program. on sundays, the prime minister's questions. begin also watch our programming any time that c-span.org. it is all searchable unless c- span video library. this is treated by america's cable company. >> tonight on road to the white from saturday. he talks about what his priorities would be if elected, including addressing the national debt, and launched a revolution to create jobs. this is the last of the former utah's governor campaign stops. this is about 40 minutes. [applause]

my grandfather was an educator and used to teach his son is that if you want to succeed at life in anything worth achieving, you want to become more than a teacher, an educator. he said that if you cannot cut it as an educator, you will always need a fallback position in life. you can always go into business. my dad went into business. he did not cut it as an educator. i got the same lecture from my dad growing up. a son, if you want to make anything of your life growing up, you have got to go into business. if that is where you can make things, create value, and

change the world. but not everyone is cut out for business and you have to have a fallback position in life if you cannot cut it there. you can always go into politics. [laughter] that is a long way of saying, i am the loser of the loser of an educator. the huntsman family started out with noble intentions, but here we are. we are honored and delighted to be here with you in florida. when i arrived yesterday, i was called a radical. i have been called a lot of things. i have seven kids. when you have seven kids, you are used to being called all kinds of things. when people say, should we call you ambassador or governor, i say, since i have been called everything, you can call me anything. [laughter] but i was called a radical yesterday by the florida democratic party. because i believe in a balanced

budget and i believe in the ryan plan. [applause] all i can say is, guilty as charged. we have a cancer growing in this country. it is called debt. unless we exercise it, radiate its, or cut it out, it is going to consume this young generation over here. for the first time in the history of this country, the greatest country that ever was, we are about to pass down to their generation a country that is less productive, less competitive, less compassionate, less hopeful than the country we got. and i say, that is totally, totally unacceptable. and it is a totally -- thank you. [applause]

and is a totally unnatural position for americans to be in. we are hopeful. we are optimistic. we are problem-solving people. to be down on our block and to be in a funk like we are today is not american. i come here today with pride. i married a floridian. [applause] i know you are looking at her saying, how did that dweeb ever land that woman? how do you do that? i met her in high school. she had this exotic accent. was's other exotic accent really exotic. it was the prettiest thing. it took me years before i got a

date with her. it worked out. in we have seven kids. our new son-in-law is from tampa. so, they say, if you own the i- 4 corridor, you get it -- [laughter] you own florida. if you own florida, you own the presidency. we hope it starts here. during the pledge i was reminded of the greatest generation because i have been before some of the members of the greatest generation. it i have been at vfw post and the veterans groups. we have another greatest generation coming up, another generation. they, too, are wearing the uniform of the united states of

america. they're coming back after 10 years of conflict. they deserve respect. they deserve the very best. our family is invested in that cause. let me tell you that 10 years of war, i am here to tell you that is a long time. ladies and gentlemen, it is time to rebuild our home. it is time to do nation-building on the home front. when you walk out of this room, i do not want anyone scratching their heads saying, we saw huntsman, we heard him, but i cannot remember quite what is about. i want you to know why i am in this race. a way to know why a perfectly normal, saying, clear minded human being would want to run for the president of the united states. i wake up at 6:00 a.m. and i turned over to mary kay and i say, this is insane. if we have seven kids. we have a perfectly decent track record in public service. we have a target on our backs now that we are candidates. why?

and she said, shut up. husband, governor, whatever they call you, that is the logical side of your brain speaking to you. we all have that, but we also have the patriotic side. the patriotic side says, you love this country. it was the greatest and it could be again. you can either stand on the sidelines and watch it all plays out. or you can make this the american century. all i never thought i would be standing in front of the group of people in florida saying, we can do it again. you can stand on the sidelines or get in the arena, as teddy roosevelt used to talk about. i know it is going to be tough and grueling and excruciating, but we love this country. we know that if you are here because you do, too. i am running and my family is

with us 110% because we find it totally unacceptable that this nation, the greatest nation that ever was -- 1960, the year i was born can we own 3% of the gdp and we are about to pass on debt to the generation behind us. i find that totally unacceptable. the debt and spending are unsustainable. we are spending money that we do not have. if you look at numbers out to 2020, medicare, payments on the

debt, based on current flow, there is nothing left. it would you do about social security, disaster relief, other needs? >> we in this country need a balanced amendment. [applause] and we are going to get a balanced budget amendment because we move in that direction. i come from a state with a balanced budget amendment. practically every state in america have the balanced budget amendment. in is the best safeguard against one of in spending. it is not going to be easy, but we will have to have a president who pushes and controls and moves us toward the time were we, too, can get a balanced amendment. our percentage of gdp is not 24%, but something affordable. number two, and i have had people say that is interesting, and in fact, it sounds a bit hokey, but to me, it is possible.

we need to launch a new industrial revolution in this country. do you know what i mean? manufacturing as a percentage of gdp, what are we, 10%, 11%? remember, i was born in 1960. way higher. today, we sit by our feet, wondered what tomorrow is going to be. we have had a few industrial revolutions in this country and every time we face defeat, as the greatest generation did what during the depression and world wars, we managed to find our sweet spot and get back on our feet. as i travel a run the country, i see these holdouts of the last industrial revolution. i'm thinking, during the great depression people were thinking that we are done. how are we ever went to give back on our feet again? and you know what, we did. this country is going to get back on its feet again, too.

