10:00 a.m. eastern for general speeches with legislative business at noon. members will consider a resolution condemning president trump for recent tweets and comments he made about four freshman members of congress. on c-span2, the senate is back to vote on the judicial new phnom -- nomination for the third circuit court of appeals and begin consideration for a series of tax treaties would amend agreements with spain, switzerland, japan and luxembourg. on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m., defense secretary nominee mark esper has his confirmation hearing before the senate armed services in theee followed later day by a senate homeland security and governmental affairs , weoming up this morning

will discuss the 50th anniversary of the apollo 11 moon landing in the future of u.s. space policy with several members of congress. we will also give you a chance to share your thoughts about space exploration by phone, facebook, and twitter. is next.on journal" ♪ , it isood morning tuesday, july 16, 2019. the house will reconvene at 10:00 with president trump and his twitter feed set to take center stage. prepared a resolution taking aim at the president and womenmments telling four to go back to where they came from if they are unhappy with america. this morning we are getting your that's and your reactions. ,emocrats (202) 748-8000 republicans (202) 748-8001,

independence (202) 748-8002. you can also get up with us on social media during on twitter it is @cspanwj. you can start calling you now as we show you the front page of today's wall street journal. leading with a column about the four members of congress targeted by the president. that is congresswoman ion ayanna pressley, that is rashida tlaib, that is congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez. that is minnesota congresswoman ilhan omar, who is a naturalized u.s. citizen. from the republican side of the aisle, reaction on twitter to the president's comments is mixed. here's a few of the comments from republicans. former ohio governor john kasich

tweeting out that what the president said about democratic women in congress is deplorable and beneath the dignity of the office. all, including republicans, need to speak out against these kind of comments that do nothing but divide us and create deep animosity, maybe even hatred. a congressman of michigan said "i'm appalled by the president's tweet. there is no excuse for inflammatory rhetoric from both sides of the aisle. we have too many challenges that we ought to be working on together -- immigration, the debt ceiling, the border crisis. the president's comments are flat out wrong and uncalled for. i would encourage why politics to start governing more. senator steve daines from montana saying montanans are sick of hearing radical democrats trash our country and our ideals. i stand with the president.

one more from congressman ralph there is noing question members of congress that the president called out had absolutely said anti-american and anti-semitic things. i will pay for their tickets out of this country if they would tell me where they would rather be. we have more responses from capitol hill yesterday and some of the press conferences the president held. we especially want to hear from you. your thoughts on the president's tweet that has caused so much controversy over the past three days. todd is up first out of california. an independent. go ahead. caller: how are you? host: doing well. caller: the trump tweet is not racist. i'm a black american, born in new york to two u.s. citizens. we are all from another country. all he is saying is if you're not happy here, you're free to leave.

congress, members of the squad, they consistently say things that are anti-jewish, communist, and i believe they do hate america. i agree with trump and i do not think trump is racist. i did not vote for trump last time but i will in 2020. host: why didn't you vote for him last time? dissatisfied with politics in general and obama left a bad taste in my mouth. this is before trump's policies were clearly laid out and now i can see how he is helping the country. host: that is taught in california. this is an out of jamaica, new york. a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i believe that anybody should leave this country, it should be cropped. he has had -- it should be trump.

he has had wives that were immigrants. his mother was from scotland. his grandparents were from germany. he should be impeached. the caller before me is disgusting. host: do you think democrats will make that move in the wake of these tweets and the president doubling down yesterday. we had congressman al green promising to force a vote on impeachment this month. caller: i do not know what they are going to do but trump is a disgrace to america. everything about him is a disgrace. host: charlotte, north carolina, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i want to speak in favor of the president and against the cabal and all of the people in this country that act like they do not like this country. the ones that raised the mexican

flag when they attacked the offices and the ones that went out and tried to blow up a place the other day, the cabal did nothing but speak against this country and i agree with trump. host: what is the cabal you refer to? caller: the four women in the house that have consistently gotten much publicity about negative things. i disagree with your previous caller. even though trump does have immigrants in his family, i do not see any of those immigrants standing up and talking negatively about this country. i think trump's policies are positive and i continue to support him. host: that group of democratic lawmakers referring to themselves as the squad.

they held a press conference on capitol hill yesterday to respond to the president. we are getting your thoughts this morning as the controversy spills into a third day. for democrats, republicans, and independents, showing you what happened when the president -- on the response from members of congress. event that was supposed to talk about technology to moment in the united states, the president opening up to the press for questions and one of the questions he was asked about was whether his tweets were racist. [video clip] >> does it concern you that tweet was seen as racist? >> i disagree with lindsey graham. .hese are congresswomen what am i supposed to do, wait for senators? he said aim higher. what am i going to do, waited to we get somebody else in a higher

position? these are people that hate our country. they hate our country. they hated, i think, with a passion. it is possible i am wrong. the voter will decide. when i hear the way they talk about our country. when i hear the anti-semitic language they use, the hatred they have for israel and the love they have for enemies like al qaeda, i will tell you that i do not believe this is good for the democrat party. it is not the party i have known over the years. -- r. president >> does it concern you that many people saw that tweet as racist and white nationalist groups are finding common cause with you on that point? >> it does not concern me because many people agree with me and if they want to leave, they can leave. it is not say leave forever, it says leave. host: the president from the white house.

two hours later the so-called squad, that group of four lawmakers holding their own press conference on capitol hill. here is some of that press conference. [video clip] have noticed that when he said go back to where you came from, there was an uproar through all of our communities, because every single person who is brown and black at some person in their life in this country heard that. made the comments, i know that every single muslim who has lived in this country and across the world has heard that comment. i will not dignify it with an answer because i know that every single islamic folk -- islamaphobe, every single person

who is hateful, who is driven by an ideology of othering as this president is, rejoices in us responding to that. time therepect every is a white supremacist who who kills a white man in a school or a movie theater synagogue, ie or a do not expect my white community whetherto respond on they love that person or not. , it is beyondime time to ask muslims to condemn terrorists. we are no longer going to allow the dignify occasion -- the dignify occasion -- the digni

fication of such ridiculous statements. host: if you want to watch the president's remarks, you can do so on a website at c-span.org. use the search bar on the top of the page. taking your phone calls. phone lines for democrats, republicans, and independents and also in social media. i think theng president's comments were stupid and uninformed, but i'm not surprised because his comments fall in line with criticisms from former cabinet members, ambassadors, paul ryan, that trump does not know much. saying what have they done? criticizing the united states is not illegal or against the law. another says we of the republican party standard -- stand with the united states --

dirk adding we will reelect him next year and all you people will be able to do is whine. getting your thoughts on phone lines, democrats, republicans, and independents. an independent from flushing, new york. good morning. [indiscernible] we have debated what is right and what is wrong. [indiscernible] it is a war between the white and brown people -- this is about policy. do you think we are

getting any closer to not calling each other names? caller: [indiscernible] the issue should be what is better for this country? host: this is bill out of new york. a democrat. good morning. caller: my comment on that is that these women stand up there -- i have my tv down. they stand up there and they were doing what president trump said. they were condemning everything about the immigration problem. all he said, and you people in the news media, you do not narrate the whole article. he said if you people --

basically what he said is if you do not agree with what we're trying to handle the problem, go back to wherever you came from, fix the problem there in those countries, then come back and tell us how to do it. he did not say go back where you came from. that is all the news media lets out. host: here is the president's full tweet on this. this is what sparked the outrage to begin with. on sunday. 8:27 a.m. "interesting does he progressive democrat congresswomen who came from countries whose governments are complete and total catastrophes, if they even have a functioning government at all, now telling the people of the united states how our government is to be run. why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came and come back and show us how it is done.

i am sure nancy pelosi would work out a free travel arrangement." caller: i did not hear that part about nancy pelosi. it is all just propaganda from both parties. where the democrats or republicans are any better than the other. if they could fix that immigration problem within eight hours and they got together, sat down, and change that law which said if you step on american soil -- i'm pretty sure when i was a young kid in my 20's and the cuban crisis came up, we were supposed to help invade cuba. we did not send our air force. i do not know if we felt guilty or what, but after that it was all over the daily newspaper at that time that they were fixing the immigration law so that cubans, if they came here wanting asylum and set foot on

our country, it was ok. says no, politician you should not do that because if you do that you will have to give every country the same right. host: in terms of changing the immigration law, here is the new rules on asylum that went into effect starting today. the trump administration moving dramatically to limit central american migrants ability to seek asylum in the u.s. and its border with mexico. an escalation, but the wall street journal writes, of the president's effort to stem the flood of border crossers. under the rule, migrants who passed through another country first must seek asylum there rather than at the u.s. border, where they will be ineligible to do so. the rule issued by the department of justice and homeland security does take effect today. immigrants rights groups pledging to challenge that new rule in court. that is from the wall street journal. their lead story today on that change in the asylum law.

tom is nextel florida, republican -- tom is next out of florida, republican, go ahead. caller: i think the president -- i do not know what the big deal is. ryan, mitt, paul romney, they are throwing stones. your movie stars have already stated they want to move, they want to move. nobody comes up with any ideas. host: as a republican, what you think of those republicans who have come out against the president, have condemned the president's comments? everybody has their own thoughts. do you have thoughts on that and how it will impact them? caller: begging your pardon?

that any thoughts on how might impact members of congress who are speaking up against the president? caller: it is not going to affect them. the president is right. if one of these women have come up with one good idea to do anything constructive , all they do is throw stones. i agree with the president. if you do not like it, audios. host: here is some of the comments from republicans who have decided to criticize the president. pete olson, the tweet president trump posted over the weekend about fellow members of congress is not reflective of the values of the million plus people in texas is 22nd district. we are proud to be the most diverse congressional district in america. i urge the president to disavow his comments. another from mike turner out of ohio.

