Transcripts For CSPAN2 Tonight From Washington 20110412

former louisiana governor buddy copps spoke about his interest running for president. he's one of the first republicans to launch a 2012 exploratory committee. this interview is about 50 minutes. >> and governor buddy roemer of all the names mentioned as potential 2012 republican candidates stores was not on the list. until about a month ago. why? >> i haven't made up my mind to explore until about a month ago, five weeks ago exactly. i had been out of politics literally and figuratively for the most part of 20 years. i built community banks. i have one that covers the state of louisiana. i love doing it. i'm a businessman,, my training is to build companies, to grow companies. but beginning about six months ago, i became concerned about what was happening and not happening in america and so for the first time in a long time i thought my skills of planning and business acumen, putting budgets together, reforming the tax code, these sorts of things were exactly what this country might need. finally i became concerned about wide receiver to be the lack of leadership, the foreign policy that is flatfooted, a domestic policy that's nonexistent and i became concerned. two words got me in the end. debt, i've never seen anything like this and there is a banker i deal with the debt of a long how to eliminate it, i don't like it. it's dangerous. it costs jobs. when you're borrowing money from your competition and the second word that got me was indebtedness. washington, d.c. is a boom town. the rest of america is hurting. why is that? it's because all the lobbyists and special-interest, the influence money comes here. it's too much. it's too big. it doesn't encourage innovation and leadership, and i decided to explore the possibility of running for president. and those two issues, devotee and indebtedness. >> as we speak to you in the spring of 2011, the state of the union is. this is the right place to be. our best years are ahead of us. but the state of the union as carless. oeo 14.7 trillion. we spend 300 billion a month and we borrow 120 billion. we created a net of zero new jobs. let me say it again. there were 130 million americans working off the farm. that's called dimond farm payroll. you know that number was last month? 131 million. we are a nation challenge to jerkily and we seem to be on a prepared. it bothered me. >> you talk about your business experience and have been in the house of representatives you served one term as louisiana governor, lost, canada 1995 and lost that race would have you learned over the years? >> i'm probably better off than i used to be. i was a young arrogant man ran for congress and lost, branigin and won four successive times easily. i like politics in that sense. i like running. i ran for governor against all odds as you can remember against a guy named edwin edwards and other congressmen really better known names than me. most difference i took no money, if limited money in a corrupt state which louisiana was in the 80's, it was breathtaking sum said and i won that race. four years later having lowered the highest unemployment rate which was over 12% to the less than half of that, 6%, having balanced the budget for years in a row having to clean up air and water and started a trust fund to repave the highways i changed parties midway through my term, the only governor to do it a change to a republican and faced reelection against david duke and edwin edwards, one of the most infamous races in american history they had more money than i and were more politicians than i. the polls show that my changing parties cost me six points. i lost by less than a point in a heartbreaking election, but i learned a lot. i learned that if i make a major move like changing parties, i have to do it soon enough that people will understand it over time. i did it with about six or seven months in that campaign. that was my dad, my mistake and i learned that a couple of times that timing was important that's not why i run. i am the only guy who considers running who has been both a congressman and a governor and i like that experience, but more importantly, i am one of several guys running who built his own company. mine is a community bank whose payroll who's, a business plan for the market and capture it i put all that together with the belief that we ought to limit the money that politicians accept. and i believe this is the kind of campaign america needs now. if you like the way things are you won't be for me, but if you'd like to take another look and like a guy who was a conservative democratic congress that's how you put a country together. that's what we need to do now. we need a president that is more than a republican, we need a president who is an american who would reach out to both parties and the independent and the tea parties and say look, we must do this. if i run for reelection after being elected i won't do it until that's six or seven months left. running for the election and his term is very over. it's not right. we need to concentrate on america. not on me not on my party i worked this out in my 67 years i'm not a media and a grown man, i'm old enough to know what needs to be done and i'm young enough to do it and i'm excited about it. it's been a couple of issues in louisiana because you talk about education reform ending the teacher tenure and the pri to erode that was your intention but it didn't happen under your watch. what happened was we started the teacher testing for the first time in history, then i was defeated by edwards and he threw it all out. he got the legislature to undo it, so they had to raise five more years after edwards to start again so this was -- i did my in 1988, '89, '90 and '91. then edwards took over for me, his fourth term as governor. he undid the teacher testing and the three or four things we had done an education for four years and then mike foster, another republican took over as governor and started those programs. spinet he was a political lever sorry but describe your relationship with edward edwards. >> when i first started as politics as a young man i had run for the constitutional convention to we write our constitution. as the mcginn louisianan? >> in louisiana, thanks for reminding me. i was 28, 29, and i worked with edwards who called for the constitutional right. i was a proponent of what he was trying to do. i thought it was the right thing to do. over the years, we grew far apart, and the issue was corruption, the issue was money and politics. i thought the governor of louisiana and didn't need to take unlimited checks from the oil companies and from the chemical companies and the toxic waste companies and those that imbues the air and water and edwards and i, the following out as a polite way of saying we became political adversaries at that point. when he ran for reelection the third time, the congressman from louisiana, bob livingston, republican congressman from louisiana, jim brown secretary of state and i decided independently to run against him and five of us with a guy named steve elon, the tikrit louisianan name, the congressman, the six of us ran in that election i was lucky enough to win the respect yet when he served his time in prison did you support or try to push for him to have a pardon by president bush? >> i did not one was the only former governor who did not. my belief was that public corruption is the worst kind of corruption in a nation of representative democracy and that edwards had never said that he made a mistake. he never admitted that. he didn't show evidence of remorse. there was no medical reason to release him, i thought, so my position was that he should serve his term or confess his sins, his transgressions and show evidence that he had reconstructed himself. i thought no evidence of that. >> take us back to 1990, '91 when you're considering switching from democrat to republican. why the change? >> we were a one-party state. we were 96% democratic in the legislature. we were born democrats in the 70's and 80's. when i became governor i realized the weakness of that system there was no debate, no second opinions, there was no constitutional conflict that could be resolved with middle ground or higher ground, and i felt the only way to make it happen fairly quickly was to change parties. now obviously, steve, i had a part of me that while i served in the converse very conservative democrat voting with the republicans i didn't want to make it a number, 75, 80% of the time i loved ronald reagan, thought he was a great president, so i had some relationship with senior bush, not with george w. but senior bush i respected him so i had an opportunity i fought to change parties, set an example and to turn that 95-5 or 96-for lopsided party into a two-party system that's where it is today. i was a factor in that but today the legislature is at 55-45, so that's why i did it. by the way i did it for the same reason that louisianan was a lot like egypt. i remember going as a younger man as a member of conagra's 1981 '82, '83, mubarak was the president he's still around two months ago louisiana was like that it was a one-party state, it stepped on its people, they lived on welfare the had the highest unemployment rate, that was a tough state to grab and try to turn around at the end of three years of doing that i thought i needed to change parties to finish the job. you're in congress with democrat blue dogs and rockefeller republicans. when you get the congressman in the state of the two parties today is there room in the democratic party for a conservative and conversely in the republican party to the evidence is against the finding of variety and diversity we tend not to be a nation of headlines and argue with me or against me. let me answer you this week. in my opinion. the nation is stronger when there is a diversity of opinion that touches each other that overlaps. you have an election or the democrats control the white house, the senate or the house of representatives. i remember a few years the republicans have an election they can change the white house and it didn't work very well. i would like us to be a nation where a party leads and a second party has constructive criticism but they work together to build american. i don't know. that is why my issue is money. to me, the power of money, special-interest money has way too much influence in washington. i sat on "the wall street journal" recently the home price list over the last year. it was memphis, st. louis, new york, tampa, washington, d.c., atlanta, it was chicago. they've dropped in chicago 7.5% in atlanta i make the number 8% or something like that. everyplace it dropped except for one. you know what that was, washington, d.c., 3.6%. it is a boom town. all of the lobbyists, all of the big chair calders, all of the special-interest come here not for the big government, they come to get their way in the government because they know the plea in people, the average people in america are trying to work at their jobs and they don't have time to come to washington. who is your lobbyist? i get jim has a team of them. last year they made 14.7 billion they didn't pay 1 penny of taxes. i'm not crossing at eg. thir the extent of what's wrong in america. the road the tax code for them. i believe talks could reach out to be low. a tax haven for the world. would create jobs if we write it and do it. a company like ge to not pay for a single marine corps soldiers to protect their assets in the world to not pay for one schoolteacher, to not pay for one fireman, to not pay for one police officer it's not right and i'm going to take it beyond the code, the 5500 pages long. you can't read it, steve, neither can the average american, but the lobbyists and lawyers can. we ought to change it in america. the only way i know how to do it is to run for president with $100, my maximum amount. you can't win with $100, yes we can. it's the only way to win. it's the only way, but we give you a number. if i get one person out of 100 to contribute $100 to my campaign. i would have more money in the primary. the last time he ran three and half years ago i will have 300 million in the primary. one out of 100 with the money in small amounts year term to face a president with which with whom you have real differences and have a debate of specifics and a class eda date and two out of 100, two out of 100, steve, would give you 600 million against the president who's going to have a billion and we can win. spec let me ask about some of the issues you talk about tax code, 14.7 almost $15 trillion of debt how do you bring down the debt and raise revenue? >> with a plan. it's real simple. all my life my training and my practice has been business planning. i helped build companies. my gang despite-years-old and it's $670 million. we made money throughout the recession. we didn't get a penny of bailout money. i'd think it was called t.a.r.p.. it can be done the old-fashioned way. a business plan and then customers one at a time. that's the way you bring our debt in control you start with 18.5% which is the amount of the federal spending with a gross domestic product it should be 18.5 today it's 25%. it's too high. since spending that's the problem, not taxes to decrease the deficit. let's work on spending. we will put everything on the table. entitlements, military, oil subsidies in louisiana, ethanol subsidies in iowa, you put it on the table and you have a five-year plan. i know a president only has four, but the office will continue. converse will continue. a five-year plan to reduce the spending by 1% of gross domestic product a year for five years and the budget will come down to 18.5%. steve, when i hear political leaders or presidents talk about spending and deficits and they don't mention the target figure their lips are moving and they aren't telling the truth, get a target figure. i tell you are , 18.5% will fund what america needs and keep a strong military and help us grow jobs and make the government leni and provide a social security and medicare with some changes in both and we can talk about that but the next thing you have as a plan and the first thing is the budget target. 