[applause] but it will take three things, i believe. why do i say these three things? because i covered a state. i will not give you a theory. i will just tell you what i did. but we need tax reform. would you cannot have the second highest tax rate and draw the brainpower and other things that we need. for which cannot do it with a top-heavy tax code that has biases and loopholes and deductions that people run away with. we can do better than that. if we have to reform our tax code. no. 2, we have to get the regulatory monkey off our back. [applause] i cannot tell you how many

businesses i have had around this country recently where, particularly small business folks say, first, i cannot get access to capital because of the ratio requirements these days. other businesses say i will not deploy capital in the marketplace. i cannot figure out health care. i have no idea what is going to cross. i am concerned about the future. if we are going to get the economy right, we need regulatory reform. third, the lowest of low hanging fruit, and we have been talking about is forever but not by taking seriously, energy independence. for a presidents going all the way back to richard nixon, who stood up and said 30% imported oil, this is a travesty. we will never let it get beyond 37%. only president carter said, 40% import oil. i will create the department of energy to make sure this never happens again.

and here we sit today at 60% imported oil. and we say to ourselves, $4 per gallon, $4.50 per gallon, and we think that is real. take a look at what the institute in the los angeles has to say about what is really costing all of us for a gallon of gas. when you factor in diplomats to the middle east, for keeping the sea lanes open for the importation of import oil, distribution costs, etc., it is $13 per gallon from what the analysts are saying. we ought to be outraged and we can do better in this country. [applause] you want to take a real cut at the trade imbalance, something that carries profound implications? get imported oil down. we have a product in this country called natural gas. imad and onta for your as i was

touring around visiting people as governor and he said, i would like to convert your servin to natural gas. and i thought, you can do that? you can drive a natural gas car? i had no idea. i paid out of pocket and, you know what, people would call in and say, i am tired of paying $4 per gallon of gasoline, as is the governor can break up the cartel in the middle east. and i would say, i paid the equivalent of $1 -- natural gas. people started buying natural gas. i saw the power of what alternative fuels and natural gas can do in this country. it is ours. it is clean. it is cheaper. and it has profoundly important national security implications. this is low hanging fruit and we should be seizing it. fourth, it is time for the united states to pull out the mouth and take a look at where

we are. and whether or not where we are is consistent with our core national security needs. it is time to look at the map and say, where do we need to be? who are our friends and allies? what does it mean to be a friend and ally of the united states? i am not sure the world remembers exactly what it means to be a friend and ally of the united states. if i am here to tell you, as i mentioned before, we love our troops. we are totally committed to our true spirit of one out of every six department of defense dollars are going to afghanistan. we were out of the taliban out of power. karzai stood for free elections in 2004. al qaeda was dismantled and settled in waziristan and pakistan. this is not a nation-building exercise. this encounter terror exercise.

we do not need 100,000 troops on the ground at the cost we are paying today in order to get the job done. [applause] and i am here to tell you that the future of the u.s. is not going to be determined in the prairies of afghanistan. the future of the u.s., whether you want to recognize it or not, is going to be determined by how well prepared we are to compete in a highly competitive century, and that battle is going to be waged across the ocean. as you walk off of this building, i want you to remember why we are in this race. it is about the generation behind us and the condition they will find our nation in. the debt trajectory that we are on. and number two, the reality of

launching a new industrial revolution, it is within our grasp. it has happened before in our nation's history. problem-solving people can do it again. we need leadership and a game plan. and number three, we have to get our position right in the world. finally, let me say that we need someone who is electable. we have to pull together as a party. if you want to win in 2012, we have to have numbers. this is about addition, ladies and gentlemen. we have got to pull together around what our record needs are for this country in 2012. i am here to tell you, i can be your person. we are going to win this race

and we are born to work tirelessly and endlessly not only here in florida, but in north carolina and new hampshire as well. these are three states will we camped out in for a long time. we are committed because we are moving forward with great enthusiasm and gusto. i ask for your help and support because i have to. if ever you want the most humbling experience in the world -- if you think that announcing for president in front of lady liberty is a humbling experience, think of the emotional jolt within doing that. it is an awesome experience. but another truly humble experience, ask somebody for their vote. it is the most important thing in our system they have to give you. they will look at you and analyze you and ask you and fred and talk and size you up, and all of that should be done. all i'm saying is, i am running on my record. take a look at what i did in the state of utah. take a look at what we have done in our public service career. i am not running on my record. i am running on my record.