"i'm confident every member of congress is a committed american. the president tweets were racist and he should apologize. we must work to rise above the hate and not enable it. senator tim scott of south carolina saying that no matter our political disagreements, aiming for the lowest common denominator will only divide our nation further. the senator tweeting out his statement as well. at a press conference at the white house concerning financial policy for the united states, secretary the treasury steven mnuchin also asked about the president's tweets. here was his response. [video clip] >> do you find the president's tweet racist and what you make of white nationalists praising those tweets? >> i do not find them racist. the president speaks for himself on that and i think he was clear. we are focused on cryptocurrency's. host: and from the new york times today, carl holds with his

news analysis piece on the republican response to the president's tweets, calling it a muted republican response, sending a signal for 2020 that it is trumps party. we want to get your thoughts on line four republicans and democrats and independents. shelton has been waiting out of shreveport, louisiana. an independent. good morning. caller: i want to start off by ising what is happening there is a lot of redbaiting going on, trying to marginalize what people are fighting for in our society and trying to make it into something bad. we do not want no stagnated government. we want things to move forward , just like the establishment of social security. we want universal health care. we want everybody in this country to be covered and have health care in this country.

we want education for every child in this country. host: at the press conference on capitol hill, congresswoman ayanna pressley saying the president tweets are a distraction distracting members of congress from the issues you are talking about. do you agree with her? caller: of course. what have they done on health care? what have they done on causes for the poor? what have they done in terms of raising the minimum wage? they attacked unions, they try to start another war, they have not done one thing on the environment. people have gave their lives to try to make this country better. evers --ther king, mr. medgar evers, the three civil rights workers in mississippi. people have stood up and said we should make this country better.

there is nothing wrong with trying to fight and make a supposedly -- that is fighting for everybody and live up to that. host: shelton out of louisiana. this is stephen out of new york. a democrat. good morning. caller: this is a cold wake-up call for all decent people. if you agree with and find no fault with someone who's as racist things, no matter who they are and what good you think they've done personally, you are a standing racist. if you cannot condemn trump for telling three congresswoman of color to go back to their country, this is their country. this is all of our country. white, black, gay, straight, do, atheist.entile,

racism must be condemned if we are all to move forward. if you do not think this is a big deal, you are a racist. for all of the so-called christians, would jesus put people in cages, grab women by the vagina, or make racist statements? we have to wake up now. host: diana's next out of gallup, new mexico. a republican. good morning. caller: i have questions about the liberality of tweets -- the legality of tweets. i believe congress should move to strike down the decision that tweets were a legal form of communication from the president. i think that should be ended and i think they should move to take away -- outside of the regular channels of government, i think they are far too important and i think they are too extraneous. you do not think the

president should be able to tweet? caller: i believe that tweets should not be considered official communications. host: the president has said that he likes twitter because it allows him and unfiltered access to the american public. caller: that may be true. nonetheless, they should not be considered official government declarations. host: what should we consider them? caller: they should have the freedom to use the communication but they should not be considered an official government statement. it is a tweet. it is outside the normal -- host: got your point. on the issue of twitter, the washington post looking at whether president trump's tweets

from over the weekend violate twitters policies when it comes to hate speech. twitter announcing last month that it would label tweaks from world leaders when they violate company standards. ordinary users are subject to more serious discipline, including potential deletion of their accounts. twitter per trade the policy as an attempt to limit the reach of offensive content while preserving the right of its users to access the statements of political leaders. a twitter spokesman yesterday said the tweets in question are not in violation of the twitter rules. he declined to elaborate on why the tweets to not violate company policy. if you want to read more on that story, it is in today's washington post. more of your phone calls in just a second. you can keep calling it. another place you can go to read a lot of news is the rollcall newspaper, rollcall.com. kathleen is a staff writer there and joins us on the phone to

cover a couple aspects of the story. first, on the legislation that got teed up last night that will be voted on the floor today to condemn the president's tweets and statements, can you talk us through what that legislation would actually do and the process and the timing as well? guest: absolutely. the resolution condemns the president's tweets as racist but it does not condemn the president himself as racist. that is because of house rules int bar engaging personalities against the president. you cannot malign the president himself on the house for -- on the house floor. they have to walk that fine line today as they take up that legislation. the resolution itself will condemn the president's tweets and it expresses the rights of immigrants and defendants of immigrants in the united states

and expresses value for those people in the united states. it also points out that unless you are descended from native americans or enslaved african-americans, everyone in this country is descended from immigrants. that is a specific point the resolution mix. it also quotes historical figures, presidents, john f. kennedy and ronald reagan, and their speeches and comments, including kennedy's book on immigration and the value immigration brings to the united states economy and culture. it is very pointed. expressing value for immigrants in this country. denouncing trumps comments against immigrants. host: we are expecting a heated debate on the floor of the house. you mentioned the house rule

preventing members from engaging in personality with members of congress, senators, the president. do we know who be in the speaker's's chair to try to navigate this on the house floor? guest: i do not know who will be in the speaker's chair today. i know that one of the first people to speak on the resolution will be lead sponsor tom malinowski, who himself was not born in the united states, he was born in poland. he has led the charge on this and he has said, along with other members who are born abroad but are not people of color, have said why are these women, most of whom were born in the u.s. drawing this iron from the president when i was not born here and i am a white man in the united states congress. why am i not drawing the same reaction from the president, drawing this racist comparison.

host: this is house resolution 489. we are expecting the house to gavel in at 10:00 and then recess until noon, when legislative business will be brought up. this debate happening sometime afternoon. you can watch it live in its entirety here on c-span. the other story we mentioned today is congressman al green looking to force another vote on impeachment of the president. he announced that yesterday. how would he go about doing that and when might we see that? guest: that is expected this week. he has done this for four. he forced procedural votes in 2017 and january 2018 on impeaching trump when -- whenans can hold republicans controlled congress and both were easily defeated. the timing could get complicated. he is aiming to do this before the recess this week, but he does have the procedural ability

to force a vote on this and that will put everyone on the record for or against impeachment, which has been much more in the conversation and has been divisive for the democratic , when, where a previously republicans were controlling the house, they could speak more plainly -- now they are in control of the house chamber, they are navigating this line, trying to show their unity against the president's actions and tweets, especially, but also they are not in unity about whether or not to take up impeachment. host: you mentioned complicated timing. here is timing that is not complicated. al green will be on this program tomorrow morning at 8:30 eastern answering calls from viewers. finally, catherine told the mcmanus, what we thought -- finally, what we thought we were going to be talking to you

about, the contempt resolutions against william barr and wilbur ross expected to be voted on today. and you explain what that is and what happened with the timing of the vote? guest: that is now expected for tomorrow. it got bumped by this trumped week resolution on the house trump tweakby this resolution on the house schedule. the resolution website william barr and wilbur ross for contempt of congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas related to documents regarding the administration's effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. while we know that last week president trump backed off his effort to get that question on the senses, met -- on the census, members of congress say they still want the documentation, why did these executive agencies push so hard for this? was it really about voting rights?

was it about rooting out illegal getgrants in an effort to information on them? this it is of note that would be a criminal contempt resolution. they already taken votes on civil contempt. they are not backing down, even though this question will not be on the 2020 census. congressional democrats are moving forward with these contempt resolutions. host: more on that contempt resolution tomorrow on the house floor and likely in roll call newspaper. thank you so much for covering it all for us this morning. guest: thank you. host: it is just after 7:30 on the east coast. getting your thoughts and your reaction to the controversy over the president tweets, now spilling into a third day. line for democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202)

748-8002. we will have this conversation until 8:00 this morning. you can call in for another half an hour. anthony out of liberty, missouri. independent. thanks for waiting. caller: my name is anthony crawford and i'm appalled about our president's comments. i'm a veteran. i served this country during desert storm and i served this country during the war. and country has benefited thrived from the benefits immigrants have given to us, including trump himself. the fact that he will justnalize these people because they have contempt for some of the things he said is appalling to me. that is what this country is made up. it is not made for donald trump. it is made for the people who died in world war ii, who died in vietnam, the war he refused

divided because he was too much of a coward to go. host: a question we often ask members of congress when they are on and the president tweets while they are talking, new tweets this morning from president trump on this issue. i will read them to you. "democratent saying congress women have been spewing some of the most vile, hateful, and disgusting things ever said by a politician and yet they get a free pass and a big embrace from the democrat party. anti-israel, anti-usa, pro-terrorists and public and the of the f-word petrified democrats run for the hills. why is it the house voting to rebuke the hate filled things they say? because they are the radical left and the democrats are afraid to take them on. sad." caller: i will give you a response. everything president trump said needs to be verified.

if this is true, it needs to be condemned. i do not have to be the person to tell you that a lot of the things he says are not true. that is a fact. i will tell you this. trump criticized donald when it was verified his family served in nazi germany during world war ii. when his father and himself condemned african-americans and he did not want them living in the complex he had built. nobody had any consent -- dissent against him when he called for the execution of the five in new york, and everybody knows that. this president is constantly spewing up racist and vile hate america. i will make this last point and i am done. i am surprised that the evangelical community is constantly standing by this because they do not

believe, they do not follow anything they read in the very bible they claim everybody needs to abide by. i will tell you, it is a shame, and i'm telling you this needs not,op because if it does we do not need to worry about another country like russia or china destroying america. we'll destroy it ourselves. host: in terms of some of the comments president trump and conservative critics have pointed to from certain members of the so-called squad, one of those comments came from congresswoman ilhan omar. march puta banquet in on by the center for arab islamic relations. it was her comments about 9/11 that garnered a lot of criticism from conservatives. here is two minutes from that speech ilhan omar gate at the event. [video clip]

>> here is the truth. far too long, we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen, and frankly i am tired of it. every single muslim in this country should be tired of it. [applause] cair was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties. todaynnot just say that someone is looking at me strange , that i'm going to try to make myself look pleasant. you have to say this person is looking at me strange, i'm not comfortable with this, i'm going to go talk to them and ask them why. that is a right you have.

[applause] , and hassan people is on the right track. it is always good. i say you cannot hate up close. any time you have an opportunity to go talk to someone, the chances of them hating you lessen. that is a practice we should all adopt. host: the congresswoman from minnesota at the event in cair in march. the council on american islamic relations. cair.com if you want to check them out. gloria is next out of mississippi. a democrat. go ahead. thatr: everybody knows

donald trump is a racist. he came down the stairs when he began his campaign talking about racist things. why peoplederstand are so taken aback by his racist comments. he is a racist. that is who he has. he is unapologetic about it. he is who he has. congress oppose what he does, and their outspoken about it. that is why he is so upset with them. my thing about donald trump is you have an immigrant in the white house. you are sleeping in a bed with an immigrant, and yet you have his hatred for immigrants. i do not understand at. i do not understand it. donald trump will always be who

he is. we know who he is. talking about these people as communist -- is he not the person who loves vladimir putin? withhinks he is in love kim in china? does fox news not report that? host: that is carol out of mississippi. this is carol out of georgia, a republican. caller: good morning. i know that what president trump said about going and fixing things in other countries, we do have good african people that are well educated, that live in this country, that go to africa and see how they can make it better. they built water wells for clean water in that country. over, bishops go over and see how they can help.

they come back and they appreciate this country and they continue to help africa. i have something else to say. black and brown people should calm down the rhetoric on msnbc and cnn. these people are pushed up to do the dirty talk, these talk show host are letting them do all of the fussing and karen non-speaking -- and carrying on and speaking ill of the president and his backfiring on these ladies. these ladies are example of what the country is trending into. black and brown people doing the fussing and the host letting them do it. host: what makes you a republican? caller: i love some of the things i have always seen down through the years. my grandparents were. i have always contributed and i see what i like and i am a

republican. i am against abortion, and a lot of other things i'm against. i am a christian and i love this country. i'm very patriotic. host: that is carol out of atlanta. jen is next out of west chester, pennsylvania. a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. when i was a kid in the 1960's, a black american little girl, i used to hear all of the time against black american people by some white people, they need to go back where they come from. they need to go to africa. and set used a lot against people who were fighting against segregation, .iscrimination, and racism it was used by racist white people in the 1960's. i remember hearing it so much it was sickening. to hear donald trump use that

phrase in 2918 is disgusting. very disgusting. runningt need someone withountry as president racist and whatever else views he has. he needs to go. people, you need to vote in 2020. that is all i have to say. host: a few of the lead editorials in today's papers focusing on the president's tweets and the president doubling down those tweets yesterday and the response from democrats. this is the editorial board of usa today. the headline of their piece, trumps racist rants are too offensive to overlook. from today's washington post, dana milbank starts his column by saying president trump has once again achieved the impossible -- he has unified the democrats.

this from the editorial board of the wall street journal, writing that the taunts, the go back to haunt is one americans have heard for more than two centuries. catholics, against irish, germans, italians, chinese, and japanese, and in our day most often against mexican-americans. the president should not sink to crude nativist tropes, but we repeat ourselves. as for politically stupid, mr. trump rescue democrats from their intraparty feud. a smart opponent would have kept quiet but mr. trump intruded into the spotlight and let democrats unite in denouncing him. ken is a republican out of south carolina. go ahead. caller: one of the things i'm getting angry at his everyone keeps saying racism. racism, racism. why don't you go give me the definition of racism?

