invest in the defense that we need, whether it be bct's or any other part of our force, is something others are watching. but it's also important in ensuring that it's less likely that we will have to use it. and i do worry about our foes being encouraged or heartened when they see us debate whether we should spend enough money on our defense. that is just yet another reason why i really hope to get support for the defense spending we need. >> i won't speak to the number of army brigade combat teams, but i will say the russians have just taken a decision to activate six new gates, and four of them will be in the arctic.

>> some of us still believe in battleships, and we are not sure that alaska should have ever been made a state. [laughter] >> senator king p request with some trepidation, mr. chairman i want to associate myself with the senator from alaska's questions. the arctic is emerging as any normally important and strategic area. we have one heavy icebreaker and one medium icebreaker. the estimates are the russians have 7-10 icebreakers. that is just basic infrastructure. and the resources up there and the strategic implications are enormous, so i appreciate the senator raising the question. we have to put the discussion into context in terms of your budget. this chart, which i'm sure you're familiar with, is the last 50 years of defense spending as a percentage of gdp.

starting in 1962 at about 9%, today it is 3.3% and headed down , at a time of increasing threat and payroll for our country. often we get confused about the absolute dollar amounts, but a percent of gdp as a way of comparing apples to apples throughout recent history. we are reducing the defense function dramatically at a time as i say, of increasing threat. general dempsey, i want to put a fine point on your testimony. you talked about numbers of deployments and readiness. if we are able to avoid the sequester, our american lives being put at risk? general dempsey: yes, that is an eloquent answer. secretary carter, i do want to talk about an area of your budget and a little more detail. $5.5 billion scheduled or increased activities in cyber.

i am extremely concerned about cyber. i think it is the next frontier of warfare. we have had plenty of warning shots across our now in the last couple of years, yet congress hasn't acted. i commend you for taking this in a kit of. news reports are that the cia is expanding their cyber capability and in a substantial cyber capability. you are building a substantial cyber capability. i don't want a return to the post 9/11 days when we had a lot of intelligence capability but they were not talking to each other. please assure me you we -- you will be coordinating so we are not duplicating, overlapping, spending more taxpayer money than we have to, and worst of all, not sharing whatever information is being derived in this field.

>> thank you, and you are absolutely right this is a terribly important dod mission. that's why both i and the chairman has been a great leader in this as well, we are determined to do more. just like you analogize it to the war on terror before 9/11 it requires us to hitch together the different parts of the government. to the list you named, i would add the fbi which hasn't capabilities and authorities in this area, dhs. we have to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. even as dod moves out to make the investments we need to, we need to coordinate with the others. our investments are into categories. to make sure that our network are secure, because our forces depend for their effectiveness

upon information networks. so the buying of planes, ships and tanks doesn't get us anywhere unless we had the networks to go with them, and they don't do any good in warfare unless the networks are able to avoid penetration. another thing we need to do is build cyber weapons as weapons of war. that will be a dimension of future warfare, as many have noted. >> i am concerned that our cyber defense system is just that, it is defense, and that we don't have an offense of capability, or if we do, it's not broadly known. and that therefore, nation states that act against our cyber, we are very vulnerable. there is no price to be paid. i wonder if we shouldn't be developing a theory of

deterrence similar to nuclear deterrence in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, which served us well until today. so that people understand that if they come against our cyber infrastructure, they are going to pay a price. is that something that you can consider? >> i think that is very wise and i appreciate that ought. i think -- appreciate that thought. that is something we need to think through better than we have. at the same time we build capabilities, we have to build doctrine as well. so i think that is a very wise point. >> i will ask youtubers -- respond to this perhaps on the record. you have identified as a priority acquisitions. i know you once held that job and i hope you will hold to that. i would like to see a little more detail about how you are

going to tackled that. i know the chairman has expressed his concern. how do we get at procurement not only in terms of cost but in cost of timeline, that we have a more timely procurement process. you don't have to respond now, but i would appreciate seeing something on that because i think it is very important part of your mission going into this job. and i am delighted you're here with us today. >> thank you, mr. chair secretary carter, general dempsey for being here with us. we appreciate your service and your testimony today. secretary carter, in the beginning of your testimony, you had been quite an expansive list of the tricks you have taken the people you have met, the places you have been, and the impact with equipping and

training our soldiers. i can tell that is very important to you. do i understand correctly that you also took a trip to arlington? secretary carter: i did the morning i was sworn in with my wife. >> i appreciate that so much. that tells a lot about a person, that not only are you recognizing the sacrifice that the blue star families give to their loved ones serving over steep -- overseas but those gold star families that have left someone behind. so thank you for doing that. i was significantly impressed that you would take the time to do that, so thank you. i do want to talk a little bit -- we have talked about this all day with the shia militia. i know senator mccain has spoken about this earlier. in the fiscal year 15 budget we had $1.6 billion that we used for the iraq train and equip

find, to train and equip the iraqi security forces, the kurdish peshmerga, and sunni tribes and other local forces. in the fiscal year 16 budget you are requesting $700 million for this fund. and i do support this effort. i think we should be training and equipping the kurdish peshmerga. they have been important allies in the pushback against isis and others. what i am concerned about is the relationship between the iraqi 30 or sit, iran, which has been the sidebar topic of many conversations today, and the shia militia forces. during the iraq war ied's were a huge concern to american

troops. as senator mccain alluded to earlier, there were some types of ied's that were used that were devastating to our men and women. they left many gold star families out there. we know that a lot of those came from iran. so right now, what i would like to hear from you is, are american taxpayer dollars going to the shia militia that once were fighting against american soldiers? and how can we assure the american taxpayer that these dollars going to train and equip iraqi forces will not be used against us as we move forward? secretary carter, if you can address that. secretary carter: first of all,

i share your concern about the shia militias and the face of sectarianism looming again in iraq, which, as you know extremely well from your own service, is the principal challenge that the government of iraq faces going forward. our training and equipping is to iraqi security forces through the government of iraq. that reflects the view that a multi-sectarian iraqi government is the best way to keep iraq together and defeat isil in iraq and ultimately drive them out of the country. but i say i share your concerns because what we have seen in the

last few years has been sectarianism in eroding the capabilities of the iraqi security forces. that is why they collapsed in the face of isil. so i absolutely share your concern about efp's. you know that extremely well from your own service. we have had that experience before. general dempsey was also there in iraq and he does as well. let has him to join in. general dempsey: i will express my own concern as well. i think general often would say the reason his campaign plan is delivered -- general often. one of the lines of effort is iraqi governance. if the central government of iraq does not achieve -- let's call it reconciliation because that is probably the right word, with the shia and the kurds

then it does put our campaign at risk. so i am concerned about that. as far as the weapons we have been issuing through the government of iraq, we have confidence that those are going into the right hands. some of the weapons you have seen in the hands of the shia militia are things that were procured by the iraqis through our foreign military sales process that they bought two or three years ago. we are monitoring it as well as we can. >> i thank you very much. senator mccain, thank you. >> on sequester i received a

letter that -- i ask unanimous consent that it be injured into the record. a highly important letter for members and i just want to read one sentence and ask if you agree with it. if we continue on our current path, we risk undermining the central pillars of our all volunteer force and with it the foundation of international peace and security, which the u.s. military has been the most reliable errand for since the end of world war ii. do you agree with that statement? >> i do. >> could we send out any clearer like flag at the beginning of partial disarmament than to place a vote on the bca from august 2011 as a higher priority for the nation than our security in a world that has changed and

put new threats on the board since then? could we do anything that would send a worse message to our allies about our weakening resolve? >> am very concerned about what our internal budget debates look like to friends and foes alike internationally. it's yet another reason why we really need to knock it off and get ourselves on a stable budget path that gives us enough to defend ourselves properly. >> let me just say that we had an interesting set of discussions about afghanistan. i think the committee has tom -- come to the position -- let me apply the same analogy to our sequester issues. should we not be conditions based? we voted in august 2011 before north korea path cyber attack, before isil was grabbing acres.