[applause] ladies and gentlemen, it would be a great pleasure to have you on board. we will work you hard. if you do not see mary kay or me, you will see one of our seven kids. you will get tired of meeting the huntsman clan. thank you for allowing us to be here today. god bless america. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. [applause] >> if anybody has any questions, raise your hand. do we have another microphone as

well? hold on. >> it is simple to me. i like telling you american history. i think easily what happens to this country is, we have the greatest minds in the world found in this nation when they read the constitution. every president, democratic or republican has gone away from the constitution. what we really need to do is get back to the constitution. that is all. >> let me point out one very important aspect of that of as we ponder federalism. the 10th amendment. i would have to tell you that one of the most important things we would do is whether it is health care reform, somebody talking about repealing the obama care, here is what we need to do.

[applause] here is the answer of health care reform. you will not solve it in one sitting, which is basically what has been tried. $1 trillion dropped on us over the course of 10 years. half the states in this republic have got to find solutions. they will have to find ways to close the gap on spending, ways to deal with the uninsured, medical records, taking costs out. we will find solutions. but one thing i am taking from your comment that has resonated since i was governor is a power in the state's finding solutions longer term. thank you. [applause] >> governor, i have two questions. one, will you stand with israel? >> of course i will stand with israel. [applause] >> ok, thank you. and will you make a commitment

today that if you are elected he will immediately repeal every executive order that obama has ever signed? [laughter] [applause] >> that sounds right and i will follow up and get back to you. thank you. [laughter] let me just talk about israel for one second. i mentioned getting it right with our allies. i like to think of the ottoman empire, 1919, 1920. roof sweeping changes from tunisia to the gulf and beyond. this happens periodically. if there are changes in leadership, dictatorships who have hung out too long and have not delivered. economic growth -- we are going through it again. i do not know why we are in libya. i cannot figure that one out. [applause] this is a change.

but will probably not get clarity on what the middle east looks like for another five or 10 years. all the while, we have to remember who are centerpiece relationship is in the middle east, and it is israel. we have to remember that the expectations on the peace process, we cannot wish for peace more than they do right now. they are in a difficult, and predictable set of circumstances where the people they are negotiating with wish them ill. and the region is in such flux that nobody knows what the region is going to look like in the years to come. how can you conclude anything of permanence when you are in this sea of change? remember, longer-term we will need some partners in this world who believe in economic vitality and job creation. that is first and foremost with us, and number two, counter- terrorism. we are not fighting a nation

state. we are fighting subsidiaries. sometimes they are loosely affiliated with other organizations. they are funded. they are anti-american and we need to make sure that we are partnered with people who are as fervent in fighting terrorism as we are. thank you. [applause] >> when i put ethanol in my car, it fouls up my boat and my car. what is your opinion? >> there is probably reason that the governor of by what is upset with me right now. i do not like subsidies that go into ethanol. i do not like subsidies at all. whether it is through tax reform, the polls, biases, reductions to my tax subsidies that get into the tens of billions of dollars, we have to address those and create a

level playing field for people in this country. we already talked about the rationing of of $13, and what i've already run through in the middle east. we have a similar situation with our subsidies in ethanol. i think it needs to be addressed. thank you. [applause] >> mr. ambassador, as a retired foreign service officer, i will not bore you with issues of foreign policy. i read it all on wikileaks. [laughter] i read everything you wrote. seriously, there was one i did not hear, jobs. remember, the guy who won the election -- it is all about the economy. i want you to speak about what you can do in your administration, which i will vote for, to put more americans back to work.

>> i appreciate, first and foremost, the fact that you are a retired foreign service officer. one of the highlights of my service overseas for the past two years has been rubbing shoulders with men and women who were serving their country in very unique and sensitive ways. you would be very proud of them. the embassy in china is the second-largest now in the world. it was a truly inspiring thing to be able to work with a lot of unsung heroes nobody ever knew about who are doing the work of the u.s. overseas in pretty difficult from stances. jobs, for me, are walled up in the new industrial revolution. at 9.2% unemployment, if we cannot hit the sweet spot in terms of job creation and

industries of tomorrow, we are going to lose. the new industrial revolution speaks to exactly that. we have the capital in this country. we have the innovation and new technologies in the pipeline. my friends in silicon valley are plain about that. but there is no confidence in the system right now. people are not deploying capital and moving their technology ought to the marketplace, and because of that, jobs are not being created. i am here to tell you that your tax reform and getting the regulatory monkey off our back, and the 5000 jobs -- 500,000 jobs over five years if we look at natural gas as an alternative fuel, i would say i buy that. everything about the new industrial revolution speaks to jobs, and thank you for them -- thank you for reminding me. we should be sprinkling that

word throughout. [applause] >> it is writer standing that at one time you were in favor of cap and trade and then you said now is not the right time for cap and trade. can you ^ -- can you clarify if there is a right time for cap and trade? >> about four or five years ago , the experts in the field of energy were all talking about how to deal with the missions. everybody talked about -- practically every governor in america, they were talking about cap and trade. it is not viable. today but we must do is ensure that the pathway to growth and job creation is unhindered. capt. trade was left behind. i am not sure if it will ever be introduced because we will have left it behind and technologies will be developed over time.