host: give me the definition of racism. caller: it is when one race is physically and mentally superior to the other. it is not criticizing someone that you are racist. racistlk about him being , and then they think he hates immigrants. no, he does not like illegal immigrants. everything illegal. criticizinghey are -- a judge told them they were supposed to be out of the country. not trump, a judge. host: you think racism exists in this country? caller: sure i do. racism exists everywhere. there is also bigotry, there is also just you do not like somebody. it does not have to be called racists. jesus. host: how would you define

bigotry? bigotryi would define as an endurance of somebody. because ofomebody what they are or who they are. it is not racist. a racist is somebody who says i am superior. a bigot might say he is there, or she is there. a bigot is somebody who is ignorant, i feel. to call everybody racist, especially saying trump lies. politicians moving the mouse, they are lying -- moving their mouths, they are lying. i do not care what side. everyone opening their mouth is a racist comment. you can disagree with someone and not be racist. host: this is bob out of york,

pennsylvania, independent. go ahead. caller: thank you to c-span. i would like to comment about these four ladies. if we talk about racist, they are a microcosm of what racists are. all they have to do is complain about our country, our economy, they complain about everybody that is white is a racist. i'm getting sick and tired of that. i have relatives that fought on the northern side of the civil war that died. i'm sick and tired of being a white person that is considered in the media to be called a racist. i think the racists are in the democratic party and that is my opinion. host: when is it ok to complain about the country and when is it not ok? caller: that is why i was in the service. that is why i have relatives in the service since the revolutionary war fighting for our country. everyone deserves to have their opinion. it gets monotonous to hear

everybody call people racists all the time. unfortunately, that is all the democratic party is going for. host: more from the press conference yesterday on capitol hill. this is massachusetts congresswoman ayanna pressley. [video clip] >> this is a disruption and a distraction from the callous, chaotic, and corrupt culture of this administration all the way down. we want to get back to the business of the american people and why we were sent here, reducing the cost of prescription drugs, addressing the public health crisis that is gun violence, addressing the racial wealth gap, and making sure family stayed together. i also would like to underscore the fact that despite the occupant of the white house attempts to marginalize us and to silence us, please know we are more than four people.

we ran on a mandate to advocate for and represent those left out and left behind. our squad is big. our squad includes any person committed to building a more equitable and just world. that is the work we want to give back to. squad, wesize of the cannot, we will not be silenced. phone calls onur this first hour of the "washington journal." democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. about 10 minutes left in this conversation and then will switch topics for the last does go hours. we will -- for the last two hours. we will focus on u.s. space exploration. will be speaking with --

speaking about the apollo 11 and speaking with members of the science and space committee as well as hearing your thoughts on priorities for nasa and the future of u.s. space exploration. that conversation coming up in about 10 minutes. margaret out of newark, delaware. democrat. go ahead. caller: everybody seems to forget the most important thing. is a government for the people, by the people. it seems like politicians on both sides are trying to steer it -- steal it from us and take power away. a healthy country allows people to dissent, to disagree, as long as there is no violence. you take that away from us, we might as well be a dictatorship. thank you so much, c-span. host: carolyn out of austin,

texas. republican. go ahead. caller: i am sick and tired of men and women condemning america all of the time. how many people do they know who are leaving america for a better country? a better living conditions or better income possibilities or better freedoms and liberties? what other country and offer what america has? all of this talking about people of color. we are all americans. when we go to visit the other countries, that country will not identify as bicolor but as americans. infighting hasis to stop. heaven, godget to said there will be no race and no identification of races. the hate that is out there is

unbelievable. destructive, and those women seem to be pushing a lot of eight -- a lot of hate, and have so much distrust in our country. host: can i ask you a question i asked an earlier caller. when is it ok to criticize america? caller: we can criticize it but we do not condemn it. that is different. host: thank you for the call. james from mount prospect, illinois. independent. go ahead. -- moved to your outside of chicago. we have two children. we are biracial.

host: out of michigan, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i would like to start by thanking you and all the other great men and women it takes to bring you the program. you are doing this nation a service. elected duly representatives were doing nothing other than expressing their first amendment rights, which are president seems to do with his thumbs all of the time. this is an example of what a bully is like. he can take on four ladies, but the iranians, he back right off like a little two-year-old. that is what we have on our hands. president blinky. he cannot take on anybody that will take him on. he does not have that backbone. thank you, john. host: here's more from the

president from the white house yesterday. [video clip] >> i am saying that they are socialists. as to whether or not they are communist, i would think they might be. this is not what our country is about. they are free to leave if they want, and if they want to leave, that is fine, and if they want to stay, that is fine. the people have to know, and politicians cannot be afraid to take them on. a politician that hears somebody , where we are at war with al qaeda, and to see somebody talking about how great al qaeda is, that was omar, how great al qaeda is. -- and we arethat losing great soldiers to al qaeda. when you see the world trade center gets not down and you see the statements made about the world trade center, all of the death and distraction, i will tell you what. i'm not happy with them. -- ifeasy to say it is ok

we politicians want to say, and the democrats, if they want to hear their wagons around these four people, i think they will have a tough election. i do not think the people of the united states will stand for it. host: that was president trump at the white house. democrats teeing up a resolution today condemning the president's tweets and comments. that resolution expected to voted on sometime afternoon today. you can watch that live on c-span on the house floor. a busy day on capitol hill. here are other events we are covering. mark esper is the nominee to be the next defense secretary. he will be testifying before the senate armed services committee. that happens live at 9:30 eastern. you can watch on c-span3, on c-span.org, or listen live on the c-span radio app. you might also be interested in u.s. census bureau set to

census on the 20 20 before the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee at 2:30 p.m. eastern, also c-span3. you can watch on c-span.org and the free c-span radio app. about five minutes left for your thoughts this morning. phone lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. host: peggy is out of michigan. caller: somebody said all they tois complain, these women me have given their lives in service to our country against all odds. they are minority women. they have courage, their strength, and they are willing to stand up against wrongs. they should be admired, they should be praised, and i am thankful we have people like that to stand up for what is right and good in our country.

thank you. host: karen out of clayton, indiana is next. a democrat. caller: thank you for listening to me. i am calling because i'm discouraged by the continuous attention to the tweets and andp's comment about race not paying any attention at all to what he is doing with the economy. he is sending messages to wall street all the time. richer, andthe rich he has completely widened the income gap. as long as we are talking about race, we are not talking about what he is doing with the economy and the terex -- and the iffs and the dire position the average american will be in when we continue to have no money to pay for bills and for

rising costs of commodities. speech to that was at the very least interesting. they were paying attention. is the average worker going to pay attention to what he is doing? out ofhat is karen indiana. a few more your comments from social media. "i give up. only republicans love america. less than half of us. the rest of us should leave america." sigmund writing in that the cultural center of the united states speaks and there is no skin color in the cultural center. another saying congresswoman ilhan omar did not say anything that was not true during that speech, pointing back to the speech we played of her talking

at the council on islamic relations. -- this from the op-ed pages of the washington post. george conway iii, the husband of kellyanne conway, george conway not shy about treating his concerns about the president year -- past month and naivete, resentment, and outright racism embroiled in a toxic mix has given us a racist president, telling members of congress, american citizens to go back to the countries they originally came from -- that is racist to the core. it does not matter what these representatives are for or against. there is plenty to criticize them for. it is beyond the bounds of human

decency. dennis from michigan. caller: i would like to say that president trump said the right thing. i get tired of hearing everybody put the country down. if they don't like it, they do not have to live here. as far as the immigrants, i think we ought to enforce all of pay for the not immigrants coming here illegally. host: plenty more to come on the 50th anniversary of the launch of the apollo 11 moon mission. we will spend the rest of our program talking to six members of the house science, space and technology committee and hearing from you about u.s. space polity -- policy priority. you can call in on the phone lines --

we will get to those calls in just a minute. poll showsspan ipsos that 70% of americans of view nasa favorably. that's over 11 times more than those who have an unfavorable view of the agency. americans also want nasa to continue to lead in space. among republicans and democrats, more people disagree with privatizing space exploration and agree with the policy. overall, only 27% of those polled support private businesses leading u.s. space efforts. you can find all of the results including the findings on americans attitudes toward space force and the belief and actor terrestrial life at www.c-span.org. ignition sequence started. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, one.

zero, all engines running, lift off, we have a liftoff, 32 minutes past the hour, liftoff on apollo 11. >> it was 50 years ago this morning [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] host: at 8:32 a.m. eastern time that apollo 11 lost from the kennedy space center in florida. moongan a stretch of the and four days later, neil armstrong would become the first man to walk on the lunar surface. for the remainder of our program , we will hear from you about the legacy of the apollo 11 mission and talk to you as members of congress from the house, science, and space technology committee will talk about space exploration and the future of nasa. this is how you can get in touch with us to share your thoughts. we split our phone lines by region. you can start calling in now as we take you up to capitol hill

to the canada house office building and we are joined by congressmanamin barra a democrat. as a member of the house, space, and science technology committee, 50 years after the apollo 11 mission and the united states is trying to get back to the moon. why go back to the moon now? what more can we learn? what was sonk about exciting 50 years ago. it was an american ingenuity, innovation, setting a goal and reaching for that goal and accomplishing it faster than before. there is still a lot we don't know about the moon. if the actual mission is to get to mars, the moon could be a launching pad. could be the place we get to first and launch and get to mars. this is an exciting time. let's get that mojo back, that american ingenuity and that's what this reminds us of. host: do you think the mission should be to get to mars? should that the -- should bet

just should that be the priority? that: that's a mission everyone has talked about. we have talked about it in committee. we may not get there by 2033 but we don't know how but let's set that ambitious: i know there is a lot to discover. host: the president reestablish the national space council, a move that you were in favor of. is itses it do and what role in setting the priorities for space exploration? guest: the benefit of having a national space council is you set long-term strategic goals that don't depend on one administration or another. that was the beauty of the apollo program. it was democrats and republicans and all of congress. you cannot change those goals every four years. you have to have this long-term, sustained investment and long-term goals.

that's what the national space council can do because it doesn't depend on one administration or another. $21.5 billion is the nasa budget. are you happy with the level of funding? guest: we will always look for more funding for science programs. it's not just about space, it's also about combating climate change and other things that affect us here at home. what we can aout compass as americans and is a world. years ago was remarkable. we can do that again and we can do more. host: it's not just about nasa right now it comes to space exploration. what is the proper role for private industry when it comes to space? guest: what's happening in the commercial sector with private industry is a good thing. that free-market innovation, competition.

do toings we know how to get to lower the orbit, the commercial sector can get there. had launch vehicles in the apollo program. spacexs, you can go to or other companies and say we will purchase your launch a and you have lunar landing companies that will be out there as well and we will purchase that and nasa can focus on the science building awell as permanent facility on the moon. host: you are in california's seventh district in sacramento. can you talk about how important the aerospace industry is in your area? general, california in i grew up in southern california which of the heart of the aerospace industry in downey, california, the home of rockwell at the heart of the apollo mission. in my district, we built the engines that powered us to the moon and they are a legacy topany that we are proud

have in rancho cordova, california in the heart of my district. host: private industry is looking to make commercial space travel possible. is that something you see yourself doing? give: if someone wants to me a seat on a rocket that will take me into orbit, i'm not going to pass that up. member of thet house science, space, and technology committee we will talk to today and we appreciate your time. guest: thanks for having me on. host: we are taking your calls as we talked to the members of congress. we especially want to hear from our viewers about your priorities for space travel and the future of space exploration. the phone lines are split up regionally. you can keep calling in in the last two hours of our program today.

