in the iranian government. i think president obama and president bush ahead of him felt that you had to try to at least see if that negotiated agreement with possible before you resorted to war. that is exactly where we are. if the negotiations fail and if a ron heads towards nuclear weapons, the united states might have to use airstrikes to knock the iranians back, to delay their program. if the negotiations succeed and we can freeze the program and keep them away from a nuclear weapon, i for one think that is a better deal for the united states. that is why i have been supportive of what president obama and secretary of state kerry had to doing. >> why is it a better deal? >> you have to weigh the pros and cons. i think that freezing the iranian program in place, establishing an international verification regime to inspect what they are doing, keeping

enough sanctions on to pressure them to implement the agreement, you don't want to take all of the sanctions off in the first few months, to me, that is a better deal for the united states than risking a confrontation in which we get involved in some kind of third big military conflict in the middle east which is the possibility. you have to weigh the pros and cons. i weigh them on the side of president obama. >> richmond, texas, an independent color. >> -- independent caller. >> the simple fact is that there are only two groups that can solve this. the sunni and the shiite. we have already lost the middle east. there is no reason for us to be there. until those groups can settle their differences, there will never be peace in the middle east. ask let's take that point. >> thank you for your question

and comment. i respectfully disagree. the sunni and shiite have been at odds since the seventh century, since mohammed, since the word of all a -- allah was resolved. the united states has great interest in the middle east. we have an interest in the free export of oil to europe and asia. we have an interest in the survival of israel which is a great ally of the united states. we certainly have an interest in the survival and health and welfare of our friends like egypt, the gulf states we talked about before. if the united states just leave the middle east politically, if we are not involved in their affairs, i think the situation will worsen. i think we have a possibility on the iran case of making a critical difference to keep a ran away from a nuclear weapon and to keep them limited to a

civil enrichment program. i would say the united states is very important but i would agree, maybe with what is implicit in your question. we are always almost better off leaving diplomatically. trying to protect our business and economic interests, trying to protect our political interests. we can use military force sparingly. he got into big trouble in iraq in our eight-year occupation there. a lot of young men and women from the u.s. died and were wounded. we honor their service. we don't want to repeat that exercise. i think the limited application of air power is the best way to do it rather than putting hundreds of thousands of american troops into iraq. >> the front page of the wall street journal was on that point. a ron flexes new clout the on its borders. that was the headline. the covert operator has serviced

in a rock to boost the morale of their troops. what do you make of a ron's flexing its muscles in iraq? >> i have long been opposed to what the iranians are doing in the middle east. the radiance support hamas. they created hezbollah. those groups are both anti-american. in a rock, the iranians supported the shiite militant groups when we were there that shot at us. i don't agree at all with what the iranians have been doing in trying to expand their power. i think the united states wants to be powerful enough that we can crowd iran out of some of these situations in the middle east in places like iraq. the unusual part of this is that we are trying to help the iraqi government in baghdad get back

on its feet and take back its country from the islamic state isis. we haven't talked much about them yet. oddly enough, the arena and government wants the same thing. they are the primary military supporter on the ground of the iraqi government. it doesn't mean the united states and iran are getting along, it doesn't mean we are even talking to them. it just means that we are supporting the same government in iraq. it is a strange turn of events in the middle east. at the same time, we are opposed to what iran is doing in syria and lebanon and the palestinian territories. iran is a big problem for the united states. that is why i want us to remain involved in the middle east so that you ron doesn't become the primary outside power. it should be the united states. >> robert, texas, republican. >> good morning. i am sure you know of neville chamberlain. i think if you listened to the

news this morning, i haven't heard the full details nbc's and curry has interfered -- ann curry has interviewed sharif. when posed with the question two how does he feel about the ayatollah statement about destroying israel, he supports that. he openly support that with his interview. how can you not believe that what netanyahu says that the most important thing that he has to deal with is the open and willful destruction of israel, how can you sit there and continue to be a pacifist as our president is? >> you said some strong things. i obvious they with the last thing you said because i certainly would not say that i am a pacifist or that president obama is. he is the one who went after osama bin laden. he killed osama bin laden for

his attacks on the united states. president obama has prosecuted a very vigorous war against al qaeda. i think you have to be careful with the charges that you make. we all need to be careful about historical reference point. you opened up your statement by implicitly saying that either me or president obama is guilty of acting like neville chamberlain. he was the british prime minister who did not stand up to hitler. mark twain said that history doesn't repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes. i'm vaguely to be mindful of these lessons but i wouldn't say the situation in iraq is similar or iran is similar to the threat that hitler posed to the world. we are much stronger militarily, politically, and i was a morally than the iranian government. i disagree vehemently with the reigning government and i detest the iranian government in its repeated threats against israel.

as i said earlier i very much sympathize with the israeli leadership. if you have a foreign country in the middle east threatening to destroy you, there have been such statements, you have to pay attention to them and you have to defend yourself. i don't criticize netanyahu for that. i criticize him for coming into our capital and criticizing president obama as a patriotic american. i don't like it. in effect, it doesn't give the proffered -- it doesn't give the proper deference to president obama. we are the best friend that israel has ever had. we will continue to be. mike spirits of diplomacy is that if you have a problem and you have a disagreement, you try to argue that behind closed doors. you don't try to defeat the president of the united states

in a joint session of congress. what wallace michigan -- >> wallace, michigan, republican. >> hello. i noticed netanyahu kind of reminded me of president kennedy in a sense demanding the doctrine. president kennedy would not allow any nukes in the neighborhood. should president kennedy have negotiated for some enrichment in cuba? in the same sense, i know israel has said it would defend itself. it didn't ask for american boots . i wonder, can you answer, has obama threatened israel for doing any kind of strikes against iran to defend itself? >> i agree, i think president kennedy, one of his greatest achievements was to negotiate

with strong force behind him the removal of soviet missiles from cuba in october 1962. in this case, president obama is not threatening the state of israel. he is trying to support them. there is a big disagreement between the israeli government and the american government as how best to do that. i happen to think that the united states ought to take the lead here in support of israel to protect israel. i think it would be quite ill advised for the israeli government to get out ahead of the united states and to try to use military force on its own. we have equities to. we are dealing from a position of strength. both presidents said that if iran gets close to it and -- close to a nuclear weapon, we would retaliate.