are we going to elevate that above a condition base national defense? we should not elevate and august 2011 vote over the conditions of security that faces the country. i took that as the point of the letter, and i recommend it to all my colleagues. the back-and-forth has made me think about my position. it's a question about the issue of ground troops. in listening to the chairman about this, what i've realized is that my concern is not really about language, and it's not really about the constitutional allocation of power. it's really about the definition of the mission. we have heard in the last two weeks, three weeks, in meetings with the foreign relations committee by king abdulla of

jordan and from qatar last week about the balance against isil in the region. both of them said to us essentially u.s. ground troops isn't a good idea because this has got to be our fight against our terror threat. we want your help. we want you to be deeply involved, but if it gets pitched against -- as the u.s. or even the west against isil, then it takes on a fundamentally different tenor and could even become kind of a recruiting device for isil. king abdullah, in a very courageous way, and sadly we met with him on the day it was revealed that the jordanian pilot was so horribly murdered, burned, he said this is our fight. if we are willing to do it, we need all kinds of help from you but we've got to be up front

that this is our fight. the united states did not create isil or this extremist ideology. it was birthed in our region by people claiming the religious mantle of our region. both of them have guardedly advised us against around troops. but toward the big picture goal that is battle against isil has to be the region policing itself, not the u.s. trying to counter them. what is your response as we think through this military mission, what is your response to that sentiment? it's not about draftsmanship or the allocation of power, but it's about -- isn't there a compelling need for the region to show it will battle its own threat, and if so, it will -- we will help them, rather than it being the u.s.'s burton. >> that is how the campaign is designed, to leverage a coalition of regional partners

assisted by those outside the region, but very much relying upon those in the region to lead the effort, requiring the government of iraq to lead the effort, especially in terms of reaching out to form a coalition within iraq of sunni tribal leaders and kurds in peshmerga. that is exactly how the campaign is designed. >> i second that. that is how it needs to be designed, for the two reasons you say. the first is that we don't only seek the defeat of i still -- of isil we seek their lasting defeat. that means somebody who is there ensuring that defeat. the second reason that you also say, if it becomes our war, it becomes a harder war.

we need to have others involved and as the chairman said, that is what the campaign calls for now. >> secretary carter, welcome back. i have to go back to something we were discussing about the leak of our plans to most. i believe secretary carter said you were looking into it. and general dempsey, you said you were looking into it. i don't understand why would take so long to get to the bottom of it. it was a planned conference call with members of the media if i understand correctly. did i misunderstand something here? >> that is my understanding as well. i will say two things about this whole incident. the first is senator that when

an operation is mounted against multiple or anywhere else, it needs to be a success. it needs to be iraqi lead and supported by us and it needs to be successful. >> i agree fully. i don't understand why announcing any timeline would have contributed -- i don't understand why would take so long to understand why and organize conference call with the media was held. >> i will say something about that, that clearly was neither accurate information nor had it been accurate, would it have been information that should have been blurted out to the press, so it was wrong on both scores. the only thing i will say is that we try as the department of

defense of a democracy to be as open as we can. there are a lot of people out there talking all the time about what we are doing and sometimes someone is out in front of their skis. even as we make sure that this particular incident doesn't happen again i think that it is important that we be open as a department, not with military secrets, but we do try to keep the country informed of what we are doing. it's about protecting them. it is a democracy. and so openness is important but it has to have limits when it comes to security matters and those limits obviously were not respected in this case. >> senators mccain and graham have sent a letter to asked that very question, and i must

suggest that i will await until we respond to the letter. >> during confirmation hearings, you had mentioned that u.s. options to respond to the breach of the imac treaty by russia -- of the imf treaty by russia. counterforce capabilities to prevent intermediate range ground launch cruise missile attacks, and countervailing strike capabilities to enhance u.s. are allied forces. could you elaborate on the skies -- size and scope of those capabilities and what you think the russian government's reaction might be? secretary quarter carter: i will affirm

what you just said, we have three kinds of options for responding to a violation of the treaty. i think the russians need to know that this is a two-way street. they signed, we signed, and we can and will react. those are the three categories which we could react militarily. active defenses to protect ourselves and our allies in their territory against this new threat, but counterforce which is a way of making sure that, god for bid, there is an actual military confrontation, they cannot be used in the 30's is it opens up the option for us to have distance which we decided to forgo in the interest of this inf treaty years ago. we don't have to forgo them anymore because the treaty is a

two-way street. >> the development of capabilities to fit into the categories that the secretary mentions would be inf compliant and that is the difference between the two of us. >> military terms of art, i will start with the chairman and then let secretary carter cleanup. what are offensive ground combat operations? >> as the one who would have to assist in the implementation of that, i would consider it to be mission by mission. if we were for example to decide , our advice to the president would be that we would have to introduce ground forces to accompany iraqis into combat in

most because of the complexity of the terrain, then we could do that, but it would be mission specific rather than a temporal dimension. meaning two weeks or two years. >> secretary carter, do you have anything to add? secretary carter: no, i think that is accurate. the important thing about the language however the discussion debate turns out, for my point of view is first that we have the flexibility to run the campaign we need to defend the country. and the second is that our troops see our government as a whole supporting them. those are the two things that are important to me in this whole debate. >> thank you. >> general, you keep saying that

if you decide to recommend to the president -- we would like to know when you are going to decide to make that recommendation to the president. >> well, senator, when the task at hand -- when i get the advice from centcom, general austin and when the mission would require it, and we have not reached that point. >> thank you mr. chairman. gentlemen, it is good to see you. mr. chairman, in your professional military opinion if additional arms are not provided to ukraine you've got a little david fighting the russian bear. is it reasonable to assume that

russia, through their subterfuge of the rebels, would continue to advance right across the country? >> i'm concerned about two things. one is that it would be a russian aspiration to do so, and separately -- that the separatist would -- here's the other thing. if russia wants to take ukraine, it's going to take it because of its geographic proximity and size. there are some capability gaps that put the ukraine forces at a real disadvantage, and i think we ought to look for opportunities to provide those capabilities so that on the chance that the russians are actually telling the truth which frankly i doubt very much, that the separatists and the