this is the 50th anniversary of the launch of the apollo 11 mission. ralph mdc, what should our priorities be in space kre? >> caller: number one, kill the sls. we don't need something that's based on all technology. -- on old technology. it will cost one billion dollars. os, theyt spacex and bez can launch these rockets that /10 the cost. it's a boondoggle that goes it's not needed. that money can be redirected towards exploration. they need to focus on keep it they get the most complex systems they can get him

the cost overruns are four or five times. the space launch system, the sls is the system that nasa is building to get us to the moon and then to mars eventually -- do you think nasa should have its own system or should they be completely reliant on the commercial sector to do that? at this point, given the way nasa is approaching its own launch system, i don't think nasa should have its own. that others are coming out with -- the heavy rocket, the falcon heavy is nearly as good as the sls and he can get it up there for like $140 million per launch. yet we want to spend $1 billion. that's money that's wasted. space launch has become a

commodity. nasa has shined where it specializes in unique technologies and -- in exports and vehicles. it's a commodity. it doesn't make sense for nasa to go down that path in a longer. your background? are you in the aerospace industry? caller: i used to work with the faa for 20 years. read incredible amounts of science material and watch this area closely because i'm fascinated by it. aconsider myself pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-scientist. i am aware of the issues going on and i don't fall for the soundbites put out by nasa. one of the questions that was brought up recently is who when itegulate space comes to getting vehicles into space and this new frontier we are developing and the many new

systems that will be in space. who should have the role in the u.s. government for regulating that space? i have worked for the faa and i can take that the faa is terribly in bed with the airline industry. whatever the airline industry gets. that's a million dollar question. nasa has the capability and the so is a subset of dod - dot maybe there should be another subset of the dot which would be dedicated to regulating airspace commercial travel. that's my suggestion. host: thank you for the suggestion. in about one hour, we'll talk with congressman brian bevan also on the committee and recently introduced legislation anding to regulate space commerce.

alford is next out of chico california. what is your priority for space exploration? caller: it should be that that stops immediately and that money gets redirected to making america's infrastructure better than it is now. earth andting here on yet we are sending the best of our minds to some distant planet. so when we destroyers, we will have a place to live especially the rich. it's so much nonsense. it makes me sick. that's all i want to say. host: you don't support space exploration at all? -- that wasord .lford that the -- al fred go ahead kent. the gentleman who was on

the phone a moment ago is what i wanted to say. the rich are going to get filthy and like you said, when the world gets destroyed, they will be able to jump in the aero plane. host: we were talking about attitudes toward space travel. as viewers will note, c-span worked with ipso polling to work on america's views on spacex duration and we will talk about that throughout this segment here's one result on u.s. attitudes toward nasa. united states, among those polled, 70% had a favorable view toward nasa, 7% with an unfavorable view.

this conversation is on the 50th anniversary of the launch of apollo 11. has some of the numbers when it comes to the apollo missions. this part of it looked at polling from back in the 1960's when it came to u.s. support on the apollo missions poll in june of 1969. it was an even split with those in favor of government funding and those against. in the aftermath of the moon landing in 1969, the project starts to win broad support nine months later following the apollo 13 disaster, backing for the mission went again -- waned again. public leaveerican the country was spending too much on space travel. andad already been slashed

further lunar missions were canceled. those are some of the numbers looking back 50 years ago at the launch of the apollo 11 mission a.m.happened today at 8:32 some 50 years ago. we talked recently with nasa's the legacy of the apollo 11 mission. here's what he said. --what we know is this celebrating the 50th anniversary of apollo, we know that when america does absolutely years to come. when we celebrate the 50th anniversary of apollo this year, this month, the whole world is watching all of this programming with this, celebrating with us and this shapes the perceptions of people all over the world in a positive way so that young

people can grow up may be seeing a perception different than what they would hear in their home countries, given the geopolitics involved these days. the example i like to talk about on marswe landed inside last year, it was in a newspaper in tehran. the official was " hard-line newspaper of the islamic revolutionary guard corps." thingsn't write nice about the united states but in this case, they showed the stunning achievement by nasa, the eighth time it was landed on mars and children in this country, were able to see a great story about nasa and their international partners. it was a great story. that being said, we to think about the future and the stunning achievements we can do that ultimately people will celebrate 50 years afterward. i talked to the president a few short weeks ago and he said clearly that i know you have to go to the moon to get to mars

but talk about mars because mars is the generational treatment that will capture the imagination of the american people. he is actually right so we will continue talking about why we go to the moon. it's the proving ground for the mission to mars. the challenge with apollo is that it ended. it was not sustainable because of the cost. woman go to the moon, we are driving commercial opportunities into it with reusability into the architecture, driving down the cost in learning from apollo what not to do. be reusablell to and drive down the cost and we need to keep our eyes on the horizon goal. the goal is not the moon. the goal is mars and in the last year, we have discovered complex organic compounds on the surface of mars, the building blocks for life exist. they don't exist on the moon. liquid water's 12 kilometers under the surface of mars. there is life anywhere water is. up inobability just went the methane cycles on mars are

commensurate with the seasons of mars. probability of life just went up. and we think about these generational discoveries, the generational achievements, discovering life on the world is not earth would be a generational achievement. we are focused on mars. one of the challenges of apollo is it ended because it wasn't cost-effective and there were no commercial partners and it was a destination. the moon is the proving ground to work on another world sustainably. mars is the destination and we need a stunning, my mental achievement. -- the nasational administrator appeared on her program this week. you can watch his full interview on www.c-span.org. back to your phone calls on the "washington journal." --r focus on space policies here are the numbers.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] our next caller: priority is to clean up our air and water and make sure everything is right here and don't worry about a propulsion system. we need a different kind of feel that doesn't burn so much. maybe we should take our time and worry about this planet first. take care of our planet. and then you can worry about going to mars or whatever planet you want to go to. mars is a dead planet. live take care of this planet before we go to other planets. host: the federal budget is

large and the nasa component of the federal budget is just .5% of the total national budget, about $21.5 billion. do you think that's too much? i don't care about the money but the point is the urgency. i don't know what the hurry is. there's plenty of time to do space travel. worry about this planet first, that's my comment. host: thank you for your call. that chart you just saw is from our recent ipsos poll we just conducted on attitudes toward nasa and space exploration in billionl budget, 21.5 dollars, 53% of respondents to the poll said it was the right amount and 27% said it was too much.

was too little. more of your phone calls in a second. we take you back up to capitol hill with frank lucas and a congressman from oklahoma, a republican and the ranking member of the house science, space, and technology committee. i know you're listening in on that last call. notviewers said she did know what the hurry was to get back to the moon and mars. how would you answer that question? guest: it's good to be with you and i would note on this anniversary of apollo, if we pull the records, there was the same debate going on in the early 1960's. and gemini and apollo and onto the moon and the things that went afterwards. i would say it was the right thing we did 50 years ago, culminating in landing on the moon. and i would suggest our future is both here on planet earth and out there, too. we should work in both directions at once. host: how do we go about doing

that? you are the top republican on the science, space, and technology committee. what are your priorities? aest: we have to come to consensus that it's were going to mars and spend the resources to get back to the moon and develop the techniques that will enable us to get to mars to move forward. right now, that's the debate in congress -- is it worth doing, other folks concerned because this came from the trump administration? if we don't go, our friends will leave us in the dust.

host: are we budgeted for the right amount? guest: if we want to get back to the moon by 2024 and move on to mars, we will have to spend what it takes. look at the late 1950's and early 1960's when lyndon johnson was vice president and the national space council was driving aggressively, when president kennedy was laying out a bold agenda. we have to make that kind of commitment. there is also its of matters going on distracting people but there were all sorts of matters going on in the 1960's, too. awould say we are spending minimum of what we need to spend and if we are going to get there and have our competitors, we may have to spend more on that number will evolve as the process goes forward. ast: is space travel politically divisive issue today? guest: let's be honest, we would not have gone to the moon if the russians had not sent a dog into

orbit or put sputnik into space. lander onthe chinese the backside of the moon was our sputnik, our wake-up call that the problem is we are more distracted these days but the issue is still there and it's still important we do it and we drive this great civilization forward. civilian, nasa is a agency. our chief competitor, there and is run by the people's liberation army and that's a military organization. they don't do things just for fun. host: the last caller said our next frontier is here. can you talk about where you prioritize the use of space to monitor the earth and the earth's environment to go up there and look back at us? guest: as you noted, i am the ranking member of the science committee and our jurisdiction oa, nasa and other things.

whether it's gauging what's going on with the climate short and long-term is key to all the resources we have enormous around the world. if you care about what's happening on earth, we have to continue to drive forward. where would we be of president eisenhower had not created the national -- nasa. where would we be if we hadn't gone to the moon and push those technologies? i think we would be dramatically worse off. when apollo 11 landed on the moon, i had one tv option is a nine-year-old in rural western aqua houma -- rural western oklahoma. one option now think about all the technology that has come from these investments. that's just to get to the moon the first time.

what about getting to mars? it's mind-boggling the potential. host: i know we have talked before about agriculture issues that are near and dear to your heart. can you talk about the intersection of space policy and agriculture? guest: the satellites we have no check drought conditions but also have the ability to determine soil effect and the ability to determine plant health and what kind of tests are attacking plans and what kind of conditions are going on. this is all a part of adding certainty to our capacity to produce and it's not just production at home. we're watching crops around the world and that helps us gauge the human food supply. sometimes we think the groceries come from the grocery store. whetherarmer or rancher it's in the united states or the other side of the world who raises that crop and it ultimately one's up on our plate. more information needs more certainty of production and

supply and consumers get a safer and more cost-effective meal every time. host: in about one hour and 20 minutes, we will talk with your counterpart on the committee, the chairwoman of the committee. how is your relationship with her? has the politics we talked about before that surround this issue generally, has it seeped into the committee? guest: i have a wonderful with theituation chairwoman. we have a similar set of concerns and cares about where the committee should go. she as chairman is under rusher from her conference. she's under the scrutiny of her ebje body but i call her and she has been stepping up to do the right thing and and intend to work with her to make sure the right thing gets done on the house science, space, and technology committee. host: she is under pressure to do what? guest: in our roles, in the

united states congress, we are subject to the influence of leadership, the constituents, the voters back home. it's a balancing act and we are not independent agents. we are reflection of our constituents and a part of a team to make things happen. i just happened to be very focused on making sure we get back to mars and we drive the scientific achievements in this country forward. agrees with me but she goes to a democratic congress meeting and i go to a republican conference meeting and we work out the differences on our committee to do the common good. host: congressman frank lucas from oklahoma, good to chat with you. guest: thank you. host: back to your phone calls and getting your thoughts on the future of space exploration. where do you think the priority should be? here are the phone numbers -- dan in michigan is next. caller: good morning.

