doing and they get excited about it. that changes the way they look at the study of things like science and engineering and mathematics. we have referred to this aerospace academy, we have students who are 92 -- 94% are

on free or assistant -- assisted lunch. the come down to the laboratory and use space sensors and software to measure distances on their campus and figure out where everything is in relation to their own lives. the other part of the education peace becomes what do we do at the college level? one of the things that nasa is not greatly appreciated for is the amount of investment that nasa makes in university research and graduate studies at our universities and how that influences some of the career decisions people make when they are in graduate and post- graduate school. our organization is international but we are headquartered in colorado and i am conscious that the university of colorado has been one of the

largest recipients of nasa research dollars and because of that, we have developed a center of excellence in the northern part of the state in satellites, in sensors and aerospace manufacturing and so on. i think nasa plays a real important role in -- and we need to work on ways to have what ever nasa is doing the more visible to the american public so the american public can embrace all the benefits of this activity. >> i want to follow-up with asking you about if we do not aggressively move forward and began work on the heavy lift rocket, what effect will that have in our international space leadership?

and secondly, you can think about this. what you alluded to i think is so important. if you would comment about your perspective from an academic experience, what you believe is the best way to attract students and interest them in the field of study that is needed for maintaining a strong and effective space exploration program. >> thank you. i think that in terms of the importance of having a new heavy lift vehicle, you need to look as far as the james webb telescope program to understand where we are. the telescope when it is put into orbit, it will be put into orbit on a european vehicle because it is capable of taking the web telescope and putting yet in an assertion to get it to

the lagrangian point where it will be stationed. that enables you to do things we cannot do now. the space shuttle can carry a huge model of 40,000 pounds or so, but if you had a capability of putting 200,000 pounds or taking that payload and putting it on a trajectory to the moon, that is a game changer. it is important for us to get that heavy lift capability just as quickly as we can. >> thank you. there are a few comments i would make. one is a broad one that over my career i have had the opportunity to talk to kids at all levels from first grade up through graduate students.

my first comment is a very broad one. something i noticed when i started doing this when i was in my 28's is there was enormous enthusiasm for space and i see that in my son's day care. enormous enthusiasm when kids are young. by the time you are talking with high school kids, it is a different level of enthusiasm. that is not nasa pose a problem. that is a broader societal issue. we are squeezing that enthusiasm out of too many of our students and we need to speak to those students were going to make aerospace our science their career but we need to speak to the population and keep them excited about science. a second comment is the importance of honesty. scientific integrity. this is why push for it in the augustine committee report.

the students that are in college or grad school, especially the ones in grad school, they can smell if they feel like they're being told a story about the space program that does not stack up scientifically. if claims are being made that this or that mission will be us -- lead us to a cure for cancer when the connection is not there, they're really immediately translate into a deep cynicism and skepticism about the program. i have seen that too often. a third comment is that the program needs to be not only doing exciting things, it needs to be seen to be at the cutting edge of what is happening. i have a tremendous graduate student in aerospace at a major university who worked with me for year end one of the best students i have ever had.

really sure. did stuff i did not expect him to do and showed what i was doing was wrong. he did not want to go work for nasa. he wanted to work for one of the start-ups. my sense is he felt like nasa had become a dinosaur and this left me disheartened and feeling sad for my country. the startups are there but we need nasa that also makes students feel that way about it. the idea that our best and brightest would be rolling out nasa because it is not exciting enough is, that is something that is wrong. that is an anecdote but it was for me a powerful one. in the augustine committee, we worked very closely with nasa engineers and managers and because i know that there has been a difficult relationship

and some of that has been referenced in this hearing, i would like to say for the record that so many of those people are the absolute best in the world and they are deeply dedicated. there ought to be -- there is a reservoir of deep knowledge and dedication, the best in the world, but the motivation to make this happen. that is why they are there. it is possible moving forward for there to be a cooperative environment in which all sides work together and ruled their sleeves to achieve this major national objectives. i think students will see that. >> thank you. i think that is whavery well sa. i believe with my heart we will see that happen. we appreciate you being here so much. this has been a very good hearing, very informative, very helpful. we look forward to working with

you in the future on behalf -- in the future. on behalf of our chairman, the meeting is adjourned. >> coming up on c-span. dmitry medvedev. a news briefing with defense secretary robert gates and a debate between the candidates for the special election in the 26 congressional district of new york. tomorrow, a look at the gop presidential field with former congressman tom davis of the republican mainstream partnership. consumer product safety

tennenbaum.z >> history is much more than politics and soldiers. social issues. it is also medicine and theater and poetry and ideas. and we should not love things and two categories. it is part of the same thing. >> john singer sargeant. part one of two weeks on the americans who made the greater journeyed to 19th century paris. "washington journal" on

twitter and joined viewers to get advanced notice of the gas, questions of the day, and links to video clips. you can tweak your questions and add your comments to the conversation. do not miss any updates. start your twitter account today at twitter .com/cspan/wj. >> a press conference with president dmitry medvedev. he talks about his concerns over a proposed missile defense system and warned of the cold war if the u.s. and russia fail to agree on missile defense. he also took questions on the russian economy and his relationship with prime minister vladimir putin but evaded a question of whether he will run for election in 2012. [laughter] [applause]

>> esteemed colleagues, please allow me to welcome you. there are a lot of reporters here and i have been informed there are over 800 media people here and i am pleased that there is so much interest in this press conference. i cannot complain i am not spending enough time with the press, though. i meet them all the time during my daily work and during my travel to the constituents in the russian federation and over the last few years when i worked at the government and since i have been president, i have visited virtually all the different regions of this country except for two. i will soon visit those also. i have met many of them members of our regional press in person

and i can see some of them here which is nice. there has not been such a major press conference before and there is a reason for that. it makes sense to have a press conference like that to share impressions of how this country has been developing and what is going on. i would like to thank you for your interest in this press conference and i am positive that i am headed toward some interesting questions, although i do not know how interesting you will find my answers. i am prepared to start work. let us get there. and that was nice. one last thing. one logistical remark. this is to be the first press conference in the history of this country where the president is going to also be

the emcee, there's not anyone taking questions. if you do not have a problem, i will point my finger at you and so, and i, rolw so and will expect you to get up and start asking questions. to get going, it would be appropriate to ask the floor to -- pass the floor to television. sergei, i was on your show and there was an interesting conversation. by way of responding, i would like to give you the right to ask the first question. >> thank you. i would like to ask about the degree of irreversibility. this is outside the beltway

which is a vicious circle. it also has its own sense. how would you evaluate the doubt and error -- irreversability? >> i do not think we should proceed from the premise that modernization is cast in stone. because i remember at a certain point, we were celebrating the first year and we all know where it led to. modernization is not cast in stone. it is an important process. the most important thing is to acquire a new dimension of development. modernization is not just momentum going forward. it is applying success we have achieved.

we talk about a qualitative change and i am positive this is not something we have achieved yet although it does not mean that we should change to the flags, banners, the slogans and talk about a new wave of modernization. modernization must carry on. i am positive that priorities i have outlined should remain as important avenues of work. the government and state run programs applying to these avenues that are being funded, they are being implemented, have they achieved anything extraordinary? we have not. this is what will be my biggest motivation. my -- mine and my colleagues. we can work to change the life in this country. that is why i would like to emphasize one more time, modernization is the most important avenue of development. in my view, this should leave to

qualitative change and not just to us marking some kind of anniversary. it is -- i am talking about this because this is a special place. one that has a lot of significance. it is here that the university was set up and is here where the innovation center will be established and i would like for this brand to be truly known around the world. and not because it is the only place that one needs to make investments in but because in any kind of developments or cause, there should be essential, the most important elements which the -- this structure for the effort. i am hoping this will become the single most important link in

the chain of modernization. the most important but not the only one. i would like to thank everyone who was working here. for the fact they have provided this room for us so we can have a press conference. it is more interesting to happen here. in your view, what is the relationship and what is your perspective of the relationship that russia has with the united states and the west and nato? what are the problems and what is the progress that has been made? another question, also, international but also legal. concerning domestic russian life. there has been debate about whether or not it is mandatory for russia to comply with

decisions made by the european court for human rights because there are many decisions that have to do with the material subject and the spirit of compliance and you know what that means. what do you think about russia's compliance with the decisions? thank you. >> the subject of russia's relationship with nato is vast. it is something that concerns me every day because -- literally every day, this is one of the things i spend time on when i hear reports by ministers, when i read reports by special services, or when i prepare myself for functions at which i have meetings with leaders. many of whom represent nato. the relationship with nato at this point is the sen.

it works well for both sides. we did have a dramatic time when we essentially stopped the relationship and it had not come from us, it came from the north atlantic alliance. i said it is up to them. if they do not want to cooperate, will not -- we will not [unintelligible] and things are developing in a normal way. i am pleased with my meetings during the russia-nato summit. we agreed to cooperate on the most strategic items on the agenda, including afghanistan. counter-terrorism, drug- trafficking. there are new issues which i believe we must agree, otherwise everything will involve in a

nasty manar. i am talking about the anti- missile defenses. this is a stand-alone subject and i will briefly cover it although i have repeatedly offered assessments of it. we would like to happen for of the defenses to follow understandable, clear-cut rules. it must be obvious for everybody that anti-missile defenses is a method of blocking or cutting back on the strategic capability of a number of countries. when we are told this is not against you, i do take note but i do not -- [unintelligible] other countries that do not have the capability and they will have the capability over the next few years. we're told, it is iran. they do not have that capability. is that this -- is that against us? tell us about that openly.