sovereign state of ukraine can compete on a level playing field. >> whitey think that the russian policy is such that as you say if they decide to take ukraine why are they not moving more aggressively across ukraine? crisis is probably speculative because i think their case is designed to create uncertainty on the part of our european allies. because if they can maintain that level of uncertainty, then they have the potential to put friction inside of nato, which is there larger strategic goal. and if successful in ukraine and russia wanted to continue to be aggressive, they could

suddenly mass on the borders of the three baltic state. there would be no match their but now we have nato members. what do you think is the resolve of the european nato membership to stand and fight for the baltics if the russian bear comes across the line? >> that's the commitment they have made, as a member of nato they all agreed to live up to their article five responsibility. i will say that based on the european reassurance initiatives that nato has taken, baltic air policing, establishment of a very high readiness joint task force, nato in wales made some commitments that indicate that

all of them take that responsibility seriously. the problem we could potentially have is the asymmetric nature of it, where there might be a dispute about whether it is actually happening. we are working with our nato allies to work or that. >> and of course the situation there is, with those large russian speaking populations in the baltics, especially in estonia, it could give him the same excuse that he has tried to use with regard to crimea. let me ask you about mental health. i have been in or misleading pressed with -- i have been enormously impressed with some of our special operation forces, that they are now realizing that the stigma against mental health counseling, they are really trying to turn it around

because it is performance enhancement, not only in the body but the mind as well. to what degree are you all trying to implement that same thing across the board at the department of defense? general dempsey: to a great degree. it started under bill craven. what they realized is exactly what you said, that is not enough just to say it is not a stigma. they found a way to turn it into what we would call a combat multiplier. not only is it something you do after the fact, but you build in the resiliency you need right from the start. and all the services are learning lessons with each other. >> final question for either of you.

training 500 a month or every two months for the free syrian army, is that really going to be productive? >> i will take that first, if i made, chairman. that is a small number that grows over time. it is paced by the throughput of the training centers. i think that the u.s. effort needs to be just one ever. there need to be others in the region who participate in this. it gets back to something that we were discussing earlier about the need for the defeat of isil to be a lasting defeat and for regional partners to be involved. the only thing i would say is that there needs to be other

efforts besides the u.s. effort in accordance with the discussion we were having earlier. >> we need a partner on the ground and we need something we can have the coalition coalesce around. >> i think senator leahy is allowing me to go ahead, and i appreciated very much. let's continue that. have you been told by the air of orson is in the region -- the arab forces that we are not going into syria unless we can get rid of a sawed -- of assad? >> i have heard that. >> they don't want to defeat isil in turn syria over to iran that assad is a puppet of a rant. do you agree with that?

>> i do. >> i don't see any chance of a regional force until you put assad on the table. the people were training throughout the region to go in and fight isil, the free, the young men who will join this cause, what would happen if the a saudi air force -- if the assad air force begins to attack the people we train because as sad knows one day we will turn on him? can we protect the people we train against an attack a byssad? >> first of all, i think we have an obligation to those we have trained to protect them, the manner in which that would be done is something that is being discussed, but in my view, we

have an obligation to do that. it goes with the training part. >> i agree with you both. i have asked the general counsel of the white house this very question and he told me very quickly, no. the authorization to use military force would not allow us, the united states, to engage the air force is of assad. that is not included within the authorization. that is a very important point. could you check with the white house and see where they come out on this at a later point? general, what do you think they would do with the money, given their behavior on the ground today? >> i cannot speak to that, but here is what i will say. i am under no illusion that ending their nuclear program in the problems we have with iran in the region, whether it is

arms trafficking cyber. this is an adversary a that has led to the death of american servicemen on the battlefield. so i think we have to keep an eye on them in that regard as well. quick and you agree that the most likely outcome, given their behavior today, is that they're not going to build hospitals and schools, they will probably put money into their military. >> i think they will probably distribute their money like we do. i just hope they don't sequester it. >> i just hope we don't give them more cash, because they are wreaking havoc as it is. secretary carter, do you agree that the iranians are wreaking havoc throughout the region without a nuclear weapon? secretary carter: i do agree with that, senator. from yemen to syria and iraq and

lebanon, and elsewhere, that is why i think it is important that we remain vigilant and prepared as we in the department of defense need to and will be prepared for i ran across a very wide front. >> would you agree with the following statement, the iranians with a nuclear weapon would be the most significant national security threat that israel faces in the united states with it? secretary carter: certainly i would let the israelis speak for themselves. two things i would say, we need

to be concerned about iranian behavior beyond their nuclear program. >> can you think of anything off the top of your head that would be out an iran with nuclear weapons? secretary carter: there may be a close tie with north korea with nuclear weapons. >> they have already got nuclear weapons. >> i understand, but in terms of the danger posed -- >> let's stay with that. do you think it is more destabilizing for iran to get a nuclear weapon then north korea in terms of the mideast? have you been told by arab allies that anything you give the iranians on the new your front, we're going to want this aim thing, or more? if the iranians get a nuclear a

ability, do you think the arabs in the region will want a nuclear capability to match the iranians? >> there are those who have said that. it could be the beginning of a powder train that would encourage others in the region to pursue a nuclear program as well. that would just unleash proliferation in the middle east. >> so the prime minister's warning that regard is probably well heated? >> i did not hear the prime minister today but i certainly think that the danger of a runaway iranian program stimulating runaway nuclear programs elsewhere in the middle east is a very serious one. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to each of you for being here. thanks for all you do to keep our country safe.

secretary carter, the department of defense is calling for -- siding and has nearly 20% more infrastructure that it finds necessary. can you give a more detailed explanation as to what the department finds within its infrastructure that is unnecessary or in excess and why ? can you describe to us what improvements need to be made to the brac process to avoid the cost overruns we experienced in the 2005 round? secretary carter: we are requesting another round of brac . the basis for that is the measurement of our infrastructure against our current holdings of equipment and our needs. for example it is aircraft

fleets versus apron space. that kind of analysis that measures the amount of excess infrastructure that we are carrying. the 2005 was not what we are seeking. we are looking for what occurred in the 1990's were true savings occurred. why did it not occur in 2005? is because when it came time to reconfigure basis, that was a time when the defense budget was growing very rapidly. the department decided at the same time to modernize a lot of installations at the same time it was consolidating others.

that created far fewer savings than a pure brac round wood. we are seeking brac authority. i know that is not an easy thing to get. >> a lot of americans became frustrated last summer when we saw the iraqi security forces on whom we had just spent $25 billion training and equipping over the course of the last decade quickly free from a much smaller and less well-trained, less well-equipped isis force in northern iraq giving up ground and leaving behind a lot of equipment, a lot of it provided by us.

mr. secretary, you just return from a visit to the middle east. to look into our strategy and how things are going there. can you discuss for us the oversight we exercise over the train and equip missions in iraq and syria, and tell us a little about what is being done to make those forces accountable for the training and equipment we are giving them just to make sure that something similar does not happen. >> let begin give that a start and then as chairman nancy to chime in also. you exactly put your finger on it. what happened last your was an unwillingness of the iraqi security forces to fight using the training in the united states has given them.