right now our priority is economic expansion and jobs. thank you. [applause] will take one more and then let you go. >> thank you for being here today. our taxpaying citizens are burdened and have competition for jobs and burdened by extra expenses of education, medical, health care, because of illegal aliens or immigrants in our country. can you please outline your position on homeland security and a mandatory to verify in our country? thank you. >> let me start with the first step i would take on illegal immigration. us not forget the part about legal immigration, which is gone up, too. why is it that canada is doing

well economically? legal immigration. people are buying assets and taking over undervalued assets and moving them up in the marketplace. i do not think this country has any credibility at all on the subject. that is the one thing we must do. [applause] some might say, our you going to get it done? it is 1,800 miles. we have done one-third of it. you can fence most of it. i have been down to the border with national guard troops. you have technology that can handle the other part. you have boots on the ground that the supplement that. by turning to the border state governors who turn to the president and tell me when your

law enforcement people can verify the border secure. then we will move on with the discussion. that has been so much rancor and anchor in this discussion without taking any steps at all. less to the fundamentals first and take care of the border. the-verify is a good thing. by using its array of private enterprise and being able to weed out those who do not have private documentation, people are going to move on. i think businesses are going to want to use it. >> the governor will spend about 10 more minutes to shake your hands. let's give him a and thank you for showing up. let's stand up and say thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[indistinct conversation]

[indistinct conversation]

>> c-span has launched a new website for politics and the 2012 presidential race. twitter feeds and facebook updates from candid it's a political reporters and at least the media partners -- links to media partners. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," adam green. he talks about his movement to

the 170,000 people to not donate to president obama if he cuts social security or medicare. also a discussion on the debt ceiling talks with scott hodge. and a look at the pending deal between the u.s. and panama with erik wasson. that is live on c-span. tomorrow, president obama speaks at a white house news briefing about the death. we will have live coverage starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. tomorrow on c-span 3, the u.s. chamber of commerce will host a in jobs for american summit. leaders will discuss the factors in hiring and the role of government trading an opportunity.

also include the release of the small business outlook survey. that is at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. representatives from every presidential a administration talked about the core principles of the space program shared by administration. this is about three hours. >> good morning everyone. everye an author's a of major space policy. this is the first event of its

kind. it has not been done before. it is good timing. it may be the last one c-span does. the end of the world this tomorrow. a little bit about the space enterprise council. we advocate for the advancement of the space commerce in the context of why space is important to economic and national security. " with the budget and barn to have, space budgets are under attack. we believe that's boys -- space is so important to our nation that this has to be our message. we bring that message not only to the inside the beltway crowd but also the outside bid beltway crowd. it is my pleasure to introduce

my co-host for the day. jeff is the president of the george marshall institute. the institute is one of the leading players in washington focusing on space exploration. i want to hand over the microphone to you. >> thank you, david. thank you for posting this even today. i extend my thanks and appreciation to the panelists for giving the time to share their experience and their expertise, their anecdotes and observations about the development of space policy through the years. this is event is the first of its kind. it is rare and unique to have this many authors and this reservoir of knowledge about space policy here with us today. space is increasingly important to u.s. national security.

it is important to our economic prosperity. that underlies a number of things we have been hosting over the past few years, whether it is with our day without space series which will illustrate to the public importance of space for our military prowess and economic security, or are reviews of space policy and the implementation whether it is -- the tools and means we access space or our focus on the exploration of space. all of those issues are influenced by the history that we're going to talk about today. if you examine space policy over the long run, and the marshall institute has been one of the players during that, if you examine that history, you find continuity. certain principles that were

established as far back as the eisenhower administration. it continues to resonates in each one of the space policies we will talk about today. there are new issues that get added and certain issues that we will talk about. in terms of the structure of the event, we have represented some each administration's from carter to obama. we will interview each one of them separately. they will share their observations and their assessment of what the space policy said, what features were, how it differed from the previous administration and how it influenced current space issues through the years. it is my pleasure to introduce the carter administration. the carter ministration is in power during a unique period of time.