i think we are always better off trying to deal with things peacefully from a position of strength. we are in a position of strength. i think israel should trust us. >> peter baker in the new york times about netanyahu's speech. what he chose not to say signals a slight shift. one word was missing from his expansive speech. zero. it is a word he likes to describe his bottom line. zero capability whatsoever. what do you make of the prime minister not saying zero? >> i haven't read the article. it is interesting he should point that out. what he is referring to is the fact that here is the heart of the negotiations between iran and the western powers. the united states and the other western powers are trying to limit the number of centrifuges

that the iranians could possess to enrich uranium. enriching uranium to a weapons grade quality is one of the essential ingredients of a nuclear weapon. we are trying to keep them below enrichment for weapons grade uranium and we are trying to limit the number of centrifuges. previously, the israeli government and even in the bush administration has said years ago that iran should have zero centrifuges spinning. obviously, the iranians will have more than zero. probably several thousand. it is interesting that netanyahu, in that sense, did not insist on zero enrichment. if you adopt that is a policy it would be unworkable to negotiate. we are talking about a compromise here. i think it is a compromise if the negotiations turn out the way the newspaper say they will. this might be of the best

interest of the united states. the problem with copper misers is, you are dealing with -- the problem with compromises is, you are dealing with a government. you have to judge is that compromise is in the best interest of our country. it might be a sensible deal if that is the case. the former leader of israel said you don't negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with unsavory enemies. >> the wall street journal this morning also reported that senate republicans want to have a vote on whatever comes out of these negotiations.

democrats have said that they will block any effort by the majority leader to bring this legislation to the floor next week. mike in pennsylvania, independent color -- caller. >> it's obvious to me that the best group fighting in iraq against the ran is on our side. >> thank you very much. it is a good question. i think both the obama and bush administrations have been close to the kurdish regional government in iraq. the kurds have been great friends to us. the kurdish fighting force have been a good guerrilla fighting

force. they haven't been as effective in mechanized war against the islamic state. they are very effective forces. we have supported autonomy for the kurds. the u.s. have not supported independence mainly because we think that would be injurious to the state of iraq. if kurds began -- if kurds the game -- if kurds became independent, iraq would be further weekend. the iraqi army has to be rebuilt. they fell apart disgracefully in losing most soul -- mosul last year. one more point, the islamic state, isis, whatever you want to call it, controls about third of syria and about a third of

iraq. their base is in syria. all of our efforts have been to try to contain most of them in a rack. i think what the obama administration should do now is have a more assertive policy in syria not american troops, but to armed as rebel groups in syria with whom we agree. to try to build up a counterforce against the islamic state in syria itself. it is a combined battle space. you will see that isis controls part of syria, part of a rack, it envelops both borders. we have to have a policy effective in syria as well as in a rack. that would be my suggestion. i don't think he has been strong enough on that serious side. >> we were just going -- we were just showing our viewers the new york times from yesterday. beverly in north carolina, democratic caller. go ahead.

>> i remember when president obama was running, he also said that he is not against war but he is against dom wars. -- dumb running, he also wars. as far as the saudi's are concerned, i could care less about them. they were pilots on 9/11. i want to know something else. i saw this speech. hasidic jews were outside picketing. some of them said go back to israel. i only saw that on one channel. i don't know what that was about. >> i don't know if you are referring to prime minister netanyahu's speech. ask she was. >> one of the great things about israel, my wife and i and two of

our kids lived there for two years, it is a deeply democratic country. if you go there, it looks a lot like the united states. you have left right and center on the political spectrum. you have liberals and conservatives. you have the influence of outside groups trying to get their voices heard. i deeply admire the fact that israel, so embattled as a state, has been able to sustain its democracy inside israel. i think it is why we are so close to the israelis. we do have that democratic bond between us. >> the washington post with this headline. the impact on netanyahu's speech on his reelection. they say it will give them a slight bump that could fade over the next two weeks before voters go to the polls.

brady in fire bill, north carolina democratic caller. -- find it bill -- fayetteville. >> 52 years ago i was sitting in germany. we were worried about the russians coming attract -- coming across. we were worried about the north koreans. i was told back then that those countries were not our threats. i was told right now, we say we don't want iran to have nuclear weapons. israel has nuclear weapons. we are closer right now to a nuclear war than we have ever been in our lives. israel doesn't have but a handful, but if they throw one, they will start a world war. all of humanity will be wiped

away. >> i would respectfully disagree with you. i think that 53 years ago, we were much closer to a nuclear war. that was the cuban missile crisis of october 1962. fortunately, president kennedy was able to deliver us from the nuclear war. he made a compromise diplomatic deal with khrushchev. sometimes diplomacy can do great things. i would say this. i wouldn't point the finger at israel. israel wants to live in peace with its neighbors in the middle east. israel has been continually assaulted by the sabres over the last -- assaulted by those neighbors over the last 60 years. they have a strong military because they have a right to defend themselves.