the reason for that was a political failure on the part of their government to keep the promise that had been made to the country to keep it a multi-sectarian state. that is not what was happening under maliki and that is the reason why the forces folded. the most important thing we can do going forward is to make sure that iraq doesn't decline into sectarianism. so that is the most important thing we can do, and it is a political rather than technical thing regarding the training, but it is job one. i will let the chairman speak to the training, but we are giving them training and we will give them support when they go into battle. we have been for quite some time conducting a bombing campaign against isil in order to blunt their offense and prepare the

way for the counteroffensive. let me guess the chairman if he wants to add anything there. general dempsey: four areas, so the training is centralized, the oversight once they deploy is actually built around the supply chain, so the things we are giving them, there is a tether that goes out to where they are operating. to this point, our program is to . units off-line that exist regroup them and put them back out as well as help the iraqi's manage their own training base. does that answer the question? >> i think that is helpful. one other quick question it either one of you can answer. how are you as and intelligence

agencies adapting to the collapse of the yemeni government and the loss of our primary counterterrorism partner against one of most capable al qaeda offshoots? secretary carter: first thing is, al qaeda in the arabian peninsula which is in yemen, is a very serious offshoot of al qaeda. serious for us because they are determined to attack us. they make that absolutely clear. therefore counterterrorism operations in yemen are critically important. therefore the restoration of the government there that will cooperate with that is very important to us. we are trying to do everything we can to continue to combat a uap in the face of what is going

on with the government in sanaa but it will be much better for us if we are able to assist in the reconstitution of a government there in sanaa. i know our diplomatic colleagues are working on that but it is important to our counterterrorism efforts. general dempsey: are counterterrorism effort is raised mostly out of the south. we still have a partner there who has an interest in keeping al qaeda and the arabian peninsula under pressure. our fear is that if the country does devolve into civil war, we would lose that platform. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the witnesses for a long afternoon of testimony. i believe it is important that all of our colleagues as well as

the american people understand your message. that is that sequestration cannot continue without putting the lives of the men and women who are serving in uniform today in danger. i thank you for that frank and candid testimony and i thank you for being here this afternoon. the hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> each year at c-span, we

talked to you about our student cams documentary competition. the goal is to challenge middle and high school students to think about issues that affect them and their community. the theme for student cam this 2015 year was the three branches and you. we asked students to tell us a story that demonstrated how a policy, law, or action has affected them or their community. and in addition to telling it through video, we asked them to use c-span programming in their video and explore alternative points of view. before we meet the -- one of the grand prize winners and watch a portion of their grand prize video, here's a little bit more background on the competition. there were five top themes among entries we received this year. they were education, health, the economy, equality and immigration. we received more than 2,200 entries from 45 states and the district of columbia. students were able to enter as a team of up to three or individually. and there were four categories in which they could enter,

broken down by regions at the high school level, high school eastern states, high school central states and high school western states. middle schoolers competed separately. in the end, 150 student prizes were awarded totaling $100,000. now it's time to announce the grand prize winner a team of , eighth graders from lexington, kentucky, were named the grand prize winners in 2015 for their video on the minimum wage titled "the artificial wage." their cable provider is time warner cable. here's a small clip from the winning piece by anna, katie and michael. ♪ >> sydney jones is a single mother with a 4-year-old child. she has to make tough choices every week since she has to make ends meet on a minimum wage job. $7.25 an hour. she said $15,080 a year isn't enough for her to get by. >> it is hard because sometimes i have to decide like, if my son needs underwear, i'm going to

have to be late on the bill -- on a bill to buy underwear or i'm going to have to ask people to borrow money. so it is hard, sometimes. >> sydney is not alone. according to the bureau of labor statistics, 3.3 million americans make minimum wage or below. that's 2.6% of all u.s. workers. most minimum wage workers are employed in fields like food service, retail sales or personal care such as day care. rosemarie gray makes minimum wage as a custodian. >> we want to be able to take care of ourselves, pay our bills and pay for housing and we can't do that on minimum wage. we just can't. so they have all these programs like food stamps, you know. they're going, why do you need food stamps? because you've got to eat. when you don't make enough to feed yourself and pay all your bills. you just don't.

>> the push is on to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour, which would provide a little over $21,000 a year if the individual works 40 hours per week. it's been six years since the minimum wage was raised. some in congress say now is the time to raise it again. >> things are getting better. the problem is, they're only getting better for some. we know that corporate profits have continued to break records while americans are working harder and getting paid less. >> but some, like kentucky congressman andy barr, say raising the minimum wage will cost jobs, citing a nonpartisan study by the congressional budget office. >> if we mandate a higher minimum wage in those entry level jobs, then we would lose 500,000 to a million jobs immediately, those low-income

jobs. that's the last thing we want. we don't want to create more unemployment. we want higher employment. >> representative barr says more education and better worker training are the keys to improving the lives of minimum wage workers like sidney and rosemarie, not an artificial wage. >> now it is time for us to meet one of the students that's on the grand prize winning team her name is anna gilligan and she's joining us from lexington, kentucky. hi, anna, congratulations to your team. anna: thank you so much. host: where were you when you heard the news you'd won? anna: i was in my principal's office with my team and a few teachers and i got the call and for the first time in my life i didn't have anything to say. host: isn't that terrific. were you surprised when you won? did you feel when you sent it in that it was a winner? anna: my team and i, when we were making it, we said, let's show so and so.

we wanted to get the word out and let people know. we had no idea. there's always somebody better out there and we didn't know that this was a possibility. host: how did you choose the topic "the artificial wage" which deals with the minimum wage? anna: we were looking through the clips you had available and we're all passionate about human rights and i was like, oh, let's look at, minimum wage, you know, hey, for the people. give them more money, help them out. and you know, right there, we're like, yeah, that's what we're going to do. we want to help people. host: it's interesting, when people watch your video, and i hope they'll take time to find it on our website, you have a decided point of view the three , of you, that you speak through. was it your opinion when you started out the piece? anna: no, our opinion changed. when we first started researching, we saw the top layer. if you give people more money,

they'll be happier and they can buy more things. but you know, we started to dig a little deeper, found out the cost of inflation and people can just send work elsewhere and put people out of a job, so we decided no, it is not best for the workers and our community. host: how did you find the people you interviewed particularly those who were working on minimum wage, to interview for the piece? anna: my father had a job connection he, found them through a job fair and we were able to coordinate those interviews through a program called jubilee jobs so they were like, all right, we have three people, if you would like to interview them, they are happy to tell you their story. host: were you surprised they were willing to share their lives with you? anna: we had one interesting view, one of the gentlemen said, no, i don't think this is a good idea. and that just shocked us.

so just everything about it, it was very interesting. absolutely. host: is have you worked with video before or is this your first documentary project? anna: this is my first time, michael is very experienced and he helped out with the technical aspect of that. host: how did you put your three-member team together? anna: it was originally katie and i, because we've been friends since fourth grade and i was like, how are we going to put this together, who will help us make this a story and not just facts and i was like, michael, hey, why don't you come help us out. he was like, great. so we all worked well together. we are friends. we are all on speech team. we get along very well. host: closing question, how will you celebrate your win, both at school and what will you do with your prize-winning money. anna: starting out, we didn't think this would happen so i haven't made any plans.