18.5%. the second thing is timing. it will take five years to do it right without hurting people, without slamming people to the ground while protecting our economy. and the third point i will make if i could quickly everything has to be on the table. you will treat some programs different from others, but it all has to be on the table. go after waste fraud and abuse, that's the old language i heard for 40 years and nobody goes after it. you have to cancel the debt problems and ask why you need an energy department you find no new leal, why you need an education department, they don't teach a single child, they haven't created a single new job so you go through that kind of reorganization and downsizing and then you ask for management and business principles to be adopted. i will give you to the examples. the number of federal employees who will retire in the next ten years is 42% of our work force. if we can take half of them and not replace them, they are retired, you're not firing them, replace half of them with new technology, you would make the government much more efficient and save about for. that is just one example. i could give you another example. we need to eliminate all of the energy subsidies and come up with an energy plan that saves you 45 billion. you can go right down the line. whenever these guys say all they can say is 38 billion out of a $3.6 trillion budget that are wrong they've never won a business or they never to the business plan together you can do it helping people, steve, you don't have to hurt. >> where would you cut and where would you get rid of? >> my enemies would say he's eliminated them. when taking a big bureaucratic functions. the resource data we need to have an energy policy data that we need to help our children, that if i can do it with a little money running both i would keep them. if i had to eliminate them to do what i want to do i would eliminate them. i would consolidate certain functions into a part of government which does the block grants and dimond overhead things that need to be done, but we don't need a department of education. we don't need a department of energy, we don't even need is a part of commerce. what we need is a lean government that helps companies and people that need help and stop growing a bureaucracy in washington, d.c., you could save billions if you would do it. now where would these functions go. education works best with choice and competition and that comes from the stage. so you could have a certain amount of money that would slow to the states to encourage choice. public charter schools, but you wouldn't need a department of education to do that. you would need an energy policy. my speech when i am sworn into office as president would include the statement that we would be energy independent by the end of this decade. i remember john kennedy talking in his term about by the end of this decade sending a man to the moon and back again safely. i can remember how that made me feel but yet with all due respect every president since richard nixon has been talking about being energy independent. deval tried and failed. where do you succeed? >> i will tell you right now what it includes. right now includes what we give you three points again. it includes mexico and canada as a part i call that domestic energy. we don't have to shift away long way. it's right next door so that north american place will be our domestic place. number two, we import about 15% of our oil and energy needs from the middle east and similar nations. to make the price out of sight and produce that amount for the energy domestically. it would include nuclear come under the new technology, japan was 37-years-old and 39-years-old we have to be careful, but i see nuclear as 20 to 25% i see it as high as 25%, i see natural gas going from 20% where it is now less than that to about 40%, plenty of natural gas in this country, and drilling for oil for new technology, we have one accident in 70 years, we've learned a lot from it and we need to let the states china in and the chance to drill offshore there we need alternative energy. my ki is shutting out the foreign oil. we are addicted to the middle eastern oil spills and it kills our foreign policy and costs us money. we send marines on oil to be. we needed an energy policy, and i plan to propose an exact energy policy that when combined with canada and mexico will leave us energy free by the end of this decade and no president, democrat, republican have ever proposed that before. >> you supported president reagan and bush and they placed on supreme court justices who supported in a fight-for decision the citizens united decision which is the critics would say open up the case of many supporters saying it's free speech. so, with that case in this election, to try to raise 100-dollar increments there's a lot of competition from outside forces who may be against you. >> big money never wins. in the long run the big money doesn't win because the american people are not dumb. the american people know when you want to get something in the tax bill you have to pay money and the average company person doesn't have the money to match the big boys. we've got to change the system. i'm not running against the man early on i'm running against the system and long before the supreme court ruled 5-4, steve, this place was in trouble. do what congress does have the time? the lease money. there's a fund raiser in washington for a few hours i guarantee i can if i wanted to come and buy the next day senior citizens, congressmen who want to retire hiring out as lobbyists the game was fixed that is why she could get the code in the tax code. that's why when president ronald reagan proposed the research and development tax credit back in '81, '82, and it was a great idea we boldly supported and the democrats were reluctant they told me, tip o'neill told me how will we know that it works? and we came up with a suggestion. let's try for two or three years, and if you like it, if we show that it works, that it creates jobs and gimmicks america more competitive than we will make it permanent. okay. the democrats let it pass. it was wonderful. it's still on the books by the way the do you know that it's never made permanent? it's one or two years at a time. you know why? did raise money with it. they go back to corporate america and say it is a good idea. it's helped america that we need to pass it again. please give to my campaign and steve committee will give $2,500. that's what you think it is. they get a heck of a lot more. they give speaker fees, the large amounts of money, they give pac money where there is no limit, they get to the party 100,000, 50,000, 100,000. this town is bought and sold and i am not pointing at just my party, the republican party although i will start there. .. >> you did health care without insurance company. i bet you didn't know, steve, that insurance companies are not under the sureman antitrust agent. they don't even have to compete. who wrote that? washington, d.c.. look, there's a lot right with america, and i love it, but the money has it by the throat, and even men who wanted change can't do it. i figure the only shot i have, steve, is to limit it to $100 and get one out of 100 americans to join me. we can do this. raise $300 million of clean, simple, small gifts, and turn this system around. i would start with the congress after i'm elected. i would meet with the leaders and say this can be done. look at what i did. let's change the law. let's make it constitutionally correct, but let's have some definition of how we're going to run elections and the money. our forefathers never thought it would be this way. we need to take it back again. >> and yet every presidential candidate runs on change. george bush talked about changing the tone of washington when he ran. we said we failed in that area. >> yeah. >> how do you succeed in changing the tone in washington where past presidents admit it didn't work? >> you're right, but no one's ever run on the money. since thee dore roosevelt asked this question, is the republican party going to be the party of plain people or is it going to be the party of privilege? 1911, 100 years. i'm running on the money. all these other problems need to be addressed, energy independence, spending that's out of control, taxes that need reform, small business that need to be put first on our list, global trade that is unfair and needs to be changed. i'm into it, but you can't do it unless you separate yourself from the money, and it makes people uncomfortable, steve. it makes people say, well, i wonder if buddy is serious. i am deadly serious. if you don't change the money, steve, you'll end up being like george w. bush, a good man, but didn't get it done. you'll be barak obama, pretty speeches, but nothing changes. i'll start with the one thing that changes everything, the money in politics. watch it happen. >> who is buddy roemer, why are you interested in politics, and how did you get started? >> i blame my father for it. my mom and father are still alive. >> where do they live? >> they live in north louisiana about ten miles from boser. i graduated in 1960 with a great group of classmen. most are still buddies of mine. i won't mention jerry payne or all the guys. i worked on a cotton farm, and my fore and father taught me the value of work. i worked hard all my life. i went to college at 16, went back to the farm, help the run it, went back to college at 19 and 20, and then i came back and started forming banks and other companies that i do. i got interested in politics which is what your question was at an early age. my mother and father taught us that no politician had all the answers. my mother and father taught us that no politician was perfect. my mother and father taught us that the only safeguard we have in this representative democracy is to keep checking on our politicians, and so they urged us to get involved. i volunteered working for political school board and other things. i never ran for office for a long time. i ran for the constitutional convention. we rewrote the state constitution. the delegates were elected, 105 of them, i was one of them, one the few nonlawyers, and then i ran for congress in 78, lost. our incumbent congressman retired, about 15 people ran. i never ran for office on a big scale like that, i finished third. i ran again two years later, and i was lucky enough to beat the guy who beat me. i was the only democrat to beat a democrat in the general election in 1980s. there's open laws in louisiana where everyone runs together regardless of their party. that's what got me interested in politics, kind of a family interest. we were conservative in our money. we were fairly liberal in our civil rights beliefs. in the deep south we were rare like that quite frankly. with my father receiving some cross burnings and turmoil in his life, but our family believes that people should be judged by their character, and i ran