you have the iranian revolution which influences our decision making. yet the soviet invasion of afghanistan which reads as the cold war and makes the importance of the national security affairs more important for the american public. yet economic issues at home that dog perceptions of the administration as well as the ability of the government to finance what it would like to do. all those things and more force at various policies. it is my pleasure to ask him to come up to this podium. he served during the carter ministration where he developed memoranda for the president on the many national security issues including space. the >> thank you it is interesting to be here. thank you for the invitation to

represent the carter ministration space policy. i would like to thank the space enterprise institute and the marshall institute for sponsoring this event. as i look over the audience, it is interesting to see people that i've worked with over the years. it is interesting to see the space generation has been an evolutionary process. the carter administration was the first to encompass the three sectors under its umbrella, symbols, space, and intelligence. the carter ministration is built on the investments and decision that were made in previous administrations it would be remiss not to cite some of the

more notable examples in the eisenhower ministration, several directives were taken. one was the freedom of space which was the first article in the hour space treaty that was subsequently agreed to. it's submitted legislation on nasa. it's separated reconnaissance activities from the air force and put it under a civilian organization. the kennedy administration is the most membered -- remembered by its decision to the to the moon and the enthusiasm to achieve that objective. the administration also consolidated intelligence and removed them from public scrutiny and place them in the classified organization.

it also endorsed the freedom of space. our space was open to all. there was an act approved during that time. the was a public corporation developed. we have a speaker who works for the organization here today. the knicks and administration approved and funded the shuttle program. it is an enduring program. it is still operational 30 years after in the offer -- first operational flight. the carter ministration highlights some of the things that were specific to our policy consideration. when he arrived in 1977, there was unemployment at 17.5%. that is high.

federal budgets were constrained. the cold war was still ongoing. competition in space was central to that equation. the russians were the only other national recognized at that time. national technical means and satellites were pursued under the umbrella of intelligence programs supporting treaty verification and tactical intelligence was just the beginning of supporting systems capable of the war fatter. defense capabilities were becoming more recognized as a valuable contributions in the arena. the space shuttle was in development and experiencing significant cost growth throughout the carter ministration.

a couple of early policy decisions the shape to the policy review were decisions on the shuttle and the decision to pursue a bilateral discussion with the soviets. the shuttle program, after much debate, they decided to fund four orbiters. the shuttle would be the primary reach a new space as well as the part of defense. it would be the primary access. the decision to enter into negotiations with the soviet union was a two-part decision. the first was to arrive at an agreement that would place limitations on them and the sector was the decision to pursue as a research and development program in the event that negotiations were

unsuccessful. the carter ministration resulted in three presidential directives that were released in 19708. a lot of the media material, some of you were probably school than states policy. it was redacted. the policies were reflected. the national space policy directives established policies that would conduct activities of space, reaffirm many of the previous administration's initiatives and directives and added others. some of the unclassified highlights include the rejection of claim of sovereignty, space

systems have a right of passage without effort -- interference it would be considered an infringement on their rights. the united states should support the right of national defence. the u.s. would pursue space activities in all of the application arena, civil space, maintain u.s. leadership in space which was seen as an underpinning of the space policy. united states would conduct cooperative activities and encourage commercial exploitation of space capabilities. nasa would be in cooperation with the developments and the lodge priority be given to defense and intelligence missions. the shuttle was the primary access to space but the u.s.

provided some backups for access. you'll hear more about that as the policy of of. and close coordination between the various sectors. that is why the objective was encouraged. policy organization, it was the first time that all of the space policy players, and nasa, noah, the defense department and the intelligence community participated. agriculture and energy were also included in the participation. the latter three were the first to experience space policy. was interesting to see their participation and their contributions. the structure included all the players and many opinions. it was interesting to note it

was surprisingly cooperative. one would have thought it would have been argumentative, a jumble, competition. but in reality, it turned out to be surprisingly successful. all departments and agencies were vocal. the white house was included in that discussion. in the final analysis, the president was a very involved and made the ultimate decisions. in the remaining time, i would like to highlight some of the civil and operational policy tenants as they have continued -- they will be fleshed out drop the morning. there was an emphasis on applications to bring benefit to the understanding of earth's

resources, climate, and agriculture. you will hear again and again in other discussions as we go through the morning. so that the nation can remain vital in the space technology. increase benefits across the various sectors and an assurance that the leadership would beacon -- continued with necessary resources. the private sector was encouraged to participate. the administration was advocating more roles and activity by the private sector, even at that juncture. and of course to foster communications between corporations and nations. at the time, it was decided it was not feasible to commit to a

visible space engineering initiatives comparable to apollo. that was a shorthand for the space station. that would come in subsequent years. the government role, to highlight two points, land programs, several land statistics and again there was an encouragement at that juncture to press for commercialization. that discussion and pursuit continues. the weather programs, defense and congress would continue dual orbiting satellites. steps were laid out for future joint development if warranted. in space science and exploration, the goals were to maintain u.s. leadership in

space and planned to respiration, pursue a vigorous program, continue reconnaissance of the out of plant and usher in a new era of astronomy. we were asked to comment on views of accomplishments. there were several a initiatives and activities that occurred. unfortunately i cannot talk about them there. they have been continuing and significant. clearly the shuttle has had a significant contribution to manned operations in space. the hubble telescope and other satellite programs, we should try to make them operational. hubble was started in a previous administration. the contributions have been remarkable.