invest in the stock market, do something worthwhile and maybe learn a little bit. host: do you know how your school will celebrate? anna: we'll watch this on tv and -- >> we're going to have an assembly. anna: we're going to have an assembly and all sorts of fun stuff. host: i'm sure all the other students in your school will be happy to cheer you on. congratulations to you for your big win this year. we're very proud of you. anna: thank you so much. host: in addition to the grand prize winners, there were first prize winners in each category. here they are. a team of ninth graders from sandy spring, maryland, who produced a video on school lunches. their cable provider is comcast. first prize in high school central went to a senior from oklahoma. her topic, public access to natural resources. another cox communications company team won in high school

west, a team of three seniors from phoenix who focused on the individuals with disabilities education act. and here's our first prize in middle school. two young ladies from silver spring, maryland, with their cable service provided by comcast. they chose medical research funding for their video. finally, one more prize. mckinley lare, our first prize winner in the high school central region also won our first ever fan favorite prize. this was student cam's first time allowing the public to preview and cast votes for their favorite documentary. you should know that all 150 main prices were decided independently of the public vote but during a week of voting with 325,000 votes cast mckinleigh's documentary received 195,000 votes. she'll be recognized as the th year's fan favorite and win an extra $500 cash prize.

congratulations to all the student cam winners and all the students who entered this year. you can watch the winning entries on our website at >> coming up, a committee hears about the future of space exploration. after that, former undersecretary of state nicholas burns talks about foreign-policy challenges facing the u.s.. and later, this sudden line -- the sunlight foundation discusses hillary clinton's use of personal e-mail during her time as secretary of state. during a senate subcommittee hearing, former nasa astronaut buzz aldrin talks about the

future of space expiration. -- space exploration. it's about two hours. >> good afternoon, i would like to thank each of the distinguished witnesses from the -- for being here. just over a half-century ago president john f. kennedy laid down a marker in my hometown of houston, texas, and made a

commitment that like the great pioneers that came before us, we too would set sail on a new see and send man to the moon. we embarked upon that endeavor as a nation because opening the vistas of space promised high cost and enormous reward. today we find ourselves at a similar crossroad. the year 2015 is just as critical of a time for our national and commercial space programs as was the case a half-century ago. future exploration is certain to produce hardships, but it also promises high rewards. new resources, frontiers, and economic opportunities. i am honored to serve as chairman of the subcommittee, and as chairman, my first priority for the space component of this subcommittee will be working to help refocus nasa's energies on its core priorities

of exploring space. we need to get back to the hard sciences, to command space -- to manned space exploration. we need to ensure that the united states remains a leader in space exploration in the 21st century. sls and override will become --sls and orion will be critical for our medium and long-term ability to explore space, whether the moon, mars, or beyond. at the same time, i remain deeply concerned about our current inability to reach lowers orbit. we are, right now, entirely dependent on the russian soyuz system. that is unacceptable from the

perspective of space interest and our national security. every seat that an american occupies on the russian soyuz costs $70 million. it is imperative that the united states has the ability to get to the international space station without the assistance of the russians. america should have the capability to launch a rescue mission to the space station should that prove necessary and without being dependent on the russians. america should have the capacity to launch our critical satellites without having to acquire russian rd-180 engines. i am encouraged by the progress both with regard to commercial cargo and commercial crew, but

we need a continued focus on accomplishing the stated objectives with maximum efficiency. it is terrific to see commercial companies innovating and as chairman of the subcommittee, i will be an enthusiastic advocate of competition and the enabling of the private sector to compete and innovate. in 2013, 81 orbital launches were conducted worldwide. 23 of those were commercial launches. revenues from the 23 commercial orbital launches were estimated to be war than 1.9 alien dollars -- estimated to be more than $1.9 billion. there is more to be done to create long-term stability for the united states space industry.

there is no limit to human imagination, or for the desire for explanation. everyone of us has looked up at the night sky and wondered what lies out there. that is the mystery and vision behind american space expiration. america has always led the way in space expiration. with that, i recognize the ranking member of the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. blossoms are breaking out all over washington. what you just said, you and i completely agree on. as a matter of fact, i offered

the amendment to start and if past. -- and it passed, to start the project. we authorized $100 million. senator mccain was a cosponsor of that to develop an alternative to the rd-180. indeed, we shouldn't be relying on the russians. we have, in the past, in the 2.5 years that we were down after the loss of the space shuttle columbia earlier in the last decade that was our only way to

get up to the space station and they were a reliable partner then, but now we can't predict what vladimir putin is going to do now. this was part of the speeches that i was making a decade ago as we were trying to get this thing off the ground. and i certainly agree with you and i am heartened that you came out with such a strong statement on the commercial crew, because this is going to be a way that we can get americans on american rockets quicker back into space since the space launch system and its spacecraft over ryan --

spacecraft orion. even though we have already tested orion on its first test flight. as you know, you and i have talked about this until we are both blue in the face -- this subcommittee has always not been bipartisan but nonpartisan. the subject of the national space program is a non-artisan issue -- nonpartisan issue. i am looking forward to cooperating with you as we tried last year. it didn't happen on getting the authorization act. we need to get the authorization act out of here just for the remaining six months of this fiscal year and then let's start looking to the additional fiscal years behind. with that, i will stop my

comments. if i may insert my comments that i had prepared into the record for opening comments. i will end by saying thank you. senator cruz: thank you, senator nelson, for the comments. i hope those are used against you in your next campaign. center dot the: -- senator nels on: i was going to serve same to you. going to say the same to you. senator cruz: i want to thank our guests. i cannot think of a more distinguished, a more experienced, a more respected panel then the three witnesses

before us today. first we have walt cunningham, a former astronaut. next, we have was aldrin, a former -- we have buzz aldrin. finally, we have michael massimino a nasa astronaut. i thank you for taking time from your busy schedules. we will begin with colonel cunningham's testimony. colonel cunningham: i appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on what nasa must do to maintain their lead in space exploration. well this is my personal opinion, it is shared by many of my tech -- my contemporaries. some additional points are in my written testimony.

humans have always been driven to explore the unknown and open new frontiers. opening a new frontier demands three things -- resources technology, and the will to do it. in 19 tuesday one, america was willing to take the risk to go to the moon. -- in 1961. the success of the apollo program was based on the collective efforts of the 400,000 members of our team. with the whole world watching, we accepted the challenge, took the risk, and change the way we perceive our world. we accomplished the landing on the moon in eight years. today, 45 years later, the next frontier of mars seems decades out of reach, primarily because we don't have a national commitment. our space program made us the

most testing -- the most technologically advanced nation. in letters to the space shuttle the international space -- it led us to the space shuttle, the international space station. while nasa's portion of the federal budget the at 4% in 1965, it has been below 1% for the last 40 years. while nasa has a compost many things, we have not -- while nasa has accomplished many things, we have not challenged the next frontier. that will only happen if we initiate and provide the funding for such a program. over the past decades, the agency has grown increasingly political, leaving employees much less open to express their opinions. after trying for years nasa

is still not able to reduce the number of space centers they are operating around the country. congresspeople and local politicians have always gone out to save the ones in their district. the schedule of a mars mission would be controlled by the rate at which congress funds it. that could help the agency right many of the deficiencies. moving out of earth orbit would require heavy rockets. a reusable launch vehicle similar to the space shuttle may be necessary in order to assemble an interplay -- an interplanetary spacecraft. while these are all costly, they are essential to move humans out of earth orbit.