for office that way as a conservative, and i hold those views today. i was proud to change parties. i think i was the only governor to ever change parties while he served in office, and although it ended up in a train wreck for me, i was glad to do it. i thought it was the right thing to do. i like politics, and i don't want my absence from politics to be mistaken. it wasn't that i didn't care. i pay my taxes every year, and i'm proud to do it. i help others who run for office, but this time it seemed different to me. this time i was most disappointed in president obama. this time i felt the country was like a tsunami had hit washington, and 8% of the people didn't have work, and another 3 or 4% had quit looking, and another 10%-15% were working at half pay. there were no new jobs being created so i said this is time for a businessman. this is time for something with a plan, but most importantly, i thought this was time for somebody who either had the courage or the stupidity to stand against the big money. who i went to school with, i went to harvard undergraduate. i went to the harvard business school. i know these guys. they are not evil people. they are just looking after themselves, and they control washington. they laugh about it, steve. they laugh about it. well, i'm going to ask them to quit laughing. i'm going to ask them to be americans and stouter me or something -- support me or somebody better than me. if you find somebody with a plan, gets the things done, and treatings the lowest man as a valuable resource, vote for them. if you cont, vote for me. >> in "politico," it says it's huey long meets jerry brown campaign. >> i don't know what that means. "politico" guys are rough, aren't they? i didn't know huey long, but i did know jerry brown. you know, i'm a small businessman. i'm a -- you know, i'm an american. i believe in america. i am -- i have gotten to be this way in my fear of and disstain for the system. the system takes good women and men, and it doesn't let them do their job. they have to be raising money. it takes good men and women, and it won't let them lead because they get knocked down. i've been whipped a few times myself by special interest money. i've seen it. there was a guy in my state as you probably know if you did your research to spent a couple million of his money because i shut his business down fair and square because he was polluting the air and water big time. you know, he's taken his life's mission to beat me any time i try to do something. that happens. i want my politicians to be unafraid of that. it's time to rebuild the nation, steve, and so that's why at the age of 67, retired from politics, successful in business, alive and well, i've decided to try to make this a race not for the presidency, but for rebuilding america, of changing the corrupt part of our system. let me use the word "corrupt." i've been careful not to use it much because people think i'm talking about a person; i'm not. although, there are a few corrupt people, but i'm talking about a system, a system where we don't have the lowest tax rate on earth. a system where people of fabulous wealth don't have to pay their part. a system where the middle class of which i'm a member are going to end up paying much larger taxes if we keep on doing what we're doing now and have all their spirit killed. this country used to produce 2-4 million jobs a year, and in the last 12 years, it's produced zero, and it's the system that does it. it's the system that makes things too complicated and makes the real goings on in washington, steve, something that c-span can't cover. you're never invited into the caucus, not one time. you never invited where the boys do the deals. i've been there. i'm the only guy running for president whose been a congressman eight years and a governor full term just like mitt romney, four, and built my own company. i know this game, and it's not worth playing. we need to change it. >> couple personal questions. are you religious? >> i am a religious guy more than i used to be. you find as you get older, steve, you begin to settle down. you know, i got married at 19 and divorced ten years later. i got married a couple years after that, divorced 16 years later. i had my ups and downs, but my parents were always people of faith, methodist, and i have over the last 10-15 years become a regular church goer with my faith in the lord. i'm still a fiercely independent soul and i'm a sinner i'm sure, but i have a deep religious feeling. >> what were those experiences, those divorces like personally? >> oh, painful. you know, it probably takes two to have a divorce, but i hold myself responsible. i lost my focus. there was no scandal involved, but i was involved. i've been lucky with my three children, two from my first marriage, one from my second. we are very close. i helped raise them, and their mother did too, we made that an agreement in our divorce and my two former wives are wonderful people. i got remarried about 10 years ago. i never thought i would because it crushed me. my second divorce particularly. i mean, the first divorce is bad enough, but a second one -- i mean, i was governor when it happened. i mean, i cried like a baby. i looked like the speaker of the house. i say that with a smile on, but it crushed me. i had to rebuild my life. it took me almost a dozen years before i met the piano player in my church, scarlett is her name. she has two degrees in piano performance, also a register nurse, so she makes the living for the family while i run for president. she's my best friend, married ten years. i'm very fortunate. we have no children, just a couple of dogs and birds, and the goldfish died in december. that's the only bad news. two of three children live in baton rouge. one of them works for me in the bank. he's his own man. his name is dakota. my oldest son's name is chaz. my daughter, i'm most proud off, her name is caroline, she's in her mid-40s now. she'll hate me for saying that. she just had a son two years ago, and she lives in new orleans and runs the private organization, the executive committee for charter schools, public charter schools in louisiana. they have about 80-100 charter schools, one of the biggest in the country, and my daughter runs that. given all my train wrecks of marriage, i've learned -- i'm trying it again, ten years. i'm not a short hitter on these things, but i love my wife, and she is so generous with me. she lets me be buddy, but expects me to be there when it's important, and we worked that out. >> how did you get buddy? >> anybody named charles elson roemer iv, and you ride the school bus 14 miles to the high school better have another name than charles the iii, so it was butch. of course, here i was this skinny 80 pound, you know, junior in high school named butch, and some girls who shall go nameless thought that that was not a dignified name for me, and i need a more dignified name. i said what's that? they said buddy, and then i was buddy. >> what do your kids think about this potential bid, and what about your wife? >> scarlett is afraid. she's honest in her fear, but she thinks america needs a dose of me, that we need to deal with our subject matter honestly and openly and give people the impression that they won't be left behind. you know, i went to iowa with the other can dates. i think c-span covered part of it. i was the only one there with ethanol subsidies need to be removed as do all subsidies. we need subsidies? give me a break. scarlett likes that about me, but she has trepidation. she's never run for office. you've never interviewed her yet, and she's scared to death of that. get her behind a piano, and she'll love it. that's all she wants to say. she's encouraged me to take a look. my kids have been through politics before. they live with me when i was governor after my divorces, and afterwards even, so they have seen me in politics, and their fear is that i won't relax and have fun. they don't want to lose their daddy. that's their fear if i can say it that way, but they like the issues. they say that they would be proud to have me as president and testify on my behalf if it came to that. >> money aside because you talked about that. >> yes. >> how do you win this thing? what's your strategy? >> i'm going to concentrate on the iowa, new hampshire, south carolina trio in some form. i leave this interview and go to new hampshire for a week on the ground. i just finished a week in south carolina. i run like i'm running for governor of new hampshire. now, no fear, i'm not running for governor, but small cities, civic clubs, personal friends, guys i went to college with, community bankers, republicans who share my views, tea partyers who would like to take it to the next step, independents who think we need to pull together, i'll do that in new hampshire. i'll do that in south carolina, and i'll do that in iowa, and my expiration is -- inspiration is two or three things. one is can i learn to reside the bicycle again? it's been twenty years. politics are faster now. the speed of politics inspires me to do this. the internet is my friend. we bank there, growing me bank to two-thirds of a billion dollars in five years. we've really used that, so i'm doing the same thing in my campaign. after a couple of weeks of my $100 limit, itch -- i have contributions from 37 different states, and i've only been to three, so my words go much further than they used to, and so the heart of my political strategy is to emphasize the money with the phrase free to lead a rising nation. use the internet, those who believe as i do, and come together with a critical mass. it'll take awhile. i want lead any polls. in fact, the first poll i show up on will be victory. that's how it was when i ran for governor. i was 6th place for one year. i went from 1% to 6%, and i knew i was going to win at 6%. i got to reach a critical mass here. don't judge roeme rerks by other standards. they have packs and planes and big payroll. no, that's what's wrong with the government. i don't think you can be a president running one way and then serving another, -- >> but you need a staff to run a campaign. >> you do, and right now i have two barely paid staffers and about six volunteer staff members who are helping me organize this. i have some good minds. i mean, i'm not ready to give youly laundry list, but it's good. i go to college campuses, recruit young people, i go to business communities. i recruit executives who are nonwall street but know how to grow jobs. i go particularly to small businesses. i'm a small business guy. i'll tell you a fact. two out of every three new jobs created in america, the last 35 years were from small businesses. the white house had a big economic summit two months ago. there wasn't a small businessman invited. the "wall street journal" has their annual ceo, 100 ceo's and there's not a small businessman there. no wonder they don't know what's going on in the world. i'm giving mom and pop businesses, small people, involved in my cam pape. that's the way i'm going to build it. >> how's your health? you had a couple issues with heart surgery. >> i'm 67. i weigh 151 pounds. i'm in good shape. i'm an exerciser, a pushup guy. i try to do my age, i'm 67. oh, lord, somebody in new jersey will ask me to do it, i can't wait. i had open heart surgery five and a half years ago. i don't remember the date, well, june 21st 2005, right before katrina. i'm a diabetic, and after years of diabetic, open heart surgery is required. i had five artery replacements. before i announced my exploratory committee for the first time i went for a full array of tests with my doctors in baton rouge. we did a nuclear stress test. never had that done before, but he said perfect. he said perfect running order. he said i don't know about your mind, but your body is in good shape, and that is what i wanted my doctor to tell me. i was not a teenager when i became a diabetic, but i was in my 20s. it was then called juvenile diabetics, anything before 30. they changed the language now, but i'm an i insulin dependent diabetic. i wear a pump that allows me to run for president. i thought about this for 20 years, making money, it's got worse and worse, so my thoughts have gotten angrier and angrier and i couldn't run before because i didn't have a pump. governor was okay, but i had my moments. i'm here to tell every diabetic to smile. you're looking at me. i'm doing this thing, and the pump, the new technology is making it possible. >> last question. as you size up the republican field, you mentioned some of the names, what are your thoughts? how do you size out your competitors? >> good people, i like them, but nobody's taken on the real issue. president can't balance the budget. president can't rewrite the tax code. he can lead. you need a president to do those things. the issue is the money. the issue is we've taken the greatest nation on earth, a representative democracy, and i have a question for you. who are they representing? washington's the boom town and the tax code is burdened with special gifts for a few. we're going to take our country back, and that means from the corrupt political system, and when we do, i make a prediction. i won't get my way on everything as our leader for four years, but we'll change so many things, steve, that you'll have an interview with me in two years and say wow, it is possible. you can't change it the old way because we have to match them dollar for dollar. bad idea for bad idea, but the new way, plain people with a number of small clean contributions, america's best days are coming. >> governor buddy roemer, thank you for your time. >> thanks. >> former massachusetts governor and 2008 presidential candidate mitt romney took the steps towards a second presidential bid today saying he's taking steps in forming an exploratory committee. the u.s. senate returns tuesday at 10 a.m. for morning business. at 11, they begin considering two judicial nomination, and later this week, votes expected on federal funding for planned parenthood and repealing the health care law as well as the agreement on 2011 spending that was reached late friday night. live coverage of the u.s. senate when members return on c-span2. >> in a couple minutes, a meeting on nasa's 2012 budget. >> nasa administrator charles bolden testified on nasa's 2012 budget request for 18.7 billion which if approved suspends it at 2010 levels for the next year. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> the subcommittee will come together. today, we take the testimony administer honorable astronaut charles bolden to review the nasa 2012 request and to also talk about how this might be also in light of what we just had gone through. the administrator we'll see you, we want to thank you for coming here on a monday at four o'clock. the hearing normally occurs on thursday mornings. we couldn't deal you when we thought we could, but we did not want to delay the hearing because it would have taken us after the easter passover recess, and we wanted to be able to really get cracking on our 2012 appropriations, so we thank you for doing this, and we look forward to your testimony. well, i'm going to see we're going to be here, so both of us, all of us were declared essential. i know that what we just moved through last week was a cliff hanger. it rattled many people. i certainly rattled us. we thought it would have been a disaster had we had a shutdown, but really the economy and the reputation of the united states of america. we have now been called upon to accept $78 billion worth of cuts from the president's 2011 request, $39 billion below the 2010 level. that was the mark that was given us. now, all of our staff's have worked through the night, and i'd like to thank senator hutchenson's staff for really hanging in there and working with us. i might add, administrator bolden, that congressman wolff worked pretty tirelessly to meet our obligation to report a bill to not only the subcommittee, but tonight at midnight, so you'll hear about a lot of things and we want to hear from you about where we think that you are. we're very proud of nasa. this is the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's call to send a person to the moon and return them safely. from our human space flight, our visit to the moon, our ambitions to even go further, we're so proud what we've done with human space flight, and we look forward to supporting human space flight initiatives. when we look ahead at space science, the wanders of the space telescope to others in the area of earth science, planetary science, protecting our power grid are all important. we know that the nasa -- that what nasa does is part of really creating the new ideas for the innovation economy. today, the speech to the maryland space round table, and i said every time nasa lifts often, it takes the american economy with us because it is about innovation, and it is about jobs. last year, congress gave nasa a new path forward. ranking member hutchenson and i worked with senator bill nelson on a new authorization bill, and i'd like to complement the gentlelady from texas and what she and chairman nelson achieved. we believe that is the framework that we could achieve that meets the president's priorities, but understanding the priefties of the space coalition here in the senate for a very balanced based program. we need investments in science and aeronautics, but we have to remember we move human space flight and that to be sustainable, being able to go to the international space station until 2010 and also broadening our human reach beyond low earth orbit with the o'rien capsule and now we are seeing if we have the wallets to match the ambitions. i will work to implement a balanced space program. last year we agreed to $19 billion. well, it's not going to come out that way, and so for this year we're an anticipating an appropriations if we stick to the president's request, at $18.7. we know that the science request is at $5 billion, and we also need to make sure important projects like that don't get from under us like the james webb telescope, and also i'll focus more on that in the questions. i'm also concerned about aeronautics research. i'm afraid we're falling away and falling behind in that area. our european counterparts are making very heavy investments in aeronautic research, and i hope they would like to dominate civilian aeronautics. well, i just don't think it's fun to go to the paris air show to hear about what paris is doing. when america goes, it's because we're really doing the best of the best. we know that the budget request of $2.8 billion and the o'ryan capsule for the human space flight program, and we will have to say we have to take a good look at that. we're also very impressed with what's going on, however, in cots particularly relating to cargo. we think that's going to be a very big success story that we'll be able to take cargo to unmanned spacecraft, to the space station while we observe, watch, and see where we go in human space flight. we'll also maintain our accountability and our oversight, but we want to get to you rather than my opening statement. i'm going to turn to the ranking member. someone who -- we've worked on space three terms now, vice president we? >> uh-huh. >> i am so glad that we're colleagues here on this meater. turning to senator hutchenson. >> i want to thank you, madam chairman because you have indeed be a partner in making the very best efforts for nasa in all of its missions and i particularly want to thank the chairman's staff, gabby for working with my staff so closely to assure nasa does have a balanced plan going forward that will achieve the results that we all want. i thank you for coming, and as the chairman mentioned, we are at some very major anniversaries and some very major crossroads. we are about to see the end of the nation's ability to launch our own astronauts into space. the space shuttle served the country well for 30 years and made it possible to create a significant science platform in space. while nasa should be making plans to fully utilize the station using our own launch capabilities, i don't think that is happening. we could be working with our international partners, with our universities, and companies to capitalize on our unique national lab in space. in fact, it was the commerce committee and our authorization that created our part of the space station as a national lab in order to be able to attract private and university academic funding for research, and that is just beginning to bear fruit, but now i see the administration placing our investment in the space station and its capabilities at risk as well as our future exploration capabilities. wops the shuttles are retired, we will be reduced to buying seats on russian vehicles for the foreseeable future. they have been our long time partners with the space station, but we should not expect them to shoulder their space program and ours when we should be able to do it ourselves. nasa has the o'ryan cap chul investing significant time and resources in to carry our astronauts, and yet to this day, nasa is refusing it to move forward. they revised it last year, and congress followed reinstating it as a vehicle to take us to an asteroid or even back to the moon. i heard from your associates last month in the commerce committee that they understand that the authorization law directs the building of a capsule and a heavy lift vehicle. they know it fits the bill as the multipurpose crew vehicle, and that it will take very little to modify the contracts as allowed for in the authorization law. in fact, even the scope of the contracts would need little alteration. like the president, i have no problem continuing to call the capsule we are developing o'reign, yet, we see no movement from nasa to continue the program at all. this budget proposes only $1 billion for o'ryan in fy12 while the authorized level for the same year calls for $1.4 billion, and prior to cancellation attempts would have had it at $2 billion. this budget hamstrings the ability for o'reign to reach an operatability date in 2016. the fy12 vision for human space flight offered as a variant of the observation is the creation of new prime contractors providing them with funds. it is nasa's hope that providing venture capital will that they then can usher in a new era in space exploration, but there is little proof that what is being promised can be reality. the commercial orbital transportation services program is finally beginning to show promise, but it is sixtily behind -- significantly behind schedule. there was a 60% increase in funds to ensure the program would be successful, but because it's been slower to produce results, the sts135 fight has now become critical for the near term viability of the space station. this leaves primary crew delivery to the space station open to commercial entities with o'reign as a backup. however, given the track record so far for cargo and nasa's underfunded budget proposal, existing -- and existing programs, the nation could find itself with neither crew option available when our latest renegotiated contact with the russians ends. what we did is allow for a mix of government and commercial to cover all of our country's needs. nasa needs to find a proper and justified balance without placing our human space program at risk. while i know the commercial companies could be successful, i do not feel that the information straibl justifies such a large investment of federal dollars this year for commercial vehicle. i also believe that the same scrutiny that has been placed upon our other manned vehicles should be applied to commercial crew to ensure that viability and safety of our astronauts are ensured, so mr. administrator, i will put the rest of my statement in the record, but i am hopes we can establish a partnership going forward that adheres to the authorization law that is a balance that does provide the funds for the commercial vehicle, but not at the expense of o'reign and all of the capability to use what we've already spent billions to do productively going forward. thank you, madam chairman, and i yield back to you. >> yes, i'd like to now turn the sherrod brown from chicago, a new, but very active member of the committee. senator, you want to say something? >> i'll say 30 seconds worth. first of all, thank you for welcoming me to the subcommittee and ology the jurisdictions and the nasa jurisdiction is important to me. i appreciate you coming to cleveland and speaking at the city club laying out visions. i'm concerned as i know we all are at what the nasa budget could look like with hr1, with the new ryan budget introduced in the house last week and the budget that sweeps some part of the house and senate and what that means on funding one of the most important parts of the federal government, that is the innovation, the research, the missions, the aerognattic advantage, the advantage in aeronautics that we had in the country for decades in making sure that we can continue to be leading edge there, but if we're going to cut taxes and continue to cut taxes on the wealthiest people in the country and continue to