on the opportunities lost. i view the inability to negotiate an agreement with the russians was an opportunity lost the administration decided to withdraw from those negotiations after the investigation of afghanistan. >> thank you. [applause] >> a couple notes. we will do the q&a session at the end of the program. so save your questions to the very end of the program. when the q&a session arrives, because we are taping this for c-span, please make sure you

state your name and your organization or affiliation. thank you. next we have the reagan ministration. the reagan ministration was marked by the star wars program. the beginning of the space shuttle program and, unfortunately, the space shuttle challenger disaster. there were a few other events occurring as well. the bombing of beirut, the american embassy in beirut, a a very lively area. to discuss the reagan ministration, we have deal ride. he was in the intelligence programs of the national security council staff. hughes also executive secretary to the senior interagency which oversaw the commercial sectors of the u.s. space program. it is my honor to introduce him.

thank you. well, good morning. i am reminded of an introduction a friend of mine gave to me recently. here's gil rye, he used to be somebody. i felt like i was somebody that administration. in the early years of the reagan we came into office under a president who was considered to be a true leader, and it was a very stimulating index of the reading experience for me, and i am sure my fellow panelists would agree there's a period in the white house that was one to remember and maybe a highlight of their career. in 1981, a cowboy rode into the white house.

he came in on a campaign to demonstrate u.s. leadership in the world. and to bring on a new age for setting the stage for many of the programs he wanted to set forth. it is a fitting time today where we're a couple months away from the last flight. we can travel down the time,at least when the first operational shuttle landed on july 4, 1982 at edwards or -- air force base. president reagan was there. he was there too announce his national space policy which was really is the first statement of he stood on the space program in general and where he wanted the country to go. this was a product of an almost

a year-long activity to collate all of the various inputs from all of the agencies, and to bring those together and nay -- in a coherent ways previous administrations and set the course for the future. i had arrived at the white house about two months earlier and had been there only a week when bill clarke to national security pfizer brought me in to meet time. with the president for the first i sat there in awe. the national security adviser, bill clark, asked me to explain some of the things that were going on in space, which i did her go but as the meeting went on it became clear to me that the president was a little frustrated. he was frustrated that the space policy had taken so long to develop and he was also frustrated that it didn't appear that space policy was being

given enough emphasis within his administration. he wanted that changed. he wanted an organization to pull together all the sections of the space program into one coherent whole. that is what resulted in the senior interagency group for space, one of those acronyms that could only be invented by a bureaucrat u.s. government. not as as some later when ones such as the national space council, but nevertheless it got the job done. it established the national security adviser as the chairman of the -- the first time that had ever been done. he had established an executive secretary who is the guy who did most of the dirty work, who tried to bring the agencies together in meeting after meeting after meeting.

and we tried to bring together all the aspects of space ever going on in the government. and the commercial. that is the civil, the military this was the first time the commercial space sector had been elevated to a level equal to the military and the civil. so bringing those together turned out to be quite an experience. the web site from george c. marshall institute says that the ronald reagan administration arguably had more focus on space and certainly issued more space policy documents than any other administration, so maybe we won the numbers award at least. we had -- we issued and the president signed 15 national security decision directives, what we call an std's. these were policy statements, decisions on his part dealing administration.

with space during his i was there for all but five of those. i think all of those documents reflected the president optimism and commitment to demonstrate u.s. leadership and our exceptionalism on multiple fronts. the u.s. space program fit perfectly in his vision of the future for our country. the tools for executing that vision were provided by an economy that was called the largest peacetime boom in the history of the united states, over 35 million jobs were created from the beginning of his administration to the end. in his state of the union address, early during his administration, the president stated that developing the frontier of space would be one of the four major priorities

for his administration in the 1980s. >> that is heady stuff. this is the first time a president had spoken that highly of space. the senior group for space was only one of four agency groups established by the president. the other three were on defense and intelligence. that emphasizes the importance he placed on space. early on, our attention was focused on the shuttle program. previous policy statements had announced to the shuttle would be the primary system for the military and the civil sector of space. immediately after i got into the white house, i became aware of the military's attitude which was not very friendly.

the attitude -- they felt they were doing perfectly fine with expendable launch vehicles for getting their satellites into orbit. putting them was on the shuttle, they did not look on that happily. they were not happy with putting reliance for the access on one vehicle, the shuttle. one of the first things we did was to arbitrate in agreement between the department of sense that permitted them to crank up the production lines for heavy launch vehicles and also agree that in the context of nasa,

the department would continue to use the shuttle for a third of its launches. this seems to make both happy. also, we expanded the fleet from the four orbiters' approved by the carter administration to 5. we permitted the use of the shuttle for foreign and commercial launches, something that had not been done before. we encourage technical assistance and launch assistance to friendly foreign governments. these were just a few of the policy statements relating to the shuttle. there were many more. perhaps one of the major achievements of our administration was to elevate the commercial space program. the president had a great deal of faith and trust in the private sector.