weyou remember the images were shown from the hubble telescope? they were fascinating like the one nebula giving birth to stars. now we have another telescope that's never in the news called thewebb telescope. the launch date is 2022. this thing will be 100 times more powerful than the hubble. can you imagine what we will see? it will be so fascinating and that's what excites me. mars, not so much. i can't wait to see what we don't know from this telescope. we will see things that people on earth have never seen before. i go on their website all the time. their funding was cut for a while there but now it's back. i would tell all americans to tune in on the james webb telescope and check it out. it will be so fascinating. showing viewers

that website you referred to write now so they can see what that telescope will eventually look like. when it comes to setting priorities, what more do we receive -- to we discovered from looking into deep space rather missions toanned our nearest neighbors question mark caller: we don't know. that's why we have the telescope so we can look into space. there will be so many things we don't know are there. ago sagan said a long time that no one is coming to help us and no one will save us from ourselves. it's all up to us. it's like when i was in the navy. when we had a fire on the aircraft carrier, we didn't run away. we ran toward it. it's the same premise with the earth. the earth will not last forever. if we want to preserve the human race, we need to explore space. that is the frontier, not here on the planet. we love the planet that if we are going to preserve us, we

need to look into space and do some island hopping. i honestly think that a telescope like the webb is the right way to go but maybe not going to mars. i think the money should be dumped into the telescope and maybe speed of production. i don't know but i hope all americans are as excited as i am about this. this will be up there like the moon landing. host: thank you for the call, alan from brooklyn, good morning. caller: thank you, i was 17 years old at a national science with othercourse high school juniors in the summer of the moon landing and it was exciting. thinking back on the start of it, kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon and bring them safely back to earth within a decade -- coupling that with the statement about doing something that we

will be proud of 50 years from now, i think we should have a simple statement that we will put our grandchildren on planet earth in 50 years where they can look forward to a stable, sustainable climate going forward. that will include the use of space technology in a way that's wise and judicious in terms of earth monitoring, in terms of maintaining peace in space and a pushing toward war which would create a clutter of space debris , using some kinds of solar energy collecting satellites but also allowing look back satellites to let the average person see in real time as all -- as al gore wanted of the condition of earth at any given moment, to get a real grasp on the changes that have occurred in the ice caps over the last few decades, give people a global sense.

show -- it will show how small we are and how little material we have and how precious it is and how easy it would be to mess up our climate so we would not have the time to explore deep space. we have to be a sustainable planet for thousands of years to develop any kind of technology that will allow us to explore the space with men. you say you remember the apollo 11 mission vividly. last mannedber the mission to the moon and how you felt at the end? i was a member of a national science foundation course that summer. i wasn't part of the apollo mission. host: but your memory of that. caller: december of 1972, think everyone believed we would be on mars by 1985 or so. it was a real depressing feeling that we had somehow dropped the ball, not in terms of maintaining the apollo program for more missions but keeping some kind of positive vision for

what we should be doing in space. maybe it's a good thing we pause because now that we have perspective of a climate crisis, that should instruct what our priorities are in space. we cannot have unregulated private space exploration without a carbon budget for launches. we have to include the omissions from space travel along with any kind of sustainable budget on the amount of carbon we emit to make a sustainable planet for 55,000 years going forward. host: thank you for the call. that's a topic we can talk about, your memories of the apollo 11 mission. years ago, almost to the minute, it was 8:32 a.m. eastern when the apollo 11 mission launched out of florida back in 1969. it's just coming up on 8:35 a.m. on the east coast now. little rock, arkansas you are next. caller: good morning.

all the respect on the work on launch and men and landing and 1960's, it during the moneyer it well, wasting to go to mars is about the most nutty thing. host: why is it a waste? nasa i respect it and love it but if it were dedicated to air defense like and spaceent started for its emphasis is the right dollars, andose half the budget would be great to continue with that. those billions should be invested in our country.

it's an unimaginable waste, this whole project makes waste and when they talk about folks going to mars, you have to remind that human beings start turning to jell-o after a few months and no one talks about that. it's the incredible ill effect on the human body of space travel. all the astronauts had to go through incredible recovery. it's not talked about very often. just letting our tax dollars be spent wisely and infrastructure would be great. we cannot seem to get clean airports in this country and so many other things we need to do. the been impressed with citizen saying no, let's save our money let's let people keep

these tax dollars for the families and their own investments. the folks calling in for it like the general and just called who was associated with these in an incredible waste, similar to the nuclear power industry where we wasted billions all these years and now they shutting down those plants around the country. even the ones that last 25 years become superfund toxic cleanup sites. we've just made some terrible decisions that i think you can areciate with those who profiting from using our tax dollars to fund these kind of things. host: appreciate the call. ipso back to the c-span where americans view the priorities when it exploration, some

52% of all respondents saying the satellite monitoring of the earth to understand should betal changes the priority. 32% say it should be improving national security, 27% say it should be conducting experiments at the international's race station. 24% overall say unmanned exploration of the solar system should be the priority. only 18% said the priority should be a manned mission to mars and just 8% say a manned mission to the moon should be the priority. some 1020 respondents to that poll which was conducted this past month. robert in las vegas is next, good morning. are you with us? caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. yes, i've got some facts for you the might help.

cas.t i want to say frank lu i'm glad he's on the program. he looks good. financing, i'm going to be with these folks are the financing they need, not the taxpayers money or the government. that will be in a couple of months. host: what do you mean by that? are you talking about private investment in space travel? caller: correct, private people for the people. if you look at silver and gold, if we didn't have silver, all your high-tech equipment including your cell phones would not even work. looking for trips all of these substances that

they are researching, going to mars to bring back materials - japan recently sent a ship therearticular rock out and testing the materials. if they are going to continue in space which nothing will stop them because all of the other countries are doing the same thing. host: robert out of las vegas this morning with more uncles in a moment. another member of the house science, space, and technology committee, to callers ago, the caller was talking about the best way to invest in space and he said air defense is the best investment we can make in space. can you talk through some of the national security threats you see in space as a member of the committee and a member of the armed services committee as

well? guest: being on both committees, i have oversight over the military portion, the air force, the national reconnaissance office, our intelligence committee but also nasa, noaa and the civilian component. let me be very clear here -- we are being challenged and will be challenged by the chinese and the russians in space in the 21st century. both countries have explicitly set in their national security come to that if we ever any type of conflict, they are not going to defeat us by sinking aircraft carriers are taking on fighters. they will take us out the infrastructure in space that all of those entities depend on. the satellites and the cameras and the communications and relays, infrastructure that out there, the chinese have developed the capability and

continue to want to destroy that and block it. be able to not only defend their assets but also to be able to compete. spaces now it were fighting domain and we are making the investments to protect ourselves up there. host: should we be more concerned about china or russia? guest: in the present day, i i'm concerned about russia but then i will be concerned about china. china demonstrated its ability to knocked on her satellites in 2007 and have made it a specific priority in the military build up to develop that capability. letter that matter aside from an national security standpoint question mark depending how you estimate it, over half $1 trillion of our economy is dependent on space and that will grow fourfold in the next 10 years. banking, navigation, worldwide logistics -- our entire modern economic infrastructure is space.nt on what's up in

however, it is old and not built to be defended. it's not redundant meaning we don't have backup systems. how we forecast hurricanes, all sothat is dependent on space post-world war ii, we created the air force to dominate space power in the 20th century. in the 21st century, we are on a way to creating the space force or space corps, some minor differences there, to dominate space power in the 21st century. it's absolutely critical. host: with your concerns about russia, do you think it's been a good idea we have been quite ready them at the international space station and other cooperative efforts we have when it comes to space exploration? guest: we could separate the military component from the science and the experimentation and other components that go on in space station that bring

dozens of nations together. the chinese are creating their own space station. they will not cooperate with us on hours. they are looking to create a manned station on the moon at the end of the next decade in the chinese do not do anything in space that does not have a military component. they are not up there for the sake of exploration or experiment tatian. everything -- or experimentation. that is something we have to be aware of. host: you mentioned space force. you have introduced legislation to establish a u.s. space command. is that different than space force? space forest will be a separate branch of the military that gives it an eight seat at the table when it comes to resources and the pentagon. the space command will be a cyber command or special operations command that pools all of the forest components and all of the services have various

components together and operationalize those in basically treat spacelike cyberspace or like the middle east is a were fighting domain where we pool the services together. host: do we know how much that will cost question mark guest: the initial estimates are about $72 million. that's about the personal components in the infrastructure. we cannot look at this as additional bureaucracy. we have to look at this as a service that is focused on the type of people, the type of acquisition, the type of equipment that we need to maintain our dominance in space as we have over the last several decades. we will be challenge going forward by our." competitors. host: does the polls surprise you? 33% find support for space

force. 30% say they don't support it and another 37% say they have no opinion. back, thatou look what president kennedy did, he put $280 billion in today's dollars toward the moon program and that was a constant education process to the public to the congress, other detractors will stop look at what we were able to do as a country. at the science and inventions i think we take for granted today. everything from scratch resistant lenses to led to velcro to cat scans. the list goes on and on. the science and technological kickoff from focusing the nation on achieving something like putting someone on the moon. i think we should and can do that again.

if we don't come other nations will. the chinese, the indians, the israelis and others are lined up to put man on the moon in the next few years. has to lead ines space and if we don't, we create a vacuum. host: it's the 50th anniversary of the apollo 11 launch will stop your thoughts on the legacy . atst: if you look -- i look the human aspect of this. you look at those astronauts who strapped themselves to a rocket and launched themselves without computers, with the power they had, on calculations done on slide rules, i think it was really incredible. what is more credible is the unifying aspect of going to space and the moon and what it did for our country.

people and you have on the show and you watched us land on the moon and watch that a credible -- that --redible moment and its eu and it's a unifying factor we need to get back to this. women talk about american dollars and what it means to be when wemerican today -- talk about american dollars and what it means to be a free american today, not only can we do that again but i think we are at a point where we have to defend what we are doing in here and defend ourselves on earth. just as we enable a liberal world order by dominating airpower from a national standpoint, we will have to dominate in the 21st century. the u.s. army officer and

a republican member of the house science, space, and technology committee and we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you so much. host: back to your phone calls this morning in this last 70 minutes or so of "washington journal the," getting your thoughts on the future of u.s. space policy. your memories of 50 years ago, the launch of the apollo 11 mission. in charlotte, north carolina, thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. quoted like to tell you a by -- i can remember his name -- he quoted that we are all living in the gutter but some of us are staring at the stars. oscar wilde said that.

i think exploration of space is a necessity for humanity because we never know when a meteor will happened toet and the dinosaurs. we need to get out there and explore. we need to expand. we have to save humanity from the mess we have gotten are planted into at this time. host: thanks for the call. linda is next out of wisconsin, good morning. caller: hi. exploringstead of outer space, we need to explore inner space. if you think of 50 years of billions and billions of dollars, it could have been spent on cancer research and now, with the incredible rise of dementia and alzheimer's come all that money could be foot toward that. gethe time the baby boomers to where they are getting dementia and alzheimer's running

rampant, nobody will care whether we are in space or whether the chinese got there first. your yarde comparing to the neighbors. the chinese want to go there, let them. we will take their technology the way they've done with us. the discussion we just had with the congressman about his concerns about national and defend new u.s. interests up there, you don't think that should be a priority? caller: i don't think we need to go to the moon or live on mars. we need to explore the earth. we need to worry about what's here and the people here now. if you want to explore a human aspect, go to an assisted living facility and see the dementia asian summit alzheimer's patients and think about what those people think about space. they don't think about it anymore. it's a relevant and there are

plenty of people with plenty of money who cannot fix what's wrong with them because nobody did the research when it should have been done which was years ago. 50 years of shooting for the stars and we have barely little to show for it other than a news live about how great it was begun to the moon before the russians. linda out of wisconsin from that poll of 1020 americans that we conducted last week, the question was asked why explore space in the top three responses -- monitoring the earth environment, improving national security and conducting .xperiments in orbit will going to the moon and mars are far down on that list. larry is next out of california. caller: good morning. to me as a waste of time. i was in number in the marine corps 20 years and we needed money for everything and now we want to put a space for us?