a have to be tough-minded. i think we ought to be supportive of israel, defendant when we can. as good friends, you will have differences. you saw differences between netanyahu and president obama. i would have preferred that that disagreement was behind closed doors in the oval office. instead, it had to be on television. one more point, my friend did say about prime minister netanyahu's speech in his column that he raised the bar and president obama now needs to meet higher expectations. what he meant by that i think is that that was a very powerful speech and in many ways effective. he raised a number of questions about the wisdom of the nuclear deal with iran. it demands that president obama and secretary kerry go out and explain this to the american

people if it is going to happen and defend it in a way that is convincing. i think david is right that the bar has been lifted and prime minister netanyahu lay down a couple of questions that now need to be answered. i hope very much the administration will be able to do that. >> a republican. >> netanyahu is correct. he needs to look out for his people. what part of this do we not understand. the religion calls for it. if they get an agreement signed, they can't even expect right now. this gentleman is going to caution one of the callers on what they say. this is the administration's problem not -- administration's problem, telling people to have caution.

>> i wouldn't dare caution you. you have a right to say what you just said. i have a goal right to respond. if we have a disagreement, at as part of our democracy. i will say this. though back and look at the interim agreement made by the iranians with the united states, britain, france, russia, and china. that was in 2013. that agreement froze the iranian nuclear program in place. they have not made progress in the last year. they have not made progress in terms of the number of centrifuges spinning. their program has been frozen in place. that is a good deal for the united states and that was negotiated. i was a career diplomat and the united states foreign service. i worked for republican administrations.

i try to see things objectively. i not perfect, but i think on this one i would give president obama a little credit. he has been able, i think he has intimidated the iranians. he also threatened twice in 2012 the use of military force. i think so far so good. you are right. i think david is right as well. we have to hold our government to a high standard. when the deal is presented to the american public, the obama administration will have to defend it. i hope they can do that successfully. i think they are heading in the right direction. >> on the timeline for these negotiations the wall street journal is reporting that after 48 hours of talk the between john kerry and his iranian counterpart, the talks broke up on wednesday and they are to resume march 15. it also says that iran and the

six powers are aiming to complete the framework of this deal by the end of this month. in seal a detailed agreement by june 30. ron in d.c., an independent color -- caller. >> i am really impressed with mr. burns. i would like him to do for all of us, is to share why it is that israel's existence in the middle east and how far it goes back is such a problem for its neighbors. i was also like him to comment on the fact that i don't have any problem with mr. netanyahu. he is doing what you has to do for his country. but why is it that someone who is not from the united states can come here and criticize our president that we voted for. we didn't vote for netanyahu.

>> thank you. on the second question you asked, i think on procedural grounds, the congress and the executive branch of the white house, no matter which party is controlling which institution, they ought to be agreed on who we invite to address a joint session of congress. it is a huge platform. you saw that millions of people watched that speech. for the first time in my working career, august went behind the back of the white house. i thought that was wrong. on the first part of your question, we could create a whole course where i teach at harvard on your issue. you know the history. you know the united nations created a jewish state in palestine in 1947 or 48. that state began on may 14 of 1948 and immediately nine countries a tactic. -- attacked it.

there is now this big war or struggle between iran and israel which hasn't resulted in war yet. president truman made the decision in 1948 that we would recognize israel as that we would support them. it was really president nixon, ford, carter, reagan who built up the security relationship between the two states them hear it i think we have an obligation to help israel. if we think about what happened during the holocaust the second world war, more than 6 million jews killed. i think we have a moral obligation to support the continuation of a jewish state. here is what i like about prime minister netanyahu's speech. he began by talking about the fact that there is no question that democrats and republicans do support israel. israel depends on that.

i think that is the right course of our nation. >> there is a lot of discussion about iran and israel and that conflict. not a lot of discussion about what is going on between israel and palestinians. and you address that? -- can you address that? do the two situations tie into each other? >> they are related but separate. for many decades the israeli-palestinian dispute was the one everyone focused on. now with the uranium threat -- the arabian -- the iranian threat, the palestinians are not free. they are living under occupation by israel. i think that is a real problem for israel going forward to occupy another people.

in gaza, the situation is worse. it is more crowded. the standard of living is worse for the palestinians. there are governed by an irresponsible palestinian group named hamas. you are going to have to have an israeli leader who is fundamentally focused on peace and palestinian leaders who are focused on peace negotiations to even begin to have hope. secretary kerry has tried very hard to bring them together. has not yet succeeded. i think we have to keep at it. right now, i think the more critical short-term challenges are stopping iran from becoming and nuclear weapons power and stopping isis from murdering innocent people. they have murdered five americans in the most brutal of fashion. they have murdered christians in libya. they have murdered thousands of syrians are it and they murder anyone who opposes them. this is a sunni radical group.

i think the way we might look at it analytically isis is an extremist, brutal group that needs to be stopped. which is why i have supported with the president is trying to do, and that is use air power to try and stop them in iraq. host: let's talk about the isis threat. and the headline, no clear way forward. the president's plan doesn't please either democrats or republicans. guest: the efforts here is to see if congress can pass a a resolution, in essence support what -- and draw some conditions on with the united states is trying to do against the islamic state. i think this is important because we do have american aircraft in combat right now against isis. we have american special forces on the ground, and other military personnel in iraq. it is always good if you have

american forces forward deployed in a place like the middle east. congress should have a say and have a vote to hopefully support what our troops are doing, and what our pilots are doing. so i would hope congress would find its way forward to do that. it is going to be a long fight. we do not have the capacity right now, or the will right now, to defeat isis. we are not going to put 100,000 troops, we shouldn't, but them back in iraq. we should not do that. so, we have to rely on the margins to contain ices. if the iraqi state, they are going to have to take the fight to them. they are going to have to do the majority of the fighting here. it is going to be some military action. it is going to have to be good judicial actions to try and arrest some of these people who are supporting isis in other states to dry up the sources of the economic financing.