underfund the important parts of government, that scientific edge, we're going to lose that, and i know general bolden is leading the charge to be sure we don't lose it, and i appreciate that. thank you, madam chair. >> administrator bolden? >> good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you nasa's fiscal year 2012 budget request, and i thank you very much for being here, senator brown. good to see you. >> you too. >> as chair of the subcommittee, you continue to provide critical leadership and oversight of our nation's space program, and i'd like to recognize senator hutchison, a long time member of the committee in her role of the ranking member in the subcommittee. i thank you and all members of the long standing support you give to nasa. we have a common passion for science, nasa, aeronautics and the benefits they bring the nation. ilook forward to working to the as we have in the past. it's my privilege today to discuss the president's fiscal year 2012 budget request of $18.7 billion for nasa. recognizing the president's commitment to financial constraint, i'm pleased we are holding the levels to 2010. this budget request continues the agency's focus on a reinvigorated path of innovation and technology discovery leading to an array of challenging destinations and missions that engage the public. madam chair, you and each member of the subcommittee should have two charts before you to which i call your attention. chart one is the pie child support showing at a high level the scope of the 2012 budget which represents a balanced and integrated program. the nasa authorization agent of 2010 has given the agency a clear direction. nasa is moving forward with the details and the 2010 budget. as you can see in chart two, the budget request for nasa funds all major elements of the nasa authorization act and supporting a diverse portfolio of key programs. because these are tough times, we had to make some tough, some difficult choices. reductions have been necessary in some areas so that we can invest in the future while living within our means. this budget request maintains a strong commitment to human space flight, science, aeronautics, and the development of new technologies, and education programs that help us win the future. it carries out programs of innovation to support long term job growth and dynamic economy that will help us out innovation, out educate, and out build all others in the world. along with our fiscal year 12 budget requests, we published our 2011 strategic plank, and if you don't have it or the staff doesn't, let us know, and we'll get a copy to everybody. nasa's core mission remains the same as it has been since our inception in 1958. it supports our vision shown on the inside the strategic plan to reach new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all human kind. on march 9, we completed the mission, one of the final three flights to the international space station. discovery delivered a member and supplies to support the station's scientific research and technology demonstrations. that was a joke by the way -- okay. we are currently preparing the space shuttle endeavor for the mission to be launched on april 29th which delivers the ams. the ms experiment uses the unique environment of space to advance knowledge of the universe and lead to the understanding of the universe's origin. this will be the 36th shuttle mission to the station and final flight for endeavor. while with the pending completion of sts135, it's my plan to announce the decisions regarding the recipients of orb tores tomorrow, the 30th anniversary of the first space shuttle flight. our program continues to venture in ways with long term benefits, and there are many more milestones in the very near term. our priorities in human space flight in the fiscal 2012 budget request are to maintain safe access for astronauts to be in orbit as we utilize the space station, to facilitate safe, reliable, and u.s. cost provided for american astronauts and their supplies as soon as possible to begin laying the ground work for human presence in deep space, the moon, asteroids, and eventually mars with a heavy lift rocket and multipurpose crew vehicle and pursue development to carry humans further into the solar system. these initiatives enable america to retain its position as a leader in space exploration for generations to come. at the same time, in our other endeavors, we have to extend our reach with other observatories to learn more about our home planet and the solar system and peer beyond it to the origins of the universe. this funds 56 science missions currently in operation and 28 more in various stages of development. just as one example, on march 17th of this year after traveling more than six years and 4.9 billion miles, the nasa message's spacecraft entered orbit around mercury. this gives us our first look at the planet from orbit, help us understand the forces that shaped it, and provide a fundamental understanding of the trees yal planet and their evolution. in addition, we will pursue ground breaking research in the next round of aviation technologies and carry out education programs to help develop the next generation of science, technology, engineers, and mathematics professionals. that's a lot. nasa thrives on doing big things. we have vastly increased human knowledge in our discoveries and technologies that improved life here on earth. in spite of the difficulties we encountered with the james webb telescope, we have changes in management, increased oversight from my office, and continue to work with the program to revise a baseline by the end of april to include options addressing lightly funding scenarios. the official plan will be submitted as part of the fiscal year 13 budget. i want to commend the nasa work force both civil service and contractors across the nation for their dead nation to our missions during this time of transition and change. these workers are our greatest assets, and they make us all proud. they fully understand the risk of our exploration and welcome the challenge. they will be the ones making tomorrow happen. needs are exciting and dynamic times for us at nasa. the challenges ahead are significant, but so are the opportunities. we have to achieve big things to create a measurable impact on our economy, our world, and our way of life. i thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee, and i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you, administrator bolden, and i know you have all given us a far more ample and detailed statement. i'm going to ask unanimous concept that along with your oral testimony that this detailed statement be included in the record. >> thank you, ma'am. >> now, we have in other hearings have been talking about asking administrators about the consequences of the cr. actually, where we are today, you're going to ask us the consequences of the cr. rather than going into that today, here's what i suggest. at midnight today, the senate appropriations committee will present its bill, as i understand it will be out on the web at www.appropriations.senate.gov, am i correct? >> i'm not sure. >> he's the ranking full committee chairman, so pretty much it will come out around midnight and that will be the full bill. my suggestion to you and will be enormously helpful is that when that comes out, i know you're going to scrub it. >> yes, ma'am. >> to see what we did so you know what you need to do. when you do that, it would be useful if you then could share with both senator hutchison and myself, senator inn way and senator cochran what you think that means to nasa and means for 2012. we are all in number games rushing to meet the deadlines, and i know there's always a leadership presence already there, so what we want to say as full partners, scrub what we've done, and then come back and tell us what it means to 2012 because in effect, you're going to be below 2010. >> yes, ma'am, madam chair, we'll do that and look forward to it. >> now, let's go to the 2012 as proposed by the president and your advocacy today. we want to join with the president in his national goal about building and out innovating and out educating. at the same time, we need to be stewards of the money. i'd like to raise some questions about those things that could be targets for big cuts, particularly those who have not spent the time on nasa like our colleagues at the table. that goes to the james webb telescope. the james webb telescope is scheduled to be 100 times more powerful than the hobble telescope, but we were troubled about its management, the use of money. we asked for a report, the kasani report that said it was technically sound, but we, meaning nasa, had to have a real sense of urgency related to management in keeping on track for both deadlines and expendtures. you and i had a private conversation about that some weeks ago, but could you tell us now what is nasa doing one to have a sense of urgency, and two that it has top level attention and not delivered to the coordinator of the coordinator of the coordinator and we have now this spectacular opportunity on track because quite frankly, we, on a bipartisan basis cannot sustain technology with repeated coast overruns. the house won't put up with it, and quite frankly, with no money to spare, we won't either. we want this telescope. it's important to our future. tell us what you're going to do now to make sure we can cover this and what your timeline is and your management and urgency activities are. >> senator, when we talked, and as i told you then, there's not anyone more disappointed and angry than i when we got to the bottom of the situation where we found ourselves with hubble, but since then, we have moved with urgency. as i mentioned in the opening statement, we -- the telescope continues to make exceptional tech any logical progress, but i have made significant management changes in nasa. the program now is my responsibility, and i have delegated my associate administer, chris, to oversee that program for me, and he meets with the team on a regular basis several times a week, and also meets with some of your staff. >> what is the team in >> the team consists of rick howard, the program manager. >> okay, go ahead. >> at nasa head quarters. ed wilder, the association of science. the program comes to him now, and it is not -- i extracted it from the former division in astrophysics because it was unfair to put a program of that magnitude in the astrophysics divisions. >> what are you doing meeting with the private sector building it? >> we are working with northrop, our contractor, i talk with wes bush periodically. they made management changes, and i defer to them to explain to you what they have done. we communicate them on a routine basis every week. we try to make sure that -- >> now, you've got this on track. you review it. now, tell me how much money is needed to keep the webb on track, and is it in 2012? >> senator, we are working to complete our baseline bottoms up assessment to bring you a draft baseline assessment hopefully by the end of this month. >> do you know this is nod adversary. i'm trying to drill deep on the issue. >> we do not think we need money in fiscal 11 to continue to carry the program to the point where we can make what we think now is reasonable launch date of 2018, but if we, you know, something does happen, and we have more funds in 2011, we'll put them to use to accelerate the testing that we're doing or for some of the other developmental work. we right now are looking at how much we need to add to 2012 to this committee and -- >> well, back to the report, which i know is add viz reinvigorated. they needed $500 million each year in 2011 and 2012, and it's not there. >> senator, i respect the kasani report and when i looked at what they said and where we are in these fiscal times, i cannot -- i cannot responsibly bring myself to this committee or any other and propose that someone tried to find $500 million a year, you know, for the foreseeable future. we are working up a baseline, and there will be some additional spending required, but we have not arrived at that yet, but i hope to have you an original estimate by the end of the month. >> well my time has come to a close, and i want my colleagues to participate. i know their keen interests because we have big tickets in human space flight, and this telescope is a big ticket in space science. first of all, we really appreciate the president adding $5 million -- excuse me $5 billion -- >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> [inaudible] >> to the science budget, but