i am hoping that the issues i have raised in communication with my colleague and counterpart, president obama, those questions will be given answers to end we will develop a model of cooperation. unless that happens, we will have to take some kind of action and response. it is something i would not like to do. we would have to speed up the buildup of the strike potential of the nuclear forces and that would be a nasty scenario, rowling us back to the cold war era. by 20/20 when the stages of the preparation of the adaptive forestage approach have been completed, it is likely those decisions will not be made by you and perhaps not by me. but, looking -- someone will be making those decisions.

that is what we have to think about how we will hand over this problem to the future generations of politicians. this is an important subject. you can ruin everything we have done. it does have a direct provision that if the system is developed, which means the strategic parity will be upset, the treaty may be suspended, even terminated. i would like my partners to take note and say we are prepared for corp. but to say we're hoping we would obtain guarantees that these capabilities are not targeting us. i'm not done yet. i made diligent person to answer and i will answer

questions. russia is a member and have signed all the documents and must comply with them. we will continue to do so. to us, membership in the european institutions is extremely important. and yet we cannot fail but see certain difficulties we're running into because we are an emerging democracy, and evolving democracy and we have quite a few problems and occasionally, this -- there being complied with. on certain occasions and that is what you are referring to, there is a feeling that the court has not made the decision in an unbiased way. it was a decision that was politically motivated. there are such opinions and that is why such decisions are being

discussed. some of our political leaders talk about that but that does not mean we have terminated our membership and are planning to abandon our involvement in the echr. any court must act in a way that creates a feeling among the parties that it is not engaged by anybody. it is an impartial and unbiased. i have promised i will give the floor to someone from st. petersburg. anyone from st. petersburg, please. >> thank you. independent news wire. i would like to go back to st. petersburg and to russia because

you have been talking about international affairs. would you like to be a magician? would you like to be able to do that? recently we celebrated one more time and after that, it is heartbreaking to read about our veterans sending their borders and medals to the kremlin. returning them. how they would like to ask obama for resident permits. should this country provide proper housing and vehicles to our veterans and not act in a shameful mattematter. -- manner. there are people who do that and

federer instead of being homeless. it is possible to give every veteran proper housing. you can do it. you are the president. >> i am not a magician although i do try to make decisions that people expect me to. it is the duty of any executive, and the leader. over three years ago, may 7, 2008, i signed an order whereby all veterans would be given apartments. your asking me this question. perhaps it is time to make these decisions and not to abuse and humiliate our veterans. i have already made those decisions. it is pointless to talk about that.

everybody who could have made such decisions at different points in time after world war ii was over, there were so many more veterans. i can remember the mid-1970's how the great victory day was being celebrated when they were young. there were not that much older but they have the same problems. the government did not give a damn about them. that is something that really hurts. that is why i believe that everybody must do today what he or she can. i was in a position to make a decision, make sure that veterans were given housing, and i did that make -- i did make that decision. we were talking about billions of rubles worth of housing. people would tell me, there are not that many veterans laughed.

veterans will not get that housing. their children will. this is something that children and grandchildren will have. this is immoral to think like that. the government must at some point to recognize what those veterans did for all of us. i will tell you this. even if they leave this life understanding they have something they can hand over to their children and grandchildren, that will make them happy. these decisions must be executed. there are significant amounts of funds being spent on them. this is not happening without problems. there is abuse. something has to be looked into and one has to be sensitive. i have looked at this situation, it was enough to call attention to this for which i am grateful to the press.

the problem was solved. this is an ordinary thing but it does not mean that they should not be responded to. the decision that is embedded in the order, there will be followed through. whatever the cost is for the government. ok. the village. yes. i will let the agrarians ask a question. i would like to give the floor to our major media outlets. but may give the floor to ntv. it would be wrong to not let the three major networks ask their questions. >> thank you for not forgetting about this. i did want to ask a question but colleagues have asked and beat me to the punch. >> ask one more time. >> what i was coming to this

conference i was sure the question about the second presidency and a relationship with britain would be asked every other minute. >> i will ask about putin. would there be a situation where there are two candidates? you and the prime minister kamara or is this -- everybody will run independently? >> le'ron independently but take part together? >> it is clear that one party cannot nominate two candidates. you would have to wait another party. >> you did say that in the long term, the president -- could this be brought closer? could you lead an existing party or put a new one in place? >> thank you. let's talk about representation

one more time. as i was answering our colleague any decisions had to be thought through. these are not toys. where are holding our hands the future of a vast number of people. this is not something we are making decisions on to appease our ambitions and decisions on whether or not to run must be based on that. my relationship with my colleague and partner is not just something that is commonly known as -- [inaudible] this is a relationship that is over 20 years old. we know each other and fill each other and we are intellectual comrades in arms. whatever they may say about this but we have very close approaches to the key issues of development. does not mean that we see

eye to eye. every individual has the right to his or her own sensations, feelings, and their approaches. as far as strategy, we're close. otherwise we would not be able to work together. if we were not, this political partnership would have fall apart and we would have a different political landscape today. that is what the decision must be based on as to what to do next. i believe that there is competition that is healthy and helpful and competition that leads to a blind alley. leads into a dead-end and we're hoping that as appropriate decisions are being made about who will run for what post and who will do what in the future, we will be guided by this kind of responsible approach. responsible about the nation and

the people who live here. as part -- as far as party manipulation, if i were to run for president, i, of course, would like to rely on certain political forces. it is not possible otherwise and these would be political parties. we do not have that many. i believe that it is another bad thing. i -- we have left behind the era where we have a marginal political groups. if i do that, i would like to rely on those who nominated me before. can the president establish his own political force? i think the answer is yes. can the president become a member of a party? i already covered that. most likely, this is what will

happen. most democracies are evolving based on this scenario. we at some point in time believe that if in russia the president leaves one of the parties, that will spell the end of the consensus this country needed. now, we do have political forces that have evolved and there are different ideas of how this country needs to be developed and improved. the president can leave one of the forces. there is nothing wrong about that. orders -- reuters, please. you are not going to use a microphone? just yell it out loud? >> you have been making efforts to improve the investment climate in russia. a great deal has been said and

done. there have been situations like the recent failure of the transaction to swap shares. this is something that is seen by investors as a setback. here is my question. what mistakes did couldn't -- putin's government make and what conclusions should the government drawbacks you have said as far as strategy, u.n. you have been depue meagha oppsoitosite. investors are serious about the case and could you explain this, could you clarify this? >> investment climate is the

single most important component of our success. i covered the subject today so i will not say anything extraordinary but i promise you i will revisit this issue surely at a forum that will be taken place in st. petersburg where i would like to invite all of you. major projects are part of the investment climate. i do not know what the final outcome will be. we put aside the difficulties involved. i think that those who were involved in the preparation of this transaction should have paid more attention to the details of shareholder agreements and legal matters that always come up when major documents are being prepared. if you will, this should have

been more thorough due diligence done and i do not think this was done which led to complications and to collisions with other shareholders. this is something that must be avoided and one has to reach agreement before. if the deal does go through, i will be happy. it is not that bad for this country. as far as strategy. when i was saying that we have similar or identical positions, me and the prime minister come out here is what i meant. we have the same kind of education, legal education, we were trained as lawyers. we have similar sets of values. we both want this country to be modern. we want it to be effective, we

want it to look good. we want people to have a decent standard of living. we want reasonable decisions to be made that can be executed and implemented. we want him and rights to be complied with. we want there to be a modernized, a diversified economy. that does not mean that we see eye to eye on tactics. in an absolute, complete white. i do not think it is bad. truth should be the product of interaction. sometimes even collisions and this is what guarantees forward momentum. perhaps my position is somewhat different from that of the prime minister. he believes that modernization is a gradual movement. i believe we do have a chance and we do have the strength to carry out modernization faster without any damage to what has

been done before and to achieve good results. and to make a quantum leap forward. but that requires a lot of work. everything else i think is tangential. the final subject and our colleague has asked that question. the colleague that represents [unintelligible] radio has asked the question. >> with a year to go, your presidency is over. there will be many important events. looking back at the years that have already passed, could you tell us about your main achievements and could you speak frankly about your setbacks? that is what they colleague was

asking about. >> i do not think i will surprise or maize anybody if i say that the obvious successes and the important achievements over the last three years are that what might have been the most difficult period of development. the growth of unemployment. we did not drop the ball as far as development. we carried on. all the key programs remained in place and it was not a dramatic deterioration of the standard of living. just the opposite. we recovered quickly and we are moving forward. that is important if we remember the sentiments that are still quite strong in many european countries. countries that are more successful in certain ways and more affluent but we do not have

the processes that are taking place in the financial sector of spain, portugal, and greece and we were able to consolidate our selves although it was difficult. once -- we were able to execute a very clear-cut foreign policy which has resulted in a decrease of tension between us and the number of countries. that enables us to develop this country without spending so much time on other tangential problems and we have been able to defend ourselves and today, we can defend ourselves. we can defend our independence, and our sovereign approaches. what i am referring to is the most complicated events, putting the advance of 2008, it was important for this country to

not fall apart. to feel strong. irrespective of how these events are interpreted by other countries, it was important for us. as far as setbacks and failures. the answer is obvious. we have not been able to improvt we have not developed as fast as we would have liked to. we are dealing with social matters, but we still have a great deal of problems. there is still a lot of poverty in this country. there are still individuals who are living below the poverty line. there are approximately 13% of them. that is too high for a country

like ours. only recently, the number was 30%. there is a very substantial agenda. we have not been able to diversify our economic situation as much as we would like to. we have not been able to abandon our commodities driven growth. yet this is not reason enough to be depressed. this is an agenda for us to execute in the future. thank you very much. [applause] >> one last thing -- i would like to express that everyone who has not had an opportunity to ask the question today will get another chance. all the best. [applause] host: >> president obama will be at the state department tomorrow to deliver a speech on middle east