you will have to have a multifaceted approach. it may take years to ask the defeat isis. host: i am going to try and squeeze in here one last call. mary from pennsylvania. hi, mary. caller: hi, how are you doing? listen, i have two comments. first, i want to know since the new administration in iran came in in 2013, is it harder or easier to negotiate with them than it was to negotiate with the administration before 2013? the second thing i want to say is, although i agree with everything you said so far, i don't think we should have any groups, any american boots on the ground because now recently, iran and the tribes are fighting isil. they united the middle east against themselves. host: our time is running short, so go ahead.

guest: two good comments. certainly, we have to be there to help the arabs push back against isis. they have not combat boots, but troops to train the iraqi army. on the first question, this is a difficult dilemma for the obama administration. we are dealing with reformists and the president of iran. they are the people negotiating with secretary kerry. they are very different from the other government. but remember this, the supreme power in iran is the supreme leader. he is a radical. he is anti-american. i don't think we can trust him as much, and he is backed up by the revolutionary guard, which has been a menace to the united states and the middle east. so this is a dual government in iran. will they keep their word and implement it? that is the question the obama administration will have to answer.

greta, thank you very much for having me on the show this morning. host: yeah, absolutely. mr. burns, the former undersecretary of state. and now a professor at harvard. we appreciate your time, as well, sir. thank you. >> on the next washington journal, the discussion of hillary clinton's use of personal e-mail and how the controversy could affect the 2016 presidential race. and ken walsh on his new book about celebrity culture and how it has shaped politics. washington journal live each morning on c-span. clicks -- >> you would see a stickball set. washington was a large man over

six feet tall, very robust and a natural athlete. madison was a skinny little guy. rex this -- >> the sunday, talking about font -- founding fathers. clicks his gift -- >> his gift is his ability to form remarkable partnerships with great people of his era but it also alludes to his gift to the country of his talents and what he was able to do to help create the first self-sustaining constitutional republic. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern. >> john wunderlich of the sunlight foundation is next talking about current archiving and hillary clinton's use of personal e-mail.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: and we are back with john wunderlich to talk about regulations for the agencies for personnel who have personal e-mail accounts. let's just begin with, why? why would the former secretary of state create this personal e-mail account that goes back to a personal server, her home in new york? how much effort would that take? guest: i think that is part of why, when the story first came out a few days ago, it was met with widespread shock and surprise that she went through so much trouble to set up an account that was completely separate from the state department systems. and that she opted completely out of the official e-mail. and the most likely explanation is that she was avoiding accountability laws, and that

she was making it so that she could personally manage access to all of her communication record. host: what are the accountability laws? guest: some of the mechanisms we rely on our the freedom of information act, where any citizen can request access to any record. then has recourse and access to the course to enforce their rights to access records. there are the federal records act that requires any official record to be permanently saved at the national archives. there are also internal regulations and guidelines, and then there is also congressional oversight. and internal agency oversight from bodies like the inspector general. host: the clinton camp has said there is nothing nefarious here. and the state department said that she did not break any laws. guest: so, it is not clear whether there were any loss that -- laws that were broken.

i think that is dull and active subject for debate. and we don't know all the facts about what happened. i think we can assume that, in the coming weeks, we can find out more about who it was and who the accounts were used for. i don't think we know enough yet to say exactly. there were probably guidelines broken. host: the former secretary of state tweeting out that she wants the public to see her e-mails and she asked the state department to release them. is there a security risk with having your own personal him a -- personal e-mail system? guest: there is a security risk. some of the preeminent security experts to look at what was happening and said that this was pretty ridiculous. to have a completely parallel system run out of her home, that is not how security works. even if the state department had it was a kitty issues, that is -- had its own security issues that is something that should be dealing with head-on. as of last night's news secretary clinton did request that the state department release the e-mails that she shared with them. that we don't have any

guarantees that what she shared with them was the nobody of -- was the full body of e-mails that she should have shared with them. we have no ways of verifying that those 50,000 or so e-mails are all of the relevant e-mails. host: would there be a way to verify that? guest: as far as i know, the only way we could get to it would be through congressional subpoena. but then we are stuck saying are there any missing minutes on the tape? either any missing parts of the e-mail? since the whole thing happened on her private system, it is not clear that we will ever know for certain. host: the special committee that was set up in the house to investigate what happened in benghazi in 2012 said they are going to subpoena her e-mails. guest: so, that will be -- interesting to see where it goes. i would assume that is something she would fight, if they are asking for every e-mail, let say, that was sent from that server. she says there was many personal e-mails. there may have been clinton foundation business done on that server, so that will be a legal battle. host: this is the "washington

times" from yesterday. a ruling from a judge in d.c. on a different case said that agencies cannot be forced to find e-mails sent from personal accounts. a federal judge ruled tuesday that federal agencies cannot be forced to go track down e-mails sent by employees from a personal account. guest: so, this is a really significant concern. if we have top officials using personal e-mail addresses for professional business, and at the same time, the court is saying that the freedom act cannot reach those records suddenly there is an incentive for the most senior officials to create off-site, parallel processes for the information so that they don't have to be bothered by the press or congressional oversight. now, the federal records act is supposed to present that. -- prevent that. if any records are afforded to the official system. but i think that points to a growing, urgent need for reform so that we can have security