let me tell you what i worry about. oh, we're going to live in our fiscal time and time of austerity and spartan spartan. i'm all for that. everybody here is for a more frugal government, but i'm ready to be frugal, but not foolish. . .w and we then end up paying two or three times later. that is what i do not want to. i need a realistic picture because this is a rational group of people who work together. we needed to hear truly what is needed to and not what you think you can get the omb to agree to. or we can get the house or ourselves to agree to, but we need to know that. i also need to know that if we do not spend the money now, when will we spend it? will it ultimately cost us more? i think we have been around the track on some of these things. either they grow and become a boondoggle. i am concerned that if we do not do the right thing now and that it will cost us more in the future. we really do need your wise counsel on this. we think the president's support of science. -- we thank the president's support. senator? >> i will defer and go after. >> senator cochran? >> madame chair, thank you very much for the leadership of our subcommittee and working in concert with our other committee members. mr. administrator, we appreciate your cooperation with our committee in your presentation today. despite some uncertainties about the fiscal year 2011 budget, i am hopeful that we can stay on track to meet the goal of developing the heavy lift capacity for operation by 2016. i am hopeful that is a 130 ton capacity. i know that your advice is important in keeping us on track in terms of taking the right steps with the funding of those activities that will help us reach that goal. we would to be sure we have ample rocket testing results and an infrastructure to support this capability. we know that safety, confidence , natural interests -- national interests are all goals that we share. we know you are on the same team and we appreciate your leadership. you mention in your written testimony about the investment importance for a 21st century launch complex. this strikes me as a way to describe what we have in the nasa facilities in mississippi- louisiana area which have become so important to the launch infrastructure. do you have enough funding requested in this budget request to ensure that we meet the updates to keep the schedule that is in place for fiscal year 2011 and 12 to improve the rocket propulsion testing infrastructure? >> as we have discussed, the 2012 budget will support this continued development of our testing capabilities at stennis. we went to complete the testing of the 8-3. as you are probably well aware, stennis has become rejuvenated and reinvigorated. we have had three tests of the a j-26 this year which is the rocket produced by arrow jump form orbital sciences. we have a test supposedly going on today and when we get the 83 test done, we will test a bigger and more advanced engines. >> what are your views toward using existing rassa infrastructure with regards to testing commercial launch vehicles? >> we have demonstrated our capability to do that. the first time we tested an engine at stennis was the aj-26. it was a ukrainian rocket that had been modified for domestic production and also a rocket we are currently talking to erakat and it has the potential -- talking to aerojet. >> do future plans involve subsidizing commercially on the testing infrastructure elements? >> i do not use the term "subsidizing." we provide the test facility. that is what stennis is. it is for the united states and we want to get everyone to come there to do their tests. we will make sure that we are competitive in terms of cost, we will take all comers. >> thank you. thank you, madame chairwoman. >> senator brown? >> thank you, madame chair. good to see. the previous administration declared 10 help these centers and lathes responsibilities for each. when we spoke prior to your confirmation, you assured me the policy was no longer needed because tell -- nasa had 10 help the centers. we were promised the etdd program with the 2012 budget request. we are giving money only been told that a significant portion will be at glenn. nasa has a history of allowing the centers to fight among themselves and not a day goes by where i hear if nasa glenn will be getting a mission. instead of collaboration between and among centers, they want to encourage the competition. i have seen what happens when congress provides nasa latitude to shift funding. two questions on this issue. do you have a serious commitment to the goals of the previous policy of 10 healthy centers and the people who work there? second, how will you work with congress to detail a more specific plan for the 10 health centers? >> i have a very serious commitment to nine or 10 functioning, efficient centers -- nine and the propulsion lab. help the is a relative term. this -- because of the fiscal constraints we are all under, the centers are stressed. you talk about h.r. 1, for example. a change like that would have a dramatic effect on a center. i have the best center directors in the world. i have the best work force in the world and we are doing everything we can to make sure that we balance the work across the 10 at nasa centers. we want to make sure that we of a balanced portfolio in the agency. we want vibrate involvement in technology development, science, and human space flight. what we are trying to do, which is different than the way it was before, is that i am not asking every center to be capable of participating in every single thing we do. i want to find out what their sweet spot is and let them do that. the center directors enjoy that and the members of the work force enjoy that. i am committed to making sure that all of our centers say as strong as they can. >> and i can be assured that the work will be at glenn regardless of where the office of the chief of technology is located? >> the answer is yes. >> they do not necessarily believe that. >> i know the center director does. he understands, and as he has probably told you before, he is not worried about having titles, but he is interested in having contracts and the work. the program management office at a center does not mean that the center is going to handle the bulk of the work in the program. it just means that is with the focus of the oversight will be. gleenn is where much of the work will be done. glenn will make out well. >> let me shift to an issue we have spoken about many times. i would like you to detail the selection of the shuttle and the process of nasa overtook in deciding where the retiring shuttles would be exhibited. i never heard you, your top assistants, the white house, or anyone else, talk about this commission that supposedly was put together four years ago that will apparently decided the disposition with the nasa authorization law that set out guidelines and the world that the commission is planning. can you explain, won a, who is going to decide? >> commission on deciding where the orders go? >> yes. >> if there is such a thing, i do not know about it. i will make the decision this afternoon. if i need to consult with them, someone should tell me quickly. >> we make that decision based on the last person you talk to? -- will you make that decision based on the last person you talk to? >> no, sir. >> "yes, sir" would have been preferable. >> for once, i have no dog in this fight. >> said the decision is yours and there is no statutory commission? >> and not to my knowledge. i have made an effort to keep people, not the president, but people close to the president informed of the process we are falling. i have made an attempt to keep the staff here in the house and senate and the process that we were following and we offered to brief people on the process. we established, i think, 10 criteria for consideration. we had a 29 applicants for an order. all of them met the criteria in varying degrees. what i will base my decision this afternoon is based upon points that were assigned to the degree to which they met the criteria. it has nothing to do with where it is or anything, but just how they fell out in the matrix of criterium and the points awarded for it. there will be 25 people who will not be happy. four will be really happy. >> the three shuttles that will been sent to these three locations, are you also deciding on the enterprise, the one that has never flown or only on the three that will have a flown in? >> the decision is being made on the distribution of all four orbiters. the smithsonian is in competition with everyone else. i have four orbiters to dispose of. i know i am being picky, but all of them have a fun. enterprise was the first or better in the conducted on the approach and landing tests. it flew 3 times and had challenging things happened to it. it is a vehicle in and of itself in terms of being a pioneer. those four will be distributed around the country to the four places. >> has the enterprise been promised or is owned, by some definition, by the smithsonian? >> the smithsonian is in the recipient of all artifacts from space flight. we are working with the smithsonian and my committee to determine how we go about that. i will make that announcement tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. >> can i continue for two minutes, madam chair? this matters a lot to dayton, ohio. if those -- if one of those three that has been defined as having a mission, going up, and the enterprise is defined as less so, generally, if one of them goes to the smithsonian, does that mean the enterprise will go somewhere else? >> if one of them ends up at the smithsonian, they only get one. i will take possession of an enterprise and it will be up to nasa to determine where the enterprise does. >> if one of these three goes to the smithsonian, can you make a decision tomorrow? you will decide where some go the consolation prize, some call it much more than that, make that decision then? >> i make the decision between when i leave this session and when i announce it tomorrow where all four space shuttle orbiters are going. when i make the announcement marked it will be very specific. it will cite the order and its destination. -- the orbiter and it's destination. this has been as pure as i can make it and free of political involvement. i can say that until i am live in the face, but there will always be someone who has the opinion that it was not the case. the team that i put together before i became the administrator has done an incredible job over the last couple of years and i would just hate to see at their word being castigated by someone who had undue influence. >> date now ohio is within one day of the -- >> i know theat very well. >> the only two prominent people i know are not from ohio are nelson mandela and mother teresa. senator hutchison? >> the nasa authorization bill allows nasa to modify any contract from the constellation program and it seems that a ryan would be the perfect candidate for such action. -- orion would be the candidate. you would use the expertise that we have already invested to go to the next generation of vehicles. the president himself brought back orion last year. your staff and managers of green -- agree orion is the vehicle and falls within the scope of the law. yet, it does not seem the contract modifications are happening. do you intend to modify the current launch vehicle as directed in thte law? or will this be strong out so it cannot be revived? >> there may be no requirement for a modification to orion. it was designed as a deep space exploration vehicle. the basic information that we have the today says that the scope of the orion contract, the existing contract, as a deep space exploration vehicle, easily matches the scope of what the column of the purpose crew vehicle. it may come down to the fact that the scope matches so well that there is no need to modify the contract. in any of the contracts that we have today, we cannot pay the amount of money that was contracted in number of years ago. there will be negotiations among us and all of our contractors because we have to get costs down. we may have to descope the vehicle. it s the design reference. i do not care what the name of it is. >> let me ask you this. are you taking the previous contract for the constellation, which is no longer, and modifying those so that we get the next generation, the orion, both launched and capsule? >> that is our hope. we have had the lawyers and procurement people looking at mapping the scope of the existing contracts to what it is we want to do for a ball. heavy lift vehicle