policy. we'll have live policy beginning at 11:40 eastern. later, the former director of national intelligence, dennis blair, will talk about the reform of the intelligence agencies. the will testify at a hearing of the homeland security committee. what's it like that 1:30 eastern. >> this weekend on booktv, the gaithersburg book festival alive with authors on the gulf oil spill, wall street, and the universe. plus a panel discussion of the book industry. the former ambassador to yemen on the u.s.'s counterterrorism efforts. afterwards, the most significant standoff of the cold war era -- the berlin wall. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org. >> history is much more than

just politics and social issues. it is also medicine, science, art, music, theater, poetry, and ideas. we should not lump things into categories. samuel morris, harriet beecher stowe, thomas edison, henry adams -- sunday night on "q&a", part one of the americans who made the greater journey at 8:00 on c-span. >> at the pentagon today, defense secretary robert gates said there is no evidence that senior pakistani leader's new osama bin laden was in pakistan. secretary gates was joined by joint chiefs of staff's chairman

admiral mike mullen. this is about 30 minutes. >> the president made clear that before making any specific budget decisions we must first conduct a fundamental review of america's military mission capabilities and security role around the world. today i am announcing the framework of the comprehensive review that the department of defense is launching to inform future decisions on spending on national security. for more than two years, the leadership of this department has worked on reforming the way the pentagon does business and

responding to the difficult fiscal situation facing the nation and making sure our military has what it needs to protect our interests. this effort began two years ago with an overhaul to the department's approach to military apprehension -- acquisition. it continued last year with a companion -- campaign to generate savings from excessive overhead that was reallocated to the services for reinvestment. the goal of these efforts was to carve out enough budget space to preserve and enhance key military capabilities. the new comprehensive review will ensure that future spending decisions are fastest -- are focused on strategy and not simply an accounting exercise. the goals will be to preserve the u.s. military capable of

meeting national security priorities even as a fiscal pressure requires reductions in the force. we must reject the traditional approach of applying across the board cuts, the simplest and most politically expedient approach both inside and outside this building. that kind of an approach preserves overhead and maintains structure on paper, but results in a falling out of the force from a lack of proper training, maintenance, and equipment. we were there before in the 1970's and 1990's. this review will be guided by the national defense strategy, the national military strategy, the chairman's risk assessment, and the quadrennial risk review. will focus on policy choices first and corresponding changes in the dod budget second.

the gdr shapes our capabilities, but there is not a strong analytical. this review will establish that linkage so we can see the and packs of changing qdr strategy on missions and capabilities. once these strategy options are identified, the review will consider the options. the review should develop specific program options that can be categorized in fort bend's. the first been is additional efficiency, continuing the efforts we lost last year. these changes would reduce the the cost with minimal impact on capability. we must be even more aggressive on bureaucratic excess and overhead before changes in capabilities and strategy. while i believe we can identify additional significant inefficiencies, but one not

result in an efficient savings. therefore, a second band will involve a investigation of processes and mandates that drive the dramatic increase in operating costs to include the way we deliver health care, compensate military personnel, provide retirement benefits, sustain our infrastructure, and acquire goods and services. the third bend will contain options to reduce or eliminate marginal missions and marginal capabilities, specialized in costly programs that are useful only in a limited range of circumstances and contingencies. they are not central to our core mission or a lower player artiste. the final bend and the hardest category strategically, and i would say also intellectually, will be specific alternative modifications to the qdr

strategy that this the capabilities needed to execute the strategy. this letter then it will be informed by all the other activities in this framework. this process must be about identifying options for the president and congress with the nation is willing to accept risk in exchange for reduced investment in the department of defense. the defense comprehensive review will be jointly led by the director of cost assessment and program evaluation, the undersecretary of defense for policy, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. mr. chairman? >> there had and two dozen times where you have dealt with them extensively. do you think you misjudged their willingness to cooperate?

do you believe them when they say that they did not know osama bin laden was there? what do you think of congress' request that we have actual results to seek out terrorists? >> i think the investments our military and i personally have made have been very important in terms of working a critical relationship. 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 have provided in pakistan in terms of

getting a growing terrorist threat that is very much in execution. pakistani citizens are dying regularly. that relationship has been a very important part in terms of their going after the terrorists in their own country. we have clearly have 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 period of time. that trust will not be reestablished overnight. i think the region continues to be critical in -- tends to be critical. our relationship tends to be critical. there are things we think need to be done, yet from my

perspective, we cannot nail that in and ask them to do this. i think it would be a really significantly negative outcome if the relationship was broken. from my perspective, that investment brought us to this position, which i think we need to leverage to sustain the relationship, not just that might level, but between the two countries. i see no evidence since the bin laden raid that indicates that the top leadership knew bin laden was there. >> i can understand congress' frustration. i think senator kerrey was pretty explicit in his meetings in pakistan that the circumstances have not led to a

lot of skepticism on the hill and that 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 a significant interest in pakistan. my own view would be that we need it to continue the assistance we have provided that benefits the pakistani people. coalition support funds or a reimbursement for services rendered for things they have a actually done. we have a very rigorous review process for those claims by the pakistanis. they are reviewed by our staff and by our embassy. they are 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 it to be cognizant of the concerns on the hill. i think the pakistanis need to be as well. we do have interests in common. >> senator kerrey went to islamabad and claimed that he pressed the pakistanies on pursuing the leadership of the taliban and also the hakani network. you have made it your job to provide protection to our american forces, but many of the

attacks launched against americans are conducted from or watched from a safe havens in afghanistan. can you understand the frustration of the military and the american people at the apparent reluctance of the pakistanis to go after the leadership that has said safe- haven there for nearly 10 years? >> of course i share that frustration. i understand the frustration and i share it. i think we have an opportunity here. the pakistanis over the last couple of weeks have expressed the view that they are willing to go after some of these people. we should not repeat the bin laden operation because they will undertake this themselves. this provides us an opportunity and i think we should take them

up on that. it also offers them an opportunity to address the frustration and skepticism. >> this is certainly not the first time this issue has been raised with the pakistani leadership. it is something that has been raised over the course of the last couple of years. i think they do understand it is a priority. i would just reemphasize what the secretary said it -- it is their desire to do this themselves. i think they certainly understand the importance of it. all of that said, they also have had some internal priorities as the terrorist threat has grown internally to them. their capacity in some regards -- by prioritized internally to go after them, but they know it

is a priority for us. clearly, as senator kerry did, we need to all make sure that they understand very clearly that his priority is not going to go away. the safe havens for these leaders have to be eliminated. >> you say they understand, but have they made a commitment to the u.s. to pursue these leaders? >> i will be specific about hakani. the general has committed to that. at one of the issues that that is a challenge for us is that our clock moves a lot faster than his clock. that has been indicate -- that has been the case so far, and i think that will be the case in the future. it is not an excuse, but

matching those clocks has been difficult. >> you were here last month in pakistan and talked about the strained relationship between the i.s.i. and the hakani. is it time to say to the pakistan as they clearly you have a relationship with them, but turned them over to the united states. >> my comments still stand from that perspective. i was very clear about the priority for the leadership in particular with respect to the hankani network and i would not change that. >> is that the right thing to do? >> our approach needs to continue to be with pakistan a very comprehensive approach across the totality of government.

saying this is how we are going to do it will not answer the mail. it will have to be a comprehensive approach. the secretary talked about the resources, which are considerable. it is understandable that there would be those who would look at that. i understand that. quite frankly, the pakistani leadership would understand that. >> do you presume that someone in the i.s.i. new bin laden was there and was supporting him? >> i think there, with the evaluation of the sensitive site material and exploitation that is going on, it will take us awhile to see it there is anything else. >> i would echo what the chairman said. i have seen no evidence at all

that the senior leadership new. in fact, i have seen evidence to the contrary. we have no evidence yet with respect to anybody else. my supposition is that somebody new. -- somebody knew. >> 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 in terms of the strategic alternatives. we have -- it has been our strategy for many years to be able to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously. if he were to tell yourself that

the likelihood of having two such flights simultaneously is low and you could, therefore, plan to fight sequentially, that would have a huge implications in terms of the size of force you need to maintain, but the other side of that is the risk involved if you are wrong. the other guys always have the vote. that is the kind of strategy and risk that we want to surface for the president and for the congress. what i am emmer -- what i am really working at is what we did in the '70s and the '90s, which would be across the board cuts. 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 chairman do the secretary of this department make tough decisions and then the president and the congress

make tough decisions because they have to accept responsibility for risk. i want to force that kind of discussion. if we are going to cut military and reduced the resources and 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 support the operations we have around the world. that is why i want this review in place, to provide the substance for making those kinds of conscientious decisions with the political leadership of the country i get assets says, "we are prepared to accept this risk in return for reduced investment in defense." >> to what extent will the $11 billion you are investing --

should be scaled back accordingly? >> first of all, the country needs the f-35. we need a fifth generation fighter in addition to the f-22. we must have that. obviously if you're going to change strategies or missions, that has implications for the amount of equipment you buy. i expect that to apply across the board, not just the the f- 35. everything in terms of looking at the strategic equations have to do with the amount of capability that you invest in. here is where the rubber meets the road -- we must buy eight nea new tanker. we must buy a fifth generation

fighter. there are a number of things the army must reassess after afghanistan. and the marine corps as well to a lesser extent. there are some significant new investments that must be made, so help you pay for that in the context we are talking about? those are the kinds of hard choices i want to surface and have people address b b b, frankly, within this building and outside, the easiest thing is to say "cut defense by x%." i think that would be a dangerous approach. >> you've got everyone's attention when you said you were worried about operational security at camp lejeune. can you explain a little bit

more with respect -- did you get sold out by the white house? it is clear that the white house was talking excessively about the mission. what was the agreement? did either of you gentlemen try to do anything? i am assuming you cannot give us any specifics, but can you say you have had to do anything to pop up security around the team and the families since they have expressed their concerns? >> first of all, in my comments at camp lejeune i did not single anybody out. in a way, everyone of you probably knows the answer to this question better than i do. my concern is that there were too many people in too many places talking too much.