any program would have international partners. in that partnership, nasa should take a strong leadership role in not just be one more partner in an international effort. hopefully we can accomplish more and be better structured than the iss partnership. the iss which we gave birth to in the 1970's, is probably the most impressive piece of space hardware ever to reach orbit. we are now totally dependent on russia to get american crewmen to and from the iss. the success of our space program has always been dependent on private industry, and they delivered. as nasa grew less entrepreneurial and more bureaucratic, they inspired

knew commercial space companies. nasa has less control over their operations and results as they did in the past. some people suggest that private space companies should collaborate with nasa for space ventures beyond earth's orbit. that means sharing the cost. while commercial companies will always contract with nasa for hardware and tech knowledge he, -- and technology, the government will always be expected to foot the bill. space exploration does not satisfy profit or return on investment. government agencies are not profit driven. government underwriting gives our agencies the ability to provide, and and develop the technology. since commercial companies move

much faster than government agencies, production by private industry will shorten the timeline for a lunch to mars. in the absence of a mars exploration program and limited funding, nasa has initiated the asteroid redirect mission possibly to the lagrange point. they see it as a first step to mars. well we work on overcoming the problem of radiation exposure and trying to speed up travel, we should return to the moon to develop a crew facility for semipermanent living. many people are saying, send robots to mars because humans are too costly and it is too dangerous. nasa should continue to send manned and unmanned missions, but humans can act and think in real time. we should also think about eliminating permanently any

dependent on other countries for launch capability. two, find a way to have nasa administrators insulated from political changes every four years. the benefits to our society from past programs have been priceless. a manned program -- a manned landing on mars would probably take twice as long as apollo. deficits do not have a return on investment. the human desire to explore will be satisfied if not by americans, then by others. humans somewhere will return to the moon and go to mars. i believe we have the resources and technology, but do we have the will to tackle the next frontier mars?

senator cruz: thank you colonel cunningham. dr. aldrin. aldrin: senator cruz, senator nelson, senator markey, senator udall, senate committee on space science and competitiveness. i want to take the opportunity to speak to you about the future of human spaceflight. this is an honor and i have plus you for raising this issue so early in this session. america must be the world leader on human spaceflight. there is no other policy area that so clearly demonstrates american innovation and enterprise. american leadership is more than just simply getting one step ahead of our global come headed towards.

-- global competitors. american leadership is inspiring the world by consistently doing what no other nation is capable of doing. we demonstrated that for a brief time 45 years ago. if we wish to retain leadership in space, i believe that early in the next administration, the nation must commit to developing a permanent presence on mars. another apollo like mission to put flags and footprints does not brings sustained results. i have a multi-decade plan which will establish world leadership for the remainder of the century.

it includes initial landings on mars by 2038. it is an integrated plan that knits together a return to the moon, and settling mars on a carefully developed, risk mitigated architecture. it includes the use of a robotic cycler between mars and errors -- mars and earth that will relevant -- that will revolutionize travel. much research has been done on this in partnership with the commercial sector, the international community, and the academic community. all this can be done without being a major budget lester for nasa -- budget buster for nasa.

i have developed principles that are part of what i call my unified space vision. one, current programs for transporting crew and cargo to the international station could expand to provide transport of cruise to two redundant stations on either side of the moon. distant controls of the assembly and check out of have additional structures and their life support -- of habitation all structures and their life support systems. we also have a reliable tests of most of the systems needed for mars. we should participate in lunar

development but avoid getting our human spaceflight budget captured by lunar gravity's expensive consumption of funds. let's establish a lunar infrastructure which barters visits to the surface on international lenders. three, reduce the cost of sustaining a presence on mars by deploying outbound cycling spaceships that orbit between earth and mars without requiring a great deal of propulsion. each successive mission would only have to send astronauts landers, and the minor provisions. the in transit provisions would be reusable in the cycler. four focus on people to go to

mars to stay. bringing people home after a relatively brief stay is a cost of driver. -- is a cost driver. i envision a permanent cell of an -- a permanent cell of settlement. the cost of effectively sending the entire launch system to return home on every mission could make the entire venture prohibitively expensive. i provide most of the detail in my written statement. we will have a clearer picture once my study -- once the study of my cycler project is completed your the end of april. in closing, i encourage you to

think about the ability of free markets in space to reduce the cost, and the power of american ingenuity to solve the most technical challenges. in my opinion, there is no more convincing way to demonstrate american leadership for the remainder of this century than to commit to a permanent presence on mars. thank you for your time, i look forward to the committee's leadership. senator cruz: thank you, dr. aldrin. dr. massimino. massimino: thank you very much for having me here today. i have been able to do some cool stuff in my life, and this is right up there. i want to share with you some benefits that our space program

has provided for our country and the whole world. i want to tell you a story from one of my spaceflight that wraps it up. the first benefit is how the human expiration program can benefit science and life on earth. there are lots of examples we can use but the one i am most familiar with is the hubble space telescope servicing program. hubble has given us some great discoveries. the 25th anniversary of the telescope in orbit is coming this spring. it has given us a window into the universe. it has found black holes, dark matter, dark energy. it has inspired many to study the universe. none of this would have been possible without human exploration. without the shuttle program

spacewalks -- spacewalking astronauts, we would not have been able to do this. the human expiration program and how it can affect science and benefits on or. -- on earth. when i was a new astronaut in 1996, we were starting to work with our partners to build the iss. sitting there at a briefing, i wondered how we were going to make this work, how we were going to work with all these countries. the u.s. was clearly going to be a leader, but how would we work with everyone? different systems of measurement, different cultures. what i discovered was, when we all had a common goal, it didn't matter what country you were from. we wanted to produce this laboratory.

international cooperation is the second benefit that i discovered from the program. the third is inspiration for young people. i am sitting next to two of my boyhood heroes. i watched this man walk on the moon when i was six years old and it changed my life. not too many people that are younger me can remember the -- that are younger than me can remember that. as an astronaut, i often wondered, what are we doing now that will get this next generation of american kids interested in studying math and science and going to space. it was never clear to me until lately. i am now a professor at columbia. there are some smart kids up there. what i have found was, they are just as excited as me and my

colleagues were years ago, about the space program. and it is not just nasa. i have lots of students that have gone on to work for nasa. but these kids want to change the world and be entrepreneurial. they see the space program as a way that they can be entrepreneurial. they see the smart entrepreneurs putting efforts into helping the economy through space. they see these people as role models that they want to follow. so i think it is better than when i was a kid in some ways because it is not just nasa doing projects, but it is this entrepreneurial spirit where they think they can provide economic benefits for the world. the story i want to tell you, on my second spacewalk, i had a chance to look around. i was able to see the curvature of the earth. you can see it in its entirety.