that are top officials are using the condo -- using systems that have accountability. right now, we have a lot of doubt about the way top officials are using e-mail and managing their information. host: when did this regular to -- regulation go into place that have officials need to be handing over their e-mails to the agencies so that they can archive them? guest: there was a long-standing set of regulations requiring that e-mail, or records, that were managed through personal systems had to be afforded to the official system so that they can be properly archived. what changed after secretary clinton's term as secretary of state ended is that that became a law. so the question of did the law happen after she was involved? the law requiring that 40 process when into effect after her term, but there was a regulation already stipulating that that should be what

happens. so that is part, i think, on why there's so much back-and-forth. it is a bit complicated because there are guidelines regulations, and laws that have all overlapped and changed. host: so does that mean the previous secretary of state's had personal e-mail accounts and now they are required to bring or transfer over e-mails? guest: they did, occasionally, use personal e-mails or a hybrid. people suggested that secretary rice did not use the e-mail, or very rarely used e-mail. so that is an important question about where the historical record stands for previous secretaries. what secretary clinton did though, still stands alone a bit because it was much more explicitly designed to be a parallel system. and she opted completely out of the system, and did it presumably with full intent of avoiding or personally managing who could have access to her information. host: the headline this morning, the tally of clinton's e-mail accounts disputed.

and the report that the use of the e-mail system would make it impossible for the request for e-mails from the congressional committees. here is a quote, by our account, there are at least 18 lawsuits that are directly impacted by this. and who knows how many have requested, that how the lawsuit wednesday seeking e-mails from clinton and her deputies chief of staff, saying these a -- saying that the department failed to respond to its request. an out the associated press is considering a lawsuit to force the release of clinton e-mails. guest: one of the things that was so disconcerting when the news came out is that the white house didn't immediately condemn it. and then when they were pushed the white house was in this awkward position where if they say that is really not what we expected of secretary clinton, then that is a political

statement. the white house being unable to say anything definitive has muddied the waters about what used to be a fairly clear expectation of public officials using official public channels for their work. it is disheartening to me that the media and requesters and congressional overseers are also sort of rallying around the idea that we, in a democracy, expect to have fundamental accountability. even if you are wealthy or powerful, you don't get to create a little law of garden where you get to personally control who gets her information. congress has that power. the freedom of information act has that power. the federal records act, these are all systems we have designed to help safeguard our accountability. so it is heartening to me to see that. host: let's go to our first call. a republican. good morning, harold. caller: good morning. good morning, john. thank you. this is a complicated. but some things are internal.

may god bless and love america. the whole world. the clinton family, and the clinton global initiative to win friends and influence people. with these initiatives include the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. if hillary clinton does become president, it would be her third term, according to bill clinton who said we were lucky to get two for one he was president. if elected, would president clinton support our founding documents of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all countries in our world? host: ok, harold. we'll move on to john. go ahead with your comment or question. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that, i think hillary clinton made the biggest mistake of her life. if the law changed, then she should follow the law. you can't tell us that i'm using the previous loss. -- laws. that doesn't work. if i apply income tax today, the

irs, i can't tell them i'm going to use last year taxes. hillary clinton is not speaking up. furthermore, i am worried about the lawyers that she just hired to defend this thing. there's something going on here. she should do a very simple thing, but she didn't. she abused the power, and she is trying to -- she already gave the republicans a welcome to use that against her right now. i can tell you. guest: so, it is a fundamental concept that we should have access to information from top officials. and i think it is correct that the laws should govern how we have accountability and transparency are a work in progress. so my hope is that we have an opportunity to improve those lost we can avoid situations like that, like this, in the future. we have seen this across the states, as well. governors have often deleted huge piles of e-mails or have used aliases. there are a lot of concerned.

i think it is something that needs to be fixed through new laws and strengthened expectations. host: what more do you want to see on the books? guest: so, what comes to mind for me that we need new, very clear legal requirements. not just guidelines. the white house has guidelines. we need legal requirements for how top officials used e-mails. we need investigative authority, so that if -- so that someone is in charge of how that is happening. and we need authorities that come if it doesn't have a, there is enforcement. it is likely that the national archives is the right place to do that. they already have some level of that authority. but the mandates need to be much clearer. what is to stop you from doing

this again? it is not clear there is anything. so i think clear laws and oversight and investigative authority. host: diana, a democratic caller. caller: yes, i would like to make a comment. i believe that you guys are doing this just to put something out there so that you can bring up benghazi again to her. i believe that these laws are already in place, they were in place just after she left office. i don't see why you need to make her a spectacle. if you want to do, than half -- have congress work on it. that is what the job is. to make laws. you don't need to have a person like her as an example. host: ok, diana. so it is political. guest: well, i think the caller is certainly right that this is going to be viewed with presidential politics. there are many evils stories -- e-mail stories, but because

it is hillary clinton, we'll have that amount of attention on it. but hopefully that also makes it an opportunity because when there is a low-level story that people don't pay attention to on -- to e-mail, congress is not going to be motivated to act. so the political discussion hopefully elevates the problem so that we fix it. host: have they been other examples that readers don't know about? guest: in terms of e-mails andrew cuomo in new york is currently the leading the house -- deleting e-mail right now. there was the sarah palin story about using many different e-mail addresses. the epa used aliases during -- aliases. during the bush administration there was a scandal in the later years of the bush and ministration. and all of these different things were smart people in positions of power say, how can -- saying how can we design a

communication system that meets our needs and reduces risk, political and professional risk? we shouldn't be designing it around avoiding risk or avoiding public exposure. we should be designing it to maximize public interest. it is really the opposite of what should be happening. host: after all of those examples, how has the law changed? guest: well, through all those examples, the law has not changed for a much. we have the fundamental federal records acts that requires them to be approved -- to be preserved. the freedom of information act is a sort of bedrock foundational law that says we can access records. there hasn't been much of a change to that, although there is constant litigation and questions at the federal level and the state level. that is sort of a patchwork of different court decisions. i think it is time for a legislative solutions that we can make decisions together about how to access and

accountability laws should work. host: in independent color, good -- caller, good morning to you. caller: good morning, how are you doing? with the executives coming in, they had a meeting, and i think congress wanted information in regards to that information. and there was never any indication that that was ever revealed to anybody. so to this issue about information and so forth and so on, it is the same old way. it just keep going both ways. thank you. guest: the cheney task force was another egregious example of something that should be transparent. that ended up going to, i believe, a supreme court case between the head of the gao and the executive branch, fighting over whether this arm of congress for the presidency had more power.