-- talking too much about this operation. we had reached agreements that we would not talk about the operational details. as i said at camp lejeune, that lasted about 15 hours. and 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. when so much detail is available, makes that both more difficult and riskier. with respect to the seals, in light meeting with them the thursday after the operation they did express concern, not so much for themselves, but for their families. all i will say is that we have been taking a close look at that and we will do whatever is necessary. >> from my perspective, we have

got into a point where we are close to jeopardize in this precious capability that we have. we cannot afford to do that. this fight is not over, first of all. secondly, when you extend that to concerned with individuals in the military and their families, from my perspective it is time to stop talking. 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. it needs to. >> what do you say to troops and families in special operations to look at this and say they are

concerned for their family. what do you say to them? >> their response inside the community is the same that we have that inside the military -- they are taking proper steps based on their concerns, first of all. secondly, the whole issue for us in terms of operational security is an absolute requirement. so many of the things that we do -- it is not all the leaks from one part of the government. we have had far too many retired members who have spoken up. we just need to get off the net. >> can both of you assure the u.s. that note money to

pakistan allow them to broaden their nuclear programs? does the president and tend to ignore the war powers act? >> that question is above my pay grade. i would refer you to the white house. there are many lawyers at the white house. i am not one of them. >> with regards to pakistan -- >> of the coalition support funds, they have to document -- it is money they have already spent that we are reimbursing. they have to file a specific claim for these funds. how they spend money -- 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're trying to do. >> your supposition is that someone in the pakistani government knew about bin laden's whereabouts. won't they encouraged to do what they have been doing? >> i would invite the chairman to comment. i would say if i were in pakistani shoes, i would say i have already paid the price. i have been shown that the americans can come in and do this.

we have to recognize they see a cost and price that has been paid. but if the leadership has not been told, i have done as much accountability as perhaps anybody but i never fired anybody because i did not know about a problem. i fired them because once they found out, they did not take it seriously. if the senior leadership did not know, it is hard to hold them accountable. i do not know if you want to add anything. >> if they're willing to tolerate a mid-level people knowing, the supposition is somebody. we do not know if it was retired people or low level. pure supposition. it is hard to go to them with an accusation when we have no proof that anybody missed. it is my supposition and it is a supposition shared by a number

that somebody had to know. we have no idea who and we have no proof or evidence. >> how important do you think this humiliation was in changing the pakistani mindset and going after higher value targets? they have been hesitant to do for us. >> we should not underestimate the humbling experience. the internal soul-searching that has gone on now. the impact of that. before you start to talk about external effects, i know for a fact that is going on and they are not true that. they have been through a lot. their image has been tarnished and they care a lot. they are proud military. can i relate that to any actions

that have occurred? i would not make that direct correlation. we talked about senator kerrey's visit and other things we think are out there that actions need to be taken and now we will see. most of the focus is that internal focus to address the challenge, how did this happen and what should we do about it? and next steps for them internally. they are not ignoring the external requirements but most of it is internal. >> are you worried that recent events in pakistan have undermined the position of our best friends there? becasue they are -- because they're under pressure. going back to the budget, last time you raise the nuclear

monitor come out -- the nuclear triad. is the kind of thing off the table? >> from the standpoint of the relationship and in my discussions since the raid, and other senior leaders, reaffirms the desire to have a relationship but we recognize it is going through a difficult time. the specific steps we need to take are yet to be determined. 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 the things, there are some near-term things that actions need to be taken. he is not just a pure but he has

been through a lot. and as the leader, i can tell you at the top of these organizations, it is a lonely place. from that standpoint, he is out with his military and working his way through that. i am sympathetic to his need to do that and at the same time with ahead. >> i would repeat what i said before. if the political leadership of this country besides it must reduce the investment in defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, i do not think we can afford to do anything that is off the table. >> thank you.

>> next, a debate between the candidates. a senate hearing examining the future of nasa and space flight, and a news conference with the russian president. >> president obama will be at the state department tomorrow to deliver a speech on middle east policy. we will have live coverage beginning at 11:40 a.m. eastern. the former director of national intelligence is on capitol hill to talk about reform of intelligence agencies. he will be testifying at a hearing. watch live at 1:30 p.m. eastern. >> no one succeed in life by themselves. you must be willing to lead others, to listen to others, and love others. >> watched 2011 commencement

speeches on c-span memorial day weekend and search past addresses from politicians, activists, presidents, and other world leaders on line at the video library where you can search, watch, clip, and share every that we have covered from 1987 to today. it is washington, your way. >> history is as you know much more than just politics and soldiers. it is also medicine and art and theater and poetry and ideas. we should not love things into categories. it is part of the same thing. >> sam comorans, harriet beecher henry adams. part one of two weeks with

theidavid mccullough. >> next tuesday, voters in the 26 congressional district will select a representative to replace chris lee who resigned in november. the candidates met for debate earlier tonight at the studios of wxxi tv in rochester, new york. this is one hour. >> from the wxxi studios in rochester, voice of the voters. being held next tuesday in new york state. 26 congressional districts. -- 26th congressional district.

i will be moderating tonight's debate. panel. me is jiour we have our candidates. they appear in order on the ballot. welcome. jane corwin. thank you. we invited a third candidate. he did not respond to our invitation. we did not invite the green party candidate because he did not qualify under the debate inclusion guidelines. let's get started. we begin with our opening statement, the order of which was determined by a coin toss. >> thank you. thanks to wxxi and wham for

hosting this event. i look at the policies and i believe our garment is taking this country in the wrong direction. i came from a middle-class family. my parents did not have college degrees, we have no special privileges. we worked hard and took chances and we had great people and we were able to be successful. i remembered delivering phone books with my friends. i used to proofread the front pages on the graveyard shift. i came back and work on the family business and called on our customers here. i helped the chief financial officer with finances, worked a long -- alongside the ceo and helped with strategic decision making. by the time we sold the business, we created 700 jobs.

that is something i am proud of. we had hard times also. we almost lost our house because it was the collateral on the bank loan. there were many times when we have trouble making payroll because the cash flow was tight. we did not take checks. those are the kinds of tough decisions that have to be made. i understand what it means to have tough times and i was not afraid to make the tough decisions. i look at what is happening now and i am afraid that the out of control government spending and excess of taxes are making it impossible for my children and all our children to have the same opportunities. i want to change the policies and create an environment where jobs can be created. i look forward to talking about

them now. >> thank you. it is great for you to host this show the viewers can see the candidate. i enjoy traveling and having talks and conversations with hundreds of people in the diner's and the grocery stores and small businesses and here in rochester. it is a great experience. during those conversations, what do a lot of listening. i am hearing of the concern that we need to get back to work. wilson hear a lot of the need to get our debt under control. i also hear from these people. very strongly, loud and clear. the medicare program that is

there to protect our seniors, this is a concern and here is what i am telling everyone. i will go to washington and work hard to help our small businesses by cutting their burden so they can have the resources to expand. i will work to cut spending but i will insure the wealthiest people pay their fair share just like the people on main street do. i have told them i have made a commitment and i will take that to my grave. i will fight any plan to decimate medicare. that is something that people feel passionately about and i am proud to receive the endorsement from the buffalo news, and in rochester, the democratic chronicle. they like my passion and my commitment to do what is right and i am looking forward to this debate. thank you. >> thank you. in this first round of questions, the questions will be directed to one of the

candidates. there is a 2 minute response and a one minute to rebuttals. we will began with our candidates. >> your mother is quoted as saying, "she does not let go and does not take no for an answer. you are tenacious and fight for what you believe it in. that can be or indicate compromise might be difficult. many voters are frustrated about partisan politics and what often seems to be the inability to compromise. what examples can you offer to demonstrate you are willing to give up something in order to gain something else? >> bring my mom into this. she is right. i applauand passionate.

i fought for people with a great deal of passion. we do not want to continue the partisan bickering. most of my supporters are republican business people who trust my judgment. i worked with republican legislators. we partnered on many issues as a county clerk and as a town board member. the republicans i worked with -- my record shows i am willing to go down to washington and do what is right. i have no problem standing up to my party when i disagree. you have to ask eliot spitzer and david paterson if i am going to do that. more than anyone, i have shown

my independence and my willingness to fight and if there is an idea that comes out, i am with them. if a democrat has a better idea, i am with them. i have the temperament to work with both sides. >> you have a one minute rebuttal. >> i agree with you that partisanship is a problem and we have seen that in albany. the two years i have been in the state assembly i have worked hard to make sure that i work across the aisle and come up with the best solution that can be had to help the people in the community. i co-sponsored bills, working together to increase the raffle proceeds. not for profits can raise money. i also am working witon a bill t will allow them to expand their businesses and to grow. thate are the initiatives a

we need. i am an independent thinker. there are issues i do not agree on. china and their policy and the manipulation of their currency. we need to go out there and make sure our trading partners are trading fairly. >> much attention has been paid to a videotaped incident between your chief of staff and jack davis. some have called it a set up. did you authorize the actions of your chief of staff, and have you considered firing him? >> i do not authorized that activity. my chief of staff was after hours and on his own time. i am -- not taxpayer funded time. i had no awarenes of it.