he wanted to stimulate growth, to get private and to ship going. he felt he had to break down a few barriers. the first thing he did was issue a statement that promoted private investment in space. the u.s. contribution to facilitate that, we worked to establish a pricing -- pricing mechanism for commercial launches on the shuttle. we needed to balance foreign competition. the french for subsidizing. we wanted to make sure that the shuttle was competitive against those foreign launchers. on the other hand, in order to stimulate a commercial launch vehicle industry, we could not

have the shuttle priced so low that it would not incentivize the investors to invest. so read to strike a balance. we permitted the use of government ranges and launch facilities. this resulted in the private industry not having to make the large capital investment and expenditures and ranges and launch facilities associated with the development of the new elv's. clearly, the centerpiece of president reagan's space policy as regards to the military sector was the strategic defense initiative, or as the media coined it, star wars. you have got to love the media.

the president had announced this policy on march the 23rd, 1983 in a televised speech to the nation that was supposed to be primarily devoted to the defense budget, and he tagged on at the very end this little thing called the strategic defense initiative. which as he has described it, signaled a major shift away from a policy of our government that relied on mutual assured destruction or as it was appropriately coined, mad, as the primary velocity for defending our nation. philosophy that said that the soviet union won't attack the united states because we will have a triad of nuclear offensive systems that could

retaliate and vice versa. hogwash. the president said this is the united states should be able to defend itself. we have the technology to do that and there should be nothing to stand in the way. the united states implementing, developing and implementing a system that defends us against a nuclear attack. that signaled the beginning of the sdi program that really signaled a the shift in space policy in regards to the military sector. traditionally the department of defense has relied on space systems as what might be called force enhancers. that is, systems that support the operating forces with communications and navigation and other things. this policy in effect said that the medium of space can be used to defend our country, what some might call a warfighting

capability. although, the emphasis was always on nonnuclear capability since the placement of nuclear weapons in space are protected by international treaty. some of the original intention of the sdi program did not materialize because the technology did not materialize. host obviously spi today is a ground-based defensive system. many of the technologies that were intended to be developed such as lasers and kinetic energy devices didn't really materialize or prove to be the most cost-effective way of defending our country but we still rely on space systems of course to support sdi as well as other capabilities. in august of 1984 the president issued a national space strategy which reaffirmed the

department of defense reliance on space systems as an integral element of its warfighting capability. and one of the things which i don't know that i have had for heard mentioned, the national space strategy directed the department of defense to look at elevating the organizational options for elevating the importance of space in the military. this resulted in the formation of the u.s. space command in colorado springs. the implementing actions associated with the private sector, commercialization of the private sector were also in the space strategy and it also of course documented his decision earlier on the space station which i will mention in a moment and it announced the formation of the national commission on space and defined the goals that he wanted the

commission to pursue. the centerpiece of the president civil space policy was his approval of the international space station program at the request of the administrator jim bags at the time. i arranged a meeting with the president in april of 83. jim eggs brief the president and they talked to the space station being the next logical step beyond the shuttle for the man's space program. he also emphasized the rapid development of the soviet soyuz space station. if he wanted to get president reagan's attention, you talked about the soviet threat, and there was a soviet threat to our leadership in the man's space program in the name of that following that study the space program. president developed or signed a study directive which asks the

senior interagency group for space to conduct a study of the manned space station. nasa conducted a dedicated study on the space station headed up by a gentleman named john hodge and i was given the responsibility of taking that study and comparing it with other options and presenting that to the president. which i did. early in, played in 1983, i've read that to the president and almost, almost all those in the cabinet meeting that day agreed that the space station was the country. logical next step for our the presidents approval of the space station was announced in his state of the union address in january of 1984.

in 1988, the last year of the reagan presidency, congress passed the law allowing the creation of the national space council, a cabinet level organization which you will hear more about in just a minute. this was a fitting end for the cowboy from california, who used the space program is a symbol of u.s. leadership and a brighter future for america and the world. thank you very much. [applause] >> so now we move on to the george herbert walker bush should ministration. or the world changes again. the soviet union disintegrates. managing that process in a peaceful manner is one of the

hallmarks of the first but should ministration. you have the first goal for where we begin to see -- gulf war where we begin to see space enhancing or capabilities. who can forget seeing the picture of munitions going in a window? that video is seared in the minds of those of us that followed the conflict. it was a perfect illustration of how america had integrated its capabilities into with terrestrial war fighting capabilities. some say that reconnaissance strike complex, that we had created an invested in, operational lightest has fundamentally changed the discourse. the bush administration creates the national space council, the first beakers talked about how

you organize space activities. it was the georgians herbert walker administration that decided this need to be a cabinet level set of decision making. so you have a national council chaired by the vice president. you also have the authorship of a -- exploration initiative which attempted to define a new course for american space exploration and a post cold war context where we're not competing with the soviets. what is our path forward in the absence of the cold war? central to most of these decisions was mark, the principal advisor on space to president bush, serving as the executive secretary of the space council. >> good morning. thank you for that introduction.