my first spacewalk, i've mostly stuck to the job but my second -- plaintiffs. my first thought was that if you were in heaven, this is what you would see. did you look down on a planet and see how beautiful it is. i was thinking about it, and it wasn't enough. i thought, it is more beautiful. this is what heaven must look like. at that moment i felt like i was looking -- it is fragile, at paradise, and we need to take care of it. >> thank you very much. thank you for that powerful and evocative imagery. i appreciate each of you being here, appreciate your expert judgment. i think all of us here agreed

that america should leave the world in space exploration. we have done so for decades. but i would like to start by just asking the panel, how good a job are we doing today? leading the world in space exploration. and how can we do better? >> we are not really leading the world. we have a facility up in space and we have invested a lot in it, gone to it, put it together for quite a while. then we changed our spacecraft to move to another program. that program didn't come together because of problems with the booster not being powerful enough. we had to go to another booster to take spacecrafts, from a company that had built the

spacecraft. it was gaining weight, wasn't able to put itself and the lander into lunar orbit. we had to make the lander even bigger. that same rocket was being used. it appears as though we weren't able to get the crew of there with the existing rocket, so we continue to develop the orion. the heavy lifting vehicle, and without orion going somewhere there is no point in continuing the lander. [phone ringing] >> tell us that is a call from the space station. [laughter] >> make sure it is not collect. >> you talked about what you

perceived to be excessive politicization at nasa, the challenges that presents. i was curious if you could elaborate on that. what steps could be taken to help nasa focus on what should be its core mission? >> i mentioned a little bit about the politics outside of nasa increasingly -- it has a lot to do with projects -- it is infected the agency itself. people inside at nasa are not as willing to speak their minds and

some of these programs, the money we have spent, it has been canceled -- i think when billion dollars. what has happened is nasa has changed in my opinion. they are becoming much more risk-averse. for example we realized until we launch the hubble space telescope, it is the greatest telescope we have ever had. well, we are going to have the use of the hubble space telescope for at least another five years. that would not have happened had we not had the last servicing mission. that mission originally was going to go up a couple years earlier and was canceled by an administrator because it was too risky. they lost some people on columbia. it is a metal kind of thing.

the crew on apollo one -- you have to have the will to keep going. fortunately, we had another administrator that came on after and they took a look at it, it was worth the risk and they had the last servicing mission, and we had the greatest telescope in history. i don't know how we are going to do this because our society is more risk-averse. you have to get out there and push the frontier. when it comes to priorities at nasa, there are a host of exploration priorities that have been discussed -- whether it is asked to write retrieval, whether he is going to the moon, whether it is going to mars. >> i would welcome the views of the witnesses on this panel as to what the top priorities of

nasa should be. which of those products -- projects yield the greatest benefits? what order should they be staged in? to what extent should the focus be on manned exploration versus robotic? >> i can't tell you to what degree and i am not an expert on internal affairs at nasa anymore. as i watch it, i find that what nasa has been trying to do for the last couple of decades -- they recognize that the public at large is looking for a demand for going to the next frontier -- it is mars. they have also attempted to rationalize whatever they were working on as they step along that program. some of the things they proposed would have scientific value.

there are other ways -- you don't hear nasa talking about returning to the moon. i used to be one of those that was not wild about stopping for technology -- stopping at the moon and i began to realize that we have to have a facility that will keep people alive on mars and it will be a whole lot easier to land on the moon than the other way. i think we need to get back on the program only as it fits in to go to the next frontier. >> it is interesting, talking about the moon and mars -- we used to talk about this for years. where are we going next? you can make an argument for

anyone but i think what you have in common is that you want to go somewhere. i think nasa has a plan. working with the companies that have been selected -- we have cargo going to the station and now we have astronauts. that is the plan and it seems like they are taking the right steps. the opportunity, the ability to leave our planet is common to all of those things. what would we pick as a destination? you have different things -- people change their mind in the same day. maybe we don't know exactly where we should go, but if we can get the lift capability, the orion capsule ready to go -- they have a plan for another one. it has picked up a lot of momentum. a lot of my friends are still working on it and they are

building hardware to go. where that destination is -- whether it is to an asteroid or a moon or mars -- i think will -- i think we will get clearer. maybe we can get there quicker or maybe not. maybe we can go to the asteroid or maybe that is the wrong answer. but i think we are taking the right steps. you can make an argument for each one and maybe the argument is we plan on -- >> let me see if i can integrate these things together. in the 60's and 70's we learned how to land on the moon and stay and do things there. to do that again 50 years later just does not seem to be something that would be attractive to the people

involved or the people who are supporting it. we did not build permanence there. other countries will build lenders and we can build the permanent structures, but those permanent structures will be the same ones in the same base design that we will do at the moon. in order to build those on the moon, we need a fairly redundant facility on the near side and on the far side to robotically build those. we can design done with our concepts of the base and we know that we can build pressure vessels for space stations and they can get initial resources in south korea and india. they can build the modules that will go to the moon, based on our design. they need to be standard, and we

have uneven terrain, so you pick one off the lander and put it where you want it, then another lander picks this one up and brings it over. they won't line up -- you have to level them, you have a difference in elevation to account for. it is too much for the students at purdue. it will be done but i am going to another resource to help the students and purdue -- students in purdue. the habitats will be based on what we want on mars, exercised at the moon. before we do that we will use the big island of hawaii to make sure it is all coming together. we need an inflatable railway at earth orbit l1 and l2. we will develop a rigid and we will put it at those two places. those are what we construct things on.

they are the ones that will be similar to what we are going to build and sent to mars with a buildup. at the time, our cycling system deposits the first people on mars the buildup will be complete. we have something -- now what can we do with that inflatable oironrion? we could send it to an asteroid. because of the robot on a mission and the crew two days before -- it has 60 days at that asteroid with a scientist who knows about asteroids and robotic. that is a crew and a robot at the same asteroid in space. when we get to the rigid, we can send aorion on a flyby of venus.

we can do that in a year -- it takes a whole lot longer. we can exercise maneuvers that need to be done and mars. --a at mars. different people will be building and landing and will be giving these habitats the different habitats. we condition it. we get it in and we use three landers for triple redundancy. all of lander has to do is to get on the cycler. the cycler supplies it with everything it needs. the facilities are there for them to take care of. each pass, we reuse the same facility so we don't have to build them again. we can have an inbound cyclery

that can bring people back in emergencies. it evolves as we go along. >> thank you very much gentlemen. >> mr. chairman, i wanted to refer to senator udall. i would say with our goal of going to mars, going to an asteroid, going back to the moon -- if we are going to the moon, then show me the money. that is the question. as we are going forward on the budgets we are projecting -- and i will get into that a little later. >> thank you german cruise, for calling this important hearing -- chairman cruz, for calling this important hearing. and thank you to the witnesses. you have given some very impressive testimony. thank you for your service

today. scientific research and improving technology transfer and commercialization is smart investment -- there is no doubt about it. it is vital to our nation's future and national defense and economy. my home state of new mexicofirsthand. -- new mexico knows this firsthand. astronomers are making new discoveries about black holes and planets outside our solar system. one of those astronomy operations is called the very large array in new mexico. researchers at our labs and universities are working hard to keep america safe and to create jobs through innovative technologies like advanced photonix. i look forward to working with chairman cruizz on legislation