i've got problems with my legs and they say without study stuff like that and i say why not but we want to go to the moon. we don't have food for kids in schools. health care, dental care for all americans -- all these inventions were great but who got rich? ,he one gentleman you had their he was a republican, he didn't mention one country and that was russia. i wonder why. probably put this guy in office but we are killing the earth. i agree with the wisconsin lady. aboutwhat do you think private industry getting involved in space flights and getting involved in the space sector, is that a good thing? concede the.s. space sector to private industry? the lady from wisconsin

said there's so many problems on earth. i think she's right. i was in 10th grade when we got on the moon and my friends and i talked for hours about how great it was. we look to a telescope to see the planets and we were amazed. i spent 30 years of my life working for the government and the man on the white house doesn't even believe in science. we are kind of stupid and smart but what's wrong? to me it's a waste of time. host: last week on capitol hill, a hearing about privatization in ceos and some of the executives from commercial spaceflight industries and deep space exploration, commercial groups testified before members of congress. this is the ceo of the coalition for deep space exploration

talking about the benefits and challenges of the economic development in space. >> i think the nation needs to have a conversation about what are the goals for the economy. that has been left with nasa because the space agency but those reasonable questions to ask when you talk about economic development. developnot an economic an agency. butto steal your thunder nasa richly rolled out commercial development ideas on july 7. nasa'sthat belong in hands? this is significant. we are talking about economic development off the earth. let that sank and. we are not so hot at it down here. 20 or 30 years and we don't have the barriers we have.

i think there needs to be a serious conversation perhaps in congress and other places about how we go about doing this. how much investment we want to make and then what kind of investment to we want to do? there are lots of means to talk about economic development. host: you can watch that hearing is that its entirety on our website, www.c-span.org. in thisaking your calls segment about the future of u.s. space policy. he phone numbers are divided buy eastern and central time zones and also western time zones. having's conversation on the 50th anniversary of the launch of the apollo 11 mission. times,y's washington they write about remembering apollo 11 at 50. this is the end of the column --

sharon has been waiting out of kentucky, good morning. caller: good morning. after i heard the other colors -- callers, i think we definitely need to go further and explore space. wondered why in the world we must be in competition with china and russia. can't our scientists work together? this is for mankind forever future. just for our future.

it seems to be a race to the top. the problem is that we really don't know how much it's going to cost and what we are going to get when we get there. why we need international dialogue and great diplomacy. this is when the greatest minds should come together. that's just my thinking. what are your thoughts about the international space station and the nations that come together there to do work in space? caller: i love that and i think that has been a resounding success. thes just watching two of females who were on the space station last week. we can learn a lot and we are

learning a lot. when we share something like that, that knowledge, that translates - it's not just for our older people. this is for our children and their grandchildren and great ran children. -- great-grandchildren. we cannot let it sit and i think we need our scientists. we need a big group of scientists who will come together like they did in the international space station. best just my feeling. host: patty is in plano, texas, good morning. caller: good morning. need space force and all the other agencies like nasa but i , i wish you know

would get a hold of mr. lou alle sandro who resigned fromhe studo the what he knows about ufos that were monitoring them for months. host: do you believe in ufos? caller: i do. they have pictures of it. they've shown it on the history channel. let's seealled -- here. : inside america ufos. was quite an interesting series. go to people would history channel and watch it. that's not only mr. elizondo.

head lead for years and it dealt with ufos. paul inis is philadelphia, pennsylvania. good. caller: good morning. about the comments about the deep space exploration for the coalition. comments about not being so great about having finances or the economy down here and that maybe nasa should start looking into how we should spend finances in space. it's kind of interesting for the of groupsoalition like boeing and lockheed martin to be worried about the finances of spacex oration -- space exploration before actually

doing it. it's more about making money from some planetary moonshot, moonshot/mars shot before it's actually about getting there. me thatconcerning to that's the argument that is put forward. saying ourre priorities are mixed up here? caller: yes. it seems kind of confusing. are we going to space or are we trying to figure out how we go to space and make money from space? what's the purpose? are we worried about china and russia going to mars and using that for defense capabilities? host: what would you make the priority if you were talking to one of these members of congress on this committee? what would you encourage them to do when it comes to setting priorities? caller: i'm not against space

exploration but our priorities should be straight about what is the reasoning for going there. is it just to figure out a way to make new business capital, new venture capitals? if we need new business models we should focus on things we can do here. if it's the defense industry reason, i can see the aspects for doing that. but i don't believe just going there for some new market is a great -- the greatest thing ever. host: thanks for the call. we take our viewers back up to capitol hill to the cannon house office building. the rotunda there. we are joined by congresswoman katie hill, democrat of california. a freshman member of congress. when you were running for congress, the science, space and technology committee, you want to serve on it? >> it is important to our

district. we have a long history with space, science and technology. tied to our first lunar landing in the 1960's. we have what is now called the armstrong flight research center. it was deeply involved with the first lunar landing research flight test which came directly from that part of our district. servingn exciting to be on this committee and celebrating the 50 year anniversary. host: what are your priorities as a freshman member on this committee? >> kind of getting the lay of the land and figuring out from here we can determine the best path forward. we have to make sure we've got the resources in place to be effective. we need to set our goals and strategies for achieving them. we need to make sure everything is aligned. i heard your previous caller talk about what are the purposes. what are we looking at in terms

the reale versus reason we are trying to achieve any of these goals related to space. i think that's really important. sure the different agencies involved are able to accomplish those goals and that our public-private partnerships are effective. caller said going to space to open up new business markets should not be the reason that we are going to space. do you agree? >> i completely agree. i don't think that should be the reason at all. gainedld look at what we from the apollo series and the first time that we were doing this. we had 400,000 people that were employed either directly or through contact including my own grandfather who worked on the thrusters for the lunar landing. there was a huge impact in terms of the science that came out of it and we have the opportunity to do the same thing and it can

have impacts all the way across so many different sectors. i think that is something we really need to think about. it's not just the fact that we get there. it's how does this impact across our entire economy. chanceid you ever get a to talk to your grandfather about the apollo 11 mission? >> i have. i'm looking forward to talking about it more with him. it is something you kind of know about in passing from family history. i was just looking at it last night. he worked on the apollo series from 1961 to 1970's for a major contractor. this is a good opportunity to try to talk to him more about i'm lucky he is still alive and i can get a better sense of what it was really like working on that and hopefully that can phase me for how the new of what we are doing in space can impact people and an entire

generation. host: i wonder your thoughts on what that generation thinks about 50 years ago going to the moon whether we would be farther along, whether we would be to mars by now if they had to guess in 1969 about where we would be in 2019. >> we have talked about that. he thinks the fact that we stopped after the moon was a bit of a surprise. it is certainly not like technology stopped but our priorities changed and a lot of that has to do with the fact that we left the cold war. wehink that is a reason that haven't really prioritized it. you always have competing priorities in terms of how we are spending our money. that is something we talk about on the committee. if you decide you want to go for the lunar exploration then you are going to be taking away from something else that is important in terms of nasa budget. the same thing goes with defense. where we are spending our time and resources.

we don't have an infinite amount. i think it's a matter of what is the cost benefit and how important is it for society, for our economy and defense. host: do you think we need a space force? >> i actually am a big supporter of what we are now calling the space corps which we have authorized in the defense authorization last week. i think it's really important that it stays part of the air force because it is in fact doing so much around space already and it does not need to be a separate force. i think it is worth calling separate attention to, providing with extra resources and saying this is a priority for us moving forward. host: what do you want to get done by the end of your first term on the committee? that wet to make sure are able to communicate more broadly to our constituents into the country what our plan is here.

what is our strategic direction. what do we want to be achieving within the next five to 30 years around aerospace in general and how do we plan on sitting in our public-private partnerships and our industry partners and how do we plan on dedicating and finding the resources that are going to be needed for us to accomplish the things we set out to do. we have some pretty ambitious goals that have been laid out by the administration including landing on the moon again by 2024 inches a huge deal and you can't just say that. you have to make sure that we are giving the resources necessary. i want to be able to say we've got a good sense of how that's going to happen and if we don't and we need to figure out how we are going to. hill,congresswoman katie thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you. host: back to your phone calls here on the washington journal. asking for your thoughts on the

future of space exploration and your memories of 50 years ago today. the launch of the apollo 11 mission. delaware. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. off, i love as some of -- asimov. those of us who love space are really horrible at communication. the congresswoman had like five minutes and she couldn't even get any thoughts across that were convincing. i would say unless you can get somebody who can actually articulate the purpose of all of this stuff, just forget about it. host: take 60 seconds. how would you articulate it? caller: i don't want to pre-i think it's irrelevant. think about it as the west. let the private sector have fun. let them go ahead and do whatever they want.

in the end, if they succeed or hate private public-sector relationships. i think they are horrible. .ut for space, it's unknown we never know what we are going to gain from it. let them have fun. if they succeed, the government can step in. if they don't succeed, whatever. summit he called about global warming, all of this stuff. nobody is wrong. none of them are wrong. there's a whole bunch of important stuff to do on this planet. those of us who love space and think about space as the enigma and the curiosity, we care about it. but we can't really justify concretely why it's important. host: how long have you loved space? caller: since i was 3-year-old. it's not even a question. host: what started it for you? caller: from books and just

curiosity just to think that it's more than just us out there. things welk about gained from apollo and the computers and everything but they are in the abstract. you can't really communicate that with someone who is worrying about cancer. you just can't. want to talk about spending $20 billion and somebody is starving, unless you can make it concrete, you can't convince them. so in the end, california has gold. great. go explore. find the gold and make yourself successful. fine. the moon has all these minerals. fine. go and explore. we don't care. rules, the best succeed. host: this is juliet out of colorado. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm not opposed. i want everybody to understand i'm not opposed to space exploration. what i am opposed to is the

average american being forced to pay for it. apparently, once again, none of to congressmen are listening the average american. when the average american cannot family,o feed their clothe their family and house their family, where should our money be being spent? on space exploration? i don't think so. if the 1% wants to go to mars, the 1% can pay for themselves. the average american should not be forced to pay for space exploration when the average american cannot afford it and will not benefit in any way, shape or form from it. thank you very much. jane in cleveland, ohio is next. good morning. caller: i'm in agreement with the previous caller.

of all i want to thank you for c-span. it's really great. i remember jfk and all of that but i also remember ronald reagan and star wars. agreehe public did not with at all and so it had to stop. then was weaponizing space and that's what the public disagreed with. comes back again in clothes and it's pretty scary because according to the congresswoman who was just on we now have a space corps which is a way to structurally do the weaponizing and space that we didn't have before and it's coming at a time when we are in crisis here on earth but our resources are going straight to the top and they are privatized , ourat people who vote officials are owned by

corporations and that's why they don't get anything done. in a crisis here where we know that we have to do, scientists have told us plenty about what we need to do warming butt global we don't need to solve that crisis by saying we are going to put it into space and study it some more. some hard solutions that we need to apply right now and we don't want to do that so we change the subject. also we are really good at changing the subject. we have some really huge ethical problems here of people without resources at all at the bottom but no one seems to know that. because there is so much distance from the people with no money to the people with all the money that nobody really understands what life is like when you don't have money. should not bewe putting our money into space at

this juncture until we have resolved some issues here and until we know how to talk diplomatically to other people around the world and not just think of solving everything with weapons. host: that's jane in ohio. twitter saying the moon has lots of resources. let's start there. bring that stuff to earth. build a global carbon capture technology. devices,odification and more. away inare so far another galaxy. good luck. mary in response to our conversation saying we need to find more planets, figure out how to get there, figure out how to make them earthlike, figure out how to build there and populate them so we can wreck them, too? and then rinse and repeat? your memories from 50 years ago today when apollo 11 set off from earth. carl is in portland, oregon.