and a multipurpose crew vehicle. senator cochran mentioned a home 130 ton vehicle and that is-- mentioned a 130 metric ton vehicle and that is what we judge is needed for deep space exploration. it will be an evolving program. the first vehicle may only be 70 metric tons, but eventually it will be 130 metric tons. and >> the budget request for the two. dollar billion, which is level until 2016-- the budget request for the $2.8 billion, which is level, are you telling us you are transporting that in a timely manner so it will be done in a timely way even with the flat budget you request? >> we are using the expertise and assets of the constellation program. the vehicle orion is already in testing for a multi-purpose crew. lockheed martin under the constellation contract, which i am not allowed to terminate, because the constellation program, which still exists, i told them that we should focus on putting our money on technology and assets that could move forward to deep space exploration systems. that is what we are doing. we are not making much progress on a heavy lift vehicle right now because it is not clear that the aries configuration is one you want to go with. the design vehicle for a space launch system is not been -- not the aries system. there will be some modification needed to go to a shuttle- derived system. >> you say you are not able to cancel orion, but the authorization bill took the place of any previous supplementals or appropriations. the law is the authorization bill. are you saying that you believe they were fully utilizing the previous consolation contracts for the next generation vehicle and that we are not wasting money pursuing something that is now obsolete but that you are expeditiously using that money for the orion vehicle? >> we are complying with the authorization act. i am out of my league, so i will ask your staff and my people. my understanding is that i am still governed by the 2010 appropriations law which says i cannot cancel. i can do no action, taken action to cancel the constellation program or to stop any expenditures on the program. what i did though was i said we wanted to spend the taxpayers' money very prudently. in some cases, we stopped doing things that were in the constellation program because we knew they were not going anywhere. there were things that have not begun yet and contract have not even started. i said, "okay. let's not start them let's just stop right there." >> let me jump in. senator hutchison, they are right. the authorization you and senator nelson did did not remove the prohibition on the constellation. however, i think if we all just sit tight and think of what we will be looking at as of this d.r. moves forward -- as teh c.r. moves forward. your questions are excellent. >> they can modify and use common sense to know that the authorization bill takes the place of the original 2010 supplement. you are going to get more help. our concern is that you had not been using the capabilities that you had for modification to stop obsolete things but continue using the same technology, experience, and people moving forward towards orion. >> i have directed that we spend money for things useful to the exploration system going forward. you had a report that said we were wasting funds by using money on obsolete constellation contracts. that is not the case. we took issue with the report. we submitted our own report to identify the areas where we were doing exactly what he said. we are spending money on the o'brien vehicle -- orion vehicle. we are spending money on doing some things from the o'brien -- orion -- constellation program that look like they will match up well to a space launch system. we're trying not to spend money on things that will not go forward. we're not wasting the taxpayer'' money. >> that would be our hope. we have worked with your staff and the gao to completely clarified going forward after this next continuing resolution that you will have complete freedom to follow the orion pursuit in the 2010 law passed for authorization. i do have another question. i know other people -- we can have a second round. >> ask that question and then we can pick up. >> i want to go back to the law passed in 2010 on the orbiter vehicle. senator brown suggested the last person you talked to might be the person you listen to -- i am kidding. you said the criteria should have priority consideration given to eligible applicants that meet the other conditions. they would be those that have the best potential value for the public. they would advance educational opportunities in science, engineering, mathematics and with a historical relationship with either the launch, flight operations, or processing of the space shuttle orbiters or retrieval or significant contributions to human space flight. if you go back to the priority consideration, it seems to me it would be difficult to leave out both houston and florida. i know you are getting ready to make the decision. i think you have acknowledged that when people think of our space shuttle, they think of mission control in houston. they think of the astronauts training in houston. they think of the tape where we want. i want to ask you how much is the historical relationship with the flight operations launche, etc., weighing in on the factors in your decision? >> the people who made the recommendations to me did not include the prior authorization from the law. i was aware of it. i think you will find when the announcement is made that every biter has aving an orde connection to human space flight. everyone has a historical connection to the space shuttle. >> the priority of the law would prevail. correct? >> yes. we will comply fully with the law. >> mr. administrator, i want to come back to senator hutchison's questions about the orion constellation, etc. some time this week, we will pass the final continuing resolution for this year. what i am going to suggest is that your staff review the legislation and the issues ison.d by senator hutcheso back and brief us on where we are on the topics of we are all aware. we want to make sure that we all understand the same thing. then we can identify if any other further clarification is needed. does this sound like a good way to go? i think there is confusion between the authorization, what you are mandated to do, and what we'vmaybe some activities we do. >> i think as much input as we can get and as much as we can work together, absolutely. i believe so much of our goal was a balanced approach for manned space flight and that we would have the commercial and nasa experience working hand-in- hand on a dual track for the development of the next generation of vehicles. that is what i am trying to achieve. i hope that is what you are trying to achieve. that is what we're trying to do continuing resolution and the follow on budget. >> the policy goals we have agreed upon through the authorization. the stewardship of federal funds is something we're all committed to. we are in an atmosphere of making every dollar count. we want all talent to count. i was so pleased in your comments and the opening statement when you acknowledged the incredible talent at nasa. a lot of people put a lot of hard work into that. we do not want to throw out the ideas and what we can benefit from. we do not want to waste money. we are all obsessed with jobs, mr. administrator. as the shuttle winds down, people were deeply concerned in florida. people at all the centers are very worried about jobs. we're looking at how to continued innovation with jobs of the future. i think every member here is concerned about jobs today. we need to talk about that. i want to come back to the frugal government and making dollars account. i know the gao has identified nasa contract management -- they have nasa on the high-risk list. in the annual review of large- scale nasa projects from the gao found that development costs for the 16 projects that have entered major development had grown nearly 15%. that is not even with the telescope issue. g.a.o. has also told the subcommittee that are encouraged by nasa's corrective action plan. you are on the high risk list. gao says you are making progress. what are you doing to make sure that nasa contract management is implementing the gao recommendations? should we be moving away from cost plus contract into fixed price contract in? is that just a gimmick? how do you get off of the gao high-risk list? what are you doing so we feel confident about this? also, do you have thoughts on the new world order and contracting? >> in managing expectations, i doubt that nasa will ever be off the high risk list. everything we do is higher risk. we do dangerous and risky things. we take big challenges that nobody else can do. unfortunately, we do one-of-a- kind type programs. we do things that have never been done before. being on the high-risk list, i can still make my program management better. we have established key decision points in every program we do. those are milestones that they have to take an assessment of on how we are meeting our scheduled goals. we look at life cycle targets. at the outset of a program, we establish how much we think it will cost to design and build a system and how much it will cost to operate the system. when we bring you an estimate for a system today, it is a life cycle cost estimate. we instituted something called the joint confidence levels where we look at cost and schedule. this came about in 2009. we have two examples. both of them will fly before the end of this calendar year. they are on target in every respect. they went through the jcl process. we're confident that we will deliver. we use independent assessments. that is what we're doing now. we train our program and project managers. we put them through a rigorous training course that they have to finish. one of the things it talks about is discipline. if they are managing a science project, they learn to say no when someone says it would be a good idea to add one more experiment or instrument. we have some things we're going to do away with that do not meet the smell test in this time. >> it to the gao live in yellow lights seriously. what about moving away from cost plus contracts to fixed-price contracts? i am not saying i advocate that. i am interested in your views. >> we would always prefer to have a fixed price contract. the government signs a contract up front and follows its commitment to pay the contractor as it meets milestones. because we do one-of-a-kind things, sometimes when we are in the development phase, a fixed price contract may not be the most prudent thing to do. we may need a cost plus contract until we get through the uncertain part of the cycle. you will go through multiple types of contracts over the life of a program while it is being developed. you move from a cost plus contract during development to a fixed price contract in the final phases of production. >> today we will not go into this. we are looking at contracting and acquisition and every one of the agency's in our subcommittee. it is not because we will break new ground. it goes to authorization and working with the executive branch. ing as we know it is going to be reviewed. we signed contracts for things that nobody else does. the fact is it often takes five to seven years to develop. our mission changes or gifts altered. politics changes. technology changes. ck for aare in a tra particular weight and cost. i am not sure what is the best way to go. i do believe lessons have been learned in defense with secretary gates and others. they're not all applicable. we need to be able to look at it. that is not for today. the cr we need to get a on the web. that's close out this year's appropriations and get a good direction on 2012. did you have any of the questions? >> i do not. >> senator hutchison, the you have any other questions? >> i have questions to submit for the record. i do not need to ask them here. they are general questions i would like to ask you to respond to. i will give them to the chairman. >> i have another couple of questions. there was a study of u.s. satellites that found that fewer than 10% of spacecraft comply with the military standards suffered failures. almost 2/3 fail. only half of the qualification tests were performed. in 2009, a nasa satellite was lost. a month ago, another nasa satellite was lost. the loss of these two my concern is first for the safety of our astronauts and for the successful launch of supplies and critical hardware to orbit. what type of full-scale, environmental testing is nasa going to require the commercial