before this committee including the commercial space launch act en masse' relation -- act and nasa costs reauthorization. the senate passed a bipartisan nasa authorization act of 2010. very few senators have been astronauts. senator nelson may the most passionate advocate for space exploration who has ever served. i put the rest of my opening statement in the record. congress passed the last nasa authorization act in 2010. this law continues to guide nasa as a multimission agency. to quote that multimission from the statute "balanced and

robust set of core commissions in science, aeronautics, and human spaceflight and exploration." could you share your thoughts on the advantages of keeping nasa as a multimission agency, which encompasses not just human spaceflight but also initiatives such as space-based observations of the earth? >> my time as an astronaut there were a lot of things going on in the country. we had military situations, economic effects -- a lot of things. i got the sense that as government agencies -- if we had resources that could help to whatever our country needed, it was important for us to try to contribute what we could. you make the example of earth observations. on the international space station, it was a great international project amazing

that this thing is up there. in addition to that, we are able to have this perch up of our planet where we can take amazing photos. we have seen this in my class -- our project for the semester is an astronaut assistant to help take photos. it is not just fun photos, they can show was natural disasters. changes in the planet, whether it be irrigation problems or volcanoes erupting. there is a lot of data that can help our planet. it might be a simple example but we are using our resources to help other agencies improve life and increase our understanding. if there is a way that nasa can contribute to that, and i am not a nasa guy anymore, but i always thought when i was -- if there was anything i could do to contribute to help our country or the world we all wait to do

it -- we owe it to do it. >> quick question -- we only have a few seconds left. it seems to me that there is a great potential to develop -- could you talk about that? >> absolutely. a lot of this comes from my more recent experiences as the university professor. the can't need something to be excited about. i am not as smart as buzz was. it was tough. i needed inspiration to hang in there and get through. i think a lot of students need that. it is not easy studying this stuff. if you have a goal of -- if i can finish this up, maybe i can make contribution to whatever technology -- that is the kind of motivation they need. i have not found any field -- i

would through the challenge out there -- if you can find anything else to get that kid inspired, other than the program, i haven't found it. it encompasses so many different areas, it excites them, it is something they think is cool, it is the future, it is making a contribution back to the planet. when you at this opportunity to be entrepreneurs, i think we are onto something. i can't think of anything that would excite them more. in new york city which doesn't have its own nasa center, there is still great interest. >> thank you very much. i have seen that with astronaut that travel to new mexico. the young people with all the stem fields. sorry to excuse myself -- i hope to get back and ask some additional questions. thank you both. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i will be following my colleagues from new mexico after the question dialogue. i don't think there is anything that captures the human imagination like exploration. 28 years ago, i wrote a letter. i would have been nine years old -- i wrote a letter to nasa. here is a copy. this is the response back from nasa. "thank you for your recent letter and your recent letter and her interest in wanting to become an astronaut. we are especially happy to have the young people of the world show interest in our space program. we have received hundreds of letters similar to yours. " this letter talks about the need

to go into mathematics, to go into engineering or medicine. it talks about the importance of our program. they sent a little photograph of the crew. this was sally ride -- the first woman in space -- that was 20 years ago. 2011, i stood with my colleagues in the house of representatives as we watched the closing of the chapter of the space shuttle program. i was nine years old writing a letter about becoming an astronaut and i failed miserably. [laughter] 28 years later, standing in the cloak room of the house of representatives, watching this program come to an end that it made me so interested in wanting to achieve.

go west, young man -- we follow that phrase and we explored and we fought and we pioneered. i am so concerned about the testimony today the comments you made that we are capturing that imagination like we once were. we are to drive a new innovation. how do we really instill that notion of exploration and really make it reality? the ghost of a heart of what you say. we did a test launch. the test launch of the orion. we did it a top i have the rocket. that would doesn't look like we are planning to carry astronauts until 2021. can this country afford to wait until 2021? can we wait that long? how do we push it up? how do we capture the imagination? to imagine, to aspire?

what is it that we need to do to really drive this mission, this idea, this value of space? it is not just reports and paperwork. >> i think it would help to refocus nasa back on what they did to provide that inspiration. i was listening about the stem education. i am a strong believer in. that is what my education was. everybody here's education. we work with astronaut scholarship foundation. we give up 30 or 32 awards every year. if we look at the organization nasa nasa is also giving out many scholarships. nasa is a space agency.

if they are going to be giving scholarships the funds can be diverted to someplace where they can focus on that. nasa needs to be spending their time in their focus on those things that inspire people. exploration is what i happen to believe in the long-term. they need to be spending their money on those things that inspire others to make their scholarships. i work with scholarships all the time. i believe in them. but i think that the agency -- one more thing that -- a couple dozen people that are working focusing on that as opposed to what they did before, letting the inspiration drive those things. another alternative -- >> i would like to tell a little story about the months before i

left nasa. i was asked to go down to another center, where the next program to follow apollo was being looked at. there were hundreds of aerospace engineers. let me describe what the -- this is 1970, we may have flown to apollo 12. it was two stages, fully reusable, on or bitter with wings and wheels and a booster with wings and wheels, and carried the crew. they didn't carry cargo. i went down there to look at the assembly of people. they had seven teams, seven of

those. some of them -- and they built models. my job was to look at the upper stage, the orbiter. to see what the people could see. i happened to glance down and i saw a window in the booster. i asked the guy, what are these windows here for? when we go up on a booster we have a cockpit with two people in the booster. he said, we have seven teams and we ask them to do a short study -- manned versus unmanned bo osters. if you know what the client wants and if you give him what he wants you will make more money. obviously all those reports said, yes, you are right -- we are going to put a cockpit in the booster. totally unnecessary.

by the time that started getting implemented, george gilreath said to another -- i wonder if we should have put a cockpit in the booster. it was canceled. we had to rush into the shuttle. we would love to have a program like that -- jealousy of individual centers and wanting to do things, the companies wanting to take more money and bring it back to where the states were doing things. that was inexcusable to me. there are other examples like that. three different spacecrafts come back -- commercial spacecraft -- one advanced one, it brings things back.

what do we finance? the two capsules with not new technology and we don't finance the one that can land on a runway. i think we are making not so good choices many times. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> first of all, i want to welcome our guest a dear personal friend, and thank you for what you have done for this country. each of you, in your own contribution, as we have built this amazing thing that we are discussing today, our american space program. the goal is to go to mars. the goal is to get nasa beyond lower orbit -- low earth orbit. the question is, over the course

of these years as we target the decade of the 20 30's, with the budget that we are going to have, how do we do it? how do we develop the technologies, the techniques the systems, the life-support systems, the propulsion systems that will get us to a foreign body such as mars with the crew and return them safely? so we may want to go back to the moon as we develop this, but as i said earlier, show me the money. doctor, i want to ask you to comment on the plans to capture an asteroid, bring it back into a stable lunar orbit, and send a crew up there to land on it.