good morning. hi.er: thanks for letting me speak and thanks for the program. except we hadch the department of energy back and thatthe late 80's was discontinued. i really believe that they should privatize the whole space program. that's all i have. host: why do you believe that? caller: it seems like i guess you could say the hierarchy, the congressman and the people that the strings over there are probably not capable of handling it. entrepreneursget like the guy who runs virgin want toand people who

have recreational facilities up in space. why don't you have them do it. it will probably do a better job of producing ideas and inventions to do that. next inmes is washington, d.c., good morning. i had a couple comments about the lady that was on before. she was dead on point. we've got a lot of problems that we need to take care of before we think about trying to deal with space and one of the other guys talking about how they are that'so go to the next, all they are trying to do. that's what the whole scheme is about. if you look at all the regulations being torn apart about the global warming and the tearing up the ozone layer, they don't care. the rich people don't care because at the end of the day they are looking for new planets to go to anyway. they tear this one up and go to

the next. that's what they are trying to do anyway so why are we even spending money on that. we are not going to benefit from it. we are the ones who will be left behind when they are going to the next planet. at the end of the day i think we need to just back off and let the private sector deal with it. find something then tap in and see what we can do. at the end of the day we need to worry about protecting the earth and our longevity here. host: back to las vegas this morning. mary. caller: good morning p i agree with many of the people. -- toare so many people pay for this. this administration does nothing but misappropriate money that they get. they spent $5.6 million on his fourth of july parade meanwhile he's just going to be firing something like 80% of the scientists in the usda. you better watch what you are eating. the -- therazy with

only thing they are draining is our treasury. host: in another administration would you want to spend money on going back to the moon and eventually mars? caller: not at this time. our debt is high. he's getting rid of scientists and he wants to go to the moon? he's firing scientists left and right. c-span doesn't bring any of that on how much she's degrading all of our government institutions. why doesn't he worry about protecting our electrical grid? water andod and our our air? host: this is more to out of chevy chase, maryland. caller: yes. hello. good morning. is this. after apollo 11, all the , itnology that we learned was not kept any secret. within months, china and russia and india, the whole world knew

of all the technology that we learned by getting to the moon and apollo 11. i say we should let china and russia and india and any other countries that want to spend billions of dollars to go back to the moon or to get to mars, let them spend the money. it doesn't have to be a race. whoever gets to mars first, if it's russia, if it's china. within months we will know all of the technology that they had to experiment and learn themselves. host: where you will live during the apollo 11 landing on the moon? caller: yes i was. host: what do you think that meant for the united states? us somewell, it gave prestige technically. but what did that really amount to? when you get down to the bottom line, the prestige that we had,

what did it get for us? let russia get the prestige. let china get the prestige. i say that they can have the prestige and in return we will have saved our country billions and billions of dollars. and within a month or so after they get to mars if they do without loss-of-life hopefully we are going to know all the technology that they spent billions of dollars to learn. host: we take you back up to capitol hill to the cannon house office building prayed we are joined by congressman brian member ofm texas, a the house space science and technology committee. congressman, good morning. the same question that i just asked the viewer. what did the moon landing mean for the united states? caller: it meant a lot more than prestige. i respectfully disagree with the

previous speaker. tremendous leg up in technology. we were the number one spacefaring nation. we had the cold war that we were in the midst of at that point in time. all of those technological advances that we made, there were over 6000 inventions and innovations that came out of our space program that we enjoy today and some of them are as diverse as from satellites to banking and agriculture. oil and gas extraction. reduction in admissions. -- emissions. all of this came from our space program which americans use every day. gps, communications, medical treatment. there is some tremendous benefits that we derive from our space program. when i hear someone say let's

let russia and china get all the prestige, we will know real soon what they found on mars. i promise you that russia and china if they find something that's of great import we will be the last to know. that's the way we are. this is the truth and the reality of today's world and our adversaries. it's not a matter of if humans are going back to the moon or going on to mars. the question is will it be americans. return and inspire millions more generations of scientists and of course i heard him say that we are cutting the science budget. i can tell you that the science budget is still very robust. we've got to have scientists. i'm a dentist, but i have a background in biology, chemistry, physics. i thinksomething that america really really needs and

the american people want to be proud of america. there's more to it than just pride as i just said. the technological advances, resources on the moon. there is billions of tons of water ice on the south pole of the moon. this is going to be exploited. water ice can be used for fuel. for breathing. for drinking. this is something that we don't just go and make footprints on the moon this time we go back to stay. you asked my opinion and i gave it to you. host: your district is the 36th district in texas. it includes the johnson space center. what happens at the johnson space center? caller: that was mission control. the apollore all of shots were controlled from.

was controlled out of mission control at the johnson space center as well. we still have mission control there for our international space station. about 14,000 employees there whether they are civil servants or commercial space operators in the private industry. and i'm very place proud to represent johnson space center. thealso to have served as subcommittee on space as the chairman and now we are in the minority and i serve as the of the senior republican on the subcommittee on space and aeronautics. so a lot going on at johnson space center. we were talking about science. this is where the james webb space telescope had a lot of tests run on it just a few months ago.

we are trying to get a supplement of $1.6 billion so we can start working on getting back to the moon. if you are going to have troubles with your systems, if you want certainty and security for your astronauts. he might have the goal of getting to mars but the moon is a lot closer. if you have problems you can get to the moon and back a lot quicker than you can up there at the red planet. this month on capitol hill you introduced the american free enterprise space commerce act. what would that do? >> that would actually facilitate, there's a lot of andercialism in space today it's a tremendous, it's just a game changer. we have spacex and blue arjun. companiesny private

that are working on getting to .he moon this is something that the united states taxpayer i think will enjoy. and so we've got a lot of these people that are there at johnson and all around the country. i have been to many of their facilities and i think it's going to be a real shot in the arm. the president keeps talking about private public partnerships and there can be no greater one then what we are seeing with commercial cargo. we are going to start launching american astronauts from american soil on american rockets very very soon. we don't have to buy tickets at $80 million a pop from the russians. it is something america needs to stay in the race because as i

said, if we don't do it our adversaries will. and there are resources to be gained. nasa is a civilian nonmilitary agency our competitors for instance the chinese space agency is a military one. in their space program actually enhances, this extends the war fighting domain into the space. and who controls the high ground usually controls the low ground as well. i think it's very important that the united states maintain its superiority over the rest of the world. that doesn't mean we don't have allies in france. we have partnered up with the russians for many many years now. unwise we would be very not to continue our endeavor to be the number one spacefaring nation on the planet.

batten,ngressman brian republican from texas. the 36th district. the home of johnson space center. we appreciate your time this morning. back to your phone calls. a half-hour left in our program today. talking about the 50th anniversary of the launch of apollo 11. give us a call if you have memories and what your memories are of the launch and landing. also your thoughts on the future of u.s. space policy. (202) 748-8000 eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 mountain or pacific time zones. carrie has been waiting in washington. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say that i do remember as a child watching the landing on the moon. thing that always fascinated thes a child was when

spaceship or whatever that part to get the astronauts back to the earth. i just could never understand what kind of technology that that could lift that module off. it didn't utilize all of the big kind of things leaving all the smoke trailing and ripping up the atmosphere. having said that, if that component piece is still on the moon and others are going to be landing on the moon, i would like to know how you're going to clean that up. imagination if you landed on the moon and that part is still there and we are going to be going there continuously, how are you going to manage the trash.

i just don't think we have a right to pollute that. i just cannot accept that. thank you. i will listen for your response. host: we are happy to hear the viewers response to this. jonathan is next out of minneapolis. go ahead. caller: good morning. i could not be more proud of my senator iliana omar -- ill hano heart for her response to president crazy pants. i think we need to build a rocket ship and put donald trump in it and send him to mars or wherever the alien life form that sent him to us so he can go back to where he came host: let's talk about space policy and the future of nasa. no future.re is we are done. oft: this is steve out kendall county, illinois. caller: good morning. i would like to bring up the

point about nasa that nasa is a that --ganization you've got m.i.t. and slack. nasa is not alone in the technology that we all benefit. the good lady from wisconsin who called in and said she doesn't see the point of the expenditures and many others have said they don't see the expenditure usefulness of it and i would like to point out to all of thisr.i.'s, technology that our medical system, our physics, our chemistry, our biology, microbiology, genetics. all of these things are related to nasa. they all feed into gather.

what i would like to point out also is that they are very well-paid. would like to point out to the american public that america ranks so low on so many charts. that in my opinion, these brilliant scientists and these wonderful people who work for our technology, if they didn't get paid very well, would they stay in america? these are brilliant people. why would you stay in a country that is so low on the totem pole. the only thing that's high on the totem pole in america is our military. and let's face it, what are we talking about today. space force space force space force space force. if we did not spend this money keeping these brilliant beautiful intelligent wonderful human beings employed, they would go where the money is.

host: stephen illinois this morning. this story from the wall street journal about neil armstrong's suit and its return to public display. and seamstresses who made neil armstrong's spacesuit intended it for single use to get him to the surface of the moon and back. later, conservation efforts at the smithsonian air and space museum are saving that suit for posterity. today it returns to display on the national mall in washington after a conservation effort lasting more than a decade. that's the unveiling that you just saw. , that theresident administrator of nasa on the right for the unveiling of that suit. back on public display. it's the first time in 13 years but it's been on public display. that ceremony happening just a bit ago.

robert is next out of california. good morning. caller: one of the most ironic political promises in history. it was the most ironic. .hat was kennedy's promise nixon kept that promise. in the meantime we had a country going to -- a split in half. we had the vietnam war. i went and got injured. anyway nasa kind of lost focus on certain things. and their problem was i think 13 people were killed in space and all that and they wanted a bigger budget. , i'm a non-voter at all of these people hating on trump, trump has nothing to do with that. were to at least show the kind of consistency, russians beat us to the space station. i just want to see us do the

same thing and i can see mr. trump's promise to go to the moon. people are so negative peer die don't know. anyway, good show. thank you. host: joseph in connecticut. good morning. caller: yes. good morning. can i say anything about global warming or is it just space this morning? host: joseph, go ahead. they talk about global warming and nobody says nothing about the 24 million square miles of black tar asphalt we have in the country and 9 million black roofs. and nobody talks about how much heat that puts up into the atmosphere and warms up our planet. i think somebody should look into that. we don't hear nothing about that. as far as the space i got one quick note on the space. my wife works in a parachute

company that made all the shoots that went up to the moon and stuff. the first landing on mars, the pathfinder. thatfe sewed the chute went on that probe. she wrote her last name in the chute and that little note take me to your leader. and that thing is sitting on mars today. her last name is the first human name on mars. just a little note. program, the apollo. i grew up with it. i'm 82 years old. i watched every single minute of it and i was thrilled to do it and my wife worked with it also. she made all the shoots for the returning of the capsules. stuff.ked on all of that host: thanks for sharing that story. when you watched the landing 50 years ago on july 20, where did

you think we would be when it came to space exploration in 2019 and where did your wife think we would be? caller: we thought we would keep going to the moon and maybe build a community up there if possible. as far as going to mars, my opinion, people that go to mars will never come back. there's no way they can make it back. there's nothing there but dust. we've been there prayed we know what's there. there's nothing there. got to be someplace else. the moon is where we need to start off with. you get there in three days and back. with equipment and technology we've got today there would be nothing to it. showed you that unveiling of neil armstrong's suit at the smithsonian. it happened a few minutes ago this morning. -- back to come that that for a minute. this wrap up from the bbc about