this is a pleasure. i am enjoying this as much as you are. it is interesting to hear the continuity. i want to read ahead to see where the hell we are. in this chapter of the space policy, this is where it gets interesting. president reagan did a remarkable job in leading the nation. he put in play a lot of things that needed to get elaborated on, and definitize, and operational. that is what happened in the bush should ministration. as has been said, in 1988, the canvas began to recognize that things were beginning to get complicated with regard to space and space policy. it authorized the president to a great day space canceled inside

the white house. despite the fact that most white houses jealously guard executive predict -- privileged when congress tells them, this is you're going to choose, they tend to bristle. the bush and administration decided that he was ok with the idea of a national space council. there were some communications from the vice president that he would be accommodating to this. when he came into office, in april 1989, he signed the executive order that establish the space council. there were a variety of things that shape to the space policy issues the bush administration faced from the beginning. the first, while the ball was teed up and reagan was a central

in ending the cold war, it did not actually end until the bush administration. that have enormous consequences for our space program. president reagan and administration was animated by the cold war and the race with the soviet union. at the end of the cold war, that source of motivation was removed. we had a series of concerns right away with the end of the cold war. what are we going to do with russian weapons? where they going to go? who is in charge had to eat -- how do we incentivize not to sell their components to other nations around the world that, in the vacuum of a postal cold war world would have ambitions about creating their own regional power centers. we also had a problem, how to

define u.s. national security space requirements and forces. as was adequately describe, some much of our national security space program forces policy strategies were based on the primary conflict associate with the cold war. we now had to say what were the right set of requirements to meet our objectives. where our objectives? we also had to deal with the immediate response of the american public for a peace dividend. there was an expectation that the dollars spent on our national security could be saved and returns to the taxpayers and applied to other purposes. it is staggering now but in this period of time, a congressman was talking about a 25% reduction in the department of

defense budget. that is not a leveling off. that was a real reduction. if you had a hundred billion dollars last year, he was talking about $60 billion. that was going to put an enormous squeeze on our accounts. you have to pay personal first. even if you at a rapid drawdown of forces, it will take you a while to get men and women out of the services. it will take awhile to -- wally take a reduction on the top line, the procurement, which are dollars, are accelerated. that was sometime. he had a 50% reduction. that was a significant challenge. we were worried about the technology pipeline closing. one of the benefits of sdi was that had another cold or

technology acceleration. that story is yet to be written. the nanotechnology the camera out of those efforts. there's a whole field of physics the. optics was not considered an important part of physics. everybody was into nuclear particle physics. the program reenergize the whole optical part of physics. the enormous outflow of technologies that have accelerated everything into a's world. we also had a recession. imagine that? the recession was looming. we added president the met -- had made a tax pledge not to increase taxes. that was a huge problem. space was going to take a huge hit potentially.

we also had a space launch crisis. right between reagan and bush. we had the challenger accident. that took an already fragile launch picture for the united states and really put us into crisis mode. the shuttle did not return. it was still down for 32 months. here we had a national launch policy based on a single threat of space. 32 months. we had no access to space. pete almost single-handedly, he was able to get the complementary expendable launch

vehicle program funded. if we had not had that, the united states would have been grounded for three years. we also had a situation that nasa with the space shuttle crisis and space station freedom there was beginning to move to building something. we began to understand the program. the shuttle program was in disarray in 1988. space station freedom, id told him it would cost $8 billion. by 1989, the first time we open the envelope, it was 400% cost increase. it was rapidly escalating. you understood that the number of shuttle flights required to

assemble the -- was two or three times the annual flight rate that had been exhibited. their requirement for extravehicular activity which was the design choice which was to take up the pieces and the civil lemon space was more in any year, and one year of space station injection. there would be more e. l. d. our son had been witnessed for -- by all nations together. it exceeded it in one year. so there was really serious questions about the feasibility of the space station freedom. the national academy of science if you had to question the scientific use of the space station. they were critical that the science they saw coming out of the space station particularly when some of the first trade of decision was made, large centrifuge that was going to allow the creation of all kinds of life science experience -- experiments. they call that marginal.

we had the beginning of unhappy international partners, who had gleefully signed up to be part of the space station program but as the program began to evolve and the interactions and the decisions they realized there were less partners and subcontractors and there was real unhappiness being expressed about that. in the planetary program and the great observer dave -- observatory programs have been put on hold with this 30 month hiatus so nasa was an unstable program. but that is not all. there was at this time the beginning of a very serious concern about global climate change and there was a very strong initiative on the part of the hill and from outside academic community that infect the united states should have a heavy emphasis on global change. global climate change in the way was coming to us was that the