i was preparing for debate so i was not aware of anything going on. the video speaks for itself and it is up to the people to decide. he is not acting as a member of the assembly or as my employee. i have no plan on doing that. >> you have one minute. >> someone on my staff who had done that, they would have been fired. >> thank you. >> the 26th district has been a conservative republican leaning district. some might argue it is in part because of a presence of a third-party candidate. how will you represent those who did not vote for you? >> i am -- my reputation will

work across the aisle. i am not partisan and i will make sure those individuals know what kind of independent thinker i am. this is something i subscribe to. they are with me 100%. they do not support the idea of decimating the program for when our citizens need help, we will be there for them. i have talked to hundreds of people and there with me on the issues. ere is another scare

tactics. the claims of decimating medicare was given a rating of liar, liar, pants on fire. i have many democrats who have supported me. >> our final question comes from sean carroll. you have supported a plan that would turn medicare into a voucher system. some indicate this is not popular with some americans. would you consider withdrawing your support of that plan and if not, what makes the ryan plan the best way to ensure the

medicare program remains solvent? >> we have to get the facts out here. the plan i am supporting is not a voucher system. it creates medicare for anyone under 55. it would become like medicare part b where they government would pay to the insurance plan not, not through the individual. there is no about her. as far as additional costs, that issue was addressed through medicare part b through the epic program. i would be supportive of an opportunity to roll out that type of bill to address any additional costs that may be there. the important thing is we have a problem. if we do not do something about medicare now, the program will be bankrupt by 2024. 13 years from now. if we want medicare to be around for current seniors and future generations, we need to make

changes now. i am supportive of a plan that will ensure that seniors currently get the benefits they are enjoying or expecting. anyone under 55 create a program that will have for the future. >> thank you. >> the republicans will be surprised to know that their plan is not a voucher program since they rolled out as a voucher program. it is a plan to tell people that it no longer have that guaranteed insurance are you paid into central high school job. that is not there for you and we will replace it with a voucher. here is a thousand dollars and you are on year-round. good luck. that is the program. that is not me talking. we ought to stay with the facts. it is a voucher program and end s medicare. it eliminates the claims they

are shrinking that doughnut hole. even they are afraid. that is the plan out of washington and they do not like it. >> thank you. the questions will go to both of you. you have 90 seconds to respond and there will be ever bottle for each of you. before we go to the panel, i want to stay with medicare. really dig into the specifics. i will start with ms. corwin. what would you do to keep medicare solvent? >> do what the present -- plan proposes. the benefits stay as they are to ensure that under the age of 55 that insurance premiums are paid by the government, to the insurance plan on behalf of the individual. the individual would choose the plan and it would be mandated.

i would fill that doughnut hole and fill that with an epic type program which would guarantee for the insurance premiums. we have to take action now because my opponent is advocating to do nothing. someone at 55 will turn 68 and have no benefits if we do not do something now. raising taxes will not cover it. we cannot raise enough to fix the problem now. we have to take other actions. i have yet to hear of any plans coming from any other opponents. kick the can down the road and ignore the problem because it is not expedient and ignore the fact we are facing a crisis if we do not take action. >> you have 90 seconds. >> it is a traditional techniques. so you canyone t

continue breaks. their record profits are up. it is a question of priorities. i support that 100% and i have ideas. no one is addressing that in washington and their congress is getting the underlying cost of medicare under control. why are the costs so high? i have some solid ideas and we do not have much time. there are new ideas and there was a panel put in place and i spoke to representatives to find ways to have treatment options that are more cost-effective. prescription drugs. if the house was not bought off

by the pharmaceuticals, we would have a way to leverage our buying power. there was an option that was on the books. >> your time is up. >> my opponent was supportive of the health-care laws which included a cut. clearly we are hearing contradicting opinions. i am opposed to the obama healthcare laz and they do nothing to address the problem of health care and that is the excess of cost and i am supportive of programs such as having insurance plans compete across the state lines. pulling coverage for small businesses, a tort reform, that is something that not a lot of people talk about.

>> 45 seconds. >> i am glad to respond. what my opponent is ignoring is something that was pointed out april 6. budget includes cost savings in reimbursements that the health care plan did. it is disingenuous to say you support the budget that includes the same cuts in medicare. you cannot have it both ways. >> thank you. we will turn things to the panel beginning with a question from decarlo. >> voters are frustrated over the fact that students are failing to graduate. the education system is not working. would you do to speed the pace

of reform and what reforms would you favor? >> there are a lot of reforms in the reauthorization of the secondary education act. that will give us an opportunity to reevaluate the no child left behind provisions. i am getting mixed signals. we need to think carefully before we reevaluate it. i am not sure that we solved the problem that we need to. we need to support our parents and the head start programs are important. i oppose cuts in the federal budget. they need the leg up because they do not have the same opportunities as kids in other areas. that is important. i oppose the budget plans that would cut the programs and that is something that is important.

to support our middle-class families. cutting programs at this time as the -- is the wrong time. >> you have 90 seconds. >> i agree that the act, we are not clear on how successful it has been. where i am supportive is introducing charter schools. we have seen tremendous success and i would support any initiatives that would encourage that and it gives parents the opportunity to have a more active involvement in their children's education. i keep hearing how my opponent wants to cut spending but is saying not here and not here.

we have a 14.3 trillion dollar debt. $46,000 for every man, woman, and child. if we have to pay back $46,000, how would that happen? we need to do is invest in education but we have to invest in a smart way. charter schools and introducing competition is a great way to go. >> you have a 45 second bottle. >> i understand the need to get spending under control. entitlement reform, defense spending, is something that republicans in washington, my opponents, don't think is right. require the millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. when times are tough, we all have to share in the sacrifice and to think this our kids and middle class families and small businesses should bear the brunt of it an seniors in particular

with the plan to turn medicare into a voucher program because times are tough, i think that's wrong. i look at our defense spending priorities, aid to foreign countries and a lot of other areas, i am serious about cutting spending, it's just about where you do it. >> as far as tax increases go, the problem is my opponents' plan for tax increases would put taxes on small businesses and as a small business owner i understand exactly what that impact would be. that's why we're in what's called a jobless recovery because the policies coming out of this administration are against small businesses and prevents them being able to create jobs. we need to keep more money in the pockets of small businesses so they can invest in themselves and new workers. that's very, very porn. i'm in favor of simplifying the tax code and making sure there aren't loopholes for big corporations to take advantage of but i think we need to bring

more profits from our corporations back home from overseas. >> your question will be directed first to ms. corwin. >> it's about gas prices. in the buffalo-rochester area, the average price is about $4.05. what, if anything, do you think the federal government should do about the price of gas? >> the problem we have right now, jim, is we don't have a comprehensive energy policy. we depend too much on foreign oil. what i propose is that we do more drilling domestically, both in the gulf coast, north dakota, alaska, i think we can also look at drilling for natural gas. we keep hearing about the her se ulous shale here in southern new york state. in my district, i have vertical gas wells, that i have farmers and property owners that have, it can work but the regulations need to be in place to make sure it's done safely.

i would support any initiative to create the regulations to make it safe. i believe we can do that and that would go a long way to helping reduce the gas prices. >> energy costs are too high in this country and i disagree with the philosophy of the ryan budget once again which my opponent supports, which continues the huge taxpayer giveaways to big oil in a time of record profits for them and high gas prices for us. this goes back to the 1970's, how many of us thought that was the last time we'd be beholden countries and their politics in thddle et for our oil? we didn't learn our lessons then, i hope we learned them now. i am supportive of looking for domestic sources but to continue taxpayer giveaways to big oil which are recorded in the ryan budget, i think are wrong. if you talk to anybody in this

district, they agree with me as well. >> ms. corwin? >> i think in addition to the drilling, we should look into reducing subsidies on big oil companies as well but we have to make sure we have them there for the small oil companies because increasing the competition and the industry will help control prices. and i'm also supportive of renewable energy but i believe the renewable energies need to be researched and developed in the private sector or in partnership with a university. but it's important that the consumers pick the winners and losers when it comes to renewable energy. i believe that we should be eliminating subsidies to big oil. >> thank you. >> it's part of the ryan budget to continue the subsidies so you support the ryan budget, that's all i say, i support that and i'm consistent that i oppose the ryan budget plan which continues those subsidies that none of us afford. >> jill's question will go to

ms. hochul first. >> there's been a lot of talk about medicare, what about social security? there are a number of programs ailed at addressing long-term support for them? >> i go back to when the long-term sustainability was in question. what i saw was a bipartisan approach, senator moynihan got together with tip o'neill and worked with ronald reagan at the time to come together and come up with solutions. part of the problem comes down to high unemployment. there's fewer people paying into the program for their future than used to be. all these programs are driven by the fact that we need to get more people back to work, i'll go back to washington, open up the tax code and find ways to help support the small business on main street and create jobs so those employees pay marleau into the system. it's a long-term solution, that's the direction we need to be in.