50 facts about the moon landing. was $33.31e numbers and it has to do with the pay that the apollo 11 astronauts earned. the story noting that depending on their seniority come apollo as transferring somewhere between $17,000 and $20,000 a year prayed that staple and of $120,000 a year today. there was no danger money for going to the moon but they were able to claim travel expenses. buzz aldrin put in a claim for $33 and $.31 to cover his trip from home to the nearby man's andecraft center in houston that went via florida, the moon and hawaii. astronauts had to share of the income. many astronauts when they left the space program were snapped

.p others became tv pundits. the bbc with its 50 numbers on the apollo mission it's at bbc.com. gary is next out of canton, ohio. good morning. morning. host: go ahead. asian --pace explorers exploration and colonization is a noble goal. the proliferation and militarization of space could lead to a cascade effect prompting more of a kessler syndrome or a kessler effect. the more satellites we destroy, we effectively into my ourselves in earth because the shrapnel that is produced by the destruction of these orbital entities will create a high velocity projectiles which in turn will destroy other satellites in a positive

feedback loop. host: you think that congress or the leadership when it comes to space exploration is even thinking of that right now? caller: it's twofold. a comment about why we are not working with the chinese prayed there was a chinese exclusion act if i recall correctly back in the obama administration. really it's kind of a prisoner's dilemma. space and the moon and mars is free real estate. to try and competing claim as much space as possible. host: garrison out of ohio this morning. , weng up on the east coast will take you back to capitol hill. we have been talking to members of the science, space and technology committee this morning. we are joined now by the chairwoman of that committee, congresswoman eddie bernice

johnson, democrat from texas. good morning. thank you for joining us this morning. as chairwoman of the community -- committee, what are your goals by the time you hand over the gavel? >>, well, i don't know when that will be. our committee has a very broad range of responsibility and of course space is one of the major ones. we are celebrating this week the 50th anniversary of the apollo and we've had great recognition and we are trying to recapture all that we have gained from space exploration. so that we can plot our way forward. we see so much enthusiasm from young people. but the important thing is that every one dollar that we have invested in space expiration research we receive back five dollars.

it has been costly but as you can tell we've gained so much from that exploration. we are so grateful to the persons willing to experiment and become astronauts. but also bringing the information home. the fact that now we can predict andweather no matter where how much and what to expect. that's all space exploration research results. we've got all kinds of automation now. and many of the medical modalities because of this research. but we are grateful that this investment has been made and we have gained so much. and we feel so much more to go. host: should the way forward be to mars via the moon? in deliberations on that now. i have not yet made a final decision. i guess maybe it might not be

mined to make. the president is making that direction. we are concerned about how we pay for it, how we reserve the great research and not eliminate foreat deal of the activity this voyage to ultimately mars. we have no problem with looking forward and exploration and research. what we do have concerns about is how we pay for it and how soon we can do it. we cannot continue to cut staff and ignore adding staff ready for the future. and think that we can make it. we've got to invest in people to make sure we have the skills and under this administration, he's eliminated all of the education funding. about very concerned workforce for the future. because we've had a lot of international assistance and now the attitude is a little different there.

so we've got lots of concerns before we can make a decision as to whether we are gung ho to go where. we've got to make sure that we can get there and we can pay for it. host: what do you say to the caller earlier in this program who said when the american -- average american can't afford to house their family the average american shouldn't be forced to pay for this space exploration? >> i can appreciate his attitude. but i think that when he realizes how much we've all gained from this investment and research he will have a little bit better attitude. i do feel very much understanding with the way people feel about government spending. i'm truly as concerned as they are. but that's how we spend. and i think that when we decide not to research we are closing our doors to the future. we must continue great research that gives us great benefits. i just imagine that same person is very pleased when he can get

a warning that's accurate on the weather, the environmental information that we are getting now of what we need to address. much of that research has come directly from nasa and space research. it we get ainto whole lot back. but yes, it's costly. i will not deny that. but i don't know too much we can do things that are very positive that does not cost something. host: should we be spending money on space force? >> i have not made a decision on the space force because i truly do not understand it clearly. i have not been given the full enoughtion that gives me information i feel to make a decision. host: the houston chronicle has been putting out an ongoing series on the future of space travel. here's one of the things they wrote about the apollo 11 missions, saying that the apollo

era was a special time in the united states when political will and funding aligned in unison. those days have petered out. can you talk about your sense of the political will right now both up in congress and in america as a whole? >> we have a responsibility in congress to lead and to follow. if we had not been leaders back when sputnik encouraged us by their activities, we probably would not be here today. i am one of the people that feel that you cannot wait until somebody else does it better. we've got to be in the race. and i think that it was very good foresight for our leaders in the past to make the determination that we had to be a part of the space race. i don't know that we can drop out. i think the research we gained, all of the things that we gained modalitiesm medical

to all kinds of technology, the satellites that tell us what the weather is going to be. all of the research that has come and the enthusiasm of our young people when they get exposed to space. has really brought a real new focus on where we really ought to be looking for our future. we cannot stop research. when we stop research we close the door to the future. think youro you former colleague in congress and now nasa administrator is doing in that role? >> i try very hard to work with him and we will continue to do that. host: what is your biggest concern when it comes to his leadership? well, i'm not sure that i have any concerns with his leadership. i think i have concerned by how he's being influenced from the

white house. i'm not so sure that i understand all of the decisions that he's getting. for example, he came before the committee prior to the announcement of the space force and gave us one budget that clearly would not be adequate. he had to go back, get more information himself. so i just believe that a well-informed leader is necessary and we hope that he will continue to be one of those. host: wins the last time you were able to chat with the president or any of his key advisors on these space issues that we've been talking about? >> i have not. i don't even know who they are. wonder if on i this 50th anniversary of the launch of apollo 11, you remember where you were for the moon landing. >> yes, i do remember. i was a nurse at the va hospital

in dallas. all i remember the excitement of sputnik and then i followed closely what happened after that to see president kennedy and the establishment of this committee later that i'm now chair was very exciting back then and i think that it has continued to stimulate my because that was the one area that i have focused on since i began my career away from nursing and into public office. host: congresswoman eddie bernice johnson is the chair of and technology committee. we appreciate your chatting with us this morning. just under 10 minutes left in our program. getting your thoughts in these final few minutes about the future of space policy. launch ofies of the the apollo 11 mission.

that happened 50 years ago this morning. the moon landing happening on july 20 of 1969. in bethlehem, pennsylvania. go ahead. with the'm very happy space program. i hope they continue on with it. i've been watching a lot of these shows on the landing of the moon and so forth. i would like to see a little more honesty involved. i remember going to the space station and taking my children down there. i'm going to be 88 years old next year. i remember how they took the german names off walls and replaced them with the nasa engineers who designed all of the stuff. that kind of bothers me a little bit that you would go to that extreme these shows aren't showing anything about the germans. they are the ones who brought the technology here to begin with. they should get a little applause or something. they are not even mentioned in these shows.

over 13 department at masses at that time and each of those departments had a german and they were all exited from the country. they kicked them all out and took their homes away. these are the appreciation they got for putting us into space. i think that's disgusting and needs to be corrected. host: this is john out of san antonio, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. planet x. future generations will be thankful for the space force. host: why do you think that? >> there is something coming. there's a planet out there on a completely different rotation than all the rest in our solar system. it's well known and supposedly there is alien lifeforms coming with it so we will see. lake,paul out of crystal

california. good morning. caller: thank you for your call. i'm not going to give you a long dissertation like some of those others did on space travel. i agree with a few of them but i feel strongly. i'm for space travel but i feel strongly that it should be funded by those who can afford it like the billionaires. so many of them have so much money they don't know what to do so they have their faucets in their homes and everything plated in gold so let them fund it. not by the people who can barely make ends meet. and that's all i have to say. host: out of iowa, good morning. caller: good morning. what i think it gets overlooked is we are talking about $20 billion. less than one half of 1% of the federal budget.

and even during the apollo push during the 1960's, the nasa of thenever reached 5% federal budget on a yearly basis. imagine where the united states and humanity would be if in the last four years we had tripled nasa's budget to spend in unbelievable some of perhaps two cents out of every dollar on space. we'd have probes littering the solar system. our knowledge would be so far advanced. and we are going to sit back and worry about what really in the long term is a small amount of money in the overall picture for what we would gain from it. the congressman herself just noticed that we would get a five to one return. imagine what our return would be if we had made the investment in these past 40 years at two or three times the level that we did. about 21.5 billion

dollars. just about .5% of the federal budget. this is some of the results from our recent polling survey on space issues and the future of space exploration. when it came to nasa's budget about 27% of respondents said that was too much. 20% said it was too little. about 53% said that was about the right amount of money to be spending in a fiscal year on nasa. ofeph is next out manchester, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm obviously a supporter of the spacex program. i served in the united states marine corps for a little bit. just the fact that it's a national security problem should just kind of get the attention of everyone that it is really not. earlier withsed china's capabilities as far as future wars and how they will get fought. to not take a preemptive measure

as far as getting our assets protected and how we can protect the american people i'm dumbfounded by the amount of people who just don't really see this for what it is. host: that's joseph in maryland. the house is getting ready to come in in just a minute or two here. that polling data we've been talking about is available on our website at c-span.org if you want to check out all of the polling numbers. we have been telling you a few of them this morning. you can check it out in its entirety at c-span.org. -- out ofat california, you are next. caller: i remember. i was still in scotland. that's where i was born. remember everything about the apollo moon landing, it was amazing. states, the people

that went into that, amazing. all the technology that came from that. herestunned that people don't appreciate the united states of america and everything the united states has done. the small country i come from, scotland and the u.k., it just amazes me this country. to 1969, didg back you think we would be further along into space and perhaps other planets by 2019? yes, i did. but the astonishment when we saw on the the first step moon, it was just the most amazing amazing thing to see. in 19 69 growing up in scotland and then you come to america, though my god.

to see others need countries and compare. this is the most wonderful country in the world. and i hope we continue and i enjoyed the congresswoman who is chairing the space program. and even her take, amazing. love all of it. was congresswoman eddie bernice johnson, democrat out of texas. carol is next out of texas as well. go ahead. definite supporter of the space program and i just wanted to comment that people need to stay abreast of all the current issues. thisy has really mentioned morning that the manned capsule that would have been manned during one of the tests back in april exploded. and they lost the capsule and there was an article in the paper about how much they

learned even though they lost the capsule. how much they learned from the explosion. so it's risky but it's worth it i think. nasa has received some confusing direction out of the white house because they began in 2017 by saying we want to go back to the moon and then just about eight weeks ago donald trump said why are we going back to the moon. they told himse to do it. they even hired an assistant director to oversee that project. lasted i think less than a month. host: we have to end it there because the house is coming in for the day. we will take you there live now for gavel-to-gavel coverage and we will be back here tomorrow morning. house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. july