companies to achieve to get certification for space flight? how are we going to qualify our own vehicles? >> we are in the process of developing human ratings standards. we have a series of 1000 documents that will deal with what a contractor has to do to qualify to carry either cargo or crew members. my number one objective is the safety of our crews. we will not certify an industrial partner to carry a crew unless we're satisfied they have met all the criteria on human ratings standards and all of our safety requirements. almost all the vehicles go through thermal vacuum testing, vibration testing, radiation testing to make sure they are radiation hardened and the like. any test that would have been recovered or will be required, my multi-purpose critical, a commercial vendor will have to pass the same test or demonstrate they have passed a we puttest before astronauts on. >> what role do you envision? >> it depends on the vehicle or the capability of the developer and industry partner to find another facility. ray lugo is filling out to industry and advertising the cap abilities -- capabilities we have. patrick sherman is doing that. we are actively going out to industry and saying that we have the best facilities in the world. please use our facilities. i envision we may have some contractors wanting to bring their vehicles through plum brook for testing. it is the best facility nasa has. i am certain it is better than anything else they can come up with. we're trying to help them with their cost. every facility they do not have to build means more money to their shareholders. we promised we will give them a reasonable price. we do have to get back full value for the taxpayer. we do not have any sales. >> let me ask one more question. nasa has been working on the haut-rhin sa -- orion the ago. the work directly transfers to the space launch system. what way do you plan on using finesse a glance -- nasa's heritage in these programs? >> i will have ray lugo get in touch with you. any work that glen was doing with orion is the same work they will do with the multipurpose vehicle, no matter what we call it. they are small propulsion. engines andtric india the like. they will continue to be responsible for the same thing's going forward. it is my hope that within the week, we will be able to bring to the staffs a report that my senior management has been receiving incrementally now on the multi-purpose crew vehicle. it is the plan for the plan. it will be on the 21st century are not complex. we have done incredible work. we have not been standing still. we have been doing this for almost a year. this is was supported making the decision on the design reference vehicles. we're ready to bring that to the committee so that you can get incremental looks at how we are progressing. you can see we're not stalling. we're not wasting time or money. we have a plan. if the plan is sufficiently supported by budget, we will develop the best heavy lift launch system we have ever had and a deep space exploration vehicle that will do the things we have only dreamed about until now. we're going to do that. it is our desire to bring those reports to this committee in increments as we go along. >> mr. administrator, in two weeks, there will be a historic flight. one of our last shuttles will go into space. we know that captain mike kelly will be leading that effort. we hope that with god's grace and american medical care that congresswoman giffords can see that. we wish them through you godspeed. we hope that nasa continues to do with it does best. good luck to them. may the force be with them. >> i would like to add to that. i am so looking forward to this. it has a very poignant side to it because of commander kelly and his wife who we are all pulling so hard for to be able to come. also, the spectrometers going up is such a big deal. this is the last major big piece of equipment that will be going. it has enormous potential for the look at dark matter, energy. one of the previous nasa administrators insisted this was the one thing we could do in microgravity it would be so important in the energy field. dr. king is a nobel laureate. we listened to him. his dream is now becoming a reality in this launch. it has so many important historic, significant aspects to it. i am very excited about it as well. i am looking forward to having that peace. in. -- i am looking forward to having that piece put in. the very last payload lifting is in june. >> we will get it to you soon. may i make one comment? to help people put things into perspective, 134 is an incredibly important mission. it is high profile. it is everything. i wear a bracelet for gabby because she is a personal friend. my number one objective is making sure that our astronauts are safe. with all the high profile and everything, i want to keep all the pressure away from mark kelly. captain mark kelly is one incredible human being. he is also one incredible professional. he is a person has garnered the respective admiration of his crew and everybody in the astronauts' office. he is focused on flying. he is focused on making sure that his group stays safe and carries out the mission to the best of their ability. my goal is to make sure i facilitate their success in doing that. i will do my best to shield them from everything else that is coming. it is an incredibly high profile mission. we will do nothing any different than we did for 133 or 125 or anything else. if we have a problem, we will not go. i want everybody to understand that there will not be any special anything for 134 other than that it will be incredibly special to have gabby at the launch because it represents the triumph of good over evil. i think it is incredible for the country if she is able to make it. >> we share your emotions, passion, and hopes and dreams for the mission. if there are no further questions, senators may submit additional questions for the record. we expect a response within 30 days. the subcommittee stands in recess until thursday, april 14, at 10:00 a.m. when we will take the test to many -- testimony of the secretary of commerce. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] mali commission on wartime contract in hearing on how u.s. tax dollars are spent on projects in afghanistan and iraq. also a look on reconstruction and development efforts by nonprofit aid groups. some of the witnesses include officials from the relief services, mercy corps, save the children and the international rescue committee. this is two hours and 30 minutes. >> i've smiled because i've never gotten so much attention. [laughter] that says something about ngos and company. welcome, everyone and thank you for attending this hearing. and christopher shays, co-chairman of the commission on wartime contracting and iraq and afghanistan. dever commissioners at the desk right now or clark ruben and robert helmke and we are expecting charles to come. the idea for today's hearing to the cut took shape in afghanistan the commissioner were on the information gathering trip in january. ngos as they are commonly called that to develop and work among the afghan people. they get some interesting perspectives on development and the jail jointly produced a paper entitled be smart about development in afghanistan. they reflect lessons learned from projects involving less than 6,000 afghan communities from the benefit of more than 10 million afghans. the paper argues that smart development should be one afghan driven, tapping the ngo knowledge but local law acceptance and community participation target projects that are appropriate, feasible and sustainable with close oversight to mitigate the ever-present risk of corruption. number two, accountability. assuring both donors and communities that spending is being done transparently of projects needed and value three, in partial. being developed by need and impact rather than national government political slash military sterilization objectives. focusing on projects and support mechanisms that would enable afghan communities and institutions to continue delivering services after ngo assistance has ended. criteria like transparency oversight accountability and sustainability has been the concerns for this condition and feature prominently in the reports to congress. in particular we believe in sufficient attention to sustainability would prove to be one of the main sources of ways in iraq and afghanistan. if after the united states withdraws from a country the local government can't supply train operators for a project, can afford to maintain and can't afford to run it in that project was simply a waste. no matter how designed and built. the impressive but likely unsustainable cover plant built on the auspices of u.s. aid is a conspicuous case of point. one of the four white paper principles impartial are hearing titled begins with the prt and ngos. prt sar provincial reconstruction teams the developed in afghanistan ten years ago to provide an interagency approach to public diplomacy and reconstruction. usually led by u.s. personnel from defense and state, u.s. aid and other agencies and they are not an impartial to take political stabilization objectives into account as they carry out their word. they receive funding from u.s. taxpayers so an interesting question is whether the impartial nongovernmental connected approach may yield better outcomes for the contracting activities than the long run than the prt approach that cannot easily be perceived as i said that as an arm of the occupied source. the oversight and budget discipline. the real budget constraints overseas performance and imposing accountable to the contractors and other implementing partners. also some representatives told if the project goes over budget they do not ask the donors or that government to come to the overrun but from their own reserves. i'd like that verified under oath. with federal adoption as such a policy fostered closer attention to the cost by our own agencies, these and other related questions would figure into findings and recommendations of the final report to congress that we will submit in july we will explore the to do with our panel of expert witnesses. the witnesses were present ngos the fifth will speak from the perspective of the congressional chartered u.s. institute for peace. the pamela starr matthew and richard come vice president international rescue committee, richard bowers, a regional program director for south asia mercy corps, michael clauson, vice president save the children and bethell, director of the intergovernmental affairs institute of peace. i will note for the record that all four of the ngos represented here today participated in the white paper smart development. the effort to organizations involved with the foundation and the cooperative relief everywhere better known as care. we just witnessed all for five minute testimonies and the full text will be entered into the record, hearing record and post on the commission's website. we would also ask the witness is to provide within 15 business days response to any questions for the record and any additional information that makes offered to provide on behalf of the commission we think of our witnesses for participating in what i view as an important interest in hearing, and so now if our witnesses will rise and raise their right hands i will swear them in. you do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony will give before this commission is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? but for the record all of the witnesses responded in the affirmative. and i will just note that we are joined by doctor zach will probably tell us that it was traffic that the lead the team here. and so what we think the witnesses for

Related Keywords

Louisiana ,United States ,Canada ,Japan ,New Hampshire ,Texas ,Afghanistan ,China ,Florida ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Ukraine ,Mexico ,New Orleans ,Iraq ,Tikrit ,Sala Ad Din ,New Jersey ,Egypt ,Mali ,South Carolina ,Massachusetts ,Iowa ,Maryland ,Houston ,Ohio ,Paris ,Rhôalpes ,France ,Chicago ,Illinois ,Americans ,America ,Afghan ,Ukrainian ,Russian ,Russians ,Afghans ,American ,Edwin Edwards ,Jim Brown ,Ronald Reagan ,Bob Livingston ,Patrick Sherman ,Edward Edwards ,Lynn Stanton ,George Bush ,Mike Kelly ,Rick Howard ,James Webb ,Jerry Brown ,Ray Lugo ,Pamela Starr Matthew ,Steve Elon ,Charles Bolden ,Clark Ruben ,Sherrod Brown ,George W Bush ,Charles Elson Roemer ,Barak Obama ,Wes Bush ,Nelson Mandela ,Michael Clauson ,John Kennedy ,Richard Nixon ,David Duke ,Richard Bowers ,Dore Roosevelt ,