in that case, congress saw its powers slightly diminished because of the transparency issue. or at least amber riley diminished. i agree, these are fundamental fights over power and who gets access to what. host: paul in seattle, in independent caller. go ahead. caller: thanks, c-span. and the guy just basically took the wind out of my sails previously. how is this any different than the dick cheney situation? that was my question. host: let's dig into that a little bit more. what did the bush administration claim? why did they say they didn't have to let the public now -- know? guest: so, there are a lot of different transparency scandals left from the bush presidency. i love this question because it demonstrates a bit help partisan these lines are. but the rhetoric on the right day is actually very similar to the rhetoric on the left 10 years ago. when looking at the bush presidency. so there are fundamental questions on when is something

official. in terms of the cheney task force, this is a question on whether it was an informal chat between france, or whether it was something that should've been covered under the federal advisory committee. in terms of the rnc e-mail scandal under the bush presidency, my understanding is that that was a question of the line between political activity and official activity in the white house. and also a federal records act question, when they need to be preserved. in both cases, a federal question about the power in the white house and the top executive branch positions, how does that fight against public access and accountability? those -- those are important lines to understand. it is interesting, it seems like it is on a 10 year partisan

cycle, depending on which president is an power, people become motivated to think about accountability. that is a good thing. it is a periodic reminder that we need to rein in those things. host: a tweet for you -- it is sort of bringing up the question of ken a public official have any private conversation at any time or place? guest: a great line of inquiry. not everything should be reported, so that the secretary of state, the work of politics happens sometimes late at night. but that is not reason to say well, we do not want to drive

them into the shadows, so we should give up on the idea of records. there are things to protect like historical records, the availability of congress oversight, the fact that e-mails are saved on hard drives so easily, that is a gift. even though, sometimes it is tricky to say that every message should be on an official e-mail account, those lines may be hard, but with secretary clinton did was the opposite of the great area, it was explicitly setting up a parallel system and opting out of the official system. host: aurora, oregon. john is a republican. caller: clinton using her personal e-mail, it seems like

nobody is it bringing up that there could have been a security breach here and if any information that she was using on her e-mails regarding security about the united states of america, she needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. i do not understand what she was thinking. she is secretary of state, dealing with countries, talking about things and everything else, and there should be no private e-mails used in the government for government business. host: john, you said it should be prosecuted, what does that entail? guest: there is not a lot of

prosecution on this. i think it will be a conversation that congress must have, whether there are criminal penalties for that apply in this case. i don't vaguely know enough to make a determination on that right now. it is a serious question. even if it was not classified information, everything that the secretary of state says is sensitive, presumably. there is a question about whether the e-mail was secure or inappropriately accessed. host: victoria in virginia. caller: i wanted to comment on the secretary of state costs -- secretary of state's e-mail, even of the houses protected by secret service, there are ways that e-mails can be retrieved by

hackers, in china, and russia in north korea. not only that, national security is at risk, but also the clinton foundation and her contributions to poor nations, that comes into light as well as a security issue. i wanted to put that out there. host: ok. guest: i agree. it would be different if it was one e-mail address that she was using, and she wasn't making a distinct in between her personal life and life as secretary of state and her work or involvement in the clinton foundation, you have to wonder if she was making those lines in the substance of her work. is there a conflict of interest? we will hear more about that, as the campaign heats up.

host: is there more transparency that must be had? what are you looking for? guest: a charity has a public function, but at the same time when you have powerful people, one of him is presumed -- one of human -- one of whom might be running for president, it is modeled. -- muddled. there is a subtext of access and interest, especially when it comes to donations. there is not an easy line to jog, we will not make a law that says former presidents cannot have charities. it draws a lot of scrutiny. host: does the secretary of state also have a government e-mail?

guest: i don't think we know that. i don't think when they asked her if they knew the answer. host: we have randy from iowa. go ahead. caller: let's go back to the patriot act, in that patriot act there was a part of the patriot act or in executive order that was signed by bush that protected government archives, the government papers and president papers. it was retroactive, and covered clinton and all presidents and future presidents. at what it said was as i understand it, was that the american people, if the

president did not want to make archives available, it was up to the people to sue the president to get them and people would have to pay for the legal defense of the president. what they did, they protected the archives and the people were being mistreated being withheld from. i will let you answer. i am sorry if this is often note. -- off note. guest: it is not off note. this is an active area for reform, when that does not get a lot of attention. it is relevant. in that being the window through which we understand the fundamental history of the country. that is another reason that the work of the national security archives works through tools and

processes of mandatory declassification review. that is why we understand things like the bay of pigs, we have legal expertise that can go through and fill in gaps, so that we understand where our country is and what we did. there is a lot of room for reform and important work being done. that is why we must take advantage of opportunities like this, to strengthen laws. host: we are talking about the secretary of state's personal e-mail. we will go to an independent caller. caller: i'm more than anything want to see a woman president in my lifetime, however i do not want to see that the cost of integrity. i am not prepared to say about prosecuting, but i think that