our unemployment is too high in this country, even here in the -- in the 26th district. that's bad. my capacity as county clerk, i get my arms around this. i have a close sense of the pulse of what's going on in this district and what i see the businesses in my community that are hurting. if we can create the opportunities for small businesses to grow, a lot of problems take care of themselves. >> ms. corwin? >> going back to the facts that president obama and the trustees of the social security fund, the people running the program, have come out last week and said if we don't make changes to social security, the -- social security fund will be bankrupt by 2036. that's not a scare tactic, that's a fact coming from the democratic admission right now. we need to address social security. what i would propose is whatever we do, we make sure we're not raising social security taxes,

make sure we're not privatizing the fund and make sure there's means testing so those who are wealthier don't receive it's checks and those who need it more or those who are ill would be able to receive them. overall i think we need to address the program but right now i'm focusing on medicare and medicaid making sure we come to the resolution on there because again until we solve the problem, we're not going to be able to stop the bankruptcies from happening. i have not heard plans from the other side. i keep hearing 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 who really need these services, need these benefits continue to have them in future generations. >> thank you, ms. hochul, you can respond? >> social security that we've paid into our entire lives, you're going to pull the rug out from under people when they need it. we need to get it under control

but that's not fair. we make a promise to our employees that when they worked their entire lives, when they reach a certain age they can count on, they paid into social security and medicare. we need to be the responsible ones to solve these problems, put the tax burden where it belongs, stop the big taxpayer giveaways and stop trying to take care of the budget on the backs of seniors when it comes to social security and medicare. i won't go there. >> and you have 45 seconds, ms. corwin. >> we need to address the big problems here. if we continue to kick the can down the road and avoid making proposals we are never going to come up with a solution. quite frankly, that's why i got involved in government in 2008 at the assembly level any wayway. as a person from the private sector looking, it doesn't make sense to me. how can we continue to -- we recognize the problem, have the statistics to show what we're facing yet no one steps forward to introduce the plan. i'm introducing a plan, i'm

saying let's talk about this, let's come up with a solution. all i'm hearing is, we can't do this, we can't do that. but i have yet to hear of any other proposal. >> sean carroll's question will go first to ms. hochul. >> i'm sorry, it goes to ms. corwin. >> all the candidates have said, we need to create jobs and government can only create the environment to create jobs. we've heard them so much they've almost become cliche. without falling back on a variation of those things, give me one thing you intend to do in congress to create jobs in the 26th congressional district? what would that piece of legislation look like? >> i'll start with public hearings to address the overregulation on the part of agencies. if you look at the e.p.a., at f.d.a., mlrb, you'll see that the regulations coming out of those agencies is really interfering with what's happening with small businesses.

so i would start by having public hearings, look at those regulations see where we can start pearing those backs and -- paring those back and that will make a big difference. we can't raise taxes on small businesses. what we need to do is go back to the tax codes, simplify it so it makes sense to people, so it makes sense to small businesses so they understand what they're up against and address that issue. >> ms. hochul? >> our universities are great catalysts for jobs. i was at the university of rochester a few days ago taking a tour of the optics facility and i was so impressed to learn that because of a system they -- because of assistance they received from washington that unfortunately the ryan budget decimates, i'm talking about research and development tax incentives, they're able to be the incubator that creates jobs, 21 new businesses started as a result of initiatives at the university of rochester. if the ryan budget -- if the

republicans have their way, that will go away. rochethser -- university of rochester is the largest employer around here itself. i want to keep those institutions healthy to help the maul businesses grow. it's been since 1986 since we had a major overhaul of the tax code. i understand we need to make sure it's a level playing field. our small businesses -- compared to how much the large corporations pay. >> and your rebuttal? >> there's more government. and that's what i keep hearing. at the end of the day, my opponent is very supportive of more government. at the d.m.v., she increased spending by 51%. at the auto bureau, 29%. you know, at the town board, increasing taxes 29%. the answer from the other side is more government, more spending. what happened to the private sector? what happens to having partnerships with the university

of rochester to make those projects happen? i am absolutely supportive of government grants. i think in a government grant process the university of rochester would be successful. but we can't forget it's the private sector that knows how to create jobs, not government. thank you. >> i guess this comes out of the category of listen to what i say, but don't watch what i do. you had the chance to vote for a 10% across the board spending cut, you were one of two republicans to oppose it, i'm sure you'll say you wanted more but 10% across the board shows a commitment to cut costs. you can say you're going to washington to cut expenses but i'll look at the record and say, when you had the chance to do something meaningful, you stood with two other republicans against the other republicans and the democrats to not cut spending. we have to look at the record.

>> what will you do to reduce the nation's deficit and rein in government spending? >> great question. it's on the minds of the people in this district constantly, that and medicare. i have said, this is where i differ with my opponent, i'm willing to put everything on the table, including entitlement reform, getting the underlying costs of medicare under control, and health care, i do have plans on that. let's look at defense spending. secretary gates proposed $167 billion in cuts. let's look at those. let's look at aid to foreign countries, like pakistan, they are not our friends these days. we need to get tougher. but i'm willing to look at, this is something my opponents and the republicans in washington won't do, raise taxes on their friends who are the wealthiest people in this country, the millionaires and billionaires and i think it's only fair in these timeses of record high deficits and we've got to get this under control that we look at everything and again not keep

pushing the burden on our seniors and our small businesses and our families while letting everybody else get away with the continuation of tax cuts put in place years ago, tax cuts that led to our problem right now. anybody remember that bill clinton had a surplus when he left office, so this has just been the last 10 years when we got into trouble with excessive spending. i want to get it under control but we have to look at both sides of the ledger and that's something i'm willing to do, to make the tough decisions. >> merchandise corwin. >> president clinton had a republican congress, i think that had something to do with what was going on then. my point is, everything is on the table. i'm going take that as she's willing to cut entitlement programs. i am looking at a program to ensure entitlement programs are around for future generations. not just across the board cuts to entitlements. defense spending, aagree we should look at defense spending. we've heard stories about the

$600 hammers or the two engines for the fighter jets. we need to take a look, we want to make sure our military has the means and the support that they need to be successful in their endeavors but we want to make sure we're not being stupid about spending. as far as raising taxes, you know, my friends who, you know, i'm protecting, my friends are the local gas station owner or the restaurant down the street or the try cleaner. when you look at a business like that, that's a $500 thourges business. that business would have increased taxes if my opponent were in congress. those are the businesses we need to be supporting. we cannot continue to raise the taxes because we don't have a revenue problem, we've heard this before, we have a spending problem. that's how we have a $14.3 trillion debt. it has to stop. >> rebuttal? >> i think my opponent has a

television ad out that says i'm trying to cut entitlements. our local affiliate and independ fact check have all said tfs a flat out lie. everyone knows in this race if they've been paying attention whatsoever that, they know i'm the one person in this race who said i will not touch medicare. and now to twist my desire to have reforms to get the underlying costs of medicare -- of health care under control, to twist that, my opponent has been cut out -- called out on it. i disagree with the democrats' plans in washington which would have the tax cuts expire for those making $249,000 and above. i would raise it to $500,000. >> your time is up. ms. corwin? >> just to get back to, you know, the accusation here, you know, just because the buffalo news says it doesn't mean it's true. we can talk about the underlying cause of the problem with medicare being the obama health care laws but price waterhouse

just came out today and said that it is expected that the national average increase in health care costs for the coming year will be 8.5% and partly, or in large part, due to ouh ba ma health care laws. clearly the obama health care laws is only increasing the cost and adding to the problems in medicare. we need to repeal those laws and provide a program for medicare to protect seniors now and for future generations. >> anybody want to rebut the dig at the media? our next question comes from jay, it's to ms. corwin first. >> you brought up health care, it's a major worry for families, those with health insurance have rising pleem yums, businesses struggle to cover their

employees. a new law was signed into law but many argue it should be repealed. so should we keep the current health care law? should we change it? and if so, how should we change it? and should we repeal it and if that's the answer, how would you address the issues? >> absolutely. you're absolutely right. the obama health care laws passed last year are a disaster for small businesses. i've been traveling throughout the district and heard from many small businesses their concerns about the costs of health care. those laws did not address the increase in costs, it addressed access. but the real problem is that health care is getting too expensive and that's why people don't have it. we need to reduce the cost of health care. i advocate for a full repeal of the obama health care laws and address the problem, which is the cost. selling insurance plans across state lines, pooling coverage for small businesses, tort reform. the state of texas when they capped their noneconomic

malpractice award at $750,000, they reduced health care costs but also had something else happen, they had doctors move back into the state. here in upstate new york, we have a doctor shortage unlike any other place. so i believe tort reform would go a long way to helping those two problems. talking to maul business ownerers, they're telling me in order to avoid having to address the health care issue, they're going to start hiring more temporary workers to avoid that, putting more workers into exchanges, which essentially nationalizes health care, and that's not something any of us want. that's how i propose we repeal the health care laws and once we get the costs under control, we can assure -- ensure we provide health care for everyone. >> the health care law passed last year is far from perfect. i've said that since day one. i do agree it did not get the underlying health care corses under control, much more needs to be done and i oppose the 1099

provision, an additional reporting burden on the small businesses often i'm glad that was fixed. we need to continue that kind of fine tuning. unlike my opponent who supported the ryan plan which did repeal the obama health care law, i am not prepared to say that someone with a pre-existing condition should no longer have health insurance. protection for them was eliminated. i'm the mother of a 21-year-old and 23-year-old. they are not able to go without health insurance. i want them to know they can be covered on their parents' plan until age 26. god forbid they get into an accident or anything happens to them. plus the tax law passed last year had tax credits for employees that provide health care. there's some good in there that

i'm not willing to throw out the window. >> only 15% of the businesses would qualify for tax credit. as far as pre-existing conditions an adult children, we should be providing that coverage. if we tackle the real problem, costs, then we would be able to offer that. the problem with the obama health care law is also that it cut $500 billion out of the medicare and medicare advantage programs. i think it's disingenuous to say we're going to protect medicare when we're supporting a plan that cuts $500 billion. >> the ryan budget plan kept those costs of $500 billion so i don't know how you can say that -- that's washington political double speak. i can't say more than check "the wall street journal" article of april 6, it explains how the republicans admit the ryan budget actually says they're saving money but they continue those cuts in the reimbursement