these people in public service have a responsibility to the public for character and integrity and all of the things that we hear on tv, the i don't remember correctly, the shady things that go to statement ship -- statesmanship, we should have to pass laws for that. we need to elect people that already have that. we cannot make people accountable, because we roll from one scandal to the next. we sweep it under the rug and young people are watching. host: go ahead. guest: i agree it would be great to have a woman president. i also agree that we need accountability in our public officials. one concern is, people with enough wealth can write the

rules for themselves. sometimes that happens it naturally and a market system, but it should not happen in the government. that is why we need to take it seriously. all caps and it members should abide by the same laws. a cabinet secretary said that they would build their own office space and hire private security and manage public relations through their own firm. no one would accept that. that is basically what is happening with the information policy, they are building a private system that has different rules than everyone else's. as people realize that, it will become a motivator for reform. host: good morning. we have another person on the line. caller: hillary will probably

indicate that she spent a lot of time talking about top-secret stuff in her e-mails, is it possible that the president will give approval for this and we will never see anything? guest: i share your curiosity about whether the white house new -- knew. the white house counsel has said that they do not know. i assume that they will refuse to comment on who knew what. i would agree with you that if congress investigates, i would assume that they would claim executive privilege. host: what about claiming national security risks? guest: on the question of publishing them, certainly.

the work of the secretary of state is not something that we could throw online. there will be sensitive material and we never want to have a thoughtless relief of things things needed protected and properly kept private for a long time. host: andre, a democratic caller . guest: -- caller: what about the server? can you tell us about that. and what about when she was governor? guest: this seems like it was exposed we planned out as a way to have a separate channel, so she would have to worry about e-mail access. as far as being a senator, the

law does not apply to members of congress in the same way. for good reason. we do not want to empower the executive ranch to crack down on what senators are doing. it is separation of powers. so they have more leeway they can use whatever e-mail address they want. they can throw it out. maybe win their term ends. they could burn all the records if they wanted to. we would certainly prefer that they preserve them, but they can do that. they have far more leeway under the law. the freedom of information act does not apply. host: bill, in missouri caller:. caller: caller: the timing of the release of the information, the clintons are smart and the new

york times helping them, that it was released during the net yahoo! speech -- netanyahu speech. this is a speed bump that she is getting behind her as she goes forward with the coronation. i will listen to your comment. guest: when you get to the point of presidential level politics who knows? it is fun to speculate, but you have to wonder who is using motivation when things come out, but it is fun to speculate. there is a lot of money and power on the line. host: john, thank you for your time. >> on the next washington journal, the discussion of hillary clinton's use of

personal e-mail and how it could affect the presidential race. and cannot walsh -- ken walsh on his new book. the washington journal, live on c-span. >> you would see a stickball set. washington was a large man 6f foot, very robust. a natural athlete. madison was a skinny little guy. >> historian stuart on founding father on madison and the partnerships he made. >> his gift that i liked most, his ability to form partnerships with great people of his era.

but i also alludes to the country of his talents and what he was able to do to help create the first self-sustaining constitutional republic. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q & a. >> the political landscape has changed with new republicans and new democrats in the house and senate. there is 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican woman. keep track of those in congress, using the chronicle. it includes a voting results and tracks those in congress.

you can access that information on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> rarely seen photos from space launches. nicholas burns talks about foreign policy challenges facing the u.s. and dell founder talks about starting his company at the age of 19 years old area -- old. >> during a senate hearing, buzz aldrin and -- talk about the future of space exploration. we'll also hear from scholars and commercial space officials.

>> good afternoon, i would like to thank the witnesses for being here. just over a half-century ago president kennedy laid down a marker in my hometown of houston, texas. he made a commitment that like the great pioneers that came before us, we too would set sail on a new see and send men to the moon. we embarked upon a endeavor as a nation, because opening the vistas of space promised high

cost and hardship and in norma's reward. today, we find yourselves at a crossroads. the year 2015 is just as critical of a time for our space program as was the case a half century ago. future exploration is certain to give hardship, but it promises high rewards. new resources, frontiers, and economic opportunities. i am honored to serve as chairman of this committee. as a chairman, my first priority is for the space component of the committee, will be to work to refocus energies on the core priorities of nasa. of exploring space, we need to get back to the hard sciences, to manned space exploration and the innovation that has been integral to nasa.

we need to ensure that the united states remains a leader in space exploration in the 21st century. this will be critical to our long-term ability to explore space, whether it is the moon, mars, or beyond. at the same time, i remain deeply concerned about our current inability to reach low earth orbit. we are entirely dependent on the russian system, which is unacceptable. from the perspective of our space interest and our national security. every seat that an american astronaut occupies on the russian ship cost $70 million.

it is imperative that we have the capability to get to the 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 critical satellites, without needing to acquire engines. the commercial crew program is critical to restoring this capability. i am encouraged by the progress in regards to commercial cargo and crew, but we need a continued focus on accomplishing the state objectives with maximum efficiency and expedition. it is terrific to see commercial companies innovating and as

chairman of this subcommittee i will be an enthusiastic -- of competition and the need to innovate. in 2013, 81 orbital launches were made worldwide. 23 of them were commercial launches. revenue from the commercial launches were estimated to be more than $1.9 billion. the united states accounted for six of these launches. there is more that can be done to predict long-term predictability for the commercial space industry in the u.s., so that launch activity will continue to grow. there is no limit to human imagination, or for the desire of x ration -- desire of exploration. everyone of us has looked up at the night sky and wondered, what

lies out there. that is the mystery, the vision behind american space exploration. america has always led the way in space exploration and we need to reclaim that leadership. within that, i recognize senator nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is blossoming all over washington, you and i, we completely agree on what you just said. as a matter of fact, i offered to end the armed services committee the amendment to start , if passed -- it passed, to start the process of -- as a