to hospitals and insurance companies under the medicare program. they're identical, you cannot run away from that, it's a fact. >> our next question is from jill, ms. hochul, you'll answer first. >> the united states has reached its $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, would you vote to raise it? >> only with spending cuts. >> ms. corwin? >> i would do the same thing. i would want to include spending cuts, something along the lines of spending limit that would make it a percentage of g.d.p., something that would be going forward because certainly if we want to do spending cuts as a straight cut, we'd have to talk trillions of dollars. but i want a measure to ensure we have spending under control in the future. >> anything you'd like to add, ms. hochul? >> aagree, we have to be reasonable. we have a temporary extension until early august but now is the time, responsible people in washington roll up their sleeves

and get it urn control. i do not want to see a repeat of the discussion we had 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 that continues our budget through the rest of this year, $38.5 billion in cuts, i support continuation of cuts as part of the package, so i think democrats and republicans need to get their act together and i look forward to working with them. >> i also support the $38.5 billion cuts but let's bear in mind that worked out to about a 1% cut in this year's spending and that isn't going to get us going in the right direction. if we need to talk in terms of trillions of dollars instead of billions of dollars because 23 we don't, we'll be coming up on this debt ceiling on a weekly basis. >> thank you. we now have a question from sean carroll, to ms. corwin first. >> i'm going off script already. i'd like you both to define what you see as the role in

government. i hear both of you talk about the role in government. does an extra dollar spent or job added mean you support more government? does a dollar saved or a job cut mean you're for less government? could you define for voters what you see as the role for government? >> i absolutely believe in the private sector and the private sector's ability to create jobs. i also think the private sector is better, more effective, at delivering services. i think what the federal government should be working on are those things that have to be taken care of at the federal level, national defense, infrastructure. we need a safety net but we need to be sure we're in the bankrupting our children's future to provide it. >> as a member of congress, that's what i would work toward. looking at what issues matter

most to the people in this district and going to washington and advocating on their behalf. . >> thank you, ms. hochul. >> i think you're hearing a defining difference between myself and my opponent. i believe our federal government will make a promise to our people, particularly our seniors, that when they get to a certain age, they'll have guaranteed health coverage through medicare, instead of saying limit it to the private sector and that's why we had to start medicare in the first place. our seniors were left to the private sector. they were the largest group of people in poverty in this country. our country finally said, you know what, we're good people. we don't do this to our seniors. i don't think we should break that contract we have. i believe we have to have rules for educating our kids. i'm not leaving that to the private sector. i want to make sure our kids have a chance at a good education, support that, support our universities, law enforcement, i haven't heard a word about law enforcement, how

important that is to protech our interests, national defense, of course is a big category but i think we need to look out for people. that is the contract we have. that's the constitution. we look out for the good and welfare of our people. i have a different sense of it, of course private sector creates the jobs, guaranteed, but we have to do our best to make sure we don't get in the way. but we pay taxes into the government and it has a bigger role than simply defense and as limited mays opponent would make it. >> i believe the best government is the government closest to the people, which means close to the local level as possible. our education system is administered by the states. i think the states and local government should be doing that. i think the federal government's role is to, you know, offer a larger plan but it needs to really be decided at the state and local level. as far as the safety net, we have to have a safety net. that's why i'm working so hard to protect the safety net we have. i want to make sure that seniors

today have the benefits they have counted on. i want to make sure that seniors of the future have benefits that they can count on and that's why i'm trying to protect medicare. >> your rebuttal? >> my opponent acknowledged that the health care costs went up 8% in the last year alone. the seniors of tomorrow are left out in the rain because the voucher program does not account for any escalation in health care costs. today's prices are what you're going to be dealing with for the next 10 years. i don't think it's fair to ask a kuhnle where the husband is 55 years old and the wife is 54, the husband gets taken care of by a program he paid into but the 54-year-old wife doesn't. i don't think we should have age warfare in this cupry. we have an obligation, we made a promise to people, we're going to take care of them. we'll fix the underlying costs of health care which drive the high cost of medicare but i'm not prepared to throw the

program out the window. >> next question from carla, ms. hochul will respond first. >> what's your opinion on the repeal of don't ask, don't tell and the administration's decision not to enforce the defense of marriage act? >> i support the administration on both counts. >> as far as the defense of marriage act, i was disappointed in president obama's decision to do that. i believe that as the chief executive, his responsibility is to uphold the laws of the land. he takes an oath to that effect. when he arbitraryly decides not to do that, he's acting more as a chief justice as opposed to a chief executive. as far as the don't ask, don't tell, you know, it's my opinion that if the military leadership believes that it's an appropriate policy for them, it's up to the military leadership to weigh in and i support what they support. >> ms. hochul. >> i support the president's position on both. >> anything to add? >> no.

>> woe now move to jim, ms. corwin will respond first. >> all the candidates in this campaign are from erie county. but this district includes portions of seven counties, many of them rural. 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? no jobs, no taxes, that's everywhere. >> certainly i think again we have to ensure that you no, i, we allow -- that you, know, we allow 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 the that research. i think that's a great area that as a federal representative i'd be able to get involved with and try to help. as far as agricultural issues are concerned, we want to make sure that agriculture, the number one industry in this district, we are allowing that to be successful. so certainly i think we need to be working very hard on the 2012

farm bill to make sure that the policies created through that are beneficial to the farmers in our district. i'm also supportive of initiatives such as those that will expand opportunities for western new york region. i think it's good to bring over new business and have our businesses have prunths to sell to others. >> ms. hochul. >> agriculture is huge in this district. what i'm concerned about is leaving our farmers out in the cold under the ryan budget. it eliminates $30 billion worth of subsidies curbly in the law. that's going to be tough on our farmers. the ones i visit with as i go through the district are concerned about not having enough. i hope to get a spot on the agriculture committee in congress so i can continue to

look out for farmers. if you look at infrastructure in this district, about the bridges and roads, that's a place for government to step into and make sure we've got the resources allocated to this area to ensure that our roads are safe and we're there to be able to transportation goods and services across our highways. the other thing i think would be interesting is an issue i went into not long ago, a farmer came up to me and gave me a plastic bag that had -- >> your time is up. >> yes, absolutely, again, going back to the agricultural issue it's the number one industry in our area, the former representative of the advisory board, the agricultural advisory board, i would continue with that, that way i have the ability to reach out and communicate with the members of the agricultural community to give me direction as to what kind of policies they're looking for to be successful, also to be

part of the agricultural committee in congress would be terrific. our dairy farmers have great ideas. they're talking about solutions to the subsidy programs, programs that would be much less costly an give them benefits they need to be successful. i would look forward to working with our agricultural community. >> 45 seconds, ms. hochul. >> i think we could be a catalyst for alternative fuels. we've got the niagara falls, the wind turbines, i think we should make the corridor between buffalo and rochester an opportunity to be showcase for new innovative ideas for alternative energy research. i want to go to washington and partner with the right people to bring resources back here. i think it's very exciting. this could be a replacement for our old reliance on the manufacturing base which unfortunately due to trade agreements like nafta which i don't support that have left us

a a lot of vacant buildings. i think we need to start reengineering and have new industries here. >> that ends our question round. we are now going to go into closing statements. we have about a min and a half for each of your -- a minute and a half for each closing statements, the order was determined by a coin toss, ms. corwin you go first. >> i thank all of you for this opportunity to have this hour, this has been terrific. we have a clear choice among the candidates in this election. i am very much a believer in cutting wasteful spending and i have a track record for doing that. my opponent increased spending both on the town board and as county clerk. i support reducing taxes. my opponent made it clear she intends to raise taxes. raising taxes on small businesses will do nothing except stop small businesses from creating jobs. that's the number one thing i'm hearing about in this district is people want jobs. raising taxes on small business is going to kill that. i'm also supporter of reducing regulations on businesses as

well. i think it's important that we get the private sector partnering more with university of rochester, university of buffalo to make sure we are commercializing all the terrific research coming out of our university system. and helping kodak and companies like that. kodak was a major employer in this area and still a significant employer. we want them to bring their overseas operations back to the united states and invest in the people here because this is where we want the jobs to be. we have a tremendous work force. we want to encourage development and research and investment here in western europe and i believe we can do that if we get the policies in the right order. i want everyone to understand that i come from the private sector, i came from a family situation where i lived the american dream. i am running for congress because i want to preserve that american dream. to me, that's what this country was founded on. that's what our constitution calls for. that's what i want to go to washington and fight for. >> thank you very much. your closing statement? >> i want to thank you, julie and our panelists and jane for

participating. we are a few days away from a very important election day. i think these debates have given people the opportunity to see the cliss tall clear differences that lie between us. it's all a question of priorities. you've heard my priorities. my priorities are looking out for the middle class, the maul businesses on main street, our families and you know i'm looking out for our seniors. people across this district are worried. they don't want to lose the guaranteed health insurance through medicare they've been promised from our government their entire lives. i feel passionately about that. again the priorities, i think that when times are tough, let's cut our deficit, let's cut our spending but i'm not prepared to throw our senior urn the bus and make them bear the brunt of our excess in washington while letting the wealthiest people in this country not have to pay their fair share of taxes. we continue to allow corporations that ship jobs jeaver seas to be able to get off with corporate loop hoes and tax breaks not available to mom and pop businesses on main street. it's all about priorities.

i'm so proud to have a chance to run in this race. i'm a passionate person, i'm a fieger, i promise if given the honor of people's vote, i'll look out for them every single day. thank you very much. >> this concludes wxxi's voice of the voter debate between the candidates in new york's 26th congressional district. thank you for joining us. our participating candidates, kathy hochul and jane corwin. for our reporters, we had wxxi's -- wxxi's voice of the voter debates are supported by the rochester area community foundation. i'm julie philip reminding you that the special election is next tuesday, maye 24. from the wxxi studios in rochester, good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> next on c-span a senate hearing examining the future of nasa and space noo flight. then a news conference with the russian president. and a debate between the candidates for the special election in the 26th congressional district of new york. on tomorrow's "washington journal" a look at the g.o.p. presidential field with tom davis of the republican mainstream partnership. consumer product safety commission chairman ines tenenbaum.

"washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> history is, as you know, is much more than just politics and soldiers. and social issues. it's also medicine and science and art and music. and theater and poetry. ideas. and we shouldn't lump things into categories. it's all part of the same thing. >> samuel morse, james fenmore cooper, john singer sergeant, henry adams. sunday night on "q&a" part one of two weeks with david mccullough on the guys who -- on the americans who made the greater journey to 19th century paris. at 8:00 on c-span. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress.

contact nsks including twilter information, district maps and committee assignments. order online at c-span.org/shop. with nasa's space shuttle program ending in july after the final shuttle mission, former international space station commander frank culberson testified before a senate commerce subcommittee today on the future of nasa and human space flight. captain culberson's last mission was in 2001 when he went to the international space station aboard shuttle endoe -- endeavour. the hearing was chaired by florida democratic senator bill nelson, also a former astronaut. this is just under two hours.

>> good morning. just a few weeks ago we celebrated the 50th anniversary of human space flight an the first flight into suborbit by alan shepherd and then the president's bold statement to go to the moon within the decade, that was within nine years. and that was announced just three weeks later. i remember when, years ago when i was a young congressman, one day i was on the floor of the house and the speaker, tip o'neill, saw me and he motioned me over to silt down with him. and he knew of my participation in the space program and he says, billy, let me tell you, he

says, one of the times i was a young congressman from boston and i was down at the white house and he said, i'd never seen president kennedy so nervous. he said, he was just pacing back and forth like a cat on a hot tin roof and he said, i called over some of the white house aides and said, what's wrong with the president? and they explained to tip that we were getting ready to launch alan shepard on a red stone -- redstone rocket, the soviets had surprised us three weeks earlier , weeks earlier, by putting gargarin in orbit an here we are on a rocket that didn't have enough throw weight save to get that mercury capsule up into suborbit and the whole prestige

of the united states was on the line. and of course the rest is history. alan shepard flew, then gus grissom flew, even though his capsule sank in the atlantic and he had to swim for it. in the meantime, the soviets put out tetof, a second orbital flight and then 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 it had a 20% chance of catastrophe. and then, of course, the rest is history. and these sesses in space have become an expression of our

technical prowess, a i nounsing 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. well, 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, just a few of those that had resulted from us being a leader in the global space economy and as a result,

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

not only g.p.s., but look for the data, look at the data for noaa. what that's done. for weather and prediction of storms, look at the nasa satellites that complement the earth based observations. not only weather but climate change, the space assets have changed the way we defend this nation. and they've been integrated into nearly every aspect of the u.s. military. as well as the intelligence operations. that now we see the fruits of in plend -- blending the intelligence community with a surgical military operation.

and these benefits along with the numerous spinoffs and the efficiencies gained through the application of space technology has provided this nation with a significant return on investment. now, we've gathered up some high powered folks here to talk about the importance of space activities and the contributions of these undertakings to our national priorities. frank culberson, a retired astronaut captain u.s. navy, retired, he's a veteran of three space flights an served as commander of the international space station during the expedition three. that's another thing i'm just amazed, frank, when you talk to people, somehow they've gotten the impression that we don't have -- that the space program

is being shut down. we've got a space station up there that has six astronauts on it and when the space shuttle docks, it's going to have a lot more astronauts on it. >> 12, now. >> and it is 120 yards long. you think looking in the stands of a football stadium down at the field from one end of the end zone to the other is how big the international space station is. and so we're looking forward to you sharing your experience of logging 146 days in space. frank slazer, vice president of space systems, aerospace industries association, this organization was founded in 1919, it's a leading trade association representing aerospace and defense manufacturers.

eliot pull yam, chief executive officer of the space foundation since 2001. he leads the team to educate and inform government officials, industry, news media, and students about the space industry around the world. and dr. chris chiva, professor of astrophysical sciences and international affairs at princeton where he directs the program on science and global security. he was a member of the review of the u.s. human space flight plans committee and also known as the augustine committee, and is now a member of the president's council of advisors on science and tknology. i want to welcome all of you all. we are delighted that you are here. we want to get on the record

your thoughts, what we can do for the future, a lot of penetrating questions. i want to turn to our ranking member, senator boozman and then of course i want to turn to our colleague, the ranking member of the full committee, senator hutchinson. >> with your permission, i'll yield to my ranking member. >> of course. while we are waiting on kay to approach the microphone, i just want to say, the successes that we've had in the nasa bill being passed last year as well as a lot of the funding that has now implemented the nasa

authorization bill, this lady, this young lady is responsible for a lot of that. so thank you. >> well, mr. chairman, i thank you. we have worked very hard to try to move nasa forward and 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 so many years and -- in building the rockets and launchers that together we believe that we have a good way forward. and what i hope we can hear from you today is that we need to adhere to the authorization strategy and that that is the way that we should be proceeding. i think the chairman and i and

senator boozman and senator rockefeller are all very concerned about how slow everything seems to be moving and in about a couple of months, we'll be relying on russians to take americans into space. and we have one more -- one more shuttle that will be going up this summer, but after that, we're looking at maybe 10 years, we don't really start foe cutsing 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 are going to reap the benefits from the investment that we have made.

so i'm hoping that we can hear from those of you who do have expertise in this area on how we can move more expeditiously and assure that we get our vehicle up and running sooner rather than later and secondly to fully utilize the space station and the research capabilities that it has. and we have astronauts in the air right now and we're all just wishing them well, we're very excited, it was really this committee that first heard from dr. king about the speck tromter and the ability to use -- the spectromoter and the ability to use that for the study of dark matter and cosmic rays for future energy resources and that excited this committee and now because of the work of many of

us on the committee, including of course the chairman, we are going to see that be part of the space station and so now we just need to make sure we can get our astronauts there on our own ticket, i hope, very soon and we'll look to you all to help us figure out how to move it a little more quickly than it's moving right now. thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i do want to also thank senator boozman for jumping in on the subcommittee and he has just been the greatest advocate and quick study and he's enthusiastic and we really appreciate your being on the committee and all you're bringing to it. thank you. >> senator boozman. >> thank you and i appreciate the opportunity. thank you and i appreciate the opportunity to be part of the subcommittee and to help us move forward. the chairman and i were at a

meeting this morning and one of the emphasis at the meeting was that we needed to work together. i think that the relationship that you and -- you, mr. chairman, the ranking member, senator rockefeller have had with regard to this issue is a great example of that and this is something that we all agree on that's so important to our country. i appreciate you holding the hearing today to help further inform the subcommittee and the record on the importance of our nation's participation in the global space economy and the tenuous hold we may have on our position of leadership in that realm. i'm grateful to the ranking member of the subcommittee, senator hutchison is with us today. her long standing dedication and commitment to the nation's space freshman is both an example and an -- space program is both an example and an inspiration to me as i settle into the committee

as its ranking member. i want to acknowledge the successful launch on monday of the shuttle by mark kelly. i western those aboard the space station and those on the shuttle success in this important mission in providing essential spare and replacement parts of supplies to ensure the health and vitality of the space station systems. i had the pleasure of going to the kennedy space center last month for the planned launch of the mission. unfortunately, the electrical problems with the auxiliary power unit prevented that attempt so i was unable to see the launch but my experience during that visit was very meaningful. not only was i able to see and talk with some rarblingable, skilled, dedicated work force but i was able to see firsthand some of the facilities and features of our nations and the

world's premier space port. i was also able to sense the spirit and dedication of the work force as well as their strong desire to have clear guidance and direction from their agency's 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 and they need that now. as you know, senator hutchison has note maryland times in committee we're at a crucial time of transition in our human space flight programs and are slipping quickly to the point where our ability to develop and operate a national space launch system will be in doubt. we simply cannot allow that to happen. the congress provided a clear path to move the nation away from that precipice in the 2010

nasa authorization act. it is past time for the provisions or requirement of that act to be implemented. i strongly support the committee's effort os to ensure that that is done. i look forward to the hearing and witnesses and more about the great benefits we receive as a nation from our space program and a reminder again of what is at stake. with that, i yield pack. >> senator rubio, did you want to make a statement? >> just briefly, mr. chairman, thank you for holding these hearings on the american space program, they're critically important, thank you to members of the panel for being here at such an important time as we are nearing the last launch of the shuttle program and continue to ask ourselves what the future of the space program is for america. as i read it -- reiterate everywhere i go, the space program is not something we do for fun. it has deep commercial impact, it has a significant national security component and it really

helps, i know senator nelson will tell you in florida, we have industries who have -- who exist because 240e6 space program -- space program. they are spinoffs of things we learned along the way. the only caveat, the only concern i have and it's a deep one is where are we headed? literally and figuratively as a program? what is our goal in the near term and long-term for the program. i think this program has always functioned best when it knows where it's going, when it knows where its destination is, not just the place but its purpose for existing. i think the sooner we have that question answered, the sooner we fully understand what american space exploration is going to mean in this new century in terms of where we're destinned to go and where we want to be, the easier it will be to move toward that goal. i hope we make some progress on that during this year. thank you for holding these hearings an thank you to members of the panel for being