matter of fact we authorize $100 million. senator mccain was a cosponsor to develop an alternative to the rd 180. indeed, we should not be relying on the russians. to ride, 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 to the space station. and they were a reliable partner than -- then. but now, look at, we cannot

predict what to -- putin will do now. this is part of the speech that i was making a decade ago as we were trying to get this thing off the ground. i certainly agree with you and i am disheartened that you came out with such a strong statement on the commercial crew, because this is going to be a way we can get americans on american rockets, quicker back into space, since the space launch system and its spacecraft orion are going down further in the decade, even though we have tested orion on its first test flight. i am so delighted and as you know, you and i have talked

about this until we are blue in the face, this subcommittee has always not been bipartisan, it has been nonpartisan. the subject of the space program is a nonpartisan issue. so, i am looking for to cooperating with you as we try -- as we tried it last year, on getting the authorization act. we need to get out of here. just for the remaining six months of this fiscal year, and then we will start looking to additional fiscal years. within that, i will stop my comments, if i may insert my comments i had prepared in the record. i will end by saying, thank you.

>> thank you, senator nelson for the kind comments. i hope those are not used against you in your next campaign. >> i was going to say the same thing to you. [laughter] >> i want to thank each of the distinguished witnesses here. this is a good way to begin, by focusing on the overarching goals that nasa should be focusing on our objectives. i can't think of a more distinguished, a more experience, a more respected panel then three witnesses who are with us today. colonel cunningham, former nasa asked her not -- astronaut, dr. buzz aldrin, former nasa astronaut and apollo pilot, and

mr. michael massimino admissions specialist for the nasa program. i thank you for joining us. we will begin with colonel cunningham. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on where i think the space program has been slipping and what nasa must do to maintain the lead in space exploration. this is my personal opinion, shared by many of my contemporaries. some additional points are in my written testimony that i hope you all will read. humans have been always driven to explore the unknown and new frontiers. opening a new frontier demands three things, resources technology, and most important, the will to do it.

in 1961, america was willing to take the risk of going to the moon. when president committee made -- president kennedy made the commitment to send someone to the moon, nobody had been in orbit. many of our team, operators, contractors, we accepted the challenge and took the risk. we changed the way that we perceive our world. we landed on the moon in eight years. 45 years later the next frontier, mars seems decades out of reach. i merrily, because we do not have a national commitment. the apollo program made us preeminent in space and the world most technological advance nation. the space shuttle, the space shuttle -- the space the spinouts have infiltrated all areas of our industry.

while nasa's portion of the federal budget peek at 4%, it has been below 1% for the past 40 years. nasa has a compliment many things, and made spaceflight routine, we have not challenge the next frontier. the manned exploration of mars. it will only be possible of the government initiate and provide funding for a program. over the years, nasa has been subjected to political pressure and the agency has grown politically, inside. it has left employees much less willing to express opinions freely and that industry less attractive to young professionals of today. for example, after years of trying, nasa is still not able to increase centers around the country. congress, and politicians, have always one out -- gone out and

saved those in their districts. with a man landing on mars, it would drive the budget and change the rules. it could empower the agency to collect -- correct deficiencies over time. he mars exploration we are: have to be assembled. moving out of the orbit will entail heavy rockets. a reusable launch vehicle similar to our spatial shuttle may be necessary in order to assemble an interplanetary spacecraft. while these are all costly, they will be essential to move humans out of earth cost per bit -- earth's orbit. there will be international partners, and in that partnership nasa should take a strong role. it should not be one more partner in an international

effort. hopefully, it would encompass less politics and be better structured than the current iss partnership. iss is the most impressive piece of space hardware ever played in orbit. we have transferred $3.5 billion to russia to help them increase their space industry. we are now totally dependent on russia to get american crewmen to and from the iss. the success of the space program has always been dependent on private industry and they delivered. as a nasa group, -- group -- gre w, they inspired space companies. while most companies have been subsidized, nasa has less control over the development of operations and result then they have in the past. some people suggest private

space companies should collaborate with nasa for missions beyond the earth's orbit. that means sharing the cost. while they will always partner with nasa for the hardware, the government will always be expected to pay the cost of exploration, funded by tax dollars, of course. space exploration is far too expensive for commercial companies. space exploration does not satisfy either criteria. government agencies are not profit driven, they are not agencies -- our country's return on the investment is the private commercialization of technology that has developed. since companies move much faster , reduction by private industry will shorten the timeline for a launch to mars. for a mars program, nasa has initiated a new mission.

they justify it as a first step on the mission to mars. anything that could help the mars mission could officially be done with other projects. while we work on overcoming the problem of radiation exposure and speeding up travel, we should return to the moon to develop a crew facility for semipermanent living. many scientists are saying thomas and robots to mars, because humans are too costly and too dangerous. nasa continues to exploit manned and unmanned missions humans can think and act in real time. there are two things that we should focus on, also. eliminating permanently any dependence on other countries for launch capabilities. and find a way for nasa administrators to become less subject to changes in the administration every four years. the apollo program took eight

years, it cost $108 billion. the benefits to society have been priceless. a man landing on mars will probably take twice as long and cost three times as much in today's dollars. that is a fraction of the annual federal budget deficits have been running. and deficits do not have a return on investment. the desire to explore and settle frontiers will be satisfied, if not by americans, then by others. humans somewhere will return to the moon and go on to mars. i believe we have the resources and technology, but do we have the will to tackle the next frontier mars? thank you. >> thank you. dr. aldrich -- altered --a 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 -- applaud 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 which that so clearly demonstrates american innovation and enterprise. american leadership is more than just simply